Alaska Criminal Defense Legal Questions

It is normally not appropriate to predict possible outcomes on cases based on some generic information on the Internet especially not knowing how much merchandise was allegedly stolen and not knowing which juvenile court the case is filed in. Email transmissions to clients of this office presumably contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. The use, distribution, transmittal or re-transmittal by any unintended recipient of any communication is prohibited without our express approval in writing or by email.... Read Answer

While police often use audio and video to record a controlled purchase of drugs, it is not a requirement. In a controlled buy, the police typically use an informant to set up a drug purchase. They may ask the informant for permission to record a telephone call with the seller setting up the transaction. In many states, recording of conversations is allowed without a wiretap order if one party consents to the call. Just before the transaction is scheduled to take place, police will often meet with the informant to search him or her for drugs and money. They may outfit the informant with a recording device. The informant then conducts the transaction. Usually, he or she will meet with police immediately after the deal to turn over the purchased drugs and any recording that was made. By recording events and searching the informant before the transaction, the prosecution builds a tighter case against the defendant charged with selling the drugs. However, since circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence, it is possible for the prosecution to go to trial without audio or video and rely instead on the testimony of the informant (and possibly the police officer who directed his actions). It would then be up to the jury to decide if the informant, and/or police officer is a credible witnesses and whether they have been persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the sale took place.... Read Answer

Since 1996, nine states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington - have passed laws providing that patients who use marijuana under their doctor's supervision will not be prosecuted under state laws. To date, federal officials have not challenged the legality of any of those measures. Nor has the federal government successfully prosecuted any doctors for prescribing marijuana to their patients. One federal court has said a physician's right to discuss marijuana therapy with a patient is constitutionally protected. However, there is no lawful way to distribute or fill a prescription for marijuana. The Supreme Court last week heard arguments in a case which will decide whether medical marijuana distributors may use a "medical necessity" defense in federal court if they can prove that their clients are seriously ill and have a legitimate medical need for the substance. It is not expected that the laws allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes will be overturned. But until the government also allows someone to provide that marijuana, the benefits the laws were meant to convey may be largely illusory.... Read Answer