Defining confidentiality

I represent a young man charged with a violent, serious offense. The offense carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. Additionally, there is a mandatory minimum punishment of several years upon conviction.

I have met my client at the county jail several times to discuss his case and keep him updated on my progress, which includes investigating the alleged victim's background, observations, and biases. I reminded the client that I was required to tell him both the good and the bad news about his case so he can make an informed decision how he wants to proceed.

Shortly thereafter, I received a call from his mother, who was very upset that I haven't shared details of the case with her. I explained that my communications with my client were strictly confidential, and I was not obligated to tell ANYONE, even the client's mother, what we discussed or our case strategies.

While she was understandably upset, I remained loyal to my client's interests, and refused to reveal anything that I discussed with my client.

Quoted in Orlando Sentinel

I was quoted in today's Orlando Sentinel regarding justifiable use of deadly force. The issue was whether a person can shoot someone who has broken into their home or business. I explained that, pursuant to Florida Statutes, an individual is justified in using deadly force in their home if they reasonably believe that they are about to be injured or killed by the burglar. Moreover, even if the police and prosecutors felt that you didn't have the right to kill the intruder, you will likey face a very sympathetic jury, as any homeowner will understand your circumstances and likely find you not guilty.

Orlando Criminal Lawyer Shane Fischer

Judge denies Defendant's Motion to Terminate Jurisdiction

(See previous post for procedural history)

In State v. A.S. I filed a Motion to Terminate Jurisdiction, arguing that Fla. Stat. 985.0301(5)(a) gives the Court jurisdiction over a Child only until their 19th birthday. In this case, since the Child recently turned 19, the Court was without jurisdiction to amend the Child's previous sentence.

The prosecutor argued that Fla. Stat. 985.0301(5)(c) was the subsection giving the court jurisdiction until the Child turns 21, because subsectin (5)(a) provides for jurisdiction over a juvenile who is alleged to have commmitted a delinquent act only until 19, but once they have been adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Dept. of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) the court has jurisdiction until the Child is 21.

In this case, since A.S. was adjudicated delinquent while he was still 18, the Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over him until 21, or until discharged by DJJ. Rather than granting the State's Motion to Extend Jurisdiction, the Court simply clarified their existing Order that the Child was subject to the court's jurisdiciton until A.S.'s 21st birthday or until he was discharged by DJJ. The court cited M.A. v. State, 959 So. 2d 380 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2007) as precedent.

Orlando Criminal Lawyer