Nashville Criminal Lawyers

SCENE QUOTES FLANAGAN

The May 4, 2005 Nashville Scene
newspaper examines the use of
confidential informants in sex stings.
     The article focuses on attorney
Michael Flanagan's clients who
were videotaped in flagrante delicto.
Flanagan's clients received favorable
treatment because Flanagan promi-
ised to make an issue of police
misconduct if the case went to trial.
     According to the article, Flana-
gan's clients "got the last laugh."
Read article.

JUDGE CALLS COP LIAR

In United States v. Martinez & Rivera, No. 1-04-
00018, Federal Judge Thomas Higgins found
that Drug Task Force Agent Darryl Shane
Fisher “plainly lied” about the circumstances
of a vehicle stop on I-40 in Hickman County,
Tennessee on July 30, 2004.
The 21st Judicial Drug Task Force comprises
Hickman, Lewis, Perry and Williamson counties
and is based in Franklin, Tennessee.

Judge Higgins found that Fisher had
manufactured a reason to stop the Hispanic
women traveling from Texas in a pickup truck.
Apparently, Agent Fisher had profiled the Hispanic
women driving a vehicle with Texas plates and
determined to stop and search the vehicle.
Fisher's tactics involved a technique of vehicular
intimidation called "doing the drive."
In the 29 page opinion, Judge Higgins writes:
"The Court has had two occasions . . . to observe
the appearance ad demeanor of Agent Fisher and
is convinced that he is not worthy of belief . . . .
The Court is also convinced Agent Fisher
fabricated this story to justify the stop."
Judge Higgins observed that he was not the first
Federal Judge to find that Agent Fisher had a
propensity for fibbing under oath:
"The Court notes that Agent Fisher’s
credibility has been questioned by at least
one other court in this district. In United States
v. Walton, No. 1:03-00014 (M.D. Tenn. 004) . . .
Honorable Robert L. Echols did not credit
Agent Fisher’s testimony."

NEW TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT DECISION

On April 15, 2005, the Tennessee Supreme Court
held that the Tennessee Sentencing Reform Act of
1989 “authorizes a discretionary, non-mandatory
sentencing procedure and requires trial judges to
consider the principles of sentencing and to engage
in a qualitative analysis of enhancement and
mitigating factors.
The Reform Act does not include a formula, a grid, or
any other mechanical process. It instead sets out
broad sentencing principles, enhancement and
mitigating factors, and a pre-sumptive sentence, all
of which serve to guide trial judges in exercising their
discretion to select an appropriate sentence within
the range set by the Legislature.
Under the Reform Act, the finding of an
enhancement factor does not mandate an
increased sentence.” Read State v. Gomez and
Londono.
Justice Birch joined Justice E. Riley Anderson in a
compellingly well-reasoned dissent. Read dissent.
The majority opinion also found harmless error on a
violation of the confrontation clause noting that the
United States Supreme Court's decision in Crawford
v. Washington,124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004) held that
“testimonial” out-of-court statements by a
nontestifying declarant may be admitted only if
the declarant is unavailable to testify and the
defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-
examine the declarant. Crawford, 124 S. Ct. at
1374. (from State v. Gomez majority opinion, p.7).