Over the last few months, we have seen an influx of questions about the offenses, penalties and potential ramifications of being convicted of a sex crime in Minnesota.  We decided to conduct a three-part series to answer some of the most common questions surrounding criminal sexual conduct.  In Part 1, we explained what types of crimes require you to register as a sex offender in Minnesota.  Today, we’ll explain “How to register as a Predatory Offender in Minnesota”, and next week we’ll discuss “The Penalties and Community Notification Process in the Release of a Predatory Offender”.

According to Minnesota Statute 243.166, there are numerous regulations a person must follow if they are convicted of a crime that requires them to register as a predatory offender.   Once they are released from prison, the first thing they need to do is register as a “predatory offender” in person with their assigned corrections agent.  The registration must be done in person because the corrections agent needs a signed statement, fingerprints, and a current photo for their database.

In addition, in accordance with subd. 4a. “A person required to register under this section shall provide to the corrections agent or law enforcement authority the following information:

• The person’s primary address;
• All of the person’s secondary addresses in Minnesota, including all addresses used for residential or recreational purposes;
• The addresses of all Minnesota property owned;
• The addresses of all locations where the person is employed;
• The addresses of all school where the person is enrolled;
• The year, model, make, license plate number and color of all motor vehicles owned or regularly driven by the person.”
• A person must also register in another state if they enter and remain in that state for 14 days or longer

An individual is required to notify law enforcement or their corrections officer at least five days before moving to a new address.  When applicable, the offender must also give five days notice if any of the above information changes, i.e. a five-day notice before they start a new job.

Staying Registered

Registering as a predatory offender is not a one-and-done deal.  As the law states, “A person who is required to register is subject to the law for ten years from the time he or she initially registered in connection with the offense, or until probation, supervised release, or conditional release period expires, whichever occurs later.”  This means that each individual who has to register as a predatory offender will need to keep his or her registration current for a minimum of 10 years.  If part of a person’s sentence is 15 years of probation, they’ll need to register as an offender for 15 years.

Also, it’s extremely important for a predatory offender to follow the conditions of their registration, or they could be forced to register for a longer period then they expected.  The police have the authority to add five years to the end of an offender’s registration period if they:

• Fails to register a change in primary address
• Fails to register with the local law enforcement authority if the person has no primary address
• Fails to notify authorities of any other change in registered information
• Fails to return the verification form sent by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension within ten days of receiving the form

In order to stay current with the BCA, the predatory offender must fill out and return a yearly verification form.  The BCA usually mails the form to the offender’s last known primary address within 30 days of the anniversary of the offender’s initial registration.  As noted above, once the offender receives the verification form, he or she has ten days to return the completed form or they will be subject to additional years of registration.

Most predatory offenders only need to complete the yearly verification form to stay current with their registration; however, some offenders (those who are deemed sexually dangerous, a sexual psychopath, or a level III offender) are required to complete verification forms on a more regular basis, sometimes as many as four per year.

Lifetime Registration

While 10 years is the minimum amount of time a predatory offender needs to keep his or her information current, some individuals are required to register for the rest of their lives.  Lifetime registration is required for three types of convicts:

Sexual Predators – Any person who is required to register following commitment as a sexual psychopathic personality or sexually dangerous person under Minnesota law is considered a sexual predator.

Aggravated Offenders – Any person who commits a sexual act with a victim of any age through the use of force or the threat of serious violence, or commits a sexual act on a victim under the age of 13 is considered an aggravated offender who must register for life.

Reoffenders – Any person convicted of a crime for which predatory registration is required who has previously been convicted of an offense where registration was required will need to stay on the predatory offenders list for life.

Related source: Minnesota House of Representatives

A neurocriminologist who has spent years studying brain development in criminals believes there exists a biological basis for criminal behavior.

Adrian Raine has spent 25 years in the US studying cognitive development, and before that he spent years in Britain attempting to decipher why criminals committed the crimes they did.  In 1994, Raine conducted a small but comprehensive study on 41 convicted killers and 41 “normal” individuals in a control group.  Raine used brain-imaging technology to reveal the size and functionality of different parts of the brain.  After looking at the images, Raine found that the two groups exhibited different metabolic activity in certain parts of the brain.  In the group of convicted killers, Raine noticed a significant reduction in the development of the prefrontal cortex, or the decision-making part of the brain.

Neuroscientists have done extensive research on the problems associated with an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, linking it to many behavioral problems including:

• Less control over the generation of strong emotions, like anger and rage
• A greater addiction to risk
• A reduction in self-control
• Poor problem solving skills

All of these traits, of lack thereof, may mean a person is more predisposed to violence than other individuals.

The Slippery Slope

Raine has dedicated his life’s work to better understanding the criminal mind, piling up books of evidence that reveals humans may not be as in control of our actions as we believe to be.  While he has been able to define set of “biomarkers” which may make a person more predisposed to crime or violence, the question he keeps circling back to is, “What should we do with this information?”

If stopping crime before it happens sounds like something out of Hollywood, you’re not wrong; the film Minority Report tackled just that subject.  Set in a futuristic world, Tom Cruise works as a government agent that fights “PreCrime” with the help of three physics who can see into the future.  Crime is at an all-time low with this system, but the issue at the core of the movie is how guilty is a person who has yet to commit the crime of which they are accused?  Not surprisingly, the movie’s protagonist has no problem locking up would-be murderers until the physics foresee that he’ll murder someone, which causes him to run for his life all while proving that the physics are wrong.

The question at the center of Minority Report has been around long before it hit the big screen.  If you knew with 100% certainty that a person would commit a murder or sexual assault, should they be arrested for the crime before it is committed?  While it’s hard to argue that a person should be locked up before they commit a crime, if the tragedies at Newton or Columbine could be prevented, do we have an obligation to protect the innocent?  As Raine said, “If we buy into the argument that for some people factors beyond their control, factors in their biology, greatly raise the risk of them becoming offenders, can we justly turn a blind eye to that?”

Many will argue that we cannot lock up would-be criminals because you can never say with 100 percent certainty that they would have committed the crime.  Even if you knew with 99.9 percent certainty, there’s still a possibility that the person would decide against their actions.  While people can argue over the logistics of such propositions, it appears that Raine and his colleagues are getting closer to formulating an exact science for recognizing the likelihood to commit crime.

Technology in the Courtroom

As scientific evidence continues to mount, it seems more likely that brain imaging may soon become more popular in the courtroom.

“Raine’s findings could lead to new avenues for criminal defense,” said attorney Melvin Welch.  “Although it is not uncommon for the defense to argue that their client should be admitted to a mental health facility instead of a prison on the grounds of mental illness, these findings can help support the argument, which could greatly affect the outcome of the trial. Science may soon tell us that what is perceived as ‘normative’ is different for each individual based on uncontrollable circumstances.”

Raine touched on a similar issue when discussing who is actually at fault for committing a crime.

“Is it really the fault of the innocent baby whose mother smoked heavily in pregnancy that he went on to commit crimes?” said Raine. There is, and increasingly will be, an argument that he is not fully responsible and therefore, when we come to think of punishment, should we be thinking of more benign institutions than prison?”

Brain Scans at Parole Hearings

While preventing the initial crime before it occurs may not be feasible, Raine believes parole boards oftentimes use poor evidence when deciding if a criminal is fit for parole.

“The fact is parole boards are making exactly these kind of predictive decisions every day about which prisoner or young offender we are going to release early, often with crummy evidence,” said Raine. “At the moment, the predictors are social and behavioral factors, marital status, your past record. What is not used are biological measures. But I believe that if we added those things even now into the equation, we could only improve the prediction.”

To support his claims, Raine conducted two studies on prisoners who were set to be released form prison.  In the first study, he found that if the anterior cingulate in the brain is lower than normal before a prisoner is released, the person is twice as likely to be reconvicted within three years.

The second study found that is the prisoner has a significantly smaller amygdala, which helps process memory and emotion, the prisoner is 2-3x more likely to reoffend.

“Now, this is only two studies, but what they are beginning to show is proof of concept, that if we added neurological factors into the equation we could do a better job at predicting future behavior.”

Related source: Guardian.co.uk

Police in Cotati, California have come under scrutiny after a video surfaced of officers kicking down a person’s door and tazing two individuals who appeared to have their hands in the air.

According to the police report, officers were called to the home in response to a noise disturbance phoned in by a neighbor.  You can see video of the incident below.

As you hear in the video, both the man and the woman say there hasn’t been any domestic violence, and they acknowledge that one child is inside the house while another is outside playing.  When the cops ask them why they won’t open the door, the man responds, “Because we don’t live in a police state, sir.  Martial law has not been established in this country.”

This appears to upset the officers, and they order the couple to get on the ground.  The officers inform the couple “We’re going to kick in the door.”

Shortly after stating their intentions to forcibly enter the house, the officers break through the door.  The man responds by telling the officers “You have no right to be in here!”

The woman is seen with her hands in the air, but she begins to scream after she is tazed by an officer.  This upset the man, who receives some volts of his own seconds later.

The video has gone viral over the past week, with voices coming in from both sides.  Some argue that the police were within their rights to enter the house because they did not know the welfare of the child in the house, but others say authorities crossed the line when they used excessive force.  Legalities aside, this isn’t the first time the Cotati police department has come under scrutiny for using excessive force.

The above video is a little unclear, but it appears that the Cotati officers used excessive force during their arrest of a suspect.  Although the suspect was not complying with a demand to get on the ground, it hardly seems like two cracks of a nightstick and a Taser were necessary to subdue the individual.

Attempts to reach the Cotati Police Chief were unsuccessful.

Avery Appelman comments

We won’t speak to the issues in the second video because the audio is limited, but we did consult Criminal Defense Attorney Avery Appelman regarding the first video.  Here’s what he had to say:

First off, one needs to understand that the alleged victim of domestic violence is routinely uncooperative with the police and prosecution. The police know this. The victim of domestic violence can be coerced to alter their story by the abuser.

When the officers came to this home, the door was closed and those inside advised the police this was not a situation involving violence. The police confronted with people who were not cooperative, and that there was a child in the house, the police may assert that they needed to enter the home to check on the health and safety of the child. While they may fall back on the argument that they were protecting the welfare of the child, I am skeptical of this proposed defense of the police use of force: in this case the officers tazed two people.

Homeowners should be safe from warrantless searches and seizures in and of their homes. The police escalated this situation. They raised their voices when the homeowners exercised their rights and refused to come outside. The police then gave the homeowners warning that they were making a forcible entry into the home, and for what purpose? To investigate a crime and check on the safety of a child inside. Once the situation escalated, the officers screamed at the homeowners to get down.  Then the officers used a significant amount of force, a Taser, to put the people to the ground. This is simply unacceptable conduct by those police officers.

Each police department has a use of force policy, and I am certain that the circumstances these officers were confronted with would not justify the use of force employed. The homeowners should seek criminal prosecution of the police officer and should seek civil remedies, such as suing the individual police officers, the police department, and the city for civil rights violations.

Related source:  Liveleak.com

Over the last few months, we have seen an influx of questions about the offenses, penalties and potential ramifications of being convicted of a sex crime in Minnesota.  We decided to conduct a three-part series to answer some of the most common questions surrounding criminal sexual conduct.  In Part 1, we explain what type of crimes will require you to register as a sex offender in Minnesota.  In future posts, we’ll explain “How to Register as a Sex Offender in Minnesota”, and “The Penalties for Failing to Register as a Sex Offender”.

According to Minnesota law, any person convicted of specific sexual offense is required to register on the offender list.  In Minnesota, this list is known as the “Predatory Offender Registration”, and a person is required to keep their registration current for a minimum of 10 years.  Depending on the offense, a person may be required to say on the list for the rest of their life.

In order to be required to register as a predatory offender in Minnesota, a person must commit one of the following offenses:

• Criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, third, fourth or fifth degrees.  Specific offenses include unlawful penetration, contact, conduct, or lewd behavior.
• Felony indecent exposure.
• Criminal sexual predatory conduct.
• Soliciting a minor to engage in sexual conduct or prostitution.
• Possession, production or distribution of child pornography.  This also includes transferring pornographic images to minors.
• Murder while committing or attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence.
• Kidnapping.
• Using a minor in a sexual performance.

A person convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 30 years or a fine of up to $40,000, or both.  The majority of people who are convicted of a predatory crime will serve at least some time in jail.  Upon their release, they are required to register as a predatory offender with the state.  They may also face certain restrictions like mandatory curfews or the inability to live within a certain distance of a school, park, or daycare.

Predatory offenses are some of the most serious crimes a person can commit.  There is a general social stigma about sexual offenses because oftentimes the perpetrator occupies a position of trust in the eyes of the victim.  While this is not true in all cases, it is not uncommon to hear about these crimes being committed by close friends or family members of the victim.

In Part 2, we’ll explain the process for registering as a sex offender in Minnesota.  We’ll also talk about what happens when a Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 Predatory Offender is released from prison.

The FBI prevented a possible terrorist attack in western Minnesota on Friday when they raided a mobile home and uncovered Molotov cocktails, firearms, and suspected pipe bombs.

The bureau provided details of the raid on Monday, saying they believed to have stopped “a localized terror attack”.

Buford “Bucky” Rogers, 24, was arrested during the raid on his mobile home in Montevideo, Minnesota.  Rogers was in his home at the time of the raid, but he was taken into custody without incident.  He was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, and he remained in federal custody over the weekend.

“The information which we had led us to believe that a terror attack was planned,” said FBI spokesman Kyle Loven. “The FBI believed there was a terror attack in its planning stages, and we believe there would have been a localized terror attack, and that’s why law enforcement moved quickly to execute the search warrant on Friday to arrest Mr. Rogers.”

Montevideo is located about 125 miles west of the Twin Cities.  Although Loven would not divulge the location of a possible target, it is believed that he was planning to carry out an attack in Montevideo.  Loven said authorities are still working to determine if Rogers acted alone or in a group, but he believes any immediate threats have been dealt with.

“With respect to this terror plot, we no longer believe the public is in danger,” said Loven.

A search of the mobile home resulted in the discovery of a Romanian AKM assault rifle, among other incendiary devices.  Rogers informed investigators that he has shot the rifle at a gun range on two separate occasions. Rogers was previously convicted of felony burglary, meaning it is illegal for him to own a firearm under Minnesota law.

Christopher Warrener, special agent in charge of the FBI office in Minneapolis, credited the hard work of many separate agencies in peacefully preventing the possible threat.

“Cooperation between the FBI and its federal, state, and local partners enabled law enforcement to prevent a potential tragedy in Montevideo,” said Warrener.

Rogers is scheduled to make his initial appearance in federal court later this week.

Related source:  TwinCities.com, Yahoo

If you’ve ever seen the movie Gangs of New York, you know residents in The Empire State don’t take kindly to others setting foot on their turf.  Although “The Butcher” no longer looks to control the five points in Lower Manhattan, two rival ice cream truck drivers recently battled for territory in Gloversville, and it ended when one of the drivers was arrested.

According to the police report, Joshua Malatino and his girlfriend Amanda Scott, who own a line of Sno Kone Joe trucks, were arrested earlier this week for stalking and harassing Phillip Hollister, an operator of a “rival” Mr. Ding-A-Ling truck.

The frosty relationship first began earlier in the year.  Authorities said Malatino began threatening and taunting Hollister, telling him “You don’t have a chance.  This is my town.”  Malatino also called Mr. Ding-A-Ling’s regional headquarters, telling the company “I own this town.”

Tensions were anything but vanilla on Tuesday when Malatino and Scott pursued Hollister’s truck in their own vehicles.  As Hollister would stop, the Sno Kone Joe operators would blast their music at a high volume and yell “free ice cream” in hopes of stymieing Hollister’s business.

“He [Malatino] had two vehicles. Two ice cream trucks and they were both engaged in that course of conduct,” said Gloversville Police Captain John Sira.

In what must have been a sight to see, officers were alerted of Maltino’s actions when they spotted a Sno Kone Joe truck tailing the Mr. Ding-A-Ling truck.

“One of our officers actually witnessed one of the ice cream trucks following the other ice cream truck,” said Sira.

Despite serving Good Humor products, the incident was no laughing matter.  In fact, this wasn’t the first time authorities had spoke to Malatino about his aggressive behavior.

“We have addressed issues similar to this with Mr. Malatino and his legal counsel, cautioning him against this type of behavior in the past,” Sira said.

Authorities officially charged the pair with second-degree harassment and fourth-degree stalking.  The harassment charge is only a monetary violation, but the misdemeanor stalking charge could land them in jail for three months.  Talk about cold, hard time.

How would it play out in Minnesota?

Had “Ice Cream Wars” taken place in Minnesota, Malatino and Scott would likely have faced a similar fate.  According to Minnesota law, stalking occurs when a person:

“engages in conduct which the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, and causes this reaction on the part of the victim regardless of the relationship between the actor and victim.”

A person may also be arrested for harassment if they “follow, monitor, or pursue another, whether in person or through any available technological or other means.”

The potential penalties for stalking and harassment may be more severe had the case occurred in Minnesota.  Gross misdemeanor penalties for harassment in Minnesota include:

• Up to one year in jail
• Fines in excess of $1,000

Related source:  ABC News

According to findings by the Minnesota Public Radio News and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, African-Americans in Minnesota are 12 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide by firearm than Caucasians.  The report also found that whites are much more likely to commit suicide with a gun than black Minnesotans.

The findings were first reported on Minnesota Public Radio after analysts looked into gun violence data between 2008 and 2010.  The report detailed numerous findings that provide an interesting look at how firearms are used across racial lines.  Some of the findings in the report include:

• Over the three-year period, 73 African-Americans died from gun-related homicides, while 78 Caucasian Minnesotans were killed by guns.  When adjusted for demographics, this meant that 7.3 blacks per 100,000 were killed by firearms while only 0.6 whites per 100,000 were killed by guns.

• During the same time period, 800 white residents committed suicide with a firearm, compared to 17 black Minnesotans.

• Most African-American gun homicide victims were boys or men in urban areas, while most white suicide victims were men in rural areas.

• African-Americans are less likely to own firearms than Caucasians.
• According to a separate report by the Pew Research Center, more than 70 percent of blacks said controlling gun ownership is more important than protecting second amendment rights, while only 43 percent of whites felt the same way.

Analyzing the Findings

The findings paint a contrasting picture of gun ownership and violence across racial lines.  Roxann Storms, a clinical social worker in St. Cloud, said many factors influence gun violence across different demographics.

“It’s a multifactored, complex problem,” said Storms

She offered some possible reasons behind the findings, saying:

• Rural, white suicides may be more prevalent because they have easier access to firearms and less access to mental health services.

• Research found that African-Americans in urban areas tend to be more closely connected with their family or social networks, which lessens the likelihood of suicide.

Varying Reasons for Gun Ownership

Based on the findings in the Pew report which highlighted the difference in opinion regarding controlling gun possession, it is evident that white and black communities are affected differently by firearms.  Mad Dads President V.J. Smith, who works towards curbing drug and gun crimes in Minneapolis, said stricter gun laws may help lower crime in urban areas.

“Most of our families don’t have guns in our homes for recreational use. Those guns come in from the streets and they come in from the mob; they come in from drug deals; they come in from different things,” Smith said.

Smith added that the influx of weapons through illegal activities simply spurs more illegal behavior.

“Those guns get used to rob people,” Smith said.

Gun control regulations at the state and national level are expected to continue to be hot-button issues in the coming months as legislators decide if stricter gun laws are necessary.

Related source MPR News

On Monday, we discussed that federal agents were well within their rights to refrain from reading the Miranda rights to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the lone surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.  Sixteen hours after they began questioning Tsarnaev, a judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney’s office entered Tsarnaev’s room and read him his Miranda rights.  After being advised of his rights, Tsarnaev immediately stopped talking and refused to answer any more questions.

Before being read his rights, Tsarnaev had been cooperative with FBI officials.  He answered questions by writing answers or nodding his head, and he began to explain his motive behind the attack.  Now it seems the next time Tsarnaev talks, it may be in front of a jury.

The decision to read Tsarnaev his rights has touched off a legal debate between Democrats and Republicans.  The general sentiment is that Republicans feel that the Obama administration is going soft on Tsarnaev by reading him his rights, as it was reasonable to believe that the suspect would remain silent after hearing his rights.  Others argue that the United States operates as a democratic society because everyone has certain unalienable rights which should not be denied, regardless of the alleged crime.

The Public Safety Exception

The argument in question is over a clause called the “public safety exception” which states the officials can refrain from reading a suspect their Miranda rights if it is “necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.”

This passage is intentionally ambiguous so as to leave it open to wide ranging interpretation.  It’s possible that authorities felt that they had collected enough information to quell their fears over related radical groups, but most would argue the more Tsarnaev talked, the more we would learn.

All Citizens Have Rights

There has been a lot of debate over Tsarnaev’s rights in wake of the bombings. Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Avery Appelman said despite his transgressions, Tsarnaev needed to be informed of his rights.

“Tsarnaev is an American citizen, and regardless of his actions, the Constitution offers him certain protections, one being his right to remain silent in the face of police interrogation,” said Appelman. “When Tsarnaev was finally ‘mirandized’ it was by a judge at his initial court appearance, the judge is required to advise those charged with crimes of their rights as their case proceeds forward through the justice system.”

In essence, once the criminal process was initiated by the filing of criminal charges, the judge is duty bound to advise the accused of their rights.  Despite having the right to remain silent, Appelman believes it may be in Tsarnaev’s best interest to continue speaking with authorities.

“With all of the evidence obtained through this investigation, the fact that the Tsarnaev brothers were involved in a firefight with the police and evidence was collected from Tsarnaev’s home, it would appear that the government has a very strong case against him,” said Appelman. “It may be in his interest to show remorse and cooperate fully with law enforcement, and thereby structure a plea negotiation that saves Tsarnaev from execution.”

Tsarnaev has officially been charged with federal counts of using a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property, both which carry the death penalty as the maximum sentence.  He was charged as a civilian, despite outside efforts to have him designated an “enemy combatant” which would subject him to fewer freedoms.

Related source: Washington Post

It’s no surprise that the FBI has been questioning Dzhokhar Tsarnaev over the weekend in hopes of learning more about his motives in connection with the bombing that took place at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.  What is surprising is the fact that he is being questioned without first being read his Miranda rights.

If Tsarnaev wants to seek legal counsel, he’ll need to remember on his own that he has the right to an attorney, and that anything he says is admissible in court.  Under normal circumstances, failure to read a person the Miranda rights means that anything they say may not be admissible in court, but Tsarnaev’s case is anything but normal.

The FBI are well within their rights to refrain from reading Tsarnaev his Miranda rights because they can cite the “public safety exception”, which is an extension of the law that allows authorities to question a suspect if they fear the general public may be in danger.  Below is a description of the exception.

“Agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents.”

The exception goes even further, saying that police can continue to question Tsarnaev even if they collect enough information to conclude the public is no longer in danger.

“There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.”

The public safety exception first appeared in 1984 in the case of New York v. Quarles.  In the case, the police were attempting to arrest a potential rapist who allegedly had a gun.  When police arrived on scene, they noticed the perpetrator was wearing an empty holster.  Before reading him his Miranda rights, police asked the suspect where the gun was located.  The court allowed the evidence to be admitted under the exemption because the gun presented an immediate threat to the officers.

The law was later expanded to its current state in 2010, due in large part to a 2009 interrogation session that ended after authorities read the suspect his Miranda rights.  In that case, the suspect was terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to blow up a plane bound for Detroit on Christmas Day.  Police spoke to him for 50 minutes before they determined the public was no longer in immediate danger.  After reading him his rights, Abdulmutallab requested a lawyer and refused to answer any further questions.  This drew ire from Republicans who chastised the current administration for going soft and failing to gather intelligence from a suspected terrorist.

Although the majority of Americans may be happy that Tsarnaev wasn’t read his Miranda rights, others say the government is walking a fine line in regards to what information is admissible in court.

Tsarnaev appears willing to consent to questioning, as he has been communicating by writing answers on a piece of paper.  He suffered a wound to his throat during Friday’s standoff with police, and he has been unable to speak.

Tsarnaev could be charged with several federal crimes including use of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and bombing of places of public use, and homicide.  Although Massachusetts doesn’t impose the death penalty, federal law would allow it to be applied.  It’s uncertain if the death penalty will be sought.

Related source:  Huffington Post, Yahoo, Slate

A Wisconsin jury deliberated for over three hours on Tuesday before ruling that 35-year-old Aaron Schaffhausen was not insane when he murdered his three daughters last summer.

Schaffhausen had been charged with three counts of murder in the July 2012 deaths of his daughters Amara, Sophie, and Cecilia at their River Falls home.  The jury ruled that although Schaffhausen suffered from a mental defect, he had the capability to understand the implications of his actions.

Criminal Defense Attorney Melvin Welch spoke to KARE 11 news to offer his insights into the ruling.  He explained how a jury can find a man guilty despite recognizing that the defendant suffered from a mental illness.

“The standard that he had to prove, and it was his burden to prove, is that, first he is operating under a mental defect, and by virtue of that mental defect he could not know what he was doing,” said Welch.  In this instance, they met that first burden…but the second part of it, whether or not he was aware of the right or wrongness of his actions, that’s where they failed to meet their burden”.

Although it may become clearer once the jury releases a formal statement regarding the case, key testimony revealed that Schaffhausen had previously threatened his children.  He also called his wife to tell her that he murdered the children after the act, which may have aided the jury in their decision.

Welch had previously sat down with KARE 11 before the trial began to talk about how the case might play out.  He initially said it would be very hard for the defense to prove that their client was insane without having him take the stand, but Schaffhausen never testified in the case.  Welch said that decision left the jury with little evidence to prove Schaffhausen was insane.

“You put yourself in the jurors’ position; Are you going to be the one that says, ‘I’m not going to send this guy away for the rest of his life after he’s gotten done killing these three little girls who couldn’t defend themselves’?” said Welch.  “It is a very difficult thing to meet, and frankly, if you can’t speak to the jury, even to address some of the concerns they might have, I don’t know, and apparently they didn’t in this case.”

Welch also said proving someone’s sanity was different from constructive cases like drug possession.  In the constructive cases, the prosecution must use the evidence along with possible motives to build a case that can convict a person beyond a reasonable doubt.  In cases of insanity, the burden shifts to the defense to prove that their client is insane.

The general belief is that a person is “innocent until proven guilty”, but in mental cases, the person has already admitted to the crime, but they claim they couldn’t prevent their actions.  The sentiment then becomes “guilty unless proven otherwise”.

Although it may seem like a strange decision to keep Schaffhausen from taking the stand in his defense, Welch said it’s possible he could he dug himself in a deeper hole.

“The defense attorneys, they have a tough job,” said Welch.  “I don’t know what he would have said, and they know far better than I do what he would have said, so there’s decision making being made behind the scenes as well.”

Schaffhausen is now faced with a mandatory life sentence in prison.  At a minimum, he would receive 20 years in prison and supervised released after his sentence.

No sentencing hearing has been scheduled, but early speculation is that it could occur in July.

Related source:  KARE 11