Nashville Lawyer Blog

Ever wonder how people get away with selling fake Rolexes on the street or imitation designer purses? You might think that this sort of thing would be illegal and it is.

18 U.S.C. 2320 makes it illegal to traffic in counterfeit goods and is punishable by imprisonment of upto 10 years on a first offense. The fact that the seller tells you that the product is simply a replica does not make a difference. Courts have interpretted the law to punish those that traffic in counterfeit goods while acknowledging that their products are imitation the same since the presence of such goods is likely to create confusion in the marketplace

Such counterfeit goods are subject to forfeiture and destruction from anyone in possession of them so you are certainly better off saving for the real thing.

Under Tennessee Law, all persons charged with criminal offenses are entitled to a reasonable bail amount with the exception of those charged with murder, in which Tennessee law does not require that bail be set if the evidence is strong that the defendant commmited the offense.

The factors the court should consider when setting a bail are found in Tennessee Code Annotated 40-11-115 and include:

1. The defendant's length of residence in the community
2. The defendant's employment status and history and financial condition
3. The defendant's family ties and relationships

Continue reading "Factors Courts in Tennessee Consider When Setting a Bail Amount or Bond" »

One of the first calls that an attorney may receive about a prospective client may come from a friend or family member, who is calling on behalf their loved one, who is behind bars. Typically the first thing that person needs to know is what the bail amount is so as to know if he or she can afford to post such bail or go through a bondsman.

If the bail amount is very affordable then such individual may choose to post the full amount of bail rather than go through a bondsman since at the conclusion of such case in Nashville, Tennessee (plea disposition, jury trial, etc.) as long as the criminal defendant makes it to each of his or her court dates then the amount of bail is returned to the payor after payment of court costs and fees.

However, most choose to go through the assistance of a bondsman. Bondsmen charge 10% of the bail amount to act as a surety to the court of the individual's presence at trial. The 10% paid to a bondsmen is never returned, but is a small fraction of what one would have to tie up with the court.

In Nashville, if the bail is set in excess of $75,000 than a source hearing for the court to legitimate the source of such funds is required regardless of whether the person is posting the full bail amount or attempting to post the money through a bondsman. In such cases, loved ones cannot immediately post a bond to the court, but should immediately contact an attorney to represent them on the source hearing.

The United States Supreme Court in Berghuis v. Thompkins took a significant retreat from the privileges against self incrimination long afforded to individuals subjected to custodial interrogation through the Miranda decision of the 1960s. In Thompkins, the Defendant was silent for almost 3 hours before making an inculpatory statement. During the interrogation, the defendant also refused to sign a written waiver of his Miranda rights. The Miranda decision had long recognized a defendant's right to remain silent and it further required the State to carry a heavy burden to prove that a defendant knowingly waived this right and other constitutional rights if the defendant ultimately made a statement since "waiver cannot be presumed by the fact that the defendant eventually made a statement." The court's decision in Thompkins basically shifts the burden from the State to prove waiver of Miranda rights to the defendant to verbally announce that he wishes to invoke his right to remain silent. David Raybin was quoted in a recent article discussing this case in yesterday's Tennessean
click here to read Tennessean Story

Under Tennessee law, a prior DUI conviction raises the standard minimum sentence of 48 hours in jail to 45 days in jail on a new DUI charge. Two prior convictions means a DUI defendant is facing a minimum sentence to 120 days and the minimum sentence increases with subsequent convictions.

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals in Tennessee v. Albright, recently held that a prior conviction in which the judgment did not contain the trial judge's signature was not adequate to establish a prior conviction, finding such judgment to be void, and thus ordered that the defendant's sentence be reduced.

Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion

A criminal defendant should contact an attorney experienced in DUI law that is aware of all possible defenses to their case.

Vince Wyatt had an article that was recently featured in the Tennessee Bar Journal relating to the consequences of a conviction. In such article, he discussed how individuals can be prevented from practicing many occupations due to a felony or even a misdemenaor conviction.

Tennessee law outright prohibits an individual previously convicted of a felony from ever working in many occupations. In other instances, Tennessee requires individuals to be licensed to practice certain occupations, and when a license is required in most cases, a felony conviction and even some misdemeanors may serve as a basis to deny an application for such a license or establish grounds to revoke the license of an individual currently licensed. The occupations that either preclude employment for some convictions or have licensing laws that may allow the state to deny employment for criminal convictions in certain occupations include:

•Emergency 911 call takers and dispatchers,
•Sheriff office employees,
•Police officers or special deputies,
•Employment at jails or correctional institutions,
•Private security business operator,9 or private security officer,

Continue reading "In Tennesseee, A Conviction Today May Cost You a Job Tomorrow" »

LEGAL FACTS ABOUT THE NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE FLOOD OF 2010
Now that the flood waters are receding, we as Tennesseans have to start dealing with the aftermath of the greatest natural disaster to ever hit Middle Tennessee. As we assess the damage, we are encountering problems from places we never even considered- our insurance companies.

Many Tennesseans, being forced to confront dramatic life-altering events, are trying to pick up the pieces. Unfortunately, a large number of people are contacting their insurance companies, only to find they are not covered for water damage caused by the storm. A great many homeowners wrongly thought they were protected, only to find their insurance agent neglected to sell them the proper and necessary insurance.

What are you going to do if you are not covered from water damage? Did your insurance agent fail to tell you about flood insurance? Did he or she explain the difference between damage from flood waters and damage from surface water? Did he or she tell you that you could have been protected from the storm? If he did not, and you are damaged as a result, you may have recourse in court.

Continue reading "Did your Insurance agents do all they could to get you flood insurance before the Nashville flood?" »

David Raybin represents Dr. Jeannie Beauchamp, a Clarksville, Tennessee area dentist, who was recently charged for illegal possession of prescription painkillers after being stopped by Nashville Airport Police en route to Haiti to provide medical attention.

The Leaf Chronicle's Article detailing this case

David Raybin recently filed a lawsuit against the state of Tennessee, the Governor of Tennessee, and the Attorney General of Tennessee after his client was denied a right to purchase a firearm even after receiving a full pardon from his conviction in the state of Georgia, which had restored his clients full rights of citizenship.

News Channel 5 Story

Blackwell v Bredesen FILE STAMP copy.pdf

Tennessee Code Annotated 40-28-105 establishes the procedures relating to Parole Hearings in Tennessee. Pursuant to such statute, parole hearings are held in jails, department of correction facilities, and other locations within the state where eligible offenders come under the review of the Board of Probation and Parole. Parole Members preside over hearings or may designate hearing officers to conduct such hearings. At such hearings, parole board members or designated hearing officers take testimony and make proposed findings of fact and recommendations to the board regarding a grant, denial, revocation or rescission of parole. The findings and recommendations are reviewed by parole board members who adopt, modify, or reject the recommendations. The grant of parole requires the concurrence of 3 members in many cases, but in the most serious offenses under 40-28-105(d)(4), four votes are required.

Continue reading "Tennessee Parole Hearings" »

David Raybin, notes in this Tennessean article, that the new immigration ruling by the United States Supreme Court is "the immigrant's Miranda rule." The Court ruled that changes to immigration law have dramatically raised the stakes of a noncitizen's criminal conviction. Because the drastic measure of deportation or removal is now virtually inevitable for a vast number of noncitizens convicted of crimes, the importance of accurate legal advice for noncitizens accused of crimes has never been more important. There will, however, undoubtedly be numerous situations in which the deportation consequences of a plea are unclear. In those cases, a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry adverse immigration consequences. But when the deportation consequence is truly clear the duty to give correct advice is equally clear. Many States -but certainly not all - require judges to provide a general advisement to a defendant before accepting a guilty plea, warning the defendant that if he or she is a noncitizen the conviction may result in adverse immigration consequences. Tennessee does not require this but probably will in time. This does not alter the lawyer's responsibility to give appropriate advice.

Link to Tennessean article quoting David Raybin on new immigration ruling

In Davidson County (Nashville, Tennessee), the General Sessions and Criminal Courts require a bond source hearing pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated 39-11-715 before any bond can be posted of $75,000 or more or before any person can post a cash bond of $10,000 or more.

The courts have the authority to require such source hearings to ensure that proceeds that are directly or indirectly derived from a criminal offense are not used to secure a bond or pay a premium bond. The burden of proof is on the party seeking to post the bond to get the approval of the court.

If you need an assistance with obtaining a source hearing or any other criminal matter, feel free to call Vince Wyatt or David Raybin at (615) 256-6666.

In a recent Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals decision in State v. Teddy Ray Mitchell, the court found that the Defendant's actions by arguing with police officers did not violate the law against disorderly conduct. In this case, the Defendant attended a rally at the County Courthouse. He was confronted by officers initially for parking in an area that had been designated as a "no parking zone" due to the rally and then he was later confronted for attempting to bring an American flag on a standard flagpole to the rally as flagpoles had been prohibited due to concerns that they could be used as weapons. The police officers testified at the trial that when they confronted the Defendant that he became irate and belligerent and used the flagpole against one of the officers when the officers arrested him. After a jury trial, Mr. Mitchell was acquitted of the resisting arrest charges but was found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to thirty days in jail. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision holding that the proof did not demonstrate that the Defendant acted in a threatening manner.

If you are charged with disorderly conduct or any criminal offense, do not hesitate to contact Vince Wyatt or David Raybin at 615.256.6666.

KoulisMotion Letter.pdf

David Raybin recently filed an appeal with the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals seeking to vacate the conviction of his client, Dr. Christ Koulis, a former plastic surgeon that was convicted of criminally negligent homicide in Franklin, Tennessee (Williamson County) in a case that drew significant media attention.

Mr. Raybin had originally filed an appeal challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence and raising a double jeopardy claim. Dr. Koulis died this past week. Mr. Raybin's recent appeal seeks to vacate Dr. Koulis' conviction by reason of death. In Mr. Raybin's most recent filing he cites the majority rule of law which requires that the appeal be abated and the conviction be vacated.

Below are links to a number of news sources reporting on this case:

Nashville City Paper Story

WKRN Channel 2 Story

Nashville Newschannel 5 Story

Williamson Herald Story

The Tennessee Supreme Court recently held in State v. Turner that when a person asks a police officer to retrieve his cell phone, which apparently contained the cell phone number of a pre-paid legal services provider, and telling an officer that he could want an attorney if he could afford one that such was not unequivocal enough to assert a right to counsel. The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed the police interview of a murder suspect by Smyrna police officers in which the suspect made such requests. The court found that when such statements were taken into context of the conversation between the officer and the Defendant that it was reasonable for the interrogating officer to further attempt to clarify the nature of his inquiry, rather than terminate the interview as would be required to do if the Defendant had simply stated that he wanted to speak to an attorney.

The Rutherford County trial judge had originally found that the Defendant had unequivocally asserted his right to counsel when he asked the officers to retrieve his cell phone, which apparently contained the cell phone number of a pre-paid legal services provider. The Court of Criminal Appeals held otherwise, and the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

Based on this case, if ever questioned by police, be sure to say "I want a lawyer" in no uncertain terms.