What are the opening hours?

Monday 8am - 6pm Tuesday 8am - 6pm Wednesday 8am - 6pm Thursday 8am - 6pm Friday 8am - 6pm

Pumphrey Law

If you’re facing criminal charges, call (850) 681-7777 right now. We’ll contact you right away!

Pumphrey Law is a distinguished criminal defense firm located in Tallahassee, Florida. The law firm draws on the experience and insights of its partners, attorneys, and staff. This means that clients gain the combined perspective of former prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and investigators.

05/28/2026

⚖️ In Florida vehicular homicide cases, the jury must decide guilt based on evidence of recklessness, not emotion.

In Opsincs v. State, Florida’s Fourth DCA reversed a vehicular homicide conviction after finding that a vulgar comment allegedly made after a fatal crash should not have been admitted at trial.

Here’s what happened:

👉 The defendant was charged with vehicular homicide after a fatal crash
👉 A post-crash comment was introduced at trial
👉 The defense argued the statement was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial
👉 The prosecutor relied on the statement during closing argument to argue recklessness
👉 The appellate court found the comment may have improperly influenced the jury

The Fourth DCA ruled that the statement’s minimal relevance was outweighed by the risk that jurors would view the defendant as callous rather than decide the case based on whether he drove recklessly.

Result: conviction reversed and a new trial ordered.

For defendants facing vehicular homicide, DUI manslaughter, or vessel homicide charges in Florida, this case shows why evidentiary objections, closing argument issues, and experienced criminal defense representation matter.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/floridas-4th-dca-reverses-vehicular-homicide-conviction-due-to-improper-closing-argument/

05/27/2026

⚖️ Even the most serious Florida criminal convictions can be reversed when prosecutors cross the line.

In D’Ambrosio v. State, Florida’s Fifth DCA reversed a capital s*xual battery conviction after finding that the prosecutor’s improper closing arguments violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Here’s what happened:

👉 The defendant was charged with capital s*xual battery
👉 The prosecutor repeatedly attacked the defense attorney during closing argument
👉 The State suggested the defense was trying to confuse the jury
👉 The prosecutor made improper “justice” arguments and implied everyone knew the defendant was guilty
👉 The trial judge had discouraged objections during closing arguments

The Fifth DCA found the comments were improper, inflammatory, and serious enough to require a new trial.

Result: conviction reversed and case remanded for retrial.

For defendants facing serious s*x crime charges in Florida, this case shows why fair trial rights, prosecutorial misconduct issues, and experienced criminal defense representation can be critical.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/major-fl-court-blasts-prosecutorial-misconduct-reverses-capital-s*xual-battery-conviction/

05/26/2026

⚖️ Prosecutors cannot use closing arguments to insult the defendant, attack defense counsel, or inflame the jury.

In Fuller v. State, Florida’s Fifth DCA reversed s*xual battery and lewd assault convictions after finding that the prosecutor’s improper closing arguments violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Here’s what happened:

👉 The defendant was charged with s*xual battery and lewd assault involving a child
👉 The prosecutor called the defendant “shrewd, cunning, and diabolical”
👉 The State attacked defense counsel’s trial strategy
👉 The prosecutor criticized the defense for cross-examining the child witness
👉 The appellate court found the comments rose to the level of fundamental error

Even though the defense did not object during closing arguments, the Fifth DCA ruled that the misconduct was so inflammatory that it undermined the integrity of the trial.

Result: convictions reversed and a new trial ordered.

For defendants facing serious s*x crime charges in Florida, this case shows why fair trial rights, closing argument rules, and experienced criminal defense representation matter.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/northeast-floridas-highest-court-reverses-s*xual-battery-conviction-over-insults-of-defendant-attorney/

05/23/2026

⚖️ Prosecutors cannot attack the defense or pressure jurors to convict during closing arguments.

In Redish v. State, Florida’s First DCA reversed major felony convictions after finding that the prosecutor’s improper closing remarks may have influenced the jury’s verdict.

Here’s what happened:

👉 The defendant was charged with racketeering and solicitation to commit grand theft
👉 The prosecutor made improper remarks during closing argument
👉 The State suggested jurors would violate their oath if they accepted the defense’s argument
👉 The prosecutor also accused the defense of using “cheap tactics” and “tricks”
👉 The appellate court found the comments were too prejudicial to ignore

Even though the trial judge gave curative instructions, the First DCA ruled that the misconduct may still have affected the verdict.

Result: convictions reversed and a new trial ordered.

For defendants facing serious felony charges in Florida, this case shows why trial objections, prosecutorial misconduct issues, and experienced criminal defense representation can be critical.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/north-fls-highest-court-reverses-major-felony-convictions-due-to-prosecutorial-misconduct/

05/22/2026

⚖️ Entrapment is a complete defense in Florida, but defendants need evidence to support it.

In Davis v. State, Florida’s Fourth DCA affirmed a co***ne sale conviction after ruling that the defendant was not entitled to an entrapment jury instruction.

Here’s what happened:

👉 The defendant was charged with sale of co***ne
👉 The case involved a confidential informant and undercover police operation
👉 The defense argued the informant’s clothing and conduct amounted to inducement
👉 The trial judge refused to give the jury an entrapment instruction
👉 The Fourth DCA found no evidence of improper inducement or lack of predisposition

The appellate court made the rule clear: a Florida defendant is not automatically entitled to an entrapment instruction just because police used an undercover informant.

To raise subjective entrapment, the defense must show evidence that law enforcement induced the crime and that the defendant was not predisposed to commit it.

Result: co***ne conviction affirmed.

For defendants facing Florida drug charges, this case shows why entrapment defenses require careful legal strategy and a strong evidentiary record.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/major-fl-court-affirms-co***ne-conviction-despite-entrapment-concerns-no-evidence/

05/21/2026

⚖️ Prosecutors must follow the rules during closing arguments, even in serious Florida s*x crime cases.

In Pacifico v. State, Florida’s First DCA reversed a s*xual battery conviction after finding that the prosecutor’s repeated improper comments deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial.

Here’s what happened:

👉 The defendant was charged with s*xual battery and kidnapping
👉 The prosecutor made multiple inflammatory comments during closing argument
👉 The State referred to the defendant with improper character attacks
👉 The prosecutor suggested the jury had a duty to convict for the good of society
👉 The appellate court found the cumulative misconduct undermined the fairness of the trial

The First DCA ruled that the conviction had to be reversed because the jury may have been influenced by improper argument rather than the evidence.

Result: conviction reversed and a new trial ordered.

For defendants facing s*xual battery charges in Florida, this case shows why trial objections, closing argument rules, and experienced criminal defense representation can be critical.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/north-fls-highest-court-reverses-s*xual-battery-conviction-over-improper-closing-argument/

05/20/2026

⚖️ Prosecutors do not get unlimited freedom during closing arguments in Florida criminal trials.

In Petruschke v. State, Florida’s Fourth DCA reversed lewd or lascivious molestation convictions after finding that the prosecutor’s improper closing arguments deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial.

Here’s what happened:

👉 The prosecutor argued that a 3-year-old could not fabricate a s*xual abuse allegation
👉 The prosecutor repeatedly referred to the defendant as a “pedophile”
👉 The defense objected to the improper comments
👉 The appellate court found the comments were not harmless error

The Fourth DCA ruled that the remarks were unsupported by the evidence, improperly attacked the defendant’s character, and may have influenced the jury’s verdict.

Result: convictions reversed and a new trial ordered.

For defendants facing serious s*x crime charges in Florida, this case shows why trial objections, fair trial rights, and experienced criminal defense representation matter.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/major-fl-court-reverses-lewd-or-lascivious-conviction-due-to-improper-closing-argument/

05/19/2026

⚖️ Florida’s Prisoner Releasee Reoffender law just survived a major challenge, but the bigger constitutional question remains open.

In Maye v. State, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a life sentence under Florida’s PRR statute after ruling that the defendant could not challenge the sentence as “illegal” under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800.

Here’s why this matters:

👉 PRR can require the maximum sentence for certain repeat felony offenders
👉 The defendant argued a jury, not a judge, should have decided PRR eligibility facts
👉 The Court ruled the challenge was brought through the wrong procedural vehicle
👉 The majority did NOT directly decide whether Florida’s PRR law conflicts with Apprendi and Erlinger

Justice Labarga dissented, arguing Florida’s PRR statute violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because it allows judges to find facts that can increase a defendant’s sentence.

For defendants facing PRR sentencing in Florida, this ruling is significant, but it does not appear to close the door on future constitutional challenges.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/florida-supreme-court-issues-major-new-ruling-on-prr-law-what-to-know/

05/18/2026

⚖️ Can you buy a gun in Florida if you use medical ma*****na?

For years, federal law treated ma*****na use, medical or recreational, as a disqualifier for purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. But a proposed ATF update to Form 4473 could change how medical ma*****na users are treated under federal fi****ms law.

Here’s what may be changing:

👉 The current form warns that ma*****na use remains unlawful under federal law
👉 The proposed version focuses on recreational ma*****na use
👉 Medical ma*****na may no longer be treated the same way
👉 The public comment period remains open until July 7, 2026

This could be a major development for Florida medical ma*****na patients who also want to legally purchase fi****ms.

However, the rule is not final yet. Federal firearm laws, ma*****na laws, and drug possession charges remain complicated, especially when state and federal law conflict.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/can-i-buy-a-gun-if-i-smoke-ma*****na-new-atf-form-says-yes-under-certain-circumstances/

05/17/2026

⚖️ Accidental damage is NOT enough to support a criminal mischief conviction in Florida.

In T.D.B. v. State, Florida’s 1st DCA reversed a juvenile’s criminal mischief conviction after finding no evidence the damage was done willfully and maliciously.

Here’s what happened:

👉 A juvenile was “playing” with a weight near a pool
👉 He dropped it, causing damage to the pool
👉 The State charged him with criminal mischief
👉 Evidence showed the damage may have been accidental

The appellate court made it clear:

❗ Criminal mischief requires BOTH willful AND malicious conduct
❗ Simply causing damage is not enough
❗ If the evidence supports a reasonable accident theory, the State must disprove it

Because the State failed to prove malice, the conviction could not stand.

Result: adjudication of delinquency reversed.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/north-fls-highest-court-reverses-juvenile-criminal-mischief-conviction-heres-why/

05/16/2026

⚖️ Even when a confession is valid, a case can still be overturned if jury selection is flawed.

In Pickett v. State, Florida’s 3rd DCA reversed a murder conviction due to errors during jury selection, despite finding the defendant’s post-Miranda confession admissible.

Here’s what happened:

👉 Police delayed reading Miranda rights, requiring suppression of early statements
👉 The defendant later waived his rights and gave a valid confession
👉 During jury selection, the defense challenged strikes of Hispanic jurors
👉 The trial judge refused to conduct the required Neil/Melbourne inquiry

The appellate court made it clear:

❗ Miranda violations can be partially “cured” if rights are later properly given
❗ But jury discrimination issues are structural errors
❗ Judges MUST conduct a proper inquiry when juror bias is challenged

Result: convictions reversed and a new trial ordered.

🔗 Read more here:
https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/blog/floridas-3rd-dca-reverses-murder-conviction-addresses-miranda-rights-jury-discrimination/

Address

553 E Tennessee Street
Tallahassee, FL
32308

Opening Hours

Monday	8am - 6pm
Tuesday	8am - 6pm
Wednesday	8am - 6pm
Thursday	8am - 6pm
Friday	8am - 6pm

Telephone

+18506817777

Website

https://www.pumphreylawfirm.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Pumphrey Law posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Want your business to be the top-listed Law Practice in Tallahassee?