Seattle Criminal Defense Law Blog

Burglary. Purse snatching. Manufacturing meth. Marijuana possession, of a certain amount. These are all examples of crimes that some states consider violent. Others include possessing a precursor chemical with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, aiding in an attempted suicide, and trafficking in a stolen identity.

Most people wouldn't consider any of those offenses to be violent. Yet state statutes around the country do, and they punish people more severely when they have committed a so-called violent crime. When a crime is considered violent, a conviction can get you labeled a violent offender. That often means a significantly longer sentence -- even a three-strikes sentence.

While other types of evidence and forensic science are increasingly being challenged as unreliable, DNA analysis is the notable exception. It is usually considered the gold standard in the criminal justice arena, especially in prosecutions of violent crimes and sex offenses. And DNA evidence has been used to both convict and exonerate countless individuals.

While the science of DNA analysis stands up to scrutiny, a DNA match does not automatically convey guilt. This is because the way that DNA is collected and stored is highly important, and tainted evidence can implicate the wrong person. Additionally, a recent study has found that the transfer of DNA is more common than we think, and our DNA can end up on objects we’ve never touched.

Andre Haymond of Oklahoma was convicted in federal court of possessing child pornography in 2010. As part of his sentence, he was placed on supervised release for 10 years. When he was accused of violating his supervised release, he was ordered to serve an additional 5 years in prison -- longer than his original term of incarceration. Now, he is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that he should have received a jury trial before being sentenced to the additional five years.

Federal supervised release is different from state parole or probation. In parole or probation, the defendant is given the chance to serve part of their incarceration sentence in the community under certain conditions. If they violate those conditions, they are returned to serve the remainder of their sentence behind bars.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and the Washington State Constitution) protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled time and again that a person's home, in particular, deserves heightened protection.

Home searches generally require judicially authorized warrants. Further, judges should only authorize such warrants when they are fully confident that the probable cause standard was met.