Super Lawyers! 2009-2017
AVVO Superb 10-Star Rating!
Killer Cross Examination!
dBusiness TopLawyers 2011-16
Top 100 Trial Lawyers!
Best of Hour Detroit!
Medical Marijuana Case?
Domestic Violence Case?
Neil Rockind TEDx Talk at OU: The Joy of the Jury
Visit ROCKIND LAW on the web!
Looking for a specific crime?
- June 2017
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- @DrewCHallett Looks like a different O 5 hours ago
- @MLKowalsky17 I've never seen anything like this except ... last week, and the week before. 6 hours ago
- @gregghenson No one can block. Purdue's defense looks like Bama's. 6 hours ago
- @AceAnbender Can Devin Bush play offense? 6 hours ago
- @MLKowalsky17 Can Devin Bush play offense? 6 hours ago
Please be advised that nothing written or contained within this blog is intended to be legal advise, nor should such content be relied upon as legal advice. If you need to consult with a licensed attorney regarding a criminal case or a potential criminal case, please call our office immediately at 248-208-3800.
Please note that this blog is open to the public and that posting a comment on this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Blog MaintenanceThis blog was created and is maintained by Colin A. Daniels, Associate Attorney at ROCKIND LAW. If you have any questions or concerns about any of the contents of this blog, please direct those questions and/or concerns to Colin A. Daniels at email@example.com.
Search Rockind Law Blog
Monthly Archives: October 2010
We love hearing from our clients, especially when we get emails like this one:
“[Colin], just wanted to let you know how appreciative I am for you helping me out and fighting for me. Thank you very much and have a great weekend.” – A.S.
Take it from our clients, we are your BEST DEFENSE when it comes to dealing with the criminal justice system.
Neil Rockind, P.C. is extremely experienced handling criminal cases of all types. If you or a loved one is faced with any type of criminal charge, civil infraction, license sanction, or an investigation by any policing agency, please contact Neil Rockind, P.C. at firstname.lastname@example.org or call our office directly at 248-208-3800 to schedule a free consultation today!
Voir dire is the process by which prospective jurors, known as veniremen, are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. It involves a discussion/question-and-answer period between the attorneys and the potential jurors, and allows the attorneys to formulate opinions and decide which jurors they would like on the jury and which jurors they would not like on the jury.
Yesterday, Attorney James Burdick, a fantastic lawyer and long time friend of Neil Rockind, discussed his thoughts regarding the best way to voir dire potential jurors. During the discussion Burdick pointed out the following:
“I learned [my current voir dire style] watching an outstanding local trial lawyer pal of mine, Neil Rockind, who I think you know. He developed it, refined it, and then I stole everything I could from him. Seriously, it’s great (and seriously, he’s always happy to share).
My old ways of ‘would you agree’ type questions always left me wondering more about the ‘good’ jurors many times. Neil’s way is really just having yet another “critical conversation” with the jurors, like in opening and closing. I think they feel more a part of it. The method requires reminding them repeatedly that ‘there are no right and no wrong answers, only answers.’ I think they open up way more, and you get more truthful responses. More cause charges as well…
I don’t think Neil’s ever had a judge (who allows any voir dire) object, and he’s been using this method for years.” – James Burdick
That is extremely high praise from a greatly respected trial lawyer.
Keep up the good work Neil!
Colin A. Daniels
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Only a few weeks ago, California’s prospects of becoming the first state in the U.S. to legalize marijuana for recreational use couldn’t have seemed much higher.
A Sept. 30 Public Policy Institute of California poll showed the Proposition 19 ballot initiative leading by a 52%-41% margin a week after a Field Poll showed the measure up by seven points.
Now, with recent polls showing Proposition 19 rapidly losing support, billionaire fund manager, philanthropist and marijuana legalization advocate George Soros is coming to the rescue and donating $1 million for the closing campaign to pass the initiative.
“Our marijuana laws are clearly doing more harm than good,” Soros wrote in an opinion piece, “Why I Support Legal Marijuana,” that was published in Tuesday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal. His column and cash come after blistering attacks on Proposition 19 by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and former national directors of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Although Holder said the federal government will “vigorously enforce” marijuana laws in California if Proposition 19 passes, current and former authorities argued that the mere act of paying taxes on retail pot sales permitted under the initiative would constitute admission of a federal crime.
But the Yes on 19 campaign began airing its first TV ad Monday. The spot, featuring former San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara, declares that “the war on marijuana has failed” that that Proposition 19 “will generate billions in tax revenues” and “put drug cartels out of business.”
Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said Soro’s contribution to an independent committee supporting Proposition 19 will pay for increased airings of the McNamara ad and get-out-the-vote efforts on behalf of the initiative.
“We’ve always said is going to be a close election,” Gutwillig said. “This infusion of resources will help us make sure that reform-minded voters get to the polls on Tuesday.”
Colin A. Daniels
Texas, of all places and states, passes this law requiring that SNITCH testimony be corroborated before prosecutor’s can use it at trial. This is an important first step in eliminating convictions based on SNITCH testimony.
Art. 38.075. Corroboration of Certain Testimony Required
(a) A defendant may not be convicted of an offense on the testimony of a person to whom the defendant made a statement against the defendant’s interest during a time when the person was imprisoned or confined in the same correctional facility as the defendant unless the testimony is corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed. In this subsection, “correctional facility” has the meaning assigned by Section 1.07, Penal Code.
(b) Corroboration is not sufficient for the purposes of this article if the corroboration only shows that the offense was committed.
Enacted by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., ch. 1422 (S.B. 1681), § 1, effective September 1, 2009.
The Penal code section reads:
(14) “Correctional facility” means a place designated by law for the confinement of a person arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a criminal offense. The term includes:
(A) a municipal or county jail;
(B) a confinement facility operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice;
(C) a confinement facility operated under contract with any division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; and
(D) a community corrections facility operated by a community supervision and corrections department.
The arson conspiracy case against Darious Morris — marked by the jailing of an official court reporter and the production of conflicting transcripts — was ordered back to Detroit’s 36th District Court for a do-over of the preliminary examination, a judge ruled Tuesday.
But the case, already months behind schedule because of the transcripts, still is on hold because the prosecution asked for a stay pending the possible appeal of Wayne County Circuit Judge David Allen’s ruling to the state Court of Appeals.
Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Abed Hamoud said redoing the preliminary exam is unnecessary because Morris waived his right to the exam after several witnesses testified.
“Are we in search of the truth or search of a transcript?” Hamoud asked, adding that the case likely will end up back in front of Allen.
But defense attorney Leland Garrett McRae said the case should be dismissed because of the flawed official record and what he says are efforts to cover it up.
Morris is in the Wayne County Jail on complex arson conspiracy charges, but his case stalled because court reporter Paulette Martin did not produce a transcript of the preliminary examination held in May. She was jailed in September for ignoring presiding Wayne County Circuit Judge Timothy Kenny’s order to produce the transcript.
Eventually, Martin turned in two versions of the first volume of the preliminary exam — one version admittedly flawed.
Allen hoped to move the case forward once the lawyers had the second version. But, he said Tuesday, he learned from a Free Press article that Martin’s certification was suspended, rendering her new transcript unacceptable.
“Sometimes the judge is the last to know anything,” Allen told the lawyers.
McRae pointed out the second volume is invalid, too; it didn’t have the required certification, either.
Neil Rockind, P.C. is extremely well trained in matters involving Arson. The attorneys at NRPC have spent countless hours studying fire science and know and understand how to tackle the complexities of an arson case. If you or a loved one is faced with an Arson charge, or an investigation by any policing agency regarding such a charge, please contact Neil Rockind, P.C. at email@example.com or call our office directly at 248-208-3800 to schedule a free consultation!