The allegation that someone is a serial rapist is a serious one. In order to show that one person committed multiple Santa Ana sex crimes requires a high standard of proof.

Santa Ana criminal defense attorneys recognize that detectives like to be able to prove that every crime is connected to another crime. For one, it allows them to move cases off the books. It also gives some comfort to the victims because it makes them believe the suspect has been caught.

But even if law enforcement takes the approach that they have probable cause and it's up to the prosecutors to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, that's unlikely to work. There is a big difference between probable cause -- believing a person may have committed the crime -- and proving it beyond all reasonable doubt.

That's where an experienced Santa Ana criminal defense attorney can really be helpful. If detectives are attempting to lump multiple crimes together as being committed by one person without enough proof, a lawyer can show the prosecutor the weakness of the case and attempt to get charges dropped ahead of trial. It may also be possible to convince a judge to suppress evidence, which would go a long way toward beating the charges.

In this case, a 39-year-old man from Baldwin Park is accused of targeting prostitutes and undocumented residents and was arrested after police say he sodomized a 23-year-old woman in late December. After the assault, police say he dumped the woman's body on the side of a road and tossed her clothes on her. They say a piece of evidence was tucked into the clothes.

Police say that after linking the man to the latest victim, they executed a search warrant and found evidence they believe links him to at least six other victims, going back a year. He is being held without bail, as police believe there may be more victims.

The news article obviously doesn't provide a lot of information as far as what evidence connected them to the man. It is implied from the article, however, that because the man entered a guilty plea in 2009 to a charge of agreeing to engage in prostitution, his fingerprints and DNA could be in police databases. They may have been able to match evidence from the clothes to him.

But being responsible for one crime shouldn't mean police have access to try to prove multiple crimes unless they have some proof. What was written in the affidavit to get a search warrant will be interesting, as well as what evidence they believe they found in the man's home. One arrest doesn't mean the person is responsible for multiple crimes, even if there are similarities in tactic or motive. There are millions of people in Southern California, so police better have it right if they're going to make such strong allegations.

Our Rancho Cucamonga criminal defense lawyers recognize that murder is the ultimate charge in California and can be punished by the ultimate penalty -- death by state execution. Therefore, the state must present sound evidence; this is particularly difficult in old cases, when evidence is often lost and eyewitness testimony is suspect at best.

Cold cases can be even more difficult in this regard. It's common knowledge that a witnesses' memory fades with time. Often they will be asked in court whether they are more likely to remember an event accurately closer to the time it happened or years after. In cold cases, this is even more of an issue.

Most people can't remember what they had for lunch yesterday, let alone an event that happened in 1992. But in cold cases, that's what the state is expecting them to do. While something like a murder may stick in a person's mind, a suspect's features change over time and outside information or hearsay can creep into a person's memory. Witnesses die or cannot be found by prosecutors and the same goes for police officers, who retire or forget key details in that time period.

Also, the evidence that was seized at the time could deteriorate or get lost in the years that it sits in a police storage locker. The procedures that were in place by police at the time for collecting evidence likely have changed. There is much doubt already in place about how a person could be fingered for a crime that happened 20 years ago. That's even before the prosecution's evidence is presented.

In this case, a woman in Victorville found her 52-year-old son dead in 1992 in the hallway of their home. There were no signs of forced entry, but property was missing, detectives say. The most obvious thing missing was a 1993 Subaru station wagon. Detectives said the case had been unsolved, but they named a suspect almost immediately.

Police say they found pictures of the victim with another man, who had arrests in San Bernardino County at the time. When police couldn't find him, the case went cold. But news reports state that he was found recently in Texas after detectives flew there and told homeless shelter workers to contact them if they spotted the man they believed was responsible.

Working with police in Amarillo, after a tip from a source, local detectives were able to find the man and get him in custody in January. He was returned to California and is being held on $1 million bond.

The news article doesn't provide any reason why this man was a suspect in the killing. Simply having a criminal record and being in a photo with a person isn't proof. The victim may have had photos of he and his mother or siblings, but it doesn't mean they are suspects.

Given that the case is so old and the property stolen from the house is likely long gone, this could be a tough case for the state to prove. Cold cases usually are difficult because the evidence and information is ancient. An experienced Rancho Cucamonga criminal defense lawyer will be able to protect the rights of the accused.

California is in a unique situation because it is one of 16 states nationwide that have legalized marijuana for medical purposes. And while conflicts abound with federal drug laws, local law enforcement must be aware that many people can legally possession, grow and distribute marijuana in this state. Despite that, law enforcement officials continue trying to make arrests first and decipher what is legal and what is illegal marijuana.

That's part of the reason why our Newport Beach criminal defense lawyers are often suspicious of marijuana arrests. But we also recognize that these charges can lead to serious criminal penalties and, in some cases, years in prison.

In this case, according to the Lake Forest Patch, authorities issues several warrants over a week-long period after more than a month of investigating alleged drug dealers. Newport Beach detectives conducted the search warrants there and in Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest and Huntington Beach.

Police reported that they found 37 pounds of high-grade marijuana that has a street value of about $200,000 as well as 300 marijuana plants and $24,000 in cash.

Authorities say that evidence they found in a Lake Forest home led Newport Beach detectives to a commercial building there, where police say they found an elaborate set up for growing marijuana.

Five people -- ages 24 to 61, were arrested and charged with various drug charges. Among the charges are sale of marijuana, sale of marijuana and cultivation of marijuana.

What the article doesn't state is how the five co-defendants are connected and what specific evidence led them from one residence to another or how police were able to justify their search warrants in different cities.

When police make arrests of multiple people, it can sometimes be a challenge for them to put all the pieces together. Sometimes, co-defendants don't know each other, so it can be tough to prove some type of conspiracy was in place. Other times, prosecutors must use these co-defendants as witnesses, which brings up issues of credibility.

This happens after prosecutors are able to strike a plea deal in exchange for their testimony. Once enemies of the state, they are now buddy-buddy with prosecutors as long as they say on the stand what the state wants to hear. This is dangerous because the witness is put at risk of lying to benefit themselves.

If they don't say exactly what they told prosecutors they would, they may have their plea agreement invalidated. This means that the co-defendants who are pitted against them may have a witness in their case not telling the 100 percent truth. An experienced Newport Beach criminal defense attorney will be able to spot these inconsistent statements and hold their feet to the fire.

There's nothing good about circumstantial evidence-based cases for defendants. If they've gotten to trial, that means that judges have denied motions to dismiss the charges based on the lack of evidence. This leads a Newport Beach criminal defense lawyer to them turn to a jury, who hopefully has the collective common sense to see that convictions shouldn't be handed out when the state doesn't have the proof to do so.

But while there are certainly going to be points to argue against the state's case, it's still a gamble for defendants who are facing this serious charges. Circumstantial evidence is questionable proof based on assumptions. If a person is seen nearby a place that had recently been burglarized, the prosecution may try to make a case against that person on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

In contrast, physical evidence is much more concrete than circumstantial evidence. This includes DNA proof, fingerprints, video surveillance or perhaps a possession of something that came from the house that lends credence to the idea that the suspect is somehow connected to the crime scene and the crime.

In South Carolina v. Odems, police made too many assumptions and it led to a man getting convicted and it taking years of appeals before the state supreme court overturned the convictions.

In 2005, a brown car turned into the driveway of a man's house. His cousin, not recognizing the car, began watching from across the street and eventually called police after two men got out of the car and knocked on the door. Later, one of the men put something in the car's trunk.

It drove off and the cousin attempted to follow, but couldn't keep up. Police put out alerts on the car and 90 minutes later, the vehicle was stopped by police. The driver spoke with police, while Odems and another man were inside.

When the officer discovered that the driver's license was suspended, all three men ran away. Later on, Odems knocked on the door of a house and asked the person inside for a ride. Though they didn't know each other, she allowed Odems to call for a ride. While inside, Odems told the woman that if police showed up, she should tell them they're dating. He said he was with someone who had a suspended license, they got pulled over and he didn't want to get in trouble, court records state.

As officers arrived, she refused and Odems and the two others who were in the car were arrested after found hiding in the backyard. Once police searched the Cadillac, they found several things that were identified as belonging to the burglary victim.

Odems was arrested and indicted on charges of first-degree burglary, grand larceny, criminal conspiracy and malicious injury to an electric utility system. At trial, his defense attorney moved to have the charges dropped, but it was denied. The jury convicted and he was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

An appeals court confirmed the convictions. But the state's supreme court overturned the convictions, ruling that the state's case consisted only of circumstantial evidence and there wasn't enough relevant evidence to support a conviction.

But the recent case of South Dakota v. Shanna C. Starkey, shows that some courts think otherwise in Fullerton DUI cases.

This topic is especially important as during the winter break, nearly 1,000 people were arrested for DUI throughout California -- that number only includes California Highway Patrol officers -- as law enforcement officers increased patrols and sought to increase DUI arrests. Our Fullerton DUI defense lawyers recognize that being charged with a DUI is a life-changing situation and one that can seriously harm a person's future.

In Starkey's case, last July she was parked at a bar around 2 a.m. She backed out of a parking space, according to court records, and pulled into the left lane of a three-lane street. She stopped about four car lengths short of a police cruiser ahead of her, though there was no traffic between the patrol car or any reason to stay behind, the officer stated.

As the light turned green, the officer went straight, while the female driver turned left. The officer decided to follow her. After going through the intersection, the officer made two lefts to backtrack and attempt to locate the female driver. He saw her sitting at a red light a few streets over.

The woman made a left, turned into a church parking lot, into an alley, down several more streets and eventually she ended up back at the bar where she originally started. The officer pulled her over and said, "Looks like you're doing a lot of work trying to avoid me." He suspected she was guilty of DUI and arrested her.

Her DUI defense lawyer attempted to suppress the evidence gathered because the officer had no reason to pull the vehicle over in the first place. There was no swerving, no running a red light, speeding or other traffic infraction that gave the officer a reason to make the initial stop. And her judge agreed, granting the motion to suppress and kicking out any evidence collected after the stop.

The state appealed and the South Dakota Supreme Court made a shocking ruling that because there was "reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot," the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.

Our Fullerton DUI defense lawyers hope there is an avenue for appeal beyond the current ruling because that would allow officers to have the power to pull over anyone any time they believe there is a "suspicion that criminal activity was afoot," regardless of any actual proof. This could lead to profiling, which is something that doesn't belong in police work. Let's hope this decision is struck down or not used as a basis for future cases.

As our Newport Beach DUI defense lawyers reported on our blog recently, we expected law enforcement to make a big push toward making DUI arrests at the end of the year since many more people were expected to be on the road traveling.

In fact, AAA estimated that 1.4 percent more people would be taking to the streets from Dec. 23 to Jan. 2, meaning that in Southern California, 7.13 million local residents would be traveling up to 50 miles from their home. One of the top destinations in the area was Disneyland in Anaheim, meaning there were likely many out-of-state drivers in the area.

According to the news article, the California Highway Patrol arrested 57 people for DUI in Orange County over the New Year's weekend, a jump of 20 from the year before. Statewide, there were 932 arrests, up from 873 over the same time period from last year's holiday. There were 12 deaths on the road, though none in Orange County. The article doesn't report how many of those deaths were drunk driving related.

And some of them may have been pulled over by local or state law enforcement and investigated for DUI. A fun trip to California may have ended on a sour note and they may facing legal trouble. But there are steps that can be taken to help a person who is in this position.

First of all, as in any DUI case, there are defenses that must be explored. And they begin with the reason the officer made the traffic stop in the first place. Our Constitutional rights protect us from being stopped for no reason.

So, if a law enforcement officer pulls a driver over, there must be what's called probable cause. Essentially, this means police must have a reasonable belief that the driver has committed a crime or a driving infraction. In DUI cases, this typically means the driver was speeding, swerving, made an improper lane change, ran a stop sign or showed signs of impairment.

Once the officer begins talking with the driver, they use their observations to determine whether to begin a DUI investigation. This typically involves whether the driver's speech is slurred or eyes are bloodshot or watery.

From there, an officer can ask a driver to perform field sobriety tests or take a breath test, both of which have defenses. A poorly trained officer, or witnesses who dispute his or her observations can squash the sobriety tests and breathalyzers have been shown to be poorly manufactured or maintained and spit out incorrect results.

But if an out-of-state driver is charged with DUI and is convicted, there still could be a problem dealing with your driver's license. In California, a person who is convicted of DUI has their driver's license suspended for six months. To have the license reinstated, the driver must show they have proof of insurance and have completed a DUI program.

And while a judge may allow the driver to complete a DUI program where they live, that won't satisfy the California DMV. They require an in-state program to be completed. But, there is a way to get around that. A 1650 waiver can be submitted to the DMV to end the suspension in California.

Our Orange County DUI defense lawyers understand that you may have to travel this holiday season to visit family and friends. And there may be a possibility that you will end up having a few drinks to relax and enjoy time off from work or while on vacation.

Our lawyers urge you to use good judgment if you consume alcohol, given that police will likely step up their patrols, conduct DUI checkpoints and attempt to make as many arrests as possible between Christmas and New Year's Eve. While it may be a relaxing time with lower stress in your family, this is one of the busiest times of the year for police.

NBC 4 recently reported that during the Thanksgiving holiday, the California Highway Patrol says DUI arrests in Los Angeles County increased 10 percent from last year's holiday enforcement. But statewide, there were 7 percent fewer arrests during the same time. About 70 fewer people were charged this year than last. The TV station reports that 903 people statewide were arrested and there were 14 fatalities.

The California Office of Traffic Safety keeps track of holiday DUI arrest numbers and reports that in 2010, there were 743 DUI arrests in Orange County between Dec. 17 and Jan. 2 -- the typical holiday enforcement period.

The 2009 numbers are much lower because officials only measured a three-day period from Jan. 1 to 3, but in that short time period, there were 110 arrests. In Los Angeles County, there were 1,923 DUI arrests during the winter holiday period of 2010, down significantly from the 2,622 DUI arrests in 2009, the office reports.

Automobile group AAA is estimating a slight increase of 1.4 percent in holiday travel. The Automobile Group of Southern California estimates that 7.13 million local residents will take trips at the end of the year between Dec. 23 and Jan. 2.

Nearly 90 percent of the people who are expected to travel 50 miles or more from home are believed to be traveling via vehicle. That's a 2.5 percent increase from last year. More than 11 million people statewide are expected to travel, with the most popular destinations being Las Vegas, San Diego, San Francisco, the Grand Canyon and Disneyland in Anaheim.

Keep in mind that law enforcement has access to this information and other information and will be planning accordingly. It's likely they will deploy units throughout Orange County and attempt to make thousands of arrests throughout Southern California.

Don't let a DUI arrest ruin your holidays. Take comfort knowing that while this may spoil your holiday plans, hiring an experienced Garden Grove DUI defense lawyer means having someone stand by your side and fight the state's charges.

The arrest has caused outrage from parents and students, but some have come to the teacher's defense, claiming he shouldn't have been fired simply over an allegation.

Our Irvine criminal defense lawyers agree that an allegation provides no proof and even an arrest is not a conviction. While the court of public opinion can rage strong, it is not a court of law.

The only place where proof is provided, witnesses testify under oath and a trial is held is in a courthouse. Yet, outside forces can cause problems for a defendant. Intense media coverage can hurt the pool of prospective jurors who are impartial and haven't formed an opinion about the suspect's guilt or innocence.

An experienced Irvine criminal defense lawyer may be able to use that media coverage to benefit the defendant -- by giving limited interviews to help balance the coverage without giving away defense strategies or other critical information that should be kept close to the vest.

Inevitably, the news media will report what the police say, which is essentially going to be what the prosecution says once the case progresses into the court system. They will rely on these facts for story after story and most of that will be slanted against the defendant. Attempting to thwart that can help a defendant in the public eye. But where that bias really should be weeded out is during jury selection.

According to The Orange County Register, a 37-year-old Spanish teacher for the last seven years and a man who coaches girls volleyball and boys soccer at the school has been arrested and charged with suspicion of molestation.

Sheriff's detectives allege that he molested an underage girl who is a former student. Investigators say they received a tip after the girl told her mother about an alleged sex act with the teacher. The girl was described as 14 or younger.

Police so far don't know how the girl may have gotten to the teacher's Dana Point home, where she says the sex act occurred. Without proof, detectives are saying they are concerned there may be more than one victim.

In Orange County sex cases such as these, it's often a battle of he said/she said. Officials often believe the victim's word and look for proof after the fact. In cases where a person of authority is accused, people often rush to the side of the accuser, even without proof. A fair trial is the only way to ensure all the facts come out.

Our Orange County criminal defense lawyers are prepared to fight on behalf of people charged with sex crimes throughout the area, regardless of the circumstances. These are serious crimes that can lead to prison time, so they must be fought aggressively.

In Aleman v. Village of Hanover Park, a man who ran a day care out of his home was charged with murder after police not only did a bad job, but also covered up key facts that would show his innocence during the investigation.

Cases like these reinforce to our Irvine criminal defense lawyers the notion that not all police officers can be trusted. While many do their jobs well, other investigators simply break rules because of the desire to make an arrest. In some cases, that desire is put ahead of upholding suspects' rights, which can lead to dropped charges and not-guilty verdicts.

Aleman ran a daycare service out of his home. At the time of this case in 2005, he had done so for about five months. But the man also had five children ages 3 to 15 at the time, so he was equipped to watch children.

On the September day in question, a mother dropped off her 11-month-old son at the house and he was feverish and lethargic. Not long after being dropped off, the boy began gasping for air and collapsed. Aleman attempted CPR, but wasn't able to help. An ambulance took the boy to the hospital, where he died four days later.

When police arrived at the house that day, they asked Aleman and his wife to come to the station for questioning. He agreed. After 45 minutes sitting in an interrogation room alone, he asked if he could leave and return in an hour. They told him no, that he was under arrest. After five hours, they finally came in the room to talk with him.

He said he wanted to talk to a lawyer and they permitted the call, but began preparing a waiver of rights form. His lawyer told him not to give a statement and the man relayed that to police. But they kept asking. He made several more calls and again to a lawyer. Eventually, he relented and talked with detectives for four hours.

In that conversation, according to court documents, the man admitted, sheepishly, to maybe shaking the baby after detectives told him he was the only one who could have shaken the boy after they spoke to three medical experts, which was a lie.

The man was arrested with aggravated battery of a child, which was upgraded to murder after the boy died. But it became obvious in short order just how poor a job these officers did. One officer knew that the boy's mother had a violent history, including convictions, had been known to shake the boy and made comments about not wanting him, covered that up. He told her not to talk to other investigators who were working the case.

A medical examiner ruled that based on the injuries, the boy must have been harmed before the date in question, but she changed her opinion after that officer told he the boy had no health problems that morning. She changed it back after realizing she had been lied to.

Eventually, the charges against the man were dropped. But, this episode may have destroyed his business and caused many problems for him in the community. It is a travesty and one that could easily have been avoided with sound police work.

Drug crimes in Fullerton and throughout Orange County can be major and can have long-term implications. It is estimated that as many as 30 percent of people locked up in California prisons are there because of drug offenses.

Our Fullerton criminal defense lawyers understand the possible penalties -- prison time, probation, fines and fees, loss of liberty, loss of job, reputation in the community and other sanctions.

There are pages of laws on the books about drug crimes, which can range from simple possession to manufacture, sale and trafficking. The penalties can be increased based on the type of drug, the weight or amount of the drug and where it's being sold or if children are around when it's found. The state is empowered to charge a person with many forms of the crime, which puts them in a good position.

But, at the same time, the state has the burden of proving the charges beyond all reasonable doubt. A defendant doesn't have an obligation to testify or present evidence, though sometimes that can be advantageous. It depends on the case.

According to the news report, authorities found 75 pounds of methamphetamine, 100 kilograms of cocaine and $1.1 million in cash during a recent investigation. During a more recent raid, officers found 10 pounds of meth and a gun.

Authorities suspect that a trio of Whittier brothers is involved. Last month, 44 people were indicted on charges of conspiring to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine. Authorities say this is the third time this particular family has been investigated for drug crimes. Since 2006, agents have seized more than 225 pounds of methamphetamine, 400 kilograms in cocaine and $4.6 million in cash in operations allegedly involving this group.

Along with family members, four others were charged with distributing drugs and collecting money on behalf of the family. Five others, including two from Santa Ana, were charged with selling meth. Another man was charged with transporting methamphetamine from Mexico between Los Angeles and Phoenix and another was charged with conspiring to distribute and possess drugs.

Regardless of the press releases law enforcement puts out initially, these defendants, along with all defendants, are innocent until proven guilty. Police can attempt to show the public they have all kinds of evidence against a defendant, but until it gets to court, it's all conjecture.

In many cases, overzealous officers seize evidence in Fullerton drug cases that can't be used because they didn't follow procedures. They rely on informants, whose credibility is shaky, as key witnesses when they have little else to rely upon. Even if a case seems open and shut, it rarely is. That's why we have trials. Everyone deserves a fair one.

They simply don't have the ability many times to determine right from wrong. But still, officials may file charges against a juvenile, not considering that Irvine juvenile charges carry long-term consequences.

An experienced Irvine criminal defense lawyer understands that juveniles, depending on their age, can be charged as adults. And even if they enter the juvenile justice system, sometimes, while protected, those records can lead to consequences, such as loss of scholarships, denial of getting into college, missing out on a job opportunity and other issues.

The case of Frances G., shows us that police will treat juveniles like adults in many aspects. A girl in Rhode Island was charged with vandalizing a relative's car after a dispute the relative had the girl's mother.

According to court documents, Frances and her mother traveled to the home of the girl's aunt's house to get a curling iron. When they went to the apartment, the aunt told her daughter to tell the two she was sleeping. They continued knocking and used vulgar language to demand she come out.

Two minutes later, the aunt's daughter screamed out, "Willa is at your car with a brick." When the woman awoke and looked outside, she saw her vehicle's windshield had been smashed and there were dents on the car as her sister and France G. drove off in another vehicle.

Later that night, Frances was with her father, who was contacted by police. They voluntarily went to the police station and the officer asked for a "general breakdown" of what happened before giving the girl her Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are what people typically know as "the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..." and other warnings.
After the girl told the officer what happened, he gave her a written set of Miranda rights that she and her father were read.

The girl said her mother instructed her to smash the windshield of the car and she admitted she was fully responsible for committing the crimes. After a trial, the girl was found to be wayward and was put on probation for a year and ordered to serve 30 hours of community service.

On appeal, attorneys argued that her statement to the officer violated her Fifth Amendment rights and they argued that the aunt shouldn't have been allowed to testify about what her daughter allegedly saw.

In both instances, appeals judges denied the arguments and upheld the girl's sentence. This goes to show that despite being only 12 years old, juveniles nationwide, including juveniles in Irvine, can be treated as adults, even if they are charged in the juvenile justice system.

Charges of murder in Fullerton are the most serious a person can face in California. They are the only charges that can lead to the death penalty -- the most serious penalty in the state.

It seems nowadays that unusual cases of sexual crimes, child abuse and animal cruelty tend to grab news headlines because maybe the public has become somewhat desensitized to homicide. But when a person dies and another person's life is on the line with murder charges in Califronia, it must be taken seriously.

In the case of State v. Allen, officials made mistakes at not one, but two trials for a man facing first-degree murder charges.

In 2001, Jeffrey Allen and John Butler, who were friends, were at Butler's house. Allen asked for Butler to drive him home, but he refused. Allen then grabbed the man's car keys, jingled them in front of him and threatened to drive himself home.

The two got into a fight, during which Allen stabbed Butler repeatedly with at least one kitchen knife, court records show. He then drove off in the car until he crashed and was arrested by police. A grand jury indicted him on charges of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, armed robbery and other charges.

At the first trial, a careless mistake by a judge threw a wrench into the situation. During jury instructions, the judge told jurors that they could find Allen guilty of first-degree felony murder whether they found he intended to commit the robbery before or after the murder.

A brief explanation: There are two ways in California, and in most states, to be charged with first-degree murder. One way is to prove that a person planned and executed the murder. That's premeditated murder. The other is to prove felony murder, which is when evidence suggests that a person killed someone while the suspect also was committing another felony, such as a robbery, burglary or a sex crime. Both crimes need to be proven to prove felony murder.

After being convicted of first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, armed robbery and the lesser charges, he appealed. On appeal, a court ruled that an "afterthought" of robbery isn't sufficient to support a felony murder charge. They upheld the other convictions, but sent the case back for a trial on the felony murder charge alone.

In the second trial, another mistake by the judge proved costly. Despite objections by the defense and the state, the judge told jurors not once, but twice that the defendant had previously been convicted of robbery.

While jurors didn't have to find him guilty of the armed robbery again, they had to make an independent finding that the state had proven that Allen killed Butler and he did so during a robbery to prove felony murder.

By the judge telling jurors he committed the robbery, the jury may have been led to lean toward convicting the man. Luckily, an appeals court again corrected the foolish mistake of a judge and awarded another trial. Let's hope the state stops wasting time and money and doesn't go through with another trial.

Charges of vandalism are typically considered juvenile crimes in Newport Beach.

But as police and prosecutors sometimes trying to show, vandalism cases can be linked to gang-related activity in California. The laws in this state are tough on people accused of gang crimes and a conviction can lead to years in prison.

But, for the most part, vandalism is a crime committed by teenagers or other youth. While some consider this a minor crime, it can have long-lasting implications outside of what a judge sentences. These charges can lead to a lifetime of regret.

A person who is convicted, even as a teenager, can miss out on scholarships for college, not get accepting into a university of their choice, be disqualified for military service and have problems getting a job. These are all consequences that an experienced Santa Ana criminal defense lawyer can help mitigate in the right circumstances.

In the Newport Beach case, the statue, which was purchased through private funds for $80,000, shows the former President standing and waving with his right hand. The bottom bears a facsimile signature and writing underneath. It now leans heavily forward as someone appears to have pried it up.

Officials recently announced that they had raised $5,000 so there is a reward for someone who may have information about who is responsible for the crime. The statute hasn't come without some controversy. Created to celebrate his 100th birthday, some were frustrated by it being put in a public park. That's why private donors were brought in to create it.

Council members and the mayor put up personal funds to create the reward.

Vandalism charges can vary, but most often they are charged as misdemeanors. If a juvenile is indeed arrested, they can be placed in juvenile court, but they may be subjected to the adult criminal justice system as well. Past criminal history, the facts of the case and the age of the defendant are all factors.

There are rare cases when vandalism charges can escalate into more serious allegations and possibly felonies if the state can prove that the damage done exceeds a certain amount of money.

This can lead to even more serious charges and possible jail or prison time, regardless of the age of the defendant. In a case where no one saw an event happening, the credibility of any witnesses the police can find and what they say to police and then at trial can make a difference between whether a person is found guilty or not guilty.

Like any criminal charge, a defendant shouldn't take it lightly. Even a misdemeanor conviction won't look good in 20 or 30 years. It still means a brush with the law and that can be a turn off by employers and others a person may seek to impress. That's why fighting a vandalism or juvenile charge in Orange County is so critical.

Drug cases in Fullerton and elsewhere in Southern California can lead to serious criminal penalties, which can escalate depending on the amount of drug alleged, whether it is being purchase, sold or manufactured and where it is being sold.

An experienced Newport Beach criminal defense lawyer will be prepared to defend a client facing drug charges or any related charges they may encounter, such as gun possession, which is a common partner charge that police lay out to defendants.

One common issue in drug cases is that police tend to be overzealous when pursuing these criminals. The "War on Drugs" has spanned decades and yet drugs are still in high demand. Therefore, law enforcement tend to get excited when they have a lead and sometimes they pursue it without following the law.

That excitement can turn into a violation of rights quickly if they don't respect the rules of search warrants. The Fourth Amendment gives everyone in the United States a right not to be unlawfully searched. This means police can't simply break into your house and start searching your property without justification.

A search warrant must be signed by a judge after police present enough evidence to convince the judge to let them break into a person's house, vehicle or business and search for clues. If they break in without a warrant, it can lead to evidence being suppressed, which means it won't be used at trial.

In some situations, police can use a "warrantless entry," meaning they can break in if they have reason to believe there is illegal activity going on inside. In the case of Kentucky v. King earlier this year, police broke into the wrong apartment after following a person involved in a drug deal.

In Boykins v. State, a Georgia case, a man pulled up to a woman standing on the street of a "high crime" area. When an officer spotted this, he turned around and followed the man to an apartment complex, where he pulled into a parking space. Suspecting prostitution, the officer pulled up to the man's parked car and asked for identification. The man said it was in his apartment, but gave him his name and birthday, which showed he had a warrant out for his arrest.

After handcuffing him and giving him to another officer, the initial officer searched his car and found cocaine. He was charged with possession of cocaine and sentenced to four years in prison. He appealed the ruling of his motion to suppress being denied.

The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the conviction, ruling that the state failed to show that it was a "dangerous" or "rare" situation that required a warrantless search.

According to the California Office of Traffic Safety, law enforcement made 743 DUI arrests between December 17 and January 3 last year in Orange County. There were 390 people arrested for DUI in San Bernardino County and more than 1,900 in Los Angeles County.

That's a large number of people charged with DUI in Orange County and the surrounding areas. In many cases, Fullerton DUI defense lawyers have seen, police simply didn't have a lot of evidence.

They were instructed to increase patrols and conduct DUI checkpoints in order to place as many people in handcuffs as they could. But arrest numbers and conviction numbers are two different things. Once police make arrests, they rarely boast what percentage of those cases end in a conviction for that charge. That's because many do not.

Once such case came out of Santa Barbara, where a newspaper journalist faced a DUI charge, but had it dropped after a judge ruled that police didn't have probable cause to make the stop in the first place.

Probable cause is a law enforcement term that is the standard for officers nationwide. Probable cause means that officers must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred before making an arrest. This is true for DUI cases, drug cases or murder investigations. Regardless of the severity of the allegation, police must have a reason for making an allegation.

In DUI cases or other traffic charges, police must have a reason for making a stop of a vehicle. This can be based on speeding, swerving, running a red light or stop sign or causing an accident.

In the Santa Barbara case, the man stopped at a green light and stayed there for 3 to 5 seconds, the officer stated, before the officer swung by and flashed a light in his car. He looked at the car, looked down and then drove, before the officer made the stop.

After being asked to take a breath test, he blew a 0.09, over the state's 0.08 legal blood alcohol level limit. But his lawyer was able to show the judge that in other states, judges have dismissed DUI charges in cases where a person stayed at a green light for as long as 60 seconds. That was enough to lead to a dismissal of the DUI charge, with the judge saying that any evidence discovered after the traffic stop should be tossed out.

That's what typically happens in cases where police have been found to not have probable cause. Even if the evidence they found shows guilt and proves the person should be convicted, the fact that they obtained the information improperly comes back to haunt them. If the evidence is tossed out, the case goes away, too.

As this holiday season approaches, drive safe and smart. If you are charged with DUI in Orange County, call an experienced DUI lawyer who can help you get through this difficult time.