Sample Legal Writing
1. Memorandum to Suppress Guns in Search of Van (Inventory Search (pdf))
Mr. Murray filed this memo after a suppression hearing on the legality of a search conducted by the police on his client's van. The police attempted to justify the search as an administrative "inventory" search conducted only because they intended to impound the van as potential evidence in the case. As the facts came out at the hearing, however, it became clear that the police did not follow the rules with respect to these inventory searches.
Therefore, Mr. Murray prepared and filed this memo to demonstrate that the so-called "inventory" search was really just a means to rummage through a car when it would have been appropriate to obtain a warrant. In most circumstances, warrants are not required to search vehicles as a result of a variety of exceptions to the Constitutional warrant requirement carved out by the Courts over the years. One of those exceptions is the "inventory search" exception pursuant to which the police are permitted to inventory the contents of a car they intend to impound. Each of the exceptions, including the inventory search exception, carries with it certain rules designed to prevent abuse by police in the field. It was Mr. Murray's argument in this memo that those rules were violated.
All the names, dates, judge's name, police officers' names, and any other identifying information have been changed to protect client confidentiality. For the purposes of this altered memo, Richard Jones is the defendant's name and the county name has been intentionally excluded.
UPDATE: Although the Government claimed the search was valid as an inventory search, the Court was persuaded otherwise. Nevertheless, the Court held that the search was proper under the "search incident to a lawful arrest" exception, even though the defendant was some considerable distance from the vehicle in question. Although I believed that the exception would not apply, the law was particularly fuzzy in this regard -- until now. The United States Supreme Court, in the summer of 2009, decided a case (Arizona v. Gant) that clarified the meaning of a search incident to a lawful arrest. The result of my case would likely have been different under Gant, because the Court would not likely have been able to justify the search under the incident to lawful arrest exception as expressed by Gant.
2. Memorandum Challenging Indictment for Reckless Endangerment
Mr. Murray was initially involved in a recent case that received quite a bit of media attention around the country and even the world. The District Attorney's Office charged Mr. Murray's client and her husband with Assault in the First Degree and Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree for failing to properly feed their infant daughter. Both crimes require that the Government prove a "depraved indifference to human life" and that the person victimized be placed at "grave risk of death". Classic examples of depraved indifference to human life include firing a gun randomly into a crowd of people or driving an automobile into a crowd of people.
Mr. Murray's client and her husband believed they were Vegans and were highly suspicious of traditional medicine. While their views were certainly eccentric, the evidence was crystal clear that they loved their child and meant no harm to the child. The child, however, was diagnosed with a number of severe issues related to malnutrition as a result of the unorthodox diet.
It was Mr. Murray's belief that the media attention drove the District Attorney's decision to prosecute the case as severely as they did. Mr. Murray believed that the indictment for Assault in the First Degree and Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree was illegal and did not apply to the tragic factual situation presented. After indictment, Mr. Murray challenged the legality of the charge against his client and filed the memo reproduced here.
The District Attorney's Office dismissed the indictment rather than wait for the judge to decide it. The District Attorney's Office then presented the case again to a different Grand Jury, and the case was sent to a different judge who found the indictment legal.
Mr. Murray and his client later had critical differences over the nature of the defenses to be raised at trial. Mr. Murray and his client parted ways and her case was tried by another attorney. The client was convicted and sentenced to a substantial state prison term.
The memo reproduced on this site is in PDF format requiring Adobe Acrobat Reader. The client's name and other identifying information about the case have all been changed to protect client confidentiality.
UPDATE: The New York State Court of Appeals, in 2006, reversed the conviction, finding that indeed, as Mr. Murray had maintained from the beginning, the facts did not support a finding of "depraved indifference to human life."