H. Michael Steinberg has over 32 years experience practicing Colorado criminal law. Mr. Steinberg strives to stay current with the ever changing aspects of criminal law issues and updates resulting in his extensive knowledge of successful criminal defense as well as appellate work. He is also an active member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar Association, the Colorado Trial Lawyer's Association, and the Colorado and Arapahoe Bar Associations.

Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Published on:

By H. Michael Steinberg Colorado Criminal Defense Lawyer – Attorney

Why Isn’t My Lawyer More Aggressive With The JudgeWhy Isn’t My Lawyer Getting More Aggressive With The Judge? The perception that a criminal defense lawyer is not “fighting for you” in court because the lawyer is well known and well received by the District Attorney/Prosecutor is a common flaw in the thinking of persons uninitiated to the criminal justice system.

The advertisements that flood the internet and our television screens of flamboyant “pit bull” trial lawyers prey on those who believe the more aggressive you appear with a Judge for example – the better the result.

Published on:

Impersonating a Peace p Police Officer In Colorado -18-8-112.jpgBy H. Michael Steinberg Colorado Criminal Defense Lawyer – Attorney

Michael Maher was a trained firefighter with an associates degree in the sane field. He had a degree from a fire academy and was certified in wild land fire fighting. What he didn’t have was permission to fight the two fires he has now been prosecuted for in Colorado.

Impersonation of a firefighter or police officer is a crime in Colorado. The law is found Impersonating a Peace Officer under C.R.S. 18-8-112:

Published on:

In a recent Colorado case – People v Lorenzo Brooks – the defendant’s conviction’s conviction for failure to register as a sex offender was overturned because his out of state Texas conviction had no Colorado sex crime equivalent. The case addresses when an out of state resident – or a resident with an out of state sex crime conviction – must register in the state of Colorado.

The Colorado court of appeals concluded that Brooks was not required to register as a sex offender in – here is the analysis. The Colorado Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the decision.

The rule in Colorado – in this complex case – which addresses Colorado’s Sex Offender registration laws – and discusses whether section 16-22-103(1)(b), C.R.S. 2011, which requires an element-by-element comparison of a defendant’s out-of-state conviction with that of an existing unlawful sexual offense in Colorado to make the determination of whether sex offender registration – was properly followed.

Published on:

A study released last year revealed something new – women – not men – are more likely to find themselves in an incident of road rage.

A company that goes by the name of the Harris Interactive – found that – women – not men – were far more likely to fly off the handle on the morning commute.

More than 3,800 commuters were surveyed – all were full-time workers and of these 83% drove to their workplaces. The study intentionally ignored self-employed and “government job” workers.

Published on:

In the Colorado Case of PEOPLE v. RICHARDS the Colorado Supreme Court clarified the False Information to a Pawnbroker Law so that the average citizen could understand how it worked

Colorado False Information to a Pawnbroker Defense Lawyer – H. Michael Steinberg

In the Richards case – the Defendant sold forty compact discs to a pawnbroker, falsely telling the pawnbroker that he had purchased them two and one-half years previously.

Published on:

It is a wonderful policy that lets the innocent children of undocumented immigrants the opportunity to live safe, happy, and open lives in this great country of ours. The Obama administration’s decision to permit this opportunity is a little confusing as it relates to the criminal background check required to pass muster under the new policy. This article addresses that issue.

What Is Deferred Action?

Deferred Action is a decision by immigration authorities to not pursue an individual for removal proceedings because the individual does not present a serious threat to the United States.

Published on:

Last year a young woman in Colorado Springs was put on probation for a fairly routine drug case. Guy Cruz, an El Paso County Adult Probation officer, was assigned the case. Mr. Cruz saw this as an opportunity to exploit his authority and power as a probation office over the young woman in ways that may seem almost incomprehensible to strangers to the system.

Within a couple of months the probation officer began to use his power and influence as her probation officer- at first making sexual advances in the nature of harassment. At first, he insisted on contacting her multiple times each day. Later he learned of a technical violation of her probation which he then withheld from the Court informing her that she now “owed him” for not reporting the violation nof probation. It was the opportunity he had been seeking to assert complete power over her sexually.

Mr. Cruz – the probation officer began – then began “home visits” forcing her to have sex with him while her children were close by. The threats and the sexual relationship continued throughout the summer and escalated in frequency.

Published on:

It is to your extreme peril that you ignore the passage of little laws that may make a big difference in your life.

In June of 2012 – Governor Hickenlooper signed a law that changes the penalty for failire to pay the fare on RTD:

Under current law, the crime of theft of transit for failure to pay the applicable fare or to present a valid pass or coupon is a class 2 petty offense punishable by a fine of up to $100.

Published on:

Introduction – Before this new Law – Colorado was one of only four states that does not have a law requiring mandatory reporting to adult protective services for social workers, physicians and other professionals.

The old law simply says that a report should be made and “urges” professionals to report within 24 hours.

The General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 12-078, which clarifies definitions and modifies requirements concerning the mistreatment, self-neglect, and exploitation of at-risk adults.

Among other things, Here IS What The Bill Does:

• expands the definition of an at-risk adult to include persons over the age of 70;

• for observed or suspected mistreatment or self-neglect, it requires a person in a specified profession or occupation (mandatory reporter) to make an immediate oral report within 24 hours;

• for observed or suspected fiscal exploitation, it urges a mandatory reporter to make an immediate oral report;

• removes the requirement that an abuse reporter follow an oral report within a written report within 48 hours;

• creates a class 3 misdemeanor for failure to report mistreatment or self-neglect of an at-risk adult; and

• increases the penalty for releasing confidential information about an adult protective services investigation from a class 2 petty offense with a maximum penalty of a $300 fine to a class 3 misdemeanor.

In addition, the bill directs each county to require each protective services employee to undergo a fingerprint background check, and it creates the 17-member Elder Abuse Task Force, which is authorized to meet during the 2012 legislative interim. The purpose of the task force is to study, make recommendations, and report on various issues related to at-risk elderly adults.

SB12-078, Protections for At-Risk Adults

A Closer Look At the Bill – New Law:

This bill modifies the Human Services Code (Title 26), Protective Services for Adults at Risk of Mistreatment or Self-Neglect (Article 3.1), by adding privacy protections for at-risk adults, requiring written permission from the subject of alleged abuse or neglect, and clarifying the methodology of and circumstances surrounding investigations of allegations of abuse.

Personnel who will interact with at-risk adults are required to undergo a background check. A new section is added to the statute, creating an at-risk adult protective services task force responsible for studying, making recommendations, and reporting on issues relating to the mistreatment, self-neglect and exploitation of at-risk adults.

Provisions of the Bill:

Part (1), Article 3.1, Title 26 – Protective Services for At-Risk Adults – is modified to include:

In the event of a report of exploitation, self-neglect or mistreatment, an evaluation of the individual circumstances will be conducted in the place of an immediate investigation which was previously the required procedure.

A clause to protect the privacy of the at-risk adult’s information in the event that a joint investigation is necessary and their personal information is shared.

A clause that requires written consent of the at-risk adult, and the availability of financial records to agencies investigating on behalf of that individual.

Provision for counties to require prospective employees who will interact with at-risk adults to complete a fingerprint-based criminal history records check through CBI at the expense of the prospective employee.

The bill also adds a new Part (3) that:

Establishes an at-risk adult protective services task force which is responsible for studying, making recommendations, and reporting on issues relating to: Reporting of mistreatment, self-neglect and exploitation Continue reading