Contact Us

If you need legal advice, please call us at 404-590-7967 or send us a message using the form to the right. 

Submitting information through this form does NOT establish an attorney-client relationship with the attorneys of Strickland Webster, LLC.  Please do not send confidential or important information through this form.  

115 Martin Luther King Junior Drive Northwest
Atlanta, GA 30303
United States

404-590-7967

Strickland Webster, LLC is a law firm that represents people that are charged with crimes or that have already been convicted, people that need help obtaining legal immigration status in the United States, and people who want to challenge a bad decision by a lower court or administrative body, such as the Board of Immigration Appeals.  We also offer services to other attorneys who need help with legal research and writing.

Blog

New Additions

Strickland Webster

We’re thrilled to announce that Lynn Fant Merritt and Dean Daskal are joining Strickland Webster, LLC.  Both are serving as Of Counsel.  With their experience, our firm now has a combined 80 years of experience to serve our clients.  Lynn has been an active criminal defense attorney for nearly 30 years, while Dean has worked as a civil litigator, a federal prosecutor, and a supervisor at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals over his 39-year career.  We’re confident that, with these additions to the firm, we will be even better equipped to represent our clients through the most challenging times in their lives.  Please call 404-590-7967 for a consultation.

 

 

lynn.jpg

Lynn Fant Merritt

Lynn has spent nearly three decades committed to defending those accused of crimes.  Lynn started her career at the Federal Defender Program in Atlanta, Georgia, where she was lead counsel in approximately 20 trials.  She has spent over 17 years in private practice, primarily representing clients as they appealed their convictions or sentences in federal court.  She has won numerous reversals for her clients in front of the Eleventh Circuit.  Well known for her post-conviction advocacy, Lynn has consulted with attorneys all over the country regarding all aspects of representation in federal court, especially sentencing and appeals. 

Lynn graduated cum laude from Georgia State University’s College of Law in 1989.  She obtained her B.A. from the University of West Georgia, where she majored in political science. 

Lynn lives in Temple, Georgia, with her husband, Gene.  They are avid gardeners, and have somehow become responsible for four bossy cats: Ella, Divo, Nora, and Dora.

dean.jpg

Dean Daskal

Dean has spent 39 years in the legal field, in a wide array of positions.  After becoming partner at Powell, Goldstein, Frazer, and Murphy and spending 17 years as a private civil attorney, Dean became an Assistant U.S. Attorney, where he prosecuted general crimes.  Eventually, Dean specialized in appeals at the U.S. Attorney’s Office and spent five years as the Appellate Coordinator.  Dean next served as a Supervisory Staff Attorney at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where he trained new staff attorneys in criminal law and supervised the preparation of legal memoranda for the court. 

Dean graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1978, and he obtained his B.A. from the University of Chicago in 1975. 

Dean lives in Atlanta, Georgia, with his wife, Becky, and their dog, Ossie.

The Myth of Overwhelming Evidence

Strickland Webster

Every time I see the phrase “overwhelming evidence,” anger starts to boil in my stomach.  Let me try to explain why.  You see, when an appellate court decides a criminal case, it means that, in 99% of cases, the defendant has argued that there were errors in the trial below.  The defendant has pointed out some reason why he (or she) had an unfair trial, such that either his conviction or his sentence should be undone.  If the court agrees with the defendant, then it generally means that the case goes back to the trial court, and it’s as if the first trial never happened. 

“Overwhelming evidence” comes into play when a court says that it doesn’t have to decide whether or not an error occurred because there was so much evidence that the error didn’t make a difference at trial.  That means that the court believes that, even if the error had not happened, the jury still would have convicted the client.  Saying that there is overwhelming evidence means that the court doesn’t have to make a decision about the error. 

The idea makes sense, at least in theory.  But as with all theories, it’s how the theory is implemented that shows the flaws in the idea.  Namely, the court can just say there was overwhelming evidence, even if there was, in fact, a total lack of evidence against the defendant.

I’ve been thinking about this infuriating phrase recently because the Supreme Court of Georgia just refused to decide three different issues in one of my cases, citing “overwhelming evidence.”  To be frank, there was barely evidence against my client; it certainly wasn’t overwhelming. 

My client is serving a life + 15 sentence in prison for a murder that he almost assuredly did not commit, so I am incredibly frustrated by the lengths that the court went to in order to affirm his convictions.  The case involved the murder of a tattoo shop owner, and the shooting of his employee.  My client went to trial, while his three codefendants pled guilty.  The court’s opinion is available here.

First, the Court stated that there was an in-court identification of my client by the surviving victim.  Let me tell you the facts surrounding that “identification,” and you can determine how valid it is for yourself.  Prior to trial, the surviving victim affirmatively identified my client’s co-defendant as the shooter from a photo lineup.  The victim affirmatively declined to identify my client as a participant, and he testified in open court that he could not identify anyone in that lineup because that lineup didn’t have anyone in it that shot him.  As in, he literally said that in court, to the judge and the jury. 

In court, when presented with the lineup with the codefendant, the victim stated that the person in the lineup (the codefendant) was the same as the person who was sitting at the defense table (my client).  This was obviously a mistake.  Even the prosecutor conceded in closing that the victim had not previously identified my client and had mistakenly identified him.  This is far from the positive identification that the court made it out to be.

 Next, my client’s three codefendants are on video mere minutes before the shooting in a restaurant next door to the tattoo shop.  My client is not located anywhere on the video.  In that video, the codefendant (the same one identified by the victim in the photo lineup) is wearing what the victim said the shooter was wearing—a red and black top. 

Of the five people located in the tattoo shop when the incident occurred, no one identified my client.  The surviving victim, who is 5’6”, testified that the shooter was four inches taller than he was, which would make the shooter about 5’10”.  My client is only 5’3”.  Another witness testified that the shooter was tall, but again, my client 5’3”.  And you guessed it: the codefendant identified by the victim is 6’3”.

The only other individuals who identified my client were his two codefendants, who benefitted significantly from testifying against him at trial.  Their stories about the entire day were in conflict with each other and with objective facts.  They were selling a TV for money, but their stories contradicted each other as to who got the TV, why they were selling it, and everything else.  One of them denied receiving a phone call from when he was in the shop, while phone records clearly show that he received the call.  The State even conceded in its closing argument that they had lied, yet their testimony was held up as evidence of my client’s guilt.

Obviously, none of these other factors made it into the Supreme Court’s opinion denying my client relief.  I’m so frustrated—not just because I imagine all the Thanksgivings, Christmases, and birthdays he’s going to miss while he’s in prison.  I am frustrated because the government has this enormous power to take away a person’s liberty, often for a very, very long time.  That power shouldn’t be exercised lightly, and when there are serious doubts as to the fundamental fairness of the trial, those doubts should be resolved in favor of granting a new trial.  If anything, there’s overwhelming evidence to support the position that the criminal “justice” system often gets it wrong, and the system should account for that possibility.

 

 

Welcome to Our Blog

Strickland Webster

In our criminal defense practice, we encounter a whole vast of experiences that most people never imagine.  This blog is where we will share some of what we see and hear, our thoughts on recent cases, and anything else we deem relevant and interesting.  Feel free to contact us at office[@]stricklandwebster.com (take out the brackets!) with any questions.