Ryan Costello: When is a Lee County/Fort Myers Death Penalty Case Not a Death Penalty Case?

Recently, the state charged Ryan Costello with second degree murder and misdemeanor child neglect for the beating death of his four month old child. Apparently, Mr. Costello was out partying and became enraged at his girlfriend when he came back to his home, an alleged drug den, and took it out on the baby. He was allegedly recorded saying that he's "a murderer" and that he "killed his kid", and it appears that the state has an overwhelming case against him. Since the child died as a result of blunt force trauma caused by the horrific beating, the state could easily charge aggravated child abuse, an enumerated felony and aggravator for first degree felony murder, and could easily allege that the child was (1) under 12, (2) killed by someone in parental authority, (3) by acts especially heinous, atrocious and cruel. These four aggravators have been repeatedly used in this circuit to seek the death penalty, or at least to charge with first degree murder. However, he has not been so charged, and the child abuse is a mere misdemeanor.
Consider Justin Grodin, who the state could not even prove intended to kill the child, and the nine years of litigation the state went through in order to try to end his life. Consider the countless other baby killing cases where the state seeks the death penalty, and there is a question as to which parent actually did the deed.
This case just reinforces my repeated claim that the death peanalty is arbitrary and capricious, and that arbitrariness begins with the initial charging decision by whoever is calling the shots on the particular case.

Fort Myers Homicide Case: Aderian Carey

Recently, an article in the Fort Myers News-Press criticized two excellent judges for giving bonds on Mr. Carey's pending cases. The first case, a homicide, resulted in his surrender, with counsel, within hours of learning that he was a suspect in the shooting. In addition, the alleged shooting happenned at his own home when a known gang member was attempting to break into his window, in a high crime area, in the early morning hours. Even before Florida's "stand your ground law", a person had the right to presume that an intruder intended to do harm when an unlawful entry was attempted in one's home, and a citizen had the right to meet force with force, without any duty to retreat from one's home. The learned judge, our Chief Judge, was apprised of these facts at the first appearance, and issued a fifty thousand dollar ($50,000) bond for the homicide, which ultimately was filed as a manslaughter, and which is the subject of a motion to dismiss based on immunity from prosecution under the stand your ground law.
Mr. Carey's subsequent arrest, more than a year after the first one, occurred after a man assaulted his mother, threw a bottle at her, and attempted to do both her and Mr. Carey harm. The attacker allegedly injured himself in the leg after kicking a knife Mr. Carey held in order to defend himself and his family from further viscious attacks by the male and his friends. Again, one of our finest judges looked at the facts of the case, Mr. Carey's lack of prior record, and his history of appearing in court as required, and issued a substantial bond in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).
To suggest that this situation is analagous to the improper release of that career criminal cop -killer, who was not held to answer for violating his probation, is simply wrong. Mr. Carey was brought to court on the new charge, and the criminal justice system, with prosecutor, defense attorney and judge, functioned as required. It simply is not the same situation as when someone who has already been convicted of a crime, and who is on probation and violates that probation by committing other public crimes, escapes arrest and processing. To criticize our judiciary for appreciating distinctions in the law and applying the particular facts and circumstances of each individual case is unwarranted, even if you do not agree with a particular decision or bond amount. Judicial independence is the cornerstone of our democracy, and judicical decision-making, thank god, is not based on mob rule or fear of unwarranted criticism.

Mistrial In Mohammed Javed Homicide Case: Javed's Defense Lawyer Lays The Record Straight

During the last and final of thirty five state witnesses called to the witness stand by the prosecution in the two week trial of Mohammed Javed, the prosecutor attempted to elicit from the lead detective, John Long, that the detective applied for an arrest warrant, that Javed was indeed arrested, and that noone else was arrested for the murder of Susan Vickars. The assistant state attorney even framed the question to the effect of " after reviewing all of the evidence in the case and the statements of all of the witnesses who were interviewed, isn't it true that only Mr. Javed was arrested in this case for the murder?" The fact that someone has been arrested for a crime is normally irrelevant, but it may become relevant when the arrest is offerred to prove an issue unrelated to guilt, as for example, the identity of the person in the courtroom, or the location of the arrest when the prosecution has alleged, as it did in the Javed case, flight showing consciousness of guilt. In each of these permissible inquiries, the prosecution is not permitted to argue or suggest that the defendant is guilty merely because he was arrested, nor is it allowed to elicit that the detective made in essence a decision as to who is guilty and who is not guilty after reviewing the entire case. This is tantamount to a presumption of guilt, rather than a presumption of innocence, as a result of a mere accusation. More importantly, it constitutes insidious opinion evidence as to who the guilty party is, and asks the jury to rely on the opinion of the officer as evidence of guilt, an improper and unconstitutional request. In his zeal to seek a conviction, the prosecutor also tread into the dangerous area of asking the detective to paraphrase the defendant's responses to specific questions, which provoked his conclusions regarding whether the defendant satisfactorily answered the questions, and several statements that the defendant did not answer at all. While there may be debate about whether, once a defendant waives his rights and agrees to speak to law enforcement, his refusal to respond to specific questions is admissible, when the alleged failure of Mr. Javed to answer was combined with testimony that the other suspects gave statements, and that after those statements and Javed's statements were considered, only Javed was arrested, the implication was clear: Javed is guilty and the other suspects are not. This was extremely prejudicial for two separate reasons. First, the entire defense was that the police focused impetuously on Javed, the Muslim husband, and ignored other potential and likely suspects. Second, in reality, Javed answered all the questions posed to him on five separate occassions, and consented to a search of his home, computer, DNA, and provided witnesses and possible suspects to the investigators. As articulated in a previous posting on this blog, Mohammed Javed may well be innocent. Thus, the improper lines of questioning of the prosecutor, and the improper responses of the lead detective, the last and final witness, was calculated to, and did lead to the potential for great prejudice to Mr. Javed, and a mistrial was the appropriate action for the learned judge to take.

Mohammed Javed's Defense: Why he may be INNOCENT

Mohammed Javed is charged with the murder of his wife, Susan Vickers. The police immediately focused on him, and as I told the jury, "since he was the husband, he must have done it." The police, of course, claim that it was because he was the last person to see her alive, and that he made the report of her missing, that he became the focus of their investigation. In fact, there were two sightings of a woman fitting the description in the days after the report was made, and another man also made a report of her missing, as she was supposed to be getting together with him around the time of her disappearance. The police found out that this man was planning on coming down to Fort Myers, but did not research his whereabouts until well after the arrest of Mr. Javed. They also failed to follow up with the leads regarding her sightings, and despite the fact that Mr. Javed provided three pictures of her to assist in the investigation, did not bother to show them to the people who reported seeing her. The missing persons investigator had over one hundred cases pending, and so many leads and potential suspects in this case that she was "overwhelmed." One of those suspects was stalking Ms. Vickers, but the police failed to interview him until well after the arrest of Mr. Javed. The stalker still could not account for his whereabouts, but we do know that he had threatened to kill her on a previous occasion. The state is attempting to downplay the significance of these failings by focusing on the behavior of Mr. Javed, and calling it circumstantial evidence of guilt. Mr. Javed had told people he thought Ms. Vickers may have travelled to Canada, and it was certainly a reasonable place for him to look for the love of his life, as her parents lived there, as did some of her friends. The state did not introduce the return ticket from Canada back to the United States, as it would undermine their theory that he was fleeing the country because he had committed the murder. The defense had to point that out, and introduce the evidence. Given Ms. Vicker's lifestyle, and the huge number of men she had had contact with, both on-line and in person, there were many people with a motive for murder. Thomas Carrol Parker, who claims he helped Mr. Javed dispose of the body, was threatened and pressured by the police to such an extent that any statements he made to the police are unreliable. Moreover, Mr. Parker was living in the house after Susan Vicker's disappearance, and had motive to kill Ms. Vickers from before her disappearance to the moment the police searched the home and found what they claim is her blood. He had access to the computer which, at some point before a body was found, did a search for the location where it was ultimately discovered. The notion that Mr Javed, a highly intelligent man with great knowledge of computers, would leave her blood laying around and a computer "footprint" of where he dumped the body, and then voluntarily surrender that same computer to the police without a warrant, defies credulity. The blood, found in the car Mr. Javed drove, was not visible as blood to an untrained observer, and Mr. Parker and Mr. Javed's father, who is a conservative Muslim who intensely disliked Ms. Vickers, both had access to the vehicle. In sum, none of the evidence against Mohammed Javed proves that he committed the crime, and he has steadfastly maintained his innocence from the very beginning. He therefore may not only be not guilty of this homicide, but may, in fact, be innocent.

Cop Killer Turns Self In - Awaiting Charges On At Least Three Murders

Just a few hours after the viewing for the two slain Tampa police officers, the suspect, Dontee Rashawn Morris, turned himself into authorites after a massive manhunt failed to locate him. He will be charged with the the two murders of the officers who stopped the vehicle in which he was riding, as well as another which occurred in front of his family's business. He is a suspect in a fourth homicide as well. Unless he cut some kind of deal in order to get him to surrender, which is unlikely, he will almost certainly face the death penalty for the first degree murders of the officers. Prosecutors will be able to allege that he committed a prior violent felony - each homicide is considered a prior for the other - as well as cold, calculated and premeditated and victim a law enforcement officer. There may be a felony murder as well, if it can be shown that he was fleeing from a prior homicide. With aggravating factors like these, it is extremely unlikely that he will not face the death penalty.

Federal criminal lawyers in Fort Myers

David A. Brener (239-332-1100)has been admitted to the federal courts for over 20 years, and has had numerous federal jury trials. Fort Myers used to be a real small town, with a small number of attorneys, and the number of criminal lawyers who practiced in federal court was even smaller. Today, there are a lot of attorneys, and a growing number who advertise for federal criminal cases in this jurisdiction. While some of these attorneys have a great deal of experience, some of the most aggressive advertisers have never tried a case in federal court, and are not familiar with the practice and procedure, which differs greatly from that in the state courts. Federal court is not only more formal, but requires that almost every request be put in writing, with legal citations. Jury questioning is usually abbreviated, if it is provided at all, and sentencing is extremely complicated and ever changing. Almost every task is more difficult than in state court, and since even a greater percentage of federal cases result in pleas than state cases, some attorneys can practice for years without ever trying a case to a jury in federal court. There is no substitute for actual trial experience, however, and consumers should inquire of prospective attorneys whether they have actually tried cases in the federal courts. For more information, visit our website at www.justiceisourpassion.com