Jeffrey H. Garland

Mr Garland considers every case as different and potentially unique. It is often useful to focus on the core issue that a case presents. In a particular case it may be to simply admit that the accused did the "act" being charged, but to point out how that act is protected by the Constitution, by a privilege, or by a statutory right.

The war on crime has many victims. Overall, statistics show that crime has dropped over the past 30 years. Yet arrests must be made to justify the existence of, and funding for, the police-prison industrial complex. Many arrests are made on bare "probable cause" with little investigation to explore other suspects or other non- criminal explanations.

With a degree in chemistry Mr Garland has established a pattern of disputing poor scientific methods and conclusions not supported by research. Scientific evidence appears in just about every criminal case more complex than jay walking.

Other cases involve broader questions of constitutional rights. Why are some police so quick to charge firearm violations for people with no record? In an unsurprising number of cases the arrest violates the person's second amendment rights. Many cases involve such fundamental rights such as privacy, practice of religion, free speech and association. The exercise of constitutionally protected rights is frequently a valid defense to an arrest. Our constitutions do, in fact, retain the power of the government.

• Federal Criminal

• Credit Cards Accepted
• Rates, Retainers and Additional Information
  Fees are determined on a case by case basis. Cases involving complex facts, extensive discovery, and novel legal issues are necessarily more time intensive, and therefore more expensive. Consider that the attorney charging a low fee might be expecting to use a cookie cutter approach. The consumer should be aware that legal costs increase with novelty and complexity. The goals of representation should always be explored before the retainer agreement is signed.

Florida

Since 1981

11th Circuit

Since 1983

Trial Bar, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

Since 1983

Trial Bar, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Since 1982

U.S. Supreme Court

Since 1989

Attorney

The Law Office of Jeffrey H. Garland, P.A.

2008 - Current

Senior Attorney

Kirschner & Garland, PA

1990 - 2007

Senior Attorney

Jeffrey H Garland, PA

1985 - 1990

Chief Assistant, Fort Pierce Office

Office of Public Defender, 19th Judicial Circuit

1981 - 1985

Associate

Muller & Mintz, PA

1980 - 1981

University of Florida Levin College of Law

J.D. (1980) | Law

1978 - 1980

University of Florida

B.S. (1978) | Chemistry

1975 - 1978

DISTINGUISHED Peer Rated for High Professional Achievement

Martindale-Hubbell

2018

St. Lucie County Bar Association

Member

2010 - Current

Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Member

2009 - Current

Florida Bar, Trial Lawyers Section

Member

1990 - Current

Florida Bar, Criminal Law Section

Member

1985 - Current

Florida State Bar  # 320765

Member

1981 - Current

Board Certified - Criminal Trial

The Florida Bar

2014

Q. How to address fabricated evidence in my son's 2015 case in FL?

February 16, 2025

A: The usual method is a motion for post conviction relief under Rule 3.850. Normally, there is a time limit of 2 years from the date your son's case. That time limit does not apply when there is newly discovered evidence which could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence. The first problem is to resolve why your son didn't recognize that the recordings used against him were falsified. Assuming that there is a good explanation for your son not knowing that the recordings were falsified at the time of trial or plea, there needs to be an explanation why the falsified evidence wasn't discovered for many years. Assuming that there is a good explanation for that extended delay, the claim must be made within 2 years of either the actual discovery or the date that the falsification should have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Your inquiry doesn't specify whether there was a plea or a trial. The arguments are different for attacking a plea and a trial. Essentially, your son would have to show that no reasonable person would have plead if informed about the falsified evidence. If there was a trial, the falsified evidence would have to undermine confidence in the verdict. Your inquiry suggests that somebody in the law enforcement ecosystem falsified that evidence. In such a case, it might be a denial of due process for the State to knowingly use falsified evidence. You need to unpack all of this with an experienced post conviction lawyer to see where it goes. All of this is complicated at several levels. My comments are of a general nature which are intended to guide your search for justice, but cannot be specific to your son's situation. ... Read More

Q. Can a lesser offense still receive 10-20-Life sentence in FL?

February 15, 2025

A: Yes, if the information made the allegations and the verdict form made the necessary findings. This is a point that should have been discussed before trial. There is no first offender exception.

Q. Please see below

February 11, 2025

A: The maximum sentence at the time of offense controls. Since PRR does not increase the maximum sentence, the maximum sentence was probably life. However, the PRR classification created a mandatory minimum sentence of life. Your defendant may be entitled to a motion to correct sentencing error, because the PRR classification cannot be applied retroactively. The judge may, however, simply resentence to life. If the judge does grant a resentencing, then Apprendi and Erlanger would apply to preclude a PRR classification which is not alledged in the information and unanimously found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. There may be a possibility of a lesser sentence at a resentencing without PRR. The second part of your inquiry would require specific knowledge of the procedural history of your case. Such a bar usually results from numerous filings without legal basis. It is possible that the defendant previously raised these claims and had them denied, which might be considered to be law of the case. I recommend that your defendant consult an experienced post conviction attorney for guidance. ... Read More