Neil Rockind

I am proud that my commitment and dedication towards our clients in their fight against the government has been recognized by laws.com and others. The lawyers profiled on their site have shown the commitment that we should all have in defending criminal cases. I am honored to be included among those lawyers.

[neil-rockind]

Supreme Court Denies 'Making A Murderer' Appeal | Aliya Rockind Weighs In | On Monday, June 25th, Supreme Court decided not to take up Brendan Dassey’s case, who was made a star by Netflix’s popular documentary series “Making A Murderer”. I’ve watched the series twice actually, originally for pleasure and then again in my high school Forensic’s Science class. My teacher,.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/supreme-court-denies-making-murderer-appeal-aliya-rockind-weighs/

Supreme Court Denies 'Making A Murderer' Appeal | Aliya Rockind Weighs In

On Monday, June 25th, Supreme Court decided not to take up Brendan Dassey’s case, who was made a star by Netflix’s popular documentary series “Making A Murderer”. I’ve watched the series twice actually, originally for pleasure and then again in my high school Forensic’s Science class. My teacher, Mrs. Fetsco, showed “Making A Murderer” once a week during class throughout the semester until we completed the series. The final for the class, an assignment worth 20% of our final grade, was to present our ‘verdict’ regarding the case in groups of 5, backing up our decision with specific pieces of evidence, analysis and reasoning with tactics taught to us in the classroom.

I already had my mind made up from that Dassey and other central figure Steven Avery were undoubtably innocent from my initial run-through of the Netflix series. Watching the show my second time around only pumped an exceeding amount of confidence into my beliefs, something that serves to be a very dangerous thing for us Rockinds. As my teacher announced our assigned groups I honestly felt a bit of sympathy between each named called along with mine, considering that I acted as though I had magically just aced the bar 5 minutes ago anytime the law was even briefly mentioned during school. A totally unprecedented sense of authority that I credited myself to, which now looking back on was self-entitled solely on the basis that I had only sometimes, somewhat paid attention to my dad’s work. Thinking about it, what’s I find even more ridiculous is that even the other students granted that credibility solely because of who my dad was, when in reality I didn’t know even know the meaning of the phrase “filing a motion”. But hey, everyone’s got perks in life, mine happen to be primarily useful in situations like my high school forensic’s science class. Don’t get me wrong, working with the people in this group wouldn’t exactly have been my first choice either as they initially doubted Dassey and Avery’s innocence. Now that I think about it… maybe I’ll look into applying for a job at Netflix after I post this considering it took me around 30 minutes to make the same point that they spent 10 years of production making. Eventually we all agreed that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey were not guilty, becoming the official position of our project. We honestly thought the assignment was going to be extremely easy, however, as we developed our report aimed to prove their innocence, it became increasingly harder to stick to our position.

This project opened my eyes to the true power of manipulation through mass media. The majority of individuals who made a conclusion on the Avery/Dassey case solely based on “Making A Murderer” believe the two are completely innocent and were framed by the Manitowoc police department, just as I had originally. Now, I’m not saying that the two are guilty, rather just that Netflix does a very, very good job at not raising any doubts about their innocence.   As my group and I did some research in an attempt to back up our point, we ended up finding out that Netflix actually leaves out quiet a bit of information that’s harmful towards Avery/Dassey and definitely questions their innocence.

Here’s a screenshot from Time Magazine’s article on left out evidence 

  According to Time, the creators of the show Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi said it would have been “just impossible” to include every fact in the series. 

I just revisited my final project from high school, remembering that I had provided a list of all the information the TV show left out after hours of research. Here is that list

– During Dassey’s session with investigator Mike O’Kelley he agreed to taking a polygraph test. The official results of the test indicate he failed it.

– Leg irons and handcuffs were found in Avery’s residence and in Dassey’s

– The car key unearthed in Avery’s residence had DNA from his sweat on it, the prosecutor says 

– Dassey’s mother said Dassey helped Avery clean his garage floor

– The previous animal cruelty case involved a bonfire

– Avery had drawn a torture chamber while in prison and was violent to other women

– Avery once opened his door “just wearing a towel” when Halbach went to his property previously

– Avery called Auto Trader to specifically request Halbach the day she died

– Avery called Halbach’s cell phone three times the day she was murdered, twice using the Star-67 feature to hide his identity

– Avery gave a false name when he called Auto Trader

– The burnt bone fragments were mixed with steel tire belts

– Avery’s rifle is forensically tied to the bullet with the Halbach’s DNA on it

It seems as though the only facts that the show didn’t have enough time for are one’s that hurt them. Although it is understandable that while not every fact needs to be included, every fact that needs to be included, needs to be. More specifically, the show didn’t just cut down the interrogation from hours into minutes, but it also left out crucial parts of Dassey’s confession.

Here is what was left out:

– Dassey admits to stabbing Halbach in the stomach after Avery took her out to the garage. He also claims that Avery fired five shots into Halbach’s head.

– He admits that the entire murder was premeditated. He said they had been planning it “for a few days.” Dassey claims Avery said he was going to kill her, and he wanted Dassey’s help.

– Avery picked Halbach because “she looked good and she was pretty nice.”

  “Making A Murderer” was not just another popular TV show that people watched — it actually had a very strong influence on it’s audience, causing more than 128,000 people to sign a petition to the White House asking that the two be pardoned. The White House denied the request as the President does not have the power to pardon convicts from state courts.

Although I am very skeptical of the way the Manitowoc police department has generally treated the Avery family, specifically how they handled this case, it is reasonable to believe that after learning these pieces of left out information, I had developed a carefully manipulated disposition for the case from “Making A Murderer”. All in all, the fact the Supreme Court is not taking up Dassey’s case does not surprise me.

I often find the judicial system to be unjust, and I’m not eliminating that from Avery or Dassey’s case. I do find the interrogation to be extremely invasive, manipulating and just all around inappropriate. However considering the show’s impact on the case, heavily manipulated masses that have strong beliefs in their innocence, I do trust that the courts are handling this case very carefully. I’m sure the amount and type of publicity the two have received was a strong influence  to the Judge’s. In other words, they are aware of what a majority of the people concerned with this case think and want, yet they have decided against those demands. I believe this is because as much as the courts are aware of what people want, I think they are aware that those wants are is only a result of the case being portrayed only in a certain light: that of which “Making A Murderer” illustrates. 

Aliya Rockind Clerk Rockind Law

[neil-rockind]

Monday Monday Indeed - Dismissals, Victories, Etc!!! | The Mama’s & Papa’s memorialized how many of us feel about Monday’s in their hit song, “Monday Monday”.  Rockind Law just experienced a different feeling on Monday, April 9, 2018:  we obtained a dismissal of an Operating While Intoxicated case, a victory in a Per.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/monday-monday-indeed-dismissals-victories-etc/

Monday Monday Indeed - Dismissals, Victories, Etc!!!

The Mama’s & Papa’s memorialized how many of us feel about Monday’s in their hit song, “Monday Monday”.  Rockind Law just experienced a different feeling on Monday, April 9, 2018:  we obtained a dismissal of an Operating While Intoxicated case, a victory in a Personal Protection Order case and got an application for leave to appeal granted in the Court of Appeals for a righteous medical marijuana patient.  Monday Monday Indeed!!

  OWI – Dismissal

We were set for jury trial in the case and appeared for a final jury pre-trial conference.  After advising the Court and prosecutor of our intention to proceed to trial, we obtained a copy of the proposed jury instructions, witness list, etc. and left the building.  We were ready for trial and made everyone aware of it:  this trial was going.  Within 2 hours of leaving the courthouse, we were advised that the state was dismissing the case.  The state knew that we were ready and that I’d be trying the case.  Facing the prospect of a trial with me, the state elected to dismiss rather than proceed.  “The best victories are obtained without having to deliver a blow.”  Such was the case here.  Our client walked out with an Order of Dismissal.

Personal Protection Order Victory Our client was the subject of what we believed was a misuse and abuse of the personal protection order statute:  his paramour and business associate wanted him out of the business for a tactical, financial advantage and filed a PPO action in order to keep him out.  This tactic worked right up until she was forced to testify.  Within minutes of her taking the oath, the judge began to see that there was no basis for a personal protection order.  At one point, the judge even shared that “it appears that you obtained this PPO as an end around to get him out of the business.”  Later, after all the proofs were in, the judge made that exact finding — “this PPO was obtained solely as a means to get a leg up in a civil, business dispute.”  Our client walked out with an Order of Dismissal.

Leave To Appeal Granted

Medical marijuana case are tricky and the Courts have admittedly issued contrary rulings in regards to what protections medical marijuana patients have and don’t have.  However, a “new” conflict has arisen that could effect medical marijuana patients by the thousands and has impacted one of our clients:  the definition of useable marijuana vs. unusable marijuana.  While the Court of Appeals decided a case (People v Manuel) that clearly spells out that unusable marijuana doesn’t count towards immunity protections, etc. under MCL 333.26424, e.g., 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana, a judge recently ruled that the opinion runs contrary to another, older case (People v Carruthers).  The trial court literally ruled that he believed that the Carruthers decision (much less favorable and offering very little protection for patients) was correctly decided and that he was not bound by the newer decision in Manuel (which offered much more protection).  This was even after another panel in the Court of Appeals dismissed a case relying on Manuel over Carruthers.  So, when we received the ruling, we appealed to the Court of Appeals asking th em to accept the application for leave to appeal.  In other words, we had to get their permission to take the case.  Guess what?  They did!!!  We have the chance to make law, i.e., to make it clear, that protects medical marijuana patients and caregivers without fear of this conflict.

Monday Monday Indeed!!

[neil-rockind]

Read (The) Manuel (sic) | Yesterday, Rockind Law attorneys Colin Daniels, Noel Erinjeri and Neil Rockind, along with our co-counsel, Randy Lewis, filed an appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals that has the potential to further protect Michigan Medical Marijuana patients.  After a search of our client’s home, the .... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/read-manuel-sic/

Read (The) Manuel (sic)

Yesterday, Rockind Law attorneys Colin Daniels, Noel Erinjeri and Neil Rockind, along with our co-counsel, Randy Lewis, filed an appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals that has the potential to further protect Michigan Medical Marijuana patients.  After a search of our client’s home, the police located a marijuana grow in the client’s basement and also marijuana buds that were clearly wet.  During a hearing, the police attempted to characterize the marijuana buds as “dried” but a Michigan State University professor and expert in botany examined the evidence and concluded that it was unquestionably not dried:  it was moldy, wet and had lost weight from the original weighing despite being confined in a sealed plastic bag.   The evidence was not disputable.  Accordingly, we filed a motion to dismiss charges based on the unusable marijuana.  The case of People v Manuel, a published case, was directly on point:  a patient is immune from prosecution no matter the quantify of unusable marijuana.  In fact, another case addressed the same issue — People v Rocafort — and supported our position.  It seemed so straightforward.  However, the prosecutor’s office (known for being a “frequent flier” in the appellate courts in medical marijuana cases) contested the motion to dismiss. Their position was that neither People v Manuel nor People v Rocafort controlled the issue.  Rather, the prosecutors argued that an old case, interpreting the original version of the MMMA that has since been amended and that addressed “oil/resin” was dispositive and controlling.  The prosecutors argued that the court should ignore Manuel and Rocafort and follow People v Carruthers instead.

You can already guess how the circuit court judge ruled since we are forced to appeal:  the Court held that Carruthers was the law he was obligated to apply and that he was not following Manuel or Rocafort.   We know that this decision is incorrect.  Courts cannot ignore published opinions and there was good reason to apply Manuel — it was more recent, was on point regarding wet versus dried marijuana and was published.   Accordingly, we are appealing.  Our advice to the Court of Appeals and other courts, just  Read (the) Manuel (sic).

Neil Rockind

[neil-rockind]

Protecting The Mentally Ill And Infirm -- Our System Can Do Better | When I began the practice of law as a prosecutor, years ago, I encountered a case in which the alleged complainant was mentally ill.  He was not competent and had been determined so by several different courts.  I never forgot that case or that young man, how incapable he was of appearing in c.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/protecting-mentally-ill-infirm-system-can-better/

Protecting The Mentally Ill And Infirm -- Our System Can Do Better

When I began the practice of law as a prosecutor, years ago, I encountered a case in which the alleged complainant was mentally ill.  He was not competent and had been determined so by several different courts.  I never forgot that case or that young man, how incapable he was of appearing in court, testifying, standing up for himself and navigating his way through the system.  I remember my visits with him to this day.

I have relived those memories over the years defending people accused of crimes, some of whom were mentally ill or inform.  Sadly, our legal system fails these people.  Repeatedly.  Over and over again.  The system is on the verge of doing so again in a case that our firm is handling.  The sister of a friend is charged with a crime. They turned to us to represent her.  Sadly, she has an intractable, irreversible medical and psychiatric condition that renders her incapable of participating in the legal system in a meaningful way.  She is incompetent to stand trial.  When we raised the issue at first, the Court resisted — suggesting that in court questioning of our client revealed that she was competent and able to assist.

When we persisted, we were instructed to bring our records.  We did.  We returned with tests, options, letters, etc.  We had anecdotal and professional opinions that she was incompetent.  The Court opined that we had “just” established the threshold for a formal evaluation.  Six (6) weeks later, the state’s experts agreed — she was incompetent and not capable of being restored to competency with treatment.  Her disease is genetic and organic.  It will not get better with medication.

When we returned to court, we found ourselves in this so-called “grey area”: the court opining that it could not dismiss the matter, the prosecution indicating that it could not prosecute her but that it would not agree to dismiss the case.  The prosecution admitted that it could not prosecute her any further but that it “intended to prosecute her.”  In other words, the prosecutor did not want to dismiss the case and the Court did not want to dismiss the case leaving our client, too mentally ill to be prosecuted, still being prosecuted: neither the prosecution nor court, today at least, was willing to step and do what was necessary to protect our client from further prosecution.

Sure, I argued.  The whole time I thought of that young man from 22 years ago … the one that the system could not protect.  It seemed cruel and unusual then.  Twenty-two years later, I can’t wrap my brain around the fact that the system has not progressed at all in protecting people like him and our client. So, next week we return to court to implore those to do the right thing — it is cruel and unusual to continue to prosecute her.  I am hopeful that next week’s hearing proves me wrong and that the system has improved but if today is any lesson or indication, I have my doubts.

  Neil Rockind

[neil-rockind]

Let's Take ARIDE With Colin Daniels | Several years ago, I participated in a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) class in Detroit, Michigan.  It was an incredible experience and one that I’ll never forget.  I learned just how easy it was for the government to manufacture a process to ensnare otherwise innocent people who were.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/lets-take-aride-colin-daniels/

Let's Take ARIDE With Colin Daniels

Several years ago, I participated in a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) class in Detroit, Michigan.  It was an incredible experience and one that I’ll never forget.  I learned just how easy it was for the government to manufacture a process to ensnare otherwise innocent people who were driving their cars but were not under the influence of alcohol.  The government, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has made a concerted effort to train police officers to “detect” drivers that have consumed and/or are under the influence of drugs.  There is a raging debate about the efficacy and reliability of those tests.   While the government claims that the tests are reliable, those of us in the business of protecting people, due process and science, know that the testing process is loaded and unfair.

While I have participated in an ARIDE training program and received the training and certificate, the government is constantly tinkering with its program.  So, as the government develops its tactics to arrest people, we at Rockind Law have to develop our ways to respond.  Accordingly, Colin Daniels, senior trial associate with Rockind Law, recently attended and completed the ARIDE training course in Detroit, Michigan.  He did so while working Tony Corrado, one of the leading intoxicated driving experts in the country.

If you or a loved one has been subjected t o an ARIDE investigation following a traffic stop or is accused of driving or operating while intoxicated due to a controlled substance, contact Colin Daniels at Rockind Law, 248.208.3800.  Learn what the government isn’t telling you about those tests and how to defend against them in court.

[neil-rockind]

Top White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyer | White collar crime is a term often used to describe nonviolent, financial crimes. Sometimes the cases involve fraud, theft, wire and bank fraud, embezzlement, false pretenses, money laundering and identity theft/fraud.  In 2017, Neil Rockind was named a Top White Criminal Defense Lawyer by.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/top-white-collar-criminal-defense-lawyer/

Top White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyer

White collar crime is a term often used to describe nonviolent, financial crimes. Sometimes the cases involve fraud, theft, wire and bank fraud, embezzlement, false pretenses, money laundering and identity theft/fraud.  In 2017, Neil Rockind was named a Top White Criminal Defense Lawyer by DBusiness Magazine.  This honor was extended to only a handful lawyer’s in the state and Rockind Law’s Neil Rockind was among them.  Want evidence that the title and honor were well deserved, look no further than Rockind’s most recent trial, the acquittal of a general manager accused of Embezzlement Over $100,000 from his former employer.  The trial lasted 2 weeks and according to many observers, Rockind’s skill and expertise in defending white collar cases and in trying cases were key factors in the outcome, a straight acquittal.  From demanding records, getting discovery, developing a strategy, developing a theme to trying the case, Rockind was ready and prepared to get justice in this white collar embezzlement case and justice he obtained — a not guilty verdict returning the client’s life, liberty and reputation to the client. An article about the acquittal can be found here http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2017/09/21/jury-finds-howell-man-not-guilty-embezzlement-capitol-harley-davidson/688299001/

Today, in his role as the WDIV legal expert, Rockind offered his expert opinion on another white collar case, this one from federal court. Two young men were charged with identify fraud and Rockind, relying on his legal expertise and experience, offered his opinion on the case .  The article can be found here. https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/detroit-identity-thieves-caught-in-alabama-up-to-117-identities-stolen-

Any way you slice it, Neil Rockind is prepared to take on your white collar case and bring all of his expertise to your case. Give him and our team a call at 2482083800. 

[neil-rockind]

What Happened In The ATV Investigation In Detroit? | Will law enforcement members protect one another in an investigation of a fellow law enforcement officer?  That is an age old question and one that is currently being confronted in an investigation of a Detroit teen who was killed by a state police officer while riding an ATV.  As revealed by.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/happened-atv-investigation-detroit/

What Happened In The ATV Investigation In Detroit?

Will law enforcement members protect one another in an investigation of a fellow law enforcement officer?  That is an age old question and one that is currently being confronted in an investigation of a Detroit teen who was killed by a state police officer while riding an ATV.  As revealed by The Detroit News in its article of today, ATV Article in Detroit News, one of the issues that is being investigated is whether a Sergeant that responded to at the scene of the incident discarded evidence in the case.  Rockind Law is not making any allegation of impropriety but the question is being asked, at least by The Detroit News.  Here is a portion article drawing attention to this issue:

Meanwhile, Detroit police are investigating a state police sergeant who allegedly discarded evidence from the scene, three Detroit police sources involved in the case told The Detroit News.

Before Detroit and state police launched separate criminal investigations into Damon Grimes’ Aug. 26 death, the sergeant, a supervisor who had responded to the scene, collected one of the stun gun’s wires and prongs and later threw them into a trash can at a state police post, the sources said.

Investigators are trying to determine whether the sergeant was trying to cover up evidence, or was simply being careless by throwing the wire away, the sources said. The other wire used in the incident was left at the scene and taken into evidence, the sources said.

Detroit police detectives plan to submit warrant requests to prosecutors seeking charges against the sergeant, the driver of the state police cruiser and the passenger who deployed the stun gun, the sources said.

Typically, the state police are called in to investigate cases in which other police departments are conflicted due to a member’s use of force.  They are called in to provide objectivity and a fresh set of unbiased eyes in the investigation.  Here, however, the question that the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office will undoubtedly ask is why, when one its own officers used force and was under investigation, did a fellow member of the state police get involved.

It is a question that Rockind Law and Neil Rockind asked in a similar situation in a recent jury trial in Oakland County.  In the case of the State of Michigan vs Charles Warren, a/k/a the Trailer and Trooper Chad Wolf case in which Warrant was acquitted of any criminal wrongdoing related to the death of Trooper Wolf, Rockind raised this issue during the trial with the lead investigator and state’s expert, both members of the Michigan State Police.  Rockind queried why, if the MSP are called into investigate other police department’s use of force due to the potential conflict of interest, the MSP would investigate its own cases?  Were they above the human emotion of being conflicted? Where they above the human emotion of revenge? Of course not yet they persist in conducting the investigation.

Rockind Law cannot say and is not saying that there was any impropriety in the events that took place in Detroit, with the ATV death investigation or with the Sergeant being involved at the scene.  However, The Detroit News has highlighted this case and the investigation by the Detroit Police and Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office and that investigation raises additional questions that may be worth answering.

When someone’s liberty and life are on the line, an independent investigation is necessary and demanded.  Anything less demeans the value of the consequences of the investigation.  If the MSP involves itself in conflict of interest situations, shouldn’t the MSP disqualify itself in conflict of interest situations with its own officers.  The answer seems obvious to us.  How about you?

[neil-rockind]

Three Acquittals In A Short Period - Unparalled Results | It’s a huge accomplishment for any lawyer or law firm to obtain an acquittal for a client in a big case. To obtain two within months, I mean headline acquittals is almost unheard of but to obtain 3 within 3 months? I’ve heard of few if any law firms and lawyers who have pulled off.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/three-acquittals-in-a-short-period-unparalled-results/

Three Acquittals In A Short Period - Unparalled Results

It’s a huge accomplishment for any lawyer or law firm to obtain an acquittal for a client in a big case. To obtain two within months, I mean headline acquittals is almost unheard of but to obtain 3 within 3 months? I’ve heard of few if any law firms and lawyers who have pulled off that accomplishment.  Between May, 2017 and September, 2017 (3 months) Rockind Law and Neil Rockind accomplished that very feat. 

In May, 2017: Rockind obtained an acquittal in the highest profile and most televised trial in recent memory, the case involving the death of Trooper Chad Wolf. That acquittal took the general public by surprise.  To those that watched the trial or watched it on television, knew that an acquittal was the correct verdict but to the public, those uninformed about the facts of the case, they wanted our client convicted and locked up.  

The outcome: Not Guilty.

In August, 2017: We tried a false allegation of child neglect case.  Neil Rockind tried the case and obtained a dismissal and acquittal within minutes of the conclusion of the trial.  

In September, 2017: We tried a white collar embezzlement/fraud trial in which our client was accused of stealing via fraud $280,000 worth of parts from a dealership.  The employees and owners of the company testified against our client. One by one, we revealed the witnesses lack of credibility.  Observers relayed their opinions to other interested persons that they didn’t believe any of the state’s witness’s.   In the end, the jury acquitted — a verdict that made the headlines again because of the infrequency with which the prosecutor’s office loses cases. 

In the end, we pulled off a hat trick: three acquittals in approximately 3 months.  Few if any lawyer’s can pull that that off . … Rockind Law and Neil Rockind can and did.  Those that watched the trials commented that watching Rockind in trial was like “watching a movie”,  “watching a once in a generation lawyer”, “observing a master at work”, etc.   

All lawyers are not the same. Rockind and Rockind Law are unique.  You can’t afford to not contact us about a criminal case. Call us at 2482083800. 

[neil-rockind]

Judge to decide if there is enough evidence for Morrow to stand trial (Petoskey News) | Judge to decide if there is enough evidence for Morrow to stand trial GAYLORD — After a three-and-a-half hour preliminary hearing in 87th District Court Wednesday, Judge Michael Cooper is yet to determine if there is enough evidence for local marijuana dispensary operator Chad Morrow to stand.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/judge-to-decide-if-there-is-enough-evidence-for-morrow-to-stand-trial-petoskey-news/

Judge to decide if there is enough evidence for Morrow to stand trial (Petoskey News)

Judge to decide if there is enough evidence for Morrow to stand trial GAYLORD — After a three-and-a-half hour preliminary hearing in 87th District Court Wednesday, Judge Michael Cooper is yet to determine if there is enough evidence for local marijuana dispensary operator Chad Morrow to stand trial.

Morrow, 37, who owns Cloud 45, 2631 S. Otsego Ave., was arrested more than a year ago on charges of delivery or manufacturing of marijuana, delivery of a controlled substance and operating and maintaining a drug house after raids of his dispensary, home and a marijuana growing facility.

The charges resulting from the raid on the marijuana growing facility were dropped by the prosecution Wednesday.

Sierra Koch, a visiting attorney from Crawford County, was the prosecuting attorney in lieu of Otsego County prosecutor Brendan Curran.

There were about 20 people in the audience of the courtroom. Most were there in support of Morrow.

The prosecution brought in two witnesses to testify and prove there was enough evidence — Tyler Connolly, an informant who aided in the raids, and William Pitsch, a Michigan State Police trooper with the Straits Area Narcotics Enforcement (SANE) team.

Connolly testified to the fact that, while acting under the guidance of SANE officers, he filled out a form and purchased marijuana from Cloud 45. However, he could not specify who sold him the marijuana and could not identify Morrow in the courtroom.

He also had circled the wrong person in an on-paper lineup submitted as evidence.

Pitsch’s testimony offered details on the dispensary raid and the house raid.

During the house raid, SANE officers found five marijuana plants in the basement of Morrow’s home, bags of marijuana in the trunk of a car belonging to his housemate, Rebecca Herren, and other quantities and products containing marijuana elsewhere in the home.

In the police report, the five plants in the basement were described as a marijuana “grow.” However, the defense attempted to prove the plants were actually dead and discarded, because many of the leaves had wilted and there was no evidence of lights that were set up in the basement for the purpose of growing marijuana.

One version of the police report also mentioned a marijuana stalk as one of the items seized from the home, which was not included on any of the previous reports.

The defense attorney, Neil Rockind, suggested that change undermined the credibility of the report, because there was no note the report had been amended or corrected.

Near the end of the hearing, the prosecution also requested to bring retired Michigan State Police Sgt. Donald Bailey to the stand to testify on the state’s marijuana laws and a public hearing both he and Morrow attended, but the defense objected because Bailey was not on the approved list of witnesses.

Both the defense and the prosecution agreed that a record of the hearing could be submitted into evidence, but not to hear Bailey’s testimony.

“I think it went fantastic,” Morrow said after the preliminary. “We went in there transparent, all knowing what this was all about.”

If Cooper determines there is enough evidence to try Morrow, the case will move to 46th Circuit Court for trial. Written by William T. Perkins

http://www.petoskeynews.com/gaylord/featured-ght/top-gallery/judge-to-decide-if-there-is-enough-evidence-for-morrow/article_a5ad9ad6-c1db-5f48-846d-fcbf5c9b2ee9.html

[neil-rockind]

Plan would force Detroit businesses to pay for Project Green Light security | Businesses open past 10 p.m. would be required to pay to join program DETROIT – Project Green Light has been a huge success in helping police monitor crime by putting high-definition security cameras in Detroit businesses. The project has grown exponentially over the past few years, but.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/plan-would-force-detroit-businesses-to-pay-for-project-green-light-security/

Plan would force Detroit businesses to pay for Project Green Light security

Businesses open past 10 p.m. would be required to pay to join program DETROIT – Project Green Light has been a huge success in helping police monitor crime by putting high-definition security cameras in Detroit businesses.

The project has grown exponentially over the past few years, but now there’s a plan in the works that would take it even further.

A new ordinance would require any Detroit business open past 10 p.m. to be part of the Project Green Light program and pay the fees that come with it. Some people see the ordinance as a forced tax on their business.

Business owners would have to pay between $4,000 to $6,000 to become part of the program, and some said that’s too much money. Many already have surveillance cameras installed.

Others believe business owners should be required to join Project Green Light to help the city prevent crime.

Paul’s Pizza is a long-standing business in Southwest Detroit, and a newer partner in Project Green Light.

“It seems like as soon as we got it, everybody was, like, ‘Alert, don’t do anything bad around here,'” general manager Joshua Casias said.

The business is open after midnight and has been in the community for 55 years serving hand-tossed pizzas. Casias said he has noticed a decline in crime since installing the cameras. Casias said they paid $6,000 upfront, all for the potential mandate requiring other businesses to do the same.

“That one-time fee can save you a lifetime of headaches,” Casias said.

He said it was weird at first to know you’re constantly being watched by the Detroit Police Department, but has grown accustomed to it and appreciates the program.

“It makes it easier for them to do their job and keep an eye on things,” Casias said. “You just go about your daily routine and you’re not really doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about, but if I was on the other end and I’m a criminal, I’d want to stay away.” But Besnik Hyseni, the owner of Colobo’s Coney Island, which is open 24 hours, doesn’t agree.

“Forcing businesses, I don’t agree with it,” Hyseni said. “Businesses shouldn’t be forced to do that because some of them cannot afford it.”

Their restaurant has eight surveillance cameras, which cost $3,000.

“If police are going to bring their own cameras here, and it’s going to cost me one to two thousand plus a monthly fee, that’s way too much for us,” Hyseni said.

He’s also concerned about if it’s worth the money.

“If 200 businesses all have the program, how are the police going to monitor that?” he asked. 

Detroit police Chief James Craig said he thinks the ordinance is fair.

“I think you’ve heard me say this from the beginning,” Craig said. “I said be a good neighbor, and being a good neighbor is creating a safe environment for people who live in the neighborhood.”

Local 4 legal expert Neil Rockind said it’s not legal.

“You cannot, even if you have the very best of intentions, require businesses and business owners to expend money to install equipment that will inevitably invade their privacy and privacy of their customers,” Rockind said. “This is an equivalent of a tax and it’s an ongoing tax and it’s a tax that business owners would have no option but to pay. Everything I’ve heard and has been said to me about this program stinks of an invasion of privacy and unconstitutionality.”

Rockind referred to the program as “big brother.”

“It appears to be an effort by the city of Detroit to engage in a 1984 big brother surveillance,” he said.

The Detroit Police Department has recently worked with Comcast, which is now offering a program to help reduce the cost of the program. It would be a $995 down payment with a cost of about $140/month.

The proposal is currently being drafted by city council member, Andre Spivey, and is set to be before the council for a vote within the next few months. 

Whether or not the ordinance passes is still up in the air, but some business owners said if it does pass, they will be forced to close at 10 p.m.

A lawyer said the ordinance could be legal if the city provides rebates on taxes or a write-off, but the fact that it’s a mandate and not voluntary makes it problematic.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/plan-would-force-detroit-businesses-to-pay-for-project-green-light-security

Via ClickOnDetroit

[neil-rockind]

Confronting An Apparent Gang Member On Cross Examination (Press - CG Newspaper) | Here is an article from the C&G Newspaper about the so-called Bar 7 Shooting case in which I cross examined a difficult witness, i.e., an apparent gang member that video evidence shows played a role in the incident.  Here is the article (enjoy): Bar 7 pretrial extended to fourth day, defense.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/confronting-apparent-gang-member-cross-examination-press-cg-newspaper/

Confronting An Apparent Gang Member On Cross Examination (Press - CG Newspaper)

Here is an article from the C&G Newspaper about the so-called Bar 7 Shooting case in which I cross examined a difficult witness, i.e., an apparent gang member that video evidence shows played a role in the incident.  Here is the article (enjoy):

Bar 7 pretrial extended to fourth day, defense claims gang activity

By Kayla Dimick

SOUTHFIELD — The pretrial for the brothers accused of injuring three men during a shooting at a local bar has been scheduled for its fourth hearing.

The brothers, Alonzo Beckom and Carlos Beckum, appeared before Judge Shelia Johnson April 19 in 46th District Court for a continuation of their probable cause hearing from March 22.

Beckom, 21, and Beckum, 24, both of Detroit, were arrested Dec. 1 in connection with a Nov. 19 shooting at Bar 7, 24528 W. 12 Mile Road. Police say the brothers are responsible for shooting three men during an altercation at the bar. The injuries were not considered life-threatening.

At their arraignment Dec. 2 in front of Magistrate Robin Dillard-Russaw, the men were charged with three counts of assault with intent to murder, three counts of felony firearm and one count of discharge of a firearm in an occupied building. Bond was set at $500,000 cash or surety during the arraignment.

At their March 22 hearing, Johnson decided to lower the men’s bond to $100,000. She ordered the men to not have contact with any of the police officers involved in the case, any shooting victims or any Bar 7 employees.

The men will wear tethers through the duration of their trial, and they cannot use any drugs or alcohol, she said.

On Feb. 15, Detective Michael Morrish, of the Southfield Police Department, was the first and only person to testify. Morrish told the court that he obtained surveillance video from inside and outside the establishment. Morrish said he works as a digital forensic examiner at the Southfield Police Department, examining cellphones, computers and information systems for the department.

The surveillance video appears to show Beckom and Beckum entering the building, an altercation that leads to the shooting, the men firing the shots, people falling to the floor, and the two men exiting the building, Morrish said.

During the March 22 hearing, Morrish continued testimony from Feb. 15. The defense team took issue with the fact that Morrish was present in the hospital room while officers were interviewing the men involved in the altercation.

Also during the March 22 hearing, one of the men involved in the altercation testified. The man told the court that he does not remember words being exchanged between his group and Beckom. He said he remembers being shot, however, and talking to people he was with, but he does not remember the specifics of the incident. He told the court he was shot from behind, in the back of his upper thigh.

The man’s cross-examination testimony was continued to April 19 due to time constraints.

Defense attorney Neil Rockind, representing Beckom, questioned the witness about his role in the altercation at the bar.

The witness stated that he was not involved in the altercation because he was “minding his own business.” He said he was drunk during the incident.

“I didn’t even get a chance to touch nobody,” the witness said on the stand.

Rockind told the witness he believes that the witness lied to police at the hospital about the names of the other men involved in the altercation.

“I only know them by their nicknames,” the witness testified. “John, Bob …”

“It sounds like you’re making this up,” Rockind said.

The witness said that he told the police he saw someone fighting and saw a gun pulled out, but doesn’t remember who did what or the descriptions of the people.

“You swear on your oath that you did not do anything — advance, move forward or anything else in a threatening or aggressive way, is that right?” Rockind asked. The witness agreed.

About 30 minutes into testimony, the witness was shown a photo of the group of men involved in the altercation with Beckom. He said he couldn’t identify who was in the photo because it was blurry, but he was eventually able to identify someone he knew.

Rockind pointed out that the man the witness identified was wearing a necklace with No. 44 on it. Rockind suggested that the necklace could be gang-affiliated.

“I don’t know what his chain mean,” the witness said.

Rockind showed the court a portion of the video that he claimed shows the man wearing the 44 necklace and the witness flashing the No. 4 hand sign to each other. The witness denied that happened.

The witness denied the interaction at first, but later admitted to holding up the number. He said the No. 4 does not have any significance to him, and that he could have just been talking about numbers.

“What you’re trying to do is make it seem like I’m throwing up a gang sign. I’m not throwing up a gang sign,” the witness said.

On the stand, the witness told the court that he had been willing to lie the night of the shooting to get the police out of his face.

The second witness to testify April 19 said he was at Bar 7 the night of the shooting, but said he doesn’t remember much from the night because he was drunk.

He said he remembers running when the shots were fired, punching someone and going to the hospital. The witness testified that his right elbow was grazed with a bullet the night of the shooting.

After around an hour of testimony, Johnson decided to continue witness testimony at 10 a.m. May 12 due to time constraints.

David Rosenberg, the defense attorney for Beckum, could not be reached for comment by press time.

About the author

Staff Writer Kayla Dimick covers Southfield, Lathrup Village and Southfield Public Schools. Kayla has worked for C & G Newspapers since 2014 and attended Oakland University and St. Clair County Community College.

http://www.candgnews.com/news/bar-7-pretrial-extended-fourth-day-defense-claims-gang-activity-101006

[neil-rockind]

A Dilute Peppers, What Does It Mean | It was all over my feed today: Jabril Peppers, Michigan star, tested positive with a dilute sample! Peppers tested positive! It was enough to make a scientist vomit or in my case, a trial lawyer (that loves science but hates the way that the police abuse it) rush to address it in this blog. A.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/dilute-peppers-mean/

A Dilute Peppers, What Does It Mean

It was all over my feed today:

Jabril Peppers, Michigan star, tested positive with a dilute sample!

Peppers tested positive!

It was enough to make a scientist vomit or in my case, a trial lawyer (that loves science but hates the way that the police abuse it) rush to address it in this blog.

A dilute is not a positive test. Period. End of discussion. Let me repeat myself: a dilute sample is not a positive test.  While some judges and perhaps even the NFL “treat” a dilute sample as a positive sample, it most assuredly is not.

A positive sample is a sample that after being properly collected is subjected to a test that reveals that the sample contains a prohibited substance.  The legal system and the NFL have protocols for testing samples.  Some of the methods are validated and scientifically acceptable while some are not.

I suspect that the legal system has a less reliable and robust testing program than does the NFL which is a sad commentary.  The legal system wants efficiency, speed, value and perfection.  None of these concepts are consistent with robust scientific principles and techniques.  Science is imperfect.  This is what makes the NFL’s policy so absurd and disturbing — it is not based on science and in fact runs contrary to established scientific and drug testing principles.

A Dilute Sample Explained

A dilute sample is just that — a sample that contains too little creatinine, a substance found in the urine.  The problem is that different people have different creatinine levels. Some naturally low.  Some naturally high.  Moreover, creatinine levels can vary within one person multiple times a day depending on diet, exercise, health, kidney function and hydration.   A dilute sample means that the urine itself, according to the testing protocol, contained too much liquid and not enough creatinine or concentrate.  Think light yellow versus dark yellow if you need a visual.

Redwood Laboratories, one of the testing companies whose results I have challenged many times in court, describes creatinine and dilute thusly:

Creatinine: In general, creatinine is a metabolic byproduct of muscle metabolism which normally appears in urine in relatively constant quantities over each 24 hour period. Therefore, urine creatinine can be used both as a marker to specifically identify a specimen as urine, and as an indicator of urine water content (dilution). “Normal” random urine specimens will generally have urine creatinine levels of greater than 20 mg/dL, while specimens with creatinine levels between 10 and 20 mg/dL may be due to increased liquid consumption, dietary habits, or liquid ingestion preferences. Urine specimens with creatinine levels between 2 and 10 mg/dL are usually a result of ingestion of large volumes of water (or other liquid), termed short term water loading. This is a very common practice when attempting to dilute a urine so that any drugs in the urine will be diluted below analytical testing cutoff levels. Urine creatinine levels below 2.0 mg/dL indicate the specimen is not consistent with human urine.

Some people produce low creatinine.  Others have low creatinine due to innocent overhydration.   Studies have shown that following a regular diet of consuming 5-6 full glasses of water before noon can cause a low enough creatinine level to “dilute” a urine test.  According to the DOT (Department of Transportation), a dilute is not treated as a positive because from a scientific standpoint, they aren’t the same.  A dilute is a sample that the authorities claim cannot be adequately tested while a positive is evidence of drug use.  Unfortunately, the NFL uses an approach that tosses science out the window and instead conflates the two.  This is bad science.  Its like declaring 2+ 2 = 5 a correct answer because the person taking the quiz didn’t put 2+2 = 4 and its “close enough.”  I’m sorry but they aren’t the same.  A dilute is a dilute while a positive is a positive.  The twain shall never meet.

Unfortunately, many innocent people have been wrongly accused of being “positive” due to low creatinine urine samples.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/delta-drug-testing-debacle-airlines-bad-drug-testing-policies-hurt-good-employees-says-association-of-flight-attendants-72794597.html

and

https://nwlaborpress.org/2001/8-3-01Drugs.html

DOT Policy

The Department of Transportation, the agency that sets many federal drug testing protocols embraces the possibility that people will submit diluted samples and warns explicitly that a dilute sample is not a positive sample.  Instead, the DOT provides a protocol — if a dilute sample is provided, the subject shall remain on scene until he can void again and provide a sample that is testable.  But it is never a positive sample merely because it is dilute.

Peppers

Despite billions of dollars and access to the best science available, the NFL embraces a policy that runs contrary to science.  Peppers provided a diluted sample yet he will be treated like he tested positive.  While this is the rule in the NFL, it doesn’t make it supportable or right.   Yes, Peppers will be labeled as having submitted a “positive drug test” but it is not really a positive drug test.  Perhaps either the agent representing him or even the NFL would have insisted on a retest immediately to clarify the diluted sample … if they could.  Yet, none did.

But in this case, Peppers is diluted which means he is positive which is really not true.

[neil-rockind]

Identity Crisis: The State Denies It Is The Government Or The State | We know who the government is, right?  If you work for a city, county, state or the federal system, you are a part of the government.  Seems simple enough.  And while there are different levels of government, e.g., state or federal, they are most assuredly the government..... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/identity-crisis-the-state-denies-it-is-the-government-or-the-state/

Identity Crisis: The State Denies It Is The Government Or The State

We know who the government is, right?  If you work for a city, county, state or the federal system, you are a part of the government.  Seems simple enough.  And while there are different levels of government, e.g., state or federal, they are most assuredly the government.  Only the government can prosecute citizens for crimes and seek their conviction and incarceration.  So, it’s pretty obvious to who is who … 

Yet recently, a prosecutor took exception to our characterizing the entity prosecuting our client as “the State” or “the government.”  The prosecutor literally typed that they didn’t like being called “the State” or “the government.”  

What?!!!!

Don’t believe me, read it yourself:

Talk about self-loathing. If you prosecute people, you are the State or the government. Period.  

Instead, the prosecutor wanted to cling to a “we are we people” fiction.  Sorry, when cases end up in the federal system or in the US Supreme Court, they are characterized by the “State versus….” and the positions taken by the prosecutors are characterized as “the State argues…”.  

The reason is simple: The People don’t put other in jail but rather the government or State does.  I’ve seen many head turning phrases in pleadings but not one like this. 

[neil-rockind]

Court hears second day of Bar 7 shooting testimony, judge reduces bond (Press - CG Newspapers) | Court hears second day of Bar 7 shooting testimony, judge reduces bond SOUTHFIELD — Through tears, the family of brothers Alonzo Beckom and Carlos Beckum watched as Judge Shelia Johnson announced a bond reduction for the two men detained in connection with a shooting at a local bar. The brothers.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/court-hears-second-day-bar-7-shooting-testimony-judge-reduces-bond-press-cg-newspapers/

Court hears second day of Bar 7 shooting testimony, judge reduces bond (Press - CG Newspapers)

Court hears second day of Bar 7 shooting testimony, judge reduces bond SOUTHFIELD — Through tears, the family of brothers Alonzo Beckom and Carlos Beckum watched as Judge Shelia Johnson announced a bond reduction for the two men detained in connection with a shooting at a local bar.

The brothers appeared before Johnson March 22 in 46th District Court for a continuation of their probable cause hearing from Feb. 15.

Beckom, 21, and Beckum, 24, both of Detroit, were arrested Dec. 1 in connection with a Nov. 19 shooting at Bar 7, 24528 W. 12 Mile Road.

Police say the men are responsible for shooting three men during an altercation at the bar. The injuries were not considered life-threatening.

At their arraignment Dec. 2 in front of Magistrate Robin Dillard-Russaw, the men were charged with three counts of assault with intent to murder, three counts of felony firearm and one count of discharge of a firearm in an occupied building. Bond was set at $500,000 cash or surety during the arraignment.

On Feb. 15, Detective Michael Morrish, of the Southfield Police Department, was the first and only person to testify. Morrish told the court that he obtained surveillance video from inside and outside the establishment.

Morrish said he works as a digital forensic examiner at the Southfield Police Department, examining cellphones, computers and information systems for the department.

The surveillance video appears to show Beckom and Beckum entering the building, an altercation that leads to the shooting, the men firing the shots, people falling to the floor, and the two men exiting the building, Morrish said.

On March 22, the first witness to testify was a man who said he was shot at Bar 7 on Nov. 19.

The witness told the court that he was at the establishment, sitting by the door, waiting for a food order around 12:30 a.m.

The witness said he had only been there for about five minutes when he heard two or three shots coming from his left. He said he was knocked from his chair by the crowd fleeing from the shots, and he ran into the men’s bathroom.

In the bathroom, he said, he encountered two women who were uninjured. It was then that he realized he had been shot.

“I said, ‘I’m fine, but my leg hurts a little bit.’ I looked down and I saw a puddle of blood on my left foot,” the witness said.

The man was transported to a local hospital, where a bullet was removed from his upper rear thigh, he told the court.

Morrish was called to the stand to continue his testimony from the first hearing. He said he saw two of the men who had been involved in the altercation at the hospital to obtain their cellphones. Morrish told the court he was in the room with investigators while they were interviewing the men, but he did not participate in the interviews, nor did he take notes, make any type of recording or inspect their clothes.

The defense team revisited the surveillance video shown in court previously, although this time it was significantly slowed down.

Morrish said the video appears to show Beckom walking past a group of six men toward the bathroom. The men have a face-to-face interaction with Beckom, Morrish said, and on his way back from the bathroom, Beckom walks by the group with his back to them. Words are then again exchanged as a member of the group approaches Beckom, who starts to walk away.

As Beckom is walking, Morrish testified, the video appears to show one of the men approach Beckom, then a second man approaches. Punches are exchanged, and Beckom goes out of frame. Morrish said that during that time, Beckom could have presumably fallen to the ground.

When the first shot is fired, Beckom is not in frame, although Beckum is in frame. Gun smoke can be seen in the air.

Another segment of video appears to show Beckom shooting at the group while backing out toward the door.

Morrish said the video only shows Beckom pulling out a gun when he was attacked, and Beckum did not fire his gun until his brother was attacked. The time between the first punch and the shots fired was four seconds, Morrish said.

The defense team took issue with the fact that Morrish was present in the hospital room while officers were interviewing the men involved in the altercation.

Attorney David Rosenberg, representing Beckum, asked Morrish several times if he discussed the surveillance video with any of the investigators.

Morrish said he shared the video with investigators, but it was not discussed and he doesn’t know what the men told investigators.

Rosenberg grilled Morrish on whether the video was discussed with investigators in several questions, particularly the portion of the video where one of the men from the group involved appears to throw the first punch.

“You didn’t see a need to clue in the officers in charge of the case?” Rosenberg asked Morrish.

“The officer in charge of this case was given a copy of the video,” Morrish said.

“I’m asking if you discussed it with him, sir. That’s all I’m asking,” Rosenberg said.

“No, I didn’t,” Morrish testified.

The next witness to testify was one of the men involved in the altercation. The man said he was at Bar 7 the night of the shooting to meet up with “three or four friends there.”

The man told the court that he does not remember words being exchanged between his group and Beckom. He said he remembers being shot, however, and talking to people he was with, but he does not remember the specifics of the incident.

When asked about what was shown on the surveillance video, the man said he saw his friend “socking” Beckom, but he himself never hit Beckom.

The man said he then ran because he heard a gunshot. He was shot from behind, in the back of his upper thigh, he said.

“I didn’t pay much attention to what was going on because I was minding my own business,” he testified.

Johnson said that due to time constraints, the man is due back in court next month to finish his testimony. The man appeared agitated, and Johnson warned him against any outbursts.

During the hearing, defense attorney Neil Rockind, representing Beckom, asked Johnson if she would consider lowering the bond for his client.

Rockind argued, as he had during the men’s last hearing, that the brothers were acting in self-defense.

“I think of all the things I imagine about what the allegations were, and none of that has proved to be true. It’s not a case of two young guys who walk into a bar and shoot it up or some gangland dispute or some fight over a girl,” Rockind said. “The testimony is that Carlos Beckum never pulled out a gun and fired a gun until he saw his brother under attack. There could be some quarrel with how much under attack he was.”

Johnson warned the crowd against any outbursts, stating that offenders would have to pay a fine if they disrupted her courtroom.

Bond was dropped to $100,000, Johnson decided. She ordered the men to not have contact with any of the police officers involved in the case, any shooting victims or any Bar 7 employees.

The men will wear a tether through the duration of their trial, and they cannot use any drugs or alcohol, she said.

While the bond reduction was risky, Johnson said, she believes the public is not in immediate danger.

“I do have a concern because I have young men that are licensed to carry weapons that either reacted or overreacted — and that’s not clear. I don’t know what they might do if presented in another circumstance. I don’t think it’s of the level that I thought it was, so I’m going to change the bond,” Johnson said. “There’s no reason to believe they won’t appear. They have family support. They do have residences. They do have jobs.”

The hearing is slated to continue with more witness testimony at 1:30 p.m. April 19.

via CG Newspapers

[neil-rockind]

Questions of mental sanity for man suspected of shooting two Detroit officers (Press - WDIV) | DETROIT – The court is ordering a psychiatric evaluation of Raymond Durham, who is accused of shooting two Detroit officers earlier this week.   Durham’s family describes him as schizophrenic, but mental illness may not help in keeping him out of prison. Durham allegedly opened.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/questions-of-mental-sanity-for-man-suspected-of-shooting-two-detroit-officers-press-wdiv/

Questions of mental sanity for man suspected of shooting two Detroit officers (Press - WDIV)

DETROIT – The court is ordering a psychiatric evaluation of Raymond Durham, who is accused of shooting two Detroit officers earlier this week.   Durham’s family describes him as schizophrenic, but mental illness may not help in keeping him out of prison.

Durham allegedly opened fire on the two officers and then took off running, hiding himself and preparing for another attack. “It’s a very good argument that he fled the scene because he knew what he did was wrong. That’s a sign he was aware of his conduct,” Local 4 legal expert Neil Rockind says.

Rockind is a former prosecutor and current defense attorney and says the chances of a successful insanity defense are always slim. “It’s the hardest defense to convince a jury to accept.”

Stay with Local 4 News and ClickOnDetroit for more information on this developing story. 

Copyright 2017 by WDIV ClickOnDetroit – All rights reserved.

[neil-rockind]

Social Media Posts That Admit Crimes | Instagram. Facebook. Twitter. With a button, people can share personal information in s second. The problem with things that you can do in a second is that they don’t require much thought beforehand.  Check that … any thought at all.  With freedom comes danger and social media is.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/social-media-posts-admit-crimes/

Social Media Posts That Admit Crimes

Instagram. Facebook. Twitter. With a button, people can share personal information in s second. The problem with things that you can do in a second is that they don’t require much thought beforehand.  Check that … any thought at all.  With freedom comes danger and social media is freedom but dangerous.

Everyday I see people posting questionable things on social media. Inappropriate comments, pictures, stories and admissions. Admissions to bad thoughts, bad conduct and yes, even crimes.  Some people post things so obvious, e.g., threats and even murder, it reveals a pathology: a desire to broadcast their misdeed. Others post criminal acts recklessly. Take this photo and post:

It’s illegal to bring in food from a foreign country without declaring it. One must even swear an oath that they are not, if I recall correctly.  Yet, this poster posted on social media that he/she had done just that. Sure they claimed that it was “forgotten” but it was packed which may reveal an intent to import it.

Will they be prosecuted? Probably not.

Will they be arrested? Probably not.

However, there are no guarantees and other than a “good” story about lax security at the airport or border, what was to be gained by accepting the risk.  People are well aware the government has enhanced surveillance and data collection techniques that could well allow them to access this information and create trouble for the poster.  Likewise, one of the poster’s social media contacts, e.g., foe, ex-wife, jilted lover, etc., could easily turn him/her into the authorities.  Then, the poster would be kicking himself or herself for the post since there was nothing to be gained from it in the first place.

In then end, the fact that one can post something to instagram doesn’t that he/she should.  Think before you post.  If its not something that you want to share with the government, why share it with anyone let alone the public?  You shouldn’t.

  Neil Rockind

[neil-rockind]

Can I Switch Lawyers? | Be careful.  I can’t stress this enough.  So many people hire the wrong lawyer to start their case and then at the 11th hour, they decide to change lawyers … to improve their position … to get the right person involved.  While you can always change lawyers, be mindful that you.... Post has been published on Rockind Law

New Post has been published on http://www.rockindlaw.com/can-switch-lawyers/

Can I Switch Lawyers?

Be careful.  I can’t stress this enough.  So many people hire the wrong lawyer to start their case and then at the 11th hour, they decide to change lawyers … to improve their position … to get the right person involved.  While you can always change lawyers, be mindful that you should treat your case seriously from the start by hiring the right lawyer from the start.

Hire the right lawyer from the start.

This is easier than you think.  Many people understandably panic when arrested or charged with a crime.  Fear, stress, anxiety and other feelings overwhelm and the need to hire a lawyer immediately overwhelms.  This is normal.  However, few good decisions are made while in a state of panic.

Rather than panic and make a emotional decision, take a night or two to let things marinate.  While this may be difficult, this waiting or cooling off period will prove invaluable.  It will give you time to get recommendations, research lawyers, research online and ask around.  By doing that, you can avoid being misled into hiring the lawyer that your workout partner recommended to you.  In a panic, your gym partner’s recommendation seems valuable and reliable but with research you’ll learn that maybe he or she is a friend, classmate or relative of the gym partner.  Maybe you’ll learn that the lawyer did a small case, e.g., traffic ticket, for the gym partner.  Neither being a relative or having handled a traffic ticket warrants being hired on a major or serious case.

The waiting period also allows you an opportunity to assess what court you’re in, where the case is located, who the prosecutor may be and what the consequences are for you.  Some lawyers are simply better in some jurisdictions than in others.  A lawyer that only handles juvenile matters may not be qualified to handle a case in Oakland County Circuit Court.

  The waiting period also permits you to avoid hiring or being represented by your “family lawyer.”  I’m not sure what a family lawyer is but based on my experience, its someone that does business or corporate work for your mother or father and has agreed to handle the matter for you.  A family connection may give the lawyer familiarity with you and your family but not necessarily with the practice area, serious criminal defense.  Don’t let a “family lawyer” take over your case because your parents said you should have this person … its your life, take responsibility over who defends you.

Last, money.  The waiting period will allow you to gather money and funds to hire the right lawyer.  Many people want to be economical when hiring a criminal defense lawyer.  You wouldn’t be economical with a surgeon so why be with someone that will have your life in their hands legally.  Save your money.  Please.  You’ll need it and the successor lawyer, when you ultimately get around to replacing the first lawyer with someone like me/us, you won’t receive a credit towards the successor lawyer’s fees for the money wasted on the first.

Moreover, there are valuable issues that must be addressed early on.  Preliminary examinations, discovery and report gathering and evidence preservation are just a few of the few of the things that must be done immediately.  With judges becoming infrequently more insensitive towards scheduling of cases, you should be aware that you need to use every day you have to your advantage.

Hire the best lawyer you can.  No one ever said, “my lawyer was too good for my kind of case.”

For more information contact Neil Rockind at Rockind Law at 248.208.3800.