Dr. Raber was represented by attorneys Page Pate of Atlanta and Kim Stephens of Athens, who had began working with him when charges were first filed back in 2007. The case had already been taken to the Supreme Court of Georgia on a pre-trial appeal before it came back to Hart County for trial. At the Supreme Court, Page argued that the statute Dr. Raber had been charged under, OCGA § 16-13-41(h) was unconstitutionally vague because it did not clearly make pre-signing prescriptions a crime, much less a felony.

The Supreme Court, by a slim margin of 4-3, ruled that the statute wasn’t constitutionally defective and that the word “issue” might not require actually giving a prescription to a patient or end user. At trial, Page argued just the opposite, that Dr. Raber had not “issued” any prescriptions at all, and the jury seems to have agreed.

Vaguely worded statutes such as the section of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act at issue in this case pose a grave danger to the public. Because many statutes like this one are worded so poorly, they can be twisted to mean virtually anything a motivated prosecutor wants them to mean. In the case of the GCSA, doctors, pharmacists, nurses, and other health professionals may be at risk of prosecution for actions that are not even clearly criminal at the time they are done. Thankfully, the jury in this case was able to see that the prosecution was not applying the law as it had been intended: to prevent doctors from being “drug dealers with medical licenses,” as Georgia Supreme Court Justice Hunstein described it in her dissenting opinion in Dr. Raber’s appeal.

Our congratulations to Dr. Raber and his family, who are surely relieved that this long ordeal is behind them.

Page was quoted as saying that:

It’s unusual for attorneys to ask for a change of venue for grand juries, but it happens occasionally, said Page Pate, a criminal defense lawyer in Atlanta who has handled cases across the South.  “Does it happen? Yes. Is it going to be successful? No,” Pate said.

Pate said he listened to a judge in Cherokee County, Ga., deny such a request Wednesday in a case involving the death of 7-year-old Jorelys Rivera, whose body was found in a trash compactor at an apartment complex on Dec. 5 after she disappeared from a playground. Pate said the judges usually deny such requests because a grand jury’s task is different from that of a trial jury. “They are making a determination of probable cause based on what is presented to them and what they know, what their common sense tells them,” he said.

Our firm has successfully represented people charged with serious crimes like murder for many years.  Pretrial publicity can be difficult to overcome, but it is a much more important issue during trial than at the grand jury stage of the proceedings.

Initially, the doctor had been charged with 27 counts of felony sexual assault by a practitioner of psychotherapy against a patient, each of which carries a potential sentence of up to five years. As a result of the deal, the doctor was able to avoid going to trial and received a sentence of eight years of probation in exchange for guilty pleas to eight misdemeanor sexual battery charges. Because he received first-offender status, upon completion of the term of probation and 100 hours of community service, he will no longer have a criminal conviction listed on his record.

In a statement to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Page said that “negotiations led to that result, which we think is appropriate given the facts.”

Georgia Trend says this list is limited to lawyers chosen by other Georgia lawyers as the best of the best in eight different legal categories. Page was named to the list of “Legal Elite” in criminal law for the 5th straight year.

The State presented evidence that cocaine found in a U-Haul rental truck belonged to our client. The most persuasive piece of evidence offered by the State was a fingerprint found on some of the packaging allegedly used to bundle the cocaine. Our defense focused on the many errors made by the Georgia State Patrol officers who investigated the case. We believe, and several jurors apparently agreed, that the investigation was poorly conducted and the integrity of the evidence was compromised.

Although no one likes to try a case twice, we now know more about the State’s case and how they will try to convict our client. We are optimistic that we will win a “not guilty” verdict the next time around.

We were able to get our client a bond when he was first arrested, so he remains free on bond while the case is pending.

Page offered his opinion about the GBI investigation, and the possibility that the MARTA cop will be disciplined or even prosecuted.

Obviously, in a case like this, there is always the possibility of a civil suit regardless of the outcome of the GBI investigation.

Washington’s objections to these new laws go beyond a desire to maintain power. As Page told WABE, “When you’re dealing with an area like immigration that has traditionally been left to Congress…then it’s problematic to have a variety of state laws that create different standards and varying degrees of enforcement.”

Page explained that the central legal issue the courts must determine is whether preemption these new state immigration laws will be “preempted” by federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, when federal law conflicts with state law, federal law wins. The question for the courts now is whether these new state laws actually do conflict with federal law.

In July, federal judge Thomas Thrash struck down Georgia’s controversial immigration provisions that would make it a crime to house or transport illegal aliens and would allow state law enforcement to investigate suspects’ immigration status. Just this week, however, a federal judge in Alabama upheld most of Alabama’s notoriously harsh new immigration laws, including one that would require immigration checks of public school students.

The next step for opponents and proponents of the Alabama and Georgia laws will be the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. There, as Page explained, the cases may be considered either separately or together. Ultimately, though, it is expected that the U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether the new laws are constitutional or not.

Two weeks earlier, before Davis’ clemency hearing at the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Page had explained that if that hearing failed, there would not be much left for Davis to do. Though some board members had changed since an earlier clemency hearing, he predicted that the bid would probably not be successful because the board had already rejected clemency based on the same evidence. The board rejected the request.

Two weeks after that rejection, Page suggested that Davis’ chances were not good given the late date and his limited legal avenues. His best chance had been a hearing in a Savannah federal court that had been ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that hearing, Davis had an opportunity to prove himself innocent, and the court heard from new witnesses and considered his new claims of innocence. The judge ultimately ruled that Davis had not sufficiently proven his innocence and did not overturn his conviction.

As Page explained, “It’s virtually impossible for someone who has been convicted and sentenced to death to prove their innocence many years later. The real question should be, ‘do we still have a doubt?’ And I think from looking at this case … there are enough doubts for this execution not to go forward. But unfortunately, there is no other legal mechanism to make that happen.”

Page predicted that Davis’ lawyers would likely seek a final stay, either from the Georgia Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court, or both, but that he did not expect that to be successful. However, he said, the Davis case may strengthen public opposition to the death penalty in Georgia.

“[Opponents of the death penalty] can now point to a case where a person who is arguably innocent has been executed in Georgia … I think this will be the first time in Georgia where people can credibly say we may be killing an innocent man … maybe it’s a gut check. How comfortable are we, as citizens of Georgia, that our state may tomorrow execute someone who may be innocent of the crime they were convicted of . . . it’s an uncomfortable feeling that I think a lot of people in this state—and really a lot of people around the world—have about this case.”

Davis was executed late Wednesday night after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his final request for a stay of execution.

The bottom line is that this lack of proper training can create an opportunity for defense lawyers to challenge certain arrests and searches, but the success of any such challenge will greatly depend on the facts of the particular case, and the officer’s actions in making the arrest or conducting the search.

Regardless, the Atlanta Police Department should do a better job of making sure its officers are receiving the required training and keeping their certifications up to date.

False allegations of child molestation are unfortunately becoming more common these days. Sometimes the motivation has to do with custody disputes or other disagreements between parents and relatives. If you have been charged with any similar offense, it is critically important that you retain an experienced defense lawyer at the earliest opportunity. These cases can be won, but only through a lot of hard work and extensive preparation.