Super Lawyers! 2009-2014
AVVO Superb 10-Star Rating!
Killer Cross Examination!
dBusiness Top Lawyers! 2011-14
Top 100 Trial Lawyers!
Best of Hour Detroit!
Medical Marijuana Case?
Domestic Violence Case?
Neil Rockind on Fox 2 News!
Visit NRPC on the web!
Looking for a specific crime?
- October 2014
- July 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- Channel 4 #go4it #clickondetroit #criminaldefense #legalexpert http://t.co/7XkYRg4hDi 11 hours ago
- On set and in the studio #wdiv #go4it #legalexpert #defenders http://t.co/DlNzFozPUZ 11 hours ago
- @kdietzlocal4 thanks for the studio time. send me the pics at firstname.lastname@example.org 12 hours ago
- Channel 4 WDIV #legalexpert http://t.co/8tvm33GX7j 13 hours ago
- RT @DetroitPRguru: Attorney Neil Rockind @neilrockindlaw looks at the science and practices behind #bloodalcohol testing in this new bl…htt… 1 day ago
Please be advised that nothing written or contained within this blog is intended to be legal advise, nor should such content be relied upon as legal advice. If you need to consult with a licensed attorney regarding a criminal case or a potential criminal case, please call our office immediately at 248-208-3800.
Please note that this blog is open to the public and that posting a comment on this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Blog MaintenanceThis blog was created and is maintained by Colin A. Daniels, Associate Attorney at Neil Rockind, P.C. If you have any questions or concerns about any of the contents of this blog, please direct those questions and/or concerns to Colin A. Daniels at email@example.com.
Search NRPC Blog
As of Today’s date, Neil Rockind has received these recognition’s in 2014:
Super Lawyers Top 100 in Michigan – LexisNexis
Super Lawyers Top 50 Consumer Lawyers in Michigan – LexisNexus
Leading Lawyer in Michigan – Leading Lawyers
Top Attorneys in Michigan – Crain’s Detroit
Top Attorneys in Michigan – Hour Detroit
Top Attorneys in Michigan – New York Times
Top Criminal Defense Lawyer in Michigan – DBusiness Detroit
Top White Collar Defense Lawyer in Michigan – DBusiness Detroit
Top OWI Defense Lawyer in Michigan – DBusiness Detroit
Top 100 Trial Lawyer – National Trial Lawyer’s Association
Top 100 OWI Attorneys in Michigan – National Advocacy for DUI Defense
Superb 10 Rating on AVVO
And Neil Rockind, P.C. has the results to back them up!
(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to decide once and for all whether states can ban gay marriage, a surprising move that will allow gay men and women to get married in five additional states, with more likely to follow quickly.
On the first day of its new term, the high court without comment rejected appeals in cases involving five states – Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana – that had prohibited gay marriage, leaving intact lower-court rulings striking down those bans.
As a result, the number of states permitting gay marriage would jump from 19 to 24, likely soon to be followed by six more states that are bound by the regional federal appeals court rulings that had struck down other bans. That would leave another 20 states that prohibit same-sex marriage.
But the move by the nine justices to sidestep the contentious issue means there will be no imminent national ruling on the matter, with litigation likely to continue in states with bans.
“Any time same-sex couples are extended marriage equality is something to celebrate, and today is a joyous day for thousands of couples across America who will immediately feel the impact of today’s Supreme Court action,” said Chad Griffin, president of the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign.
Evan Wolfson, who heads the group Freedom to Marry, said while Monday’s action provided “a bright green light” to gay marriage in more states, gay rights advocates still want the high court to intervene and provide a definitive ruling covering all 50 states. “The Supreme Court should bring the country to a nationwide resolution,” Wolfson said.
Officials in states whose bans were overturned had also wanted the high court to decide the matter. The justices could take up a future case, but their move on Monday could send a strong signal to lower court judges that rulings striking down gay marriage bans are consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
Gay couples in affected states are expected to seek marriage licenses immediately because the high court’s action means the appeals court’s rulings are no longer on hold. Virginia began issuing licenses within hours of the court’s action.
The other states that are likely to be imminently affected are North Carolina, West Virginia, South Carolina, Wyoming, Kansas and Colorado.
The court did not explain why it was not taking up the issue. Among the possibilities are that a majority believes it would be premature to intervene and wants to see more lower court action, or that on this deeply polarized court neither the liberals nor the conservatives could be certain of how the issue would resolved and did not want to risk forcing a national precedent now.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has officiated at a same-sex wedding, said last month that for the justices there is “no need for us to rush” unless a split emerges in the regional federal appeals courts and one of them decides to uphold a state ban on gay marriage.
In order for the Supreme Court to hear a case, at least four of the nine justices must vote to hear it.
Most legal experts had believed the justices would want to weigh in on a question of national importance that focuses on whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment under the law means gay marriage bans were unlawful.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that “there may ultimately be a role for the Supreme Court to play” on gay marriage and that the justices must make that call. Earnest emphasized that President Barack Obama’s view is that “it’s wrong to prevent same-sex couples who are in loving, committed relationships and want to marry from doing so.”
Opponents of gay marriage said they would continue to defend state bans in court. “The people should decide this issue, not the courts,” said Byron Babione, a lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom.
In June 2013, the justices ruled 5-4 to strike down a key part of a federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act that had restricted the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples for the purpose of federal government benefits.
But in a separate case decided that day, the justices also sidestepped the broader question of whether state bans violated the Constitution, but allowed gay marriage in California.
The momentum within America’s courts in favor of gay marriage reflects a sea-change in public opinion in the past decade, with polls showing a steady increase in support. It was only as recently as 2004 that Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay marriage following a state court ruling.
State officials defending their bans say the Constitution does not dictate how states should define marriage and that there is no deeply rooted legal tradition that supports a right to gay marriage.
When the nine justices ascended their mahogany bench at 10 a.m., they betrayed no concern for the possible uncertainty or confusion arising from their orders rejecting the same-sex marriage cases. Proceeding with the usual practice, Chief Justice John Roberts announced only that “orders have been duly entered and certified” and were on file with the clerk’s office.
The justices then heard an hour of arguments in a case involving a police search.
Unless you are a police officer you probably haven’t heard of the Reid Interrogation Technique. I don’t want to re-invent the wheel, so instead of trying to explain what exactly this technique is, I’ll simply direct you to the Wikipedia page – which gives a pretty good explanation:
“In the Reid technique, interrogation is an accusatory process in which the investigator tells the suspect that there is no doubt as to his or her guilt.” Further, during the interrogation, the cop (or interrogator) repeatedly tries to separate the accused from “people who are even worse” and tries to minimize the alleged conduct of the accused. For example, if the allegation is that the accused raped someone, the interrogator will repeatedly tell the accused that he believes the accused is not a serial rapist, but only someone that did it one time and therefore it’s not that bad.
The interrogation itself can last for several hours, and the goal is simple: To wear the person down and get them to confess.
But herein lies the problem.
If I told you that you murdered someone, of course you would adamantly deny it, because it’s simply not true. But if I kept you in a room, and told you that there were witnesses, and that I knew for a fact you have murdered someone, and I gave you explicit details about how you had done it, and I sympathized with you (“well, the person you murdered was a horrible person”), and I promised leniency (“if it was only one time, the prosecutor will go easy on you,” and “we won’t let the details go outside this office”), and I kept you there for hours – repeatedly telling you that I know you did it, and I told you that this interrogation would stop as soon as you admitted what you had done, you may eventually admit to something that you HADN’T ACTUALLY DONE just to make the interrogation stop.
Right now you may be thinking, “but I would never admit to something that I hadn’t done.” Yet, the fact of the matter is that people do. The Technique plays with your mind, alters your sense of what is right and wrong, repeatedly accuses you of something, wears you down, and eventually convinces you that you are guilty; that you actually did do what the police are accusing you of having done.
This is the Reid Technique.
The problem is that we know that the Reid Technique has produced numerous false confessions. There are many, many cases where a person confessed, and later the confession was found to be false. If you want to read a very good article about some of these false-confession cases, click here —> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/the-interview-7
In fact, the use of the Reid Technique has been banned in several countries because it routinely produces false confessions. “In Canada, a Provincial Court judge ruled in 2012 that “stripped to its bare essentials, the Reid Technique is a guilt-presumptive, confrontational, psychologically manipulative procedure whose purpose is to extract a confession.” This is scary stuff!
Neil and I, and another attorney – Shannon Smith, began the defense of a case a few months ago in which the Reid Technique was utilized by local police. After doing a lot of research, we believe that the police officer improperly utilized the Technique and that his improper use resulted in a false confession. Now we have to prove it.
LANSING — Medical marijuana dispensaries took another step toward returning to Michigan after a Senate committee sent two bills to the floor, but the Senate’s majority leader says the bills still need work.
Sen. Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) said bills to add marijuana-laced foods to the definition of “medical marijuana” and for dispensaries to re-open could receive votes as soon as next month.
“We’re not going to move any bills until we’re ready,” Richardville said. “I think there will be a significant amount of work done between now and then.”
One proposal, House Bill 5104, would expand the state’s definition of “marijuana-infused product” to include beverages and food items that contain the drug’s active ingredient, although foods containing the drug would be exempted from the state’s food laws.
The Michigan Supreme Court held last year that “pot brownies” and other foods containing marijuana did not fall under the definition of “usable” marijuana in the voter-approved law.
The other bill approved by Richardville’s government operations committee would allow “provisioning centers” to sell marijuana to certified patients or caregivers, something not allowed under Michigan law as of now.
Cities and townships would have some authority to restrict where dispensaries could operate – restrictions Richardville supports.
“My concern has always been playgrounds and neighborhoods, and making sure there aren’t leakages into places where our vulnerable children live,” Richardville said. “That’s where my top concern is.”
Both bills have already passed the House, winning approval by wide, bipartisan margins last December.
In Michigan, under the Implied Consent law, if you have a driver’s license, you have consented to take a chemical breath or alcohol test if a police officer has reason to believe you are intoxicated and has asked you to take a test.
We recently had a client allegedly refuse to give a breath test when asked and as a result she was charged with an Implied Consent Violation. The penalty for such a violation is suspension of the person’s driver’s license for a period of 6 months to 1 year. In an effort to prevent that suspension, we filed an appeal with the Secretary of State and asked for a hearing. At the hearing, it is the People’s burden to prove that the defendant understood her chemical test rights, refused that chemical test despite knowing the penalties, and was afforded a chance to speak with a lawyer prior to consenting (if it was requested).
At this latest hearing, Neil Rockind was able to demonstrate to the Secretary of State hearing officer that our client had asked for a lawyer several times prior to taking the test and was prevented from speaking with a lawyer. That was enough to vitiate the alleged implied consent violation.
Therefore, the hearing officer DISMISSED the alleged violation!