Attorney Glenn Roderman was recently interviewed by ABC’s WPBF 25 News regarding the 20-year-old Tzvi Allswang accused of kidnapping and sexual assault.

Glenn previously represented a 15-year-old who accused then 16-year-old Allswang of sexual assault.

“It was an isolated incident, we thought,” Roderman said.

In the United States, drug trafficking is the unlawful cultivation, distribution, or possession of controlled substances. The federal laws clearly state that it is illegal to cultivate, manufacture, sell, dispense, or possess controlled substances.

However, every state has its drug trafficking laws that may be confusing. If you are facing drug trafficking charges in Florida—contact Glenn R. Roderman, P.A., to get help from drug crime lawyers Fort Lauderdale.

Elements of Drug Trafficking

You will get arrested and convicted of drug trafficking in Florida if the state proves the following elements against you beyond a reasonable doubt:

• You knowingly and intentionally sold, manufactured, delivered, or possessed a certain amount of controlled substances. The type and amount of drug will determine the severity of the charges and the penalties you may face. For instance, if caught with 28 grams or more of cocaine, it is already drug trafficking.

• You had the intention to sell or deliver the controlled substances. The prosecutors will examine various factors, such as whether you had large sums of cash, multiple prepaid phones, and a firearm, to prove that you intended to sell the drugs.

• The controlled substances were in a particular form. The form can be either raw, meaning it is yet for processing, or in its final forms, such as pills or powder.

What Amount of Drugs is Considered Drug Trafficking?

The number of controlled substances you have when caught will also affect how they prosecute you in your case. But what amount of drugs is considered trafficking?

In Florida, the amount of drugs necessary for a trafficking charge is as follows:

• Cocaine- At least 28 grams of cocaine
• Oxycodone- At least 4 grams
• Hydrocodone- At least 4 grams
• Morphine- At least 4 grams
• Opium- At least 4 grams
• Phencyclidine- At least 28 grams
• Methaqualone- At least 200 grams
• Amphetamine- At least 14 grams
• Flunitrazepam- At least 4 grams
• Gamma-hydroxybutyric Acid (GHB- date rape drug)- At least 1 kilogram
• Lysergic Acid (LSD)- At least 1 gram

If they catch you with these amounts of drugs, you will be facing a first-degree felony charge, which is punishable by a prison sentence, a hefty fine, or both.

Causes of Drug Trafficking Charges

There are many different ways that a person can get charged with drug trafficking. Some of the most common ways are:

• Caught with a large amount of cash but no legitimate source of income
• Caught with numerous drugs and paraphernalia, such as scales and baggies
• Caught with drugs in your car or house
• Caught selling drugs to undercover police officers
• Saw manufacturing drugs in a “drug lab.”

In some cases, a person faces charges of drug trafficking even if not caught with a large number of drugs. For instance, you can still face charges if the police find drugs in your car or house, even if the drugs do not belong to you.

Penalties for Drug Trafficking Convictions

The penalties for drug trafficking cases in Florida depend on the type and amount of drug involved in the offense.

For instance, if convicted of trafficking cocaine, you will face the following penalties:

• 28g or more but less than 400g – 3-year mandatory minimum prison sentence and a $50,000 fine
• 200g or more but below 400g- 7-year mandatory minimum prison sentence and a $100,000 fine
• 400g or more – 15-year mandatory minimum prison sentence and a $250,000 fine

Each drug has different penalties associated with it, and the amount of the drug will also affect the sentence. In addition to prison time and fines, a person convicted of drug trafficking will also have their driver’s license suspended for two years. A conviction will also go on your criminal record, making it difficult to find a job or housing in the future.

How Can an Attorney Help?

Drug trafficking is a serious offense that can result in severe penalties, including prison time and significant fines. If you or someone you know have a drug trafficking case, it is crucial to contact a felony drug trafficking attorney as soon as possible.

Drug crime lawyers Fort Lauderdale can help you by investigating the facts of your case and looking for any holes in the prosecution’s case against you.

Your lawyer will also negotiate with the prosecutor on your behalf and may be able to get the charges against you reduced or even dismissed. Some common defenses to drug trafficking charges include:

• The drugs did not belong to you
• You were not aware that the drugs were in your possession
• The police conducted an illegal search and seizure
• The number of drugs was not enough to consider drug trafficking

Do not try to defend yourself if you have a drug trafficking charge. Drug trafficking charges are the most severe narcotics offenses you can have, and you will need an experienced attorney to help you through the process.

Call us today and have a free consultation.

Glenn R. Roderman’s recently-completed video series, The Spoken Law, reached more than 20,000 visitors on Facebook after being posted on Glenn’s Facebook page during August and September. The 14-part series was recorded in Glenn’s Fort Lauderdale law offices in late July and edited into the 14 shorts. The first videos, which discussed criminal defense strategy, case law, criminal procedures and trials, went online July 28.

The videos feature Glenn being interviewed by AP Award-winning journalist Danny Pryor, a former reporter for Miami’s Newsradio 610 WIOD and a CBS Radio freelancer. The interview lasted nearly an hour and featured frank discussions about the history of crime, criminal defense, personal liberties, prosecution strategy, the personalities of judges and the tragic circumstances of people in and out of jails in South Florida and across the United States.

“I love once I get in a trial, [and] I say, ‘Okay, fine. Now you’ve pushed my buttons. Now we’re going to see who’s got what.”

The very first video, When To Go To Trial, kicked off the series. Glenn was very direct about when he recommends a client take his case to trial, which he admits is not always recommended. “Well obviously you make that decision knowing the state’s offer is just unreasonable; it’s just unacceptable,” Glenn said.

Recommending a trial to a client, Glenn said, is often going to bring up a plethora of feelings for the defendant. “I’ve never yet seen a person who was not highly emotional and sensitive about a trial,” he said. “It’s a big risk. It’s like going to surgery for someone that’s got a medical problem.”

Risky or not, Glenn, in Part IX of the series, said he never shies away from an opportunity to tear down a prosecution case. “I love once I get in a trial, [and] I say, ‘Okay, fine. Now you’ve pushed my buttons. Now we’re going to see who’s got what,” he said.

The entire video series is currently being adapted for Glenn Roderman’s YouTube channel and is also being added to this website, and may be accessed starting during October under the Video & Media tab.

Briefly About Glenn R. Roderman

Glenn Roderman has been a practicing attorney in Florida for over 40 years. He began his career as a Florida State Attorney and later became a defense attorney, defending clients charged under organized crime statutes. He has successfully defended thousands of clients and crime victims, and he is considered one of the most experienced criminal defense lawyers in South Florida.

When is an IQ low enough for a person to be considered mentally retarded?

The United States Supreme Court made a decision in October 2013 to revisit a 2002 ruling in which the justices decided it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who had been determined to be mentally retarded or affected by a low intelligence quotient, also known as IQ. The justices’ 2002 ruling, in a benchmark case entitled Atkins v. Virginia, was that it is, indeed, cruel and unusual to execute someone who was mentally retarded. What the justices did not do in their 2002 ruling is set a standard of what constitutes a low IQ. That left the individual states to set their own levels.

The current dispute centers around a man named Freddie Lee Hall, who was convicted in 1978 of murdering a pregnant woman and a Florida sheriff’s deputy. He was sentenced to death, but resentenced in 1992. At the time of resentencing, his death penalty sentence was upheld, even though he was found to be “mentally retarded.” But a person can be mentally retarded without necessarily having a low IQ, at least by the standards defined by some states’ laws, including Florida.

The “Bright Line” Cutoff Number Is In Dispute

The state of Florida uses an IQ of 70 as the threshold for someone with a low IQ. In other words, if you have an IQ of 70 or lower, you may not be sentenced to death. If the IQ is 71 or higher, then, according to Florida laws passed after the Atkins case, an execution is permissable punishment in capital cases.

Using that rationale, The State’s Supreme Court upheld Hall’s death sentence in December 2012, five days before Christmas. The ruling, affirming the death sentence, prompted Hall’s attorney, Eric Pinkard, to file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. Part of Mr. Pinkard’s brief focuses on the fact that his client, Mr. Hall, has had several IQ tests showing his score to be as low as 60, while a more recent test, administered in 2009, showed his IQ to be 71.

It is well known that an IQ may, in fact, increase or decrease by several points over the course of a lifetime, a fact that Mr. Pinkard says has caused confusion within the courts about the proper definition of mental retardation. But in the Hall case, the other element of confusion is that a person can be ruled by the courts to be “mentally retarded” and still be executed if their IQ is too high. Mr. Pinkard wrote this in his brief, quoting two justices who dissented from the majority opinion.

“The situation present in Florida, in which the Legislature has established a bright-line cutoff score that this Court has upheld, now creates a significant risk that a defendant who has once been found to be mentally retarded may still be executed.” ~ Florida Supreme Court Justice Jorge Labarga

By imposing the “bright line” score of 70 as the cutoff for mental retardation, Mr. Pinkard, as well as the dissenting justices on Florida’s Supreme Court, say the new state law fails to properly address the severe mental and emotional conditions that could prevent someone from understanding the criminal nature of their conduct. This is particularly true, in the Hall case, they argue.

Florida Justices Labarga and Perry Dissent

One of those dissenting justices, James E.C. Perry, wrote, “If the bar against executing the mentally retarded is to mean anything, Freddie Lee Hall cannot be executed. I do not disagree with my esteemed colleagues that … our case law provide that a defendant establish an IQ below 70 to be ineligible to be executed, but that statute as applied here reaches an absurd result.

“The current interpretation of the statutory scheme will lead to the execution of a retarded man in this case. Hall had been found by the courts to be mentally retarded before the statute was adopted. Once the statute is applied, Hall morphs from someone who has been ‘mentally retarded his entire life’ to someone who is statutorily barred from attempting to demonstrate concurrent deficits in adaptive functioning to establish retardation.”

The nuances of the Hall case are extremely complex, and Mr. Pinkard’s brief to the U.S. Supreme Court meticulously details the variety of issues that have made this case a difficult one to settle at the state level. That is part of the reason the U.S. high court has agreed to hear the case. However, it is not clear whether the highest court in the land will rule on the issues of the so-called “bright line” litmus test or simply rule on the Hall case, alone.

Supreme Court Ruling May Impact Other States’ “Bright Line” Thresholds

If the court rules only on the Hall case, it will be making a final ruling on the application of the term “mental retardation” to a single defendant. If, on the other hand, the court determines a “bright line” test to be invalid, it will have an impact across the nation and further refine the Atkins v. Virginia ruling.

Brian Kammer, a Georgia-based attorney who has represented low-IQ defendants on death row, told USA Today the case has the potential to rewrite many states’ laws that establish a cutoff line for mental retardation. “To the extent [a Supreme Court ruling] deals with a state’s prerogative to define “mental retardation” a certain way, it would very likely have applicability to other states … in setting limits on that prerogative,” he said.

Currently, the oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court are set for March 2014. The Supreme Court case may be followed on the SCOTUS docket page for this case as well as the SCOTUS Blog page entry for Hall’s case.

Too Fast A Resolution To Your Criminal Case Could Cost You Long Term

With literally decades of legal experience under his belt, starting in the early 1970’s, attorney Glenn R. Roderman has seen his share of cases get resolved by plea bargains with prosecutors. Sometimes, taking a plea can be the best answer to resolving a case quickly and efficiently, and this is particularly true if there are circumstances making it difficult to mount an effective defense. You can watch videos of Mr. Roderman discussing the pros and cons of trials.

Behind Bars, The Pressure Is Great To Get Out Of Jail

Certainly, when one is sitting in a jail cell awaiting a court date, there is immense appeal to being released sooner rather than later. Taking a plea bargain to get out of jail, however, is a mistake. First, considering the facts of your case is a critical measure of whether you are being man-handled by the prosecution. It is no secret that prosecutors will sometimes stack charges in their information filings in order to impel the accused into making a rash decision. This type of prosecutorial coersion has been met with great success by states’ attorneys and districts’ attorneys nationwide. It is not unique to Florida.

What results, in many cases, however, is that one will cop to a plea for a crime he did not commit, only because it will result in his release from jail more quickly. If the case is resolved by plea, and the conviction is for a felony charge, a slew of new issues now comes into play. Considering these issues and their long-term impact on your life is critical to avoiding a plea bargain trap. But, how do you know when such a trap is laid?

Viewing your situatation from a long-term perspective will help put your current circumstances in their proper place. You can only do this when you have competent legal representation, and that does not mean taking the advice of fellow inmates or friends and relatives.

Know Your Real Options By Discussing Your Case With An Attorney

First, you should consult with a qualified legal advocate or representative. This means you need to lawyer up, period! A qualified criminal attorney, like Glenn R. Roderman, will be able to assess the state’s case against you, explain your options and help you determine the proper course to resolve your criminal case. Viewing your situatation from a long-term perspective will help put your current circumstances in their proper place. You can only do this when you have competent legal representation, and that does not mean taking the advice of fellow inmates or friends and relatives.

What Changes With A Bad Plea?

Taking a plea bargain, especially when there are other options available, will impact your life in myriad ways. In many states, copping a plea or otherwise being convicted of a felony will result in a permanent loss of your civil rights. This is hardly a bargain, long term, particularly when you may have a far better option. One of those civil rights is the right to vote, one of our most precious gifts in the United States. Florida, among a host of other states, permanently revokes your right to vote when you are convicted of a felony. In fact, only two states permit felons to vote, even while behind bars, as you can read in a chart on ProCon.org.

Something else that happens is that you become registered as a convicted felon, a moniker that will forever follow you, regardless of the state in which you find yourself. This has a tremendous impact on the kind of jobs you can take, whether you will qualify for certain government-backed loans, whether you can ever be bonded or licensed, among a plethora of other negative consequences.

The damage of a felony conviction simply can not be understated. Given that we are fortunate to live in the United States, opportunity to restart one’s life always abound. However, needlessly adding new legal barriers to your happiness and success can often be avoided, particularly if you heed the sound advice of a good attorney.

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments March 3 in the case of a Florida man who was convicted in 1978 of killing a pregnant woman and a sheriff’s deputy. We first wrote of the case in December.

The case involves Freddie Lee Hall, who had been found mentally retarded but still sentenced to death. The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute someone who is mentally retarded, but the justices did not issue a ruling about what actually makes a person mentally retarded. That meant the states had to set their own standard. In Florida, the legislature decided that anyone with an I.Q. of 70 or lower would be considered retarded. Other states have their own standards.

Fort Lauderdale defense attorney Glenn Roderman said, “In the Hall v. Florida case, the U.S. Supreme Court is again addressing the death penalty in murder cases as it applies to the condemned, ‘mentally retarded,’ with hopefully a uniform standard that can be applied by all states in the same way. States like Florida, Georgia and Texas are going to have to be restricted in how they define ‘mental retardation’ in these types of capital cases.”

The reason the Hall v. Florida case has ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court is that Hall, himself, had been ruled in 1992 to be mentally retarded, long before the state of Florida passed a law that set the so-called “bright line” cutoff for the I.Q. Florida’s Supreme Court refused to vacate the death sentence in Hall’s case, despite the conflict. That resulted in the appeal to the U.S. high court.

There were those on the Florida Supreme Court who disagreed with the majority ruling, however. Justice James E.C. Perry was one of those. He wrote, “The current interpretation of the statutory scheme will lead to the execution of a retarded man in this case. Hall had been found by the courts to be mentally retarded before the statute was adopted. Once the statute is applied, Hall morphs from someone who has been ‘mentally retarded his entire life’ to someone who is statutorily barred from attempting to demonstrate concurrent deficits in adaptive functioning to establish retardation.”

Mr. Roderman, who has represented defendants accused of capital crimes, said he thinks it is time for the court to resolve this issue once and for all. “I sincerely believe the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is crying out for the right answer: ‘No Death to the Mentally Retarded’,” he said.

The Supreme Court released the audio and transcripts of the March 3 hearing on Friday, March 7, during the court’s regular weekly website update. The transcript and audio may be viewed and heard at the SCOTUS website.

Editor’s note: this page has been updated to reflect the week-ending updates from the Supreme Court docket. Updated March 10, 2014.

Dershowitz on the Defense

Fresh from Sunday’s New York Times – an intriguing piece with Alan Dershowitz the centerpiece.

One of the most noted criminal defense attorneys makes for an excellent feature story.

Be sure to click on the TIMELINE feature, too, chronicling Dershowitz’s career over 5 decades.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/business/alan-dershowitz-on-the-defense-his-own.html?_r=0

FATHER OF MISSING PLANTATION TEEN OUT OF JAIL

Bruce Jorgensen was arrested on January 28, 2016, at the Miami International Airport for the offense of desertion of a child and held on $1 million dollars bond with multiple conditions, i.e., electronic ankle monitor, daily report to Pre-Trial Services, fully collateralize bond, and surrender passport. Upon my office’s investigation and presentation of evidence to the Court and the state prosecutor contradicting every allegation of the Plantation Police Department, Mr. Jorgensen’s bond was reduced to $5,000. On March 1, 2016, the Broward County State Attorney’s Office declined to file any criminal charges against Mr. Jorgensen based on evidence presented. Aage Jorgensen is still missing. His father has set up an email address for people to email tips with information about Aage – [email protected]. He is also offering a reward of $5,000 for information that leads to Aage’s whereabouts.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/crime/fl-plantation-missing-teen-dad-arrest-20160205-story.html

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/02/24/father-out-of-jail-plantation-teen-still-missing/

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/plantation/fl-jorgensen-child-desertion-charge-dropped-20160301-story.html