1. Home /
  2. Criminal lawyer /
  3. The Roch Law Firm, P.C.

Category



General Information

Locality: Canton, Georgia

Phone: +1 770-345-7624



Address: 291 Jarvis Street 30114 Canton, GA, US

Website: therochlawfirm.com

Likes: 295

Reviews

Add review

Facebook Blog



The Roch Law Firm, P.C. 01.01.2021

The Georgia Supreme Court amended its order declaring a judicial emergency. For those interested in the amended order, it can be found at https://www.gasupreme.us//CJ-Melton-amended-Statewide-Jud-. It looks like the change was that the court expanded the relief from time deadlines - including now using the phrase including but not limited to ... a laundry list of situations. It is possible that the vagueness of this new phrase may create disputes in interpretation. For instance, does the relief from deadlines apply to briefs due at the appellate courts? It would seem so but others might disagree. It will be scary to rely on an order that doesn’t specify your situation under the theory that it is encompassed by the not limited to language.

The Roch Law Firm, P.C. 25.12.2020

Georgia just declared a Statewide judicial emergency. For those involved in the State courts, it is worth a read. Just remember that if you are concerned with an individual circuit, there may be an order that goes further than the Statewide order. http://sbog.informz.net//Chief%20Justice%20Melton%20Statew Everyone stay safe out there.

The Roch Law Firm, P.C. 13.12.2020

For those wanting information on Georgia judicial emergency orders and which courts have cancelled or postponed matters, look at https://georgiacourts.gov/emergency-judicial-orders/ This website is run by the Judicial Council of Georgia and is going to be the most current and up-to-date information on statewide closures due to coronavirus concerns.

The Roch Law Firm, P.C. 07.12.2020

Merry Christmas from the Roch Law Firm. We hope you are able to spend the season with those you love.

The Roch Law Firm, P.C. 02.12.2020

Today, as promised, the Georgia Supreme Court released its opinion in Licata. Those hoping that this decision would provide clarity on DUI law in Georgia were, however, disappointed. In Licata, an officer stopped a car suspected of being involved in a hit-and-run (the car was riding on its rims). The officer immediately read the Defendant his Miranda rights before asking the Defendant to perform field sobriety evaluations. The defendant performed poorly on these evaluatio...ns and was arrested. The officer asked the defendant to take the official breath test and after the defendant asked to speak to an attorney and was denied, the defendant refused the breath test. The Supreme Court essentially sidestepped the issue of whether Miranda needed to be read or whether the warning needed to include field sobriety evaluations - the Court found that the Defendant was not under arrest. Given the Court's holding in Elliot, the case was remanded with direction that the Defendant's refusal of breath testing was inadmissible. The Court also declined to rule on whether a defendant has the right to counsel before deciding on taking the State breath test. It looks like followers of DUI law are going to have to wait a little while longer for clarification on a Defendant's rights in a DUI investigation. For the time being, it looks like the safest way forward for law enforcement investing DUIs is to seek a search warrant or if unavailable, to request a blood test. That type of test does not appear to be at issue in Elliot and Licata.

The Roch Law Firm, P.C. 19.11.2020

For those following DUI law, the Georgia Supreme Court’s series of blockbuster DUI decisions continues this coming Monday when the Court will release the opinion in Licata. The Court will decide whether a suspect arrested for DUI is entitled to a Miranda style warning before being asked to provide a breath sample, whether a standard Miranda warning is sufficient or a new type of warning needs to be crafted, and whether a DUI arrestee is entitled to talk with a lawyer before d...eciding whether to consent to this breath test. Given this Court’s prior rulings, it is likely that the Court will distinguish between police asking for a breathe test versus a blood test as to the requirements of a warning - a breath test requires active cooperation and a blood test does not and this difference has been important in the Court’s prior rulings. Regardless of the ruling in this case, this and the other DUI cases at the Supreme Court have the potential to drastically change how DUIs are investigated and prosecuted in this State. Stay tuned. See more