THE IMPACT OF A DUI

A DUI arrest can have a huge impact on your life. Each of the following links detail some of the effects that a DUI can have:

• A DUI can result in probation. To learn more click here.
• A DUI can also have an impact on your auto insurance. To learn more about this impact, click here.

Seek legal representation immediately if you have been arrested for DUI. Click here to learn more about DUI representation. Again, contact a Las Vegas DUI lawyer immediately if you have been arrested for DUI.

NEVADA PENALTIES FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Nevada treats charges of domestic violence quite seriously. A first time conviction carries a sentence of up to 6 months in jail, 120 hours of community service, 6 months of domestic violence counseling, and a fine. These sentences escalate for a second offense and a third offense is charged as a felony.

Click here if you have been charged with domestic violence.

'NO KNOCK DOWN" WHEN CHARGED WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

If you are charged with domestic violence then you should be aware that it is a unique area of Nevada criminal law. Nevada's domestic violence statute contains a "no knock down" provision. In other words, once you have been charged with domestic violence the charge can not be reduced to a lesser offense unless the prosecuting attorney states to the Judge that the prosecution will not be able to prove it's case.

You should contact a Las Vegas criminal defense lawyer immediately if you have been charged with domestic violence. Click here for more information regarding Las Vegas domestic violence defense.

BANKRUPTCY DOES NOT PREVENT PROSECUTION FOR MARKER DEFAULT

Declaring bankruptcy will not necessarily get you off the hook if you have defaulted on a casino marker. Nevada law treats marker default in the same manner as the passing of a bad check. People sometimes think that because they have declared bankruptcy, and the marker debt was taken care of in the bankruptcy, that they cannot be prosecuted. This is not correct as you can still be charged with the marker default and you may still have to pay restitution (the amount of the marker) back to the Casino. Be mindful, therefore, that declaring bankruptcy does not necessarily free you of all the problems associated with marker default.

Click here for more information regarding marker default or bad check charges.

CASINO MARKER DEFAULT IS A CRIME

If you have defaulted on a casino marker you may be charged with a crime. Nevada law treats a defaulted casino marker as if it were a bad check. Default on a marker of more than $250 is a category D felony which carries a sentence of 1-4 years plus restitution to the casino. Many individuals do not realize that marker default is a crime and only realize as much once they have been charged.

Seek legal representation immediately if you have defaulted on a marker or are being charged in a bad check case. Click here for more information on this topic.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES MAY PRESIDE OVER JURY SELECTION

The United States Supreme Court has held that a United States Magistrate may preside over selection of a criminal jury, rather than a Federal District Court Judge, if the Defendant's lawyer consents. In Gonzalez v. United States, the Court held that there was no reversible error in such an instance, even though consent to have the Magistrate select the jury was never given from the Defendant; the Defendant's criminal defense lawyer had given consent to the procedure.

The Court held that consent from the attorney is sufficient and that there is no need to canvass the Defendant and determine if the Defendant consents to the procedure. Click here to read the Court's 8-1 decision.

NEVADA SUPREME COURT RULES ON ADMISSIBILITY OF INTERCEPTED PHONE CALLS

The Nevada Supreme Court has held that a recorded phone call may be used in Court as long as the recording is legal in the state in which the recording was made. In Mclellan v. State, the Defendant appealed the District Court's admission of telephone calls made in California to the Defendant in Nevada. Only the California residents were aware that the call would be recorded.

The Defendant claimed that the recording should not have been admitted as Nevada law requires that all parties to the call must have been aware of the recording for it to be admissible. California law only required the knowledge of one party to the call that recording was occurring.

The Court held that as long as the recording complies with the law in the place in which the recording is made, it will be admissible at trial.

Click here to read the Nevada Supreme Court's opinion.

STATE LAW VIOLATIONS DO NOT NECESSARILY EQUATE TO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Virginia officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they arrested a man for driving on a suspended license and eventually discovered narcotics. In Virginia v. Moore the Court considered whether the constitution was violated by the arrest even though state law only allowed for the issuance of a citation.

The Court, without dissent, held that violations of state law do not necessarily equal a constitutional violation as the meaning and breadth of state laws are different than that of the constitution. Accordingly, the extent to which a state statute provides protection does not mean that the constitution must provide the same protection.

Click here to read the Court's opinion. Click here to learn more about narcotics charges.

U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS KENTUCKY LETHAL INJECTIONS

The United States Supreme Court has upheld the lethal injection method by which Kentucky imposes the death penalty. In Baze v. Rees, the Court considered a challenge to the method by which death was imposed. The Appellants claimed that there was a risk that proper procedures would not be followed and, as a result, unnecessary pain would incurred in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court rejected this argument and stated that in order to hold a method unconstitutional there must be an "objectively intolerable risk of harm." Given that the injections were administered by trained personnel, with certain levels of experience, the risk of harm was not so great as to justify holding the practice unconstitutional.

Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion.

Given that the Supreme Court is the last potential appeal for these defendants, it appears that execution is imminent. To learn more about criminal appeals, click here.

SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES WEAPONS ENHANCEMENTS

The Nevada Supreme Court has clarified the circumstances under which a criminal defendant's sentence may be enhanced for use of a deadly weapon even if he was unarmed. In Brooks v. State, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19 (2008), the Supreme Court held that a defendant may receive such a deadly weapon enhancement "...if an unarmed offender is liable as a principal for the offense that is sought to be enhanced, another principal to the offense is armed with and uses a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense, and the unarmed offender had knowledge of the use of the deadly weapon." In other words, one may receive a deadly weapon sentencing enhancement if he is assisting in the commission of the crime, has a co-conspirator who is armed, and knows that the co-conspirator is armed.

District Court Judge Donald Mosley had essentially instructed the jury that a defendant could receive such a sentencing enhancement even if he was unarmed and did not realize the co-defendant was armed. Mr. Brooks will receive a new trial as a result of this decision.

Click here to learn more about weapons charges in Nevada.