Another bill submitted would increase penalties for individuals who attack or kill state and federal prosecutors. Current Minnesota already has increased penalties for assaulting or killing law enforcement and correctional officers.

Both bills are expected to have sufficient support to pass into law.
http://www.kare11.com/news/article/958809/14/Prosecutor-shot-at-MN-courthouse-supports-guns-bill
_____________________________________________

In those DWI cases that were tossed by the courts, the machines reported a sampling volume of 10 to 12 liters of breath. However, the average total lung volume of an adult male is only 6 liters of air, with a much smaller volume used for normal breathing. Breath volume is a vital component of the accuracy of breathalyzer machines. The dismissal of the DWI cases prompted law enforcement to test other breathalyzer machines. That testing revealed that 40% of the breathalyzer machines required calibration of the breath flow measurement.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120118/article/120119530
___________________________

Minnesota law requires a petition challenging the conviction to be filed no later than two years after the conviction if there was no direct appeal, or within two years of the appellate court disposing of a direct appeal.

There are a few exceptions to that time requirement, including:

1. Physical disability or mental disease precluded a timely assertion of the claim;
2. The discovery of new evidence that could not have been discovered by due diligence within the two-year time period;
3. There is a new interpretation of federal or state constitutional or statutory law by the United States Supreme Court or a Minnesota appellate court that is retroactively applicable to the claim;
4. There has been a significant change in substantive or procedural law that should be applied retroactively to a sentence and conviction for a crime committed before May 1, 1980; or
5. The petitioner establishes that the post-conviction relief is not frivolous and is in the interests of justice.

However, even if an appeal is based on one these exceptions, the petition must filed within two years of learning of the claim fitting an exception.

Colbert asserted the fifth, “interests of justice,” exception. However, his challenges were based on testimony, evidence, and statements made during his 2005 trial. Therefore, the Court found any new claims raised by Colbert were untimely as knowledge of these new claims would have occurred no later than 2006.

If you are seeking an appeal or post-conviction relief from a conviction, do not wait to contact an experienced Minnesota appeals attorney. Contact the Law Office of Coley Grostyan now at (612) 747-2254 to schedule an initial office consultation and case assessment.

Our Location

701 Building, Suite 300
701 Fourth Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55415

United States v. Jones arose from the government attaching a GPS to the underside of Jones’ car. The government did not affix the GPS within the time prescribed by the warrant. Jones’ vehicle was tracked by the government for 28 days which led to his indictment in a federal drug conspiracy.

The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Court did not hinge its decision on a Katz v. United States analysis, which held that the Fourth Amendment protects a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Instead, the Court held that the physical trespass alone is enough to trigger the 4th Amendment.

What does these mean for the criminal defense practice? I believe this will reel in law enforcement’s repeated narrowing of the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment and allow the careful scrutiny by the Courts of the use of new surveillance technologies. This should also stop the increasing use of GS tracking without any judicial oversight as law enforcement would need probable cause and a warrant to attach the GPS device  to vehicles. Based on the ever-increasing use of surveillance technology by law enforcement, I would expect more appeals dealing with government monitoring its citizens in the near future.

___________________________

Law Office of Coley J. Grostyan, PLLC
701 Building, Suite 300
701 Fourth Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55415

The shooting took place at the end of the day after a jury found Daniel Schlienz, the alleged shooter, guilty of 3rd degree criminal sexual conduct charges. Schlienz was taken into custody and is expected to be charged.

There is a lengthy history between Schlienz and Scannell. The current case was being tried after the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s denial of Schlienz’s motion to withdraw his plea. The Court found that the sentencing judge conducted improper ex parte communications with Scannell. Specifically, the sentencing judge had improperly informed Scannell of specific arguments that should be made to oppose any motion to withdraw the guilty plea.

Then, in 2011, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed Schlienz’s conviction because the district court sentenced Schlienz in excess of what the prosecutor and Schlienz had agreed to during plea negotiations.

The Cook County courthouse lacks the security and metal detectors present in many other courthouses in the state. The last courthouse shooting in Minnesota that comes to mind occurred in 2003 at the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis. That shooting prompted heightened security in courthouses across Minnesota, including reconfiguring access to courtrooms at the Hennepin County Government Center to accommodate x-ray machines and metal detectors.

___________________________