Digby Law Firm

Digby Law Firm I represent people the way I would want to be represented.

I give honest, knowledgeable advice and couple that with, aggressive, hard-nosed, and most importantly, successful representation.

06/18/2026

A Major Second Amendment Decision from the U.S. Supreme Court:

Today, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Hemani, holding that the federal government cannot automatically strip a person of their Second Amendment rights solely because they are a regular user of ma*****na.

The case involved a Texas man who admitted to using ma*****na several times a week and possessed a firearm in his home. The government prosecuted him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a federal law that prohibits firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances.

In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that the prosecution violated the Second Amendment. Applying the framework established in Bruen and Rahimi, the Court found that the government failed to identify a historical tradition that would justify automatically disarming all regular users of controlled substances without any showing that they are dangerous, violent, intoxicated, or incapable of managing their affairs.

Importantly, the Court did not hold that all firearm restrictions involving drug use are unconstitutional. The Court specifically left open questions involving addicts, individuals who are actively intoxicated, or situations where the government can prove a person's drug use makes them dangerous.

The decision is another significant development in the Supreme Court's ongoing effort to define the scope of the Second Amendment and the government's ability to restrict firearm possession based on status rather than conduct.

06/11/2026

Tips for Hiring a Lawyer in 2026

1. Be cautious of guaranteed results.
No lawyer can guarantee the outcome of a case. An experienced attorney can discuss likely scenarios and reasonable expectations, but no one can promise a specific result. If a lawyer guarantees they will beat your case or get you probation, ask for that guarantee in writing—which they probably won't provide.

2. Don't choose solely based on price.
In many cases, you get what you pay for. Avoid automatically hiring either the cheapest or the most expensive attorney. Highly skilled lawyers are often in greater demand and may charge higher fees, but a high fee alone doesn't mean an attorney is the right choice. Consider experience, reputation, communication, and your comfort level before making a decision.

3. Ask for specifics about the process.
A knowledgeable attorney should be able to explain what to expect, including the legal process, likely timelines, potential outcomes, and key factors that may affect your case. If an attorney can only speak in vague generalities, that may be a sign they lack the experience needed for your situation.

4. Be wary of excessive emotional investment.
Some attorneys may act as though your case is personally close to their heart in an effort to get you to hire them. While it's important to have a lawyer who cares about your case, it's equally important that they remain objective. Good legal representation requires clear judgment and an honest assessment of the facts. Emotional attachment can sometimes interfere with sound professional decision-making.

The best lawyer for your case is not necessarily the one with the biggest advertisement, the lowest fee, or the boldest promises. Look for experience, results, honesty, and sound judgment.

05/13/2026

ALEX MURDAUGH's Conviction Overtuned - New Trial Granted

Alex Murdaugh is the South Carolina lawyer who was convicted in 2023 of murding his wife and son. It captured national new attention for several weeks in early 2023.

The South Carolina Supreme Court overturned his conviction and remanded the case back to the trial court for a new trial. The Court's opinion, in overturning the conviction, turned on the Jury being improperly influenced by the Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill. The Court found that HIll improperly tampered with the jury in several ways, thereby denying Murdaugh his Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Remmer v. United States, holding:

"[A]ny private communication, contact, or tampering directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about thematter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial, if not made in pursuance of known rules of the court and the instructions and directions of the court made during the trial, with full knowledge of the parties. The presumption is not conclusive, but the burden rests heavily upon the Government to establish, after notice to and hearing of the defendant, that such contact with the juror was harmless to the defendant."

The Court made an additional findings regarding the evidence presented in the trial regarding Murdaugh's financial crimes. The Prosecuting offered proof of Murdaugh's financial crimes as motive for committing the murders. The S.C. Supreme Court held that the State was allowed to go to far along and too deep in the aspects of Murdaugh's financial crimes, which also gave rise to considerable danger of unfair prejudice and that should have been excluded. Basically ruling that the evidence offered by the State should have been limited.

Link to the Court's Opinion

04/15/2026

Is distilling your own alcohol at home now legal????

For years distilling hard spirits/alcohol has been banned by the federal government. The ban was based on Congress's power to tax.

In a recent case, from the 5th Circuit, the Court found that the ban was not "necessary and proper" to the enforcement of taxation and that the law, in theory, would allow Congress to ban any private activity that "could be taxed." The tax power allows raising revenue, not prohibiting conduct.

This ruling does NOT automatically legalize home distilling. It does remove the federal ban on home distilling. There are federal permits and tax rules that still apply.

Any and all State laws remain fully in force.

04/08/2026

Do you think you know the law and your rights?
Volume 5: ANSWER

Does law enforcement have to give you a copy of a search warrant before they search your home?

ANSWER

Generally yes, absent some specific exceptions. Arkansas's Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.3, states that the person in control or appearent control of the premises must be given the warrant BEFORE beginning the search.

What's interesting is that the U.S. Supreme Court said the answer is, "No." You only have to be given a copy of the warrant before the officers vacate the premises.

How can the U.S. Supreme Court say the law is something different than what Arkansas says the law is? Simple, the Supreme Court's holding was based on 4th amendment protections, which mean that at the bare minimum, you must be given a warrant before the officer's leave. Arkansas is free to give their citizens more protections, but cannot give them less. Arkansas, through its rules of criminal procedure has chosen to give its citizens more rights.

Arkansas's rules of criminal procedure are governed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. The Arkansas Supreme Court cannot adopt new rules, amend current rules or do away with a rule entirely. But we are still subject to our Constitutional protections as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now you know!

04/07/2026

Do you think you know the law and your rights?
Volume 5:

Does law enforcement have to give you a copy of a search warrant before they search your home?

Answer coming soon; no cheating.

04/01/2026

Do you think you know the law and your rights?
Volume 4: ANSWER

If the police are illegally arresting me, can I physically resist the arrest?

ANSWER: No. Arkansas law specifically prohibits this action. The proper way to challenge an illegal arrest is through Court, not physical resisting. Williams v. State, 320 Ark. 211 (1995) and A.C.A. 5-2-612. Federal law follows the same rule and logic.

03/31/2026

Do you think you know the law and your rights?
Volume 4:

If the police are illegally arresting me, can I physically resist the arrest?

Answer coming soon.

03/28/2026

Do you think you know the law and your rights?
Volume 3: ANSWER

Is it legal to flash your headlights to warn driver's of a speed trap up ahead?

ANSWER: Yes, probably. Arkansas courts have not directly dealt with this issue, but under the U.S. Supreme Court's "Spence" test, it is most likely legally protected speech. The "Spence" test requires: (1) an intent to convey a particularized message, and (2) in the surrounding circumstances, the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it. Spence v. State of Wash., 418 U.S. 405 (1974).

03/27/2026

Do you think you know the law and your rights?
Volume 3:

Is it legal to flash your headlights to warn driver's of a speed trap up ahead?

Answer coming soon.

Address

109 W. South Street
Benton, AR
72015

Website

Alerts

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

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Digby Law Firm:

Shortcuts

Share

Category