Criminal Attorney - Recent Landmark Cases and Their Impact

When seeking legal counsel, it's crucial to choose a criminal attorney who remains current on the ever-changing court system. Federal laws are constantly being analyzed, challenged, interpreted and tested in the Supreme Court, which is why the best lawyers are those that research diligently and think creatively. Here are some examples of recent landmark cases that have transformed the system and hold great importance for both defendants as well as lawyers.

Georgia v. Randolph

Illegal search and seizure is one of the main defense angles used in felony cases. But up until this 2006 landmark case there was still one particularly fuzzy area. According to law that is supported by previous important cases, a police officer requires permission from a resident or a search warrant to search a private residence. However, if there are two or more inhabitants currently at the location and one of them refuses to the search while the other offers permission, the refusal stands and any further action without a warrant is illegal.

Padilla v. Kentucky

Landmark cases don't only determine who wins a case, but also how a criminal attorney must act on behalf of their client. In 2010, a legal resident of the USA but originally born in Honduras was arrested on drug dealing charges. His criminal attorney advised him that deportation was not possible regardless of the decision. Hoping to get a lighter sentencing, Padilla then plead guilty and was shocked to find himself facing deportation. He successfully argued against the ruling due to his lawyer's incompetence on the matter. It is now a lawyer's responsibility to inform any client if deportation is guaranteed or even if it just a possibility in areas where the law in ambiguous.

Godinez v. Moran

Making rash decisions while under emotional distress can be a defendant's undoing during a trial. Moran was charged with three counts of first-degree murder in 1993, and after initially pleading not guilty with the assistance of his criminal attorney, he decided to fire his legal counsel, and represent himself by changing his plea to guilty. He got what he wanted and was sentenced to death, only afterwards to try and appeal the decision by claiming incompetence. While an incompetent person is not legally allowed to represent themselves in court without legal counsel, it was decided in this ruling that a person deemed competent to stand trial was also able to represent themselves (regardless of how bad a decision that might be).

Graham v. Florida

Juvenile cases are some of the most controversial, especially when it comes down to sentencing. The result is that in recent years there have been several key trials that have set precedents for how the legal system should differentiate minors and their actions from adults. In 2010 there was one such case that resulted in the Supreme Court ruling that juveniles cannot be imprisoned for life without the possibility of parole for any offense that is considered non-homicide. This was also one of a few cases that was considered retroactive, meaning felons similarly sentenced in the past could now appeal.