Attorney Patrick Nelson Leduc's Legal Cases

Criminal defense

State v. Johnson

Sep 12, 2011

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

Client forced to go to trial when the State's only offer was 10 years Florida State Prison. Defendant had numerous prior felony convictions. Defendant was arrested by police after fleeing the premi ... ses where he was loading his vehicle with scrap mental that he paid to haul. States position essentially amounted to the idea that if something looks like a duck and acts likes a duck, then it is a duck. The Defendant had the truth on his side. And the truth was that he was not stealing. The jury agreed after only 7 minutes of deliberation. Defendant was his own best witness. In spite of 13 felony convictions, the jury (and the judge, and the court reporter, and the clerk, and the alternate juror...) all believed him. Advocacy can make a difference if the jury beleives that you beleive in your cause.

Criminal defense

State v. Walters

Mar 10, 2010

OUTCOME: Motion to suppress and dismiss-Granted

Defendant Charged with Trafficking. Police found defendant in possession of a pill bottle with a trafficking amount of oxycontin. Defendant faced with a 3 year min/man. The search of the Defendan ... t was a warrantless search without any probable cause. Motion granted.

Criminal defense

State v. Watkins

Dec 29, 2009

OUTCOME: Not Guilty of all charges

The jury believed that the LEO was mistaken when he testified that he witnessed client sitting in the driverâ€™s seat of the stolen car just before the car took of leading police on a high speed chase. ... In fact, Defendant had just been picked up by the driver, who a few minutes thereafter, got into a high speed chase with a stolen car. Both driver and defendant bailed out of vehicle. The defendant got arrested and charged.

Criminal defense

State v. Sherman

Nov 30, 2009

OUTCOME: Not Guilty of all charges

Defendant scene by eyewitness dumping pallets on an abandoned property. Defendant fled the scene, and was followed by eyewitness. Eventually arrested by Police. Told police that he was not dumping pall ... ets, but had seen them the day before and was there to pick them up. Property was overgrown by trees and other vegetation, making it highly unlikely that Defendant could see from Gunn Highway the pallets he asserted where already on the property. The Defendant did not testify. In any case, I simply argued the sufficiency of the evidence and the jury came back with their verdict after about 35 minutes.

Criminal defense

State v. Hay

Nov 18, 2009

OUTCOME: Motion to suppress granted-State appealed court ruling

Defendant obtained over 17,000 pills of oxycontine from various pain management clinics. Defendant was arrested with a Shannon West who was using the Defendantâ€™s spouse (Karen Hay) prescription. ... Defendant was released, but based on this information, , TTPD sent faxes to over 80 pharmacies seeking all information concerning what prescriptions were obtained from the Defendant, his son and wife. The SAO theory is based on fraud. That is, the Defendant, son, and wife obtained over 30,000 pills of Schedule III Hydrocodone, inter alia, by going to multiple pain clinics to get prescriptions. This search was conducted without a court issued subpoena and without probable cause. Based on the information gathered from these pharmacies (17 returned information concerning the Defendant, her son, and husband) , the police then gathered evidence from a variety of pain management clinics. All of this is subject to suppression. The State argues that the request for information from pharmacies is lawful and not covered by Florida Statutes or HIPPA under 45 CFR 164.512; are expressly exempt from section 456.057 Florida Statute, and by implication, therefore, from Florida Statute 395.3025.To the contrary, Florida Statute 395.3025 gives specific and expressed guidance on how medical records may be recovered. The State failed to follow these guidelines. Under the rule of statutory construction, FS 395.3025 must be strictly construed to include pharmacies.

Criminal defense

State v. Dixon

Nov 10, 2009

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of (Prison Release Re-Offender/Habitual Felony Offender)-Burglary of a Dwelling and Robbery, Burg of Conveyance, Petit Theft, Possession of Cocaine and Resisting Arrest:

Defendant failed to appear for trial. Forced to go to trial on everything absent the Defendant. I found a 2d District Court of Appeals case (Forget v. State) that allowed for a special instruction ... on a Residue case that was critical. I argued that no evidence existed to show that the defendant knew he possessed cocaine. Jury agreed. I argued that their was no resisting arrest on the merits. Jury agreed. The Burglary of the Conveyance and petit theft were Dismissed by the Judge when the car owner failed to appear. Argued that their was no robbery and no Burglary. That it was an attempted simple theft (attempt). Jury agreed. I argued that we had a trespass. That the language barrior between the victims and the defendant led to a misunderstanding, which is why the defendant was in their house and tried to take their bike. Jury agreed.

Criminal defense

State v. Bowers

Nov 04, 2009

OUTCOME: Not Guilty of all charges

This was the second of three cases. (First Case dismissed on Motion to Supress-Granted). Defendant accused as a Principal to Armed Robbery where the victim was shot. Our Defense was mere presence. ... The State failed to show that the client was involved in the Robbery where we were able to attack the victimâ€™s very inconsistent testimony. While the victim was certainly shot in the Arm during an attempted drug deal, there was no showing that our client did anything other than approach the victim (who was in his car) asking him what it was he was wanted. The Key to the case was the suppression of a tape recorded admission in a related case involving a similar shooting that took place two hours before this shooting, and denying State Attorney the ability to use any Williams Rule evidence from case not yet proved. By effective use of demanding speedy trial, I forced the State Attorney to go forward with this case, which was his weakest case.

Criminal defense

State v. Albritton

Aug 27, 2009

OUTCOME: Motion to suppress granted-State to appeal

Defendant is 100 percent disabled due to a work related accident that damaged four vertebra in Defendant's lower back. The condition is inoperable, as it might result in paralysis. Defendant is under ... severe and constant pain. He attempts to manage the pain with schedule III Hydrocotine. SAO concedes that this is a dry trafficking case, and that no evidence exists of any distribution. Their theory is based on fraud. That is, the Defendant obtain trafficking amounts of Schedule III Hydrocontine, inter alia, by going to multiple pain clinics to get prescriptions for his pain. Defendant was disclosed by a CI. Police sent faxes to 30 plus pharmacies seeking whether Defendant had previously filled prescriptions with them. This search was conducted without a warrant and without probable cause. Based on the information gathered from these pharmacies (6 returned information concerning the Defendant) , the police then gathered evidence from a variety of pain management clinics. All of this is subject to suppression. The State sought to get via subpoena these same medical records. I argued that all of this is subject to suppression from its inception.

Criminal defense

State v. Thomas

Apr 29, 2009

OUTCOME: Motion granted

The client was stopped in his vehicle while transporting co-defendant from pharmacy. Defendant violated no traffic laws, and Detective admitted that he was acting under a hunch that the passenger had ... doctor shopped his prescription to get Oxycodone from a Pharmacy. Absolutely no P.C. to make the stop.

Criminal defense

State v. Wyatt

Mar 25, 2009

OUTCOME: Motion to suppress and dismiss-Granted

Defendantâ€™s girlfriend arrested at Walmart in a stolen car and with stolen property. Defendant at a hotel room in Plant City. Detectiveâ€™s ask Defendant to step outside and discuss the arrest of ... Defendantâ€™s girlfriend. Defendant states he has no knowledge of anything. Detectiveâ€™s ask for consent to search room. Defendant states that â€œI guess soâ€. Tells Detectives that key is locked in room (actually it is in his pantâ€™s pocket). Also, friend is the room. Detectives state that the Hotel Manager, who is standing nearby, can let them in (and so does). Clear acquiescence to authority. Trafficking case dismissed!

Patrick Nelson Leduc's Legal Cases (15)

State v. Johnson

State v. Walters

State v. Watkins

State v. Sherman

State v. Hay

State v. Dixon

State v. Bowers

State v. Albritton

State v. Thomas

State v. Wyatt