Matthews Bark|”Utah Criminal Defense Attorney Salt Lake City”

Source                :    arnoldwadsworth.com
Category            :   Matthews Bark
By                         :   arnoldwadsworth
Posted By          :   Contact the Attorney

Drug Defense Attorney
Drug Defense Attorney

The criminal defense lawyers in the Salt Lake City office of Arnold & Wadsworth will aggressively represent you and your constitutional rights throughout the court process. The lawyers at Arnold & Wadsworth continually are researching the latest criminal defense decisions and attending criminal defense CLE classes in order to properly represent our clients. The criminal defense lawyers at Arnold & Wadsworth are members of the Utah Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. This group provides valuable insight into criminal defense. The criminal defense lawyers at Arnold & Wadsworth offer a free consultation in order to give you our professional opinion as to how we would handle your specific case. Call today to meet in one of our offices for your free consultation.McNeil told Quentin about the falling out, and Quentin began following Allen home from work. About a month later, Allen was returning to his residence when he noticed but did not recognize Quentin in the parking lot. As Allen opened his apartment door, Quentin approached and asked to use Allen’s phone. He then shoved Allen into the apartment and shut the door. Quentin attacked Allen with a knife and with his hands. He broke Allen’s nose and knocked out eight teeth. In the course of the attack, Quentin claimed that Allen’s daughter and Allen’s daughter’s husband owed him a $10,000 drug debt and demanded the money. When Allen denied having any money in the apartment, Quentin stated, “I know you don’t trust banks.” Quentin then ransacked a jewelry box belonging to Allen’s girlfriend.

A lot of the issues that were involved in the appeal included statements involving the hearsay rule. There was testimony from an officer at an earlier hearing for which the court stated there was an opportunity by opposing counsel to cross examine him and therefore not hearsay.“This is not hearsay. It’s a sworn statement under oath recorded, subject to cross examination. If the statement did contain hearsay, we would obviously redact that. Both sides at this time are stipulating that in fact it doesn’t. [Defense counsel] is objecting on different terms than hearsay terms; therefore we will say [the parties] are stipulating to the fact that it’s not hearsay.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s