2. (Mark Giancola)- Steele county.Clients statements suppressed in major drug case.

3. (Mark Giancola)- Anoka County, Domestic assault case, discussed on day of trial

Case Name: State v. Ryks

County: Washington

Charges: Felony Aiding an Offender

Hearing Type: Contested Omnibus Hearing

Outcome: After reviewing all of the police reports, I really felt that the facts didn’t support the charges. So we challenged probable cause, wrote a length brief, and argued orally at the hearing. The judge agreed and dismissed the case.

Case Name: J.A. v. One 2002 Cadillac

County: Anoka

Charges: DWI & Forfeiture of Vehicle

Outcome: In this case, the client’s vehicle was forfeited and he was charged with second degree DWI. However, a careful investigation revealed that an out of state conviction for a minor misdemeanor was incorrectly coded and then sent to Minnesota as a prior DWI. When all was said and done, the client’s driving record was corrected in all relevant states, his vehicle was returned, and the charges were reduced.

Case Name:  State v. XXXX

County: Ramsey

Charges: Leaving the Scene of an Accident

Hearing Type: Pretrail

Outcome: Client had serious medical issue. When extensive medical records were shown to prosecutor, the case was dismissed. The interests of justice were clearly served.

Case Name: XX v. Commissioner of Public Safety

County: Sherburne

Charges: Driver’s License Revocation

Hearing Type: Implied Consent Hearing

Outcome: At this hearing, the officer failed to show. As a result, the revocation was rescinded, and the Petitioner driving privileges were reinstated. This case shows that at the very least, one should always challenge the driver’s license revocation in a Minnesota DWI proceeding.

Prosecutors, however, say his activities were not related to his profession and that he broke the law.

Because South Dakota law provides immunity for lawyers who possess child pornography in the course of their official duties, Judge John Simko never should have signed the July search warrant for Flynn’s office, his attorneys argued Monday.

Flynn, 61, is facing federal prison time on charges of possessing child pornography, but attorney Rory Durkin asked Judge Simko to throw the case out.

“If we let the government move forward with this, attorneys will be afraid to defend people,” Durkin said.

At issue is the legality of sharing of the material, prosecutor Richard Newberry argued, not whether the person sharing it was doing so for a client.

The judge wanted an explanation as to why Flynn would need to keep pornography on his office computer.

“He’s not charged with talking (to a client), he’s charged with possessing and distributing,” Simko said.

Durkin spoke of a client he’s defending against statutory rape charges in Minnesota. Both his client and the victim are underage, but the victim claims the sex acts were not consensual.

The client e-mailed Durkin a cell phone video of the incident in which the victim allegedly consents to the acts.

“I needed that tape to prove it was consensual, but it is child pornography,” he said.

Also, he said, a wife sometimes will bring a divorce lawyer questionable material taken from her husband’s computer.

Durkin told Simko that at least one of the images Flynn shared on the peer-to-peer program Limewire was obtained after a trucker called him to ask about the legality of the image.

Limewire users share photos, music and movies stored on their home computers.

That means other users could obtain photos on Flynn’s computer using the file-sharing program.

“Anyone, anywhere is the whole world, through the Internet, could gain access to that child porn,” Newberry said.

Investigators should have found out whether Flynn was defending any sex cases before asking the judge to authorize the search warrant, he said.

Simko then asked whether Flynn was defending any clients when the search was authorized.

“I don’t know,” Durkin said. “We don’t need to know that he had a child porn case. We know that he may have been, and the government should have told you that.”

Investigators with the Internet Crimes Against Children task force seized Flynn’s computer because they had traced the images being shared to a computer in his office.

If Flynn were using the file-sharing program only to help clients, Newberry said, he should be able to prove it to a jury.

“The things he was doing were not merely related to his profession as a lawyer,” Newberry said.

Simko will issue a written ruling at a later date on the defense’s motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the case.

Report taken from The Argus Leader 3-09-2010