Patriots Owner Ready for Fight in Prostitution Case Appeal

Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, is expecting the state to appeal a critical ruling over evidence. And he’s ready.

Prosecutors have until October 1 to challenge a judge’s ruling that throws out critical video evidence against Kraft. The order by Palm Beach County Judge Leonard Hanser was handed down in May. After an initial deadline of August 15 by which to appeal, Florida’s Attorney General’s office was given two extensions.

Kraft and numerous other defendants were charged in February with two charges of misdemeanor solicitation of prostitution. The alleged incidents happened at a Jupiter, Florida massage parlor. But officials were also engaged in a state-wide sting against several other businesses, citing the need to target sex traffickers. They claimed this as a basis for using hidden recording devices, including video cameras, to record Kraft and other defendants.

But prosecutors never presented evidence of sex trafficking, and later admitted they had none. Kraft and his lawyers pounced on this. They argued that the invasive cameras were used to go after what amounted to simple prostitution charges.

In May, the judge sided with Kraft and ruled that the secret sex videos could not be used. Even though Kraft may have been engaged in criminal behavior, he has a constitutional right to privacy, the judge ruled. The so-called “sneak and peek” warrant used to plant hidden cameras was therefore unconstitutional.

Federal law also requires that police minimize the scope of any secret cameras authorized by a warrant. The point of the sting was to target men receiving illegal sexual services. However, the cameras used in the Kraft case also captured women engaged in legal activity. Customers who were receiving legal massages who might have been captured on film deserve protection from unnecessarily broad warrants. The warrant also allowed days of continuous recording and did not require the cameras to be stopped for legal activity.

These actions, the judge determined, were breaches of law and of the patrons’ privacy rights.

The mistakes made in authorizing and using the covert cameras led to Judge Hanser throwing them out. This deprives the state of critical evidence and will likely destroy its case. Prosecutors acknowledge mistakes with the recordings but contend they should be allowed to use the videos anyway. Now, a federal appeals court will need to weigh in.

When a defendant’s case goes into the federal appeals system, many decisions at the state level are scrutinized. The role of an appeals court is to step in when a defendant’s constitutional rights are violated. The Kraft case also illustrates the role of federal law in many appellate cases. Here, the constitutional right to privacy and federal law minimizing the use of intrusive secret cameras are at issue.

Hanging in the balance is perhaps the most vital piece of evidence in Kraft’s case. So far, Kraft’s lawyers have been successful in keeping out these critical video recordings. That leaves his prosecution in limbo. A skilled appellate attorney can challenge and potentially exclude significant even decisive evidence.

Not all errors made at the trial level are worthy of an appeal. Some are excusable because they do not necessarily jeopardize a defendant’s rights. Knowing the difference is key, and your attorney should focus effort on challenging the most significant mistakes.

You Deserve Skilled Attorneys for Your Criminal Appeals

If you are facing an appeal in the federal court system, turn to Eddington & Worley. We represent criminal defendants and ensure that trial courts treat them fairly. Even if you received an adverse ruling at the trial level, we may be able to help. Contact our federal appeals lawyers today to talk about your case and to set up a consultation.