California Criminal Defense Attorney Blog

A homeless man from Texas was recently arrested in connection with a 20-year-old Rancho Cucamonga murder, after authorities had few leads for decades, KTLA News reports.

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.

Continue reading "Texas Homeless Man Charged in Rancho Cucamonga Cold Case Murder" »

A recent court case out of Maryland shows that judges can make mistakes that can violate the rights of a defendant. When something like this happens in our area of California, an experienced Fullerton criminal defense lawyer should be hired, because he or she can zero in any any errors and save the client from a possible conviction.

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.

Continue reading "State v. Allen Shows Murder Cases Require Experienced Defense Lawyers" »

Police in Orange County continue to have a challenging year.

As our Fullerton criminal defense lawyers
pointed out on our blog recently, Fullerton police have had problems as officers have recently been charged with murder as well as groping a woman. Plus, a squad of officers raided the wrong house and never told their bosses.

And now a Garden Grove police officer was allegedly run over by a man from Fullerton, who has recently been arrested, The Orange County Register reports.

Charges of assault in Garden Grove can lead to serious penalties, including prison time. When the victim is a law enforcement officer or another kind of official, the charges can be enhanced.

What may be the most difficult issue about this case is whether this defendant will be able to find a fair and impartial jury to look at the facts. For one, police officers are exalted by jurors many times in terms of the credibility of their words. Jurors sometimes will take an officer at his or her word, but will dismiss other witnesses.

Secondly, in cases where an officer is a victim, the news media will almost always do a story. And they will follow the story, reporting on the incident and the things happening in the court case until it goes to trial. This keeps it in the public eye. The bad thing for a defendant is that it puts a bias into the minds of the prospective jurors out there reading and watching these reports.

So, the question remains -- can this defendant get a fair trial?

According to the newspaper, the 28-year-old man was charged with running over a motorcycle officer during a traffic stop. He was arrested in Riverside County.

Officers were looking for the man for the better part of two days when a motorcycle officer pulled over the driver of a green Infiniti with no license plate. As the officer was talking with the driver, he noticed he wasn't wearing a seat belt.

According to the news account, the driver was asked to step out of the vehicle, causing him to act nervous. The officer thought something else was wrong, so he patted down the man after he got out of the car.

While pulled over in a parking lot, the driver allegedly ran back to the car as the officer, who radioed for back-up, struggled with him. The man was able to put the car in reverse and the open door knocked down the officer, a 10-year veteran. As the man put the car in drive, he ran over the officer's legs, causing moderate injuries.

It's unclear what led police to arrest this man, since the story doesn't say if the officer was ever given an identification or if anything on the vehicle with no license plates gave him information about the man.

The newspaper doesn't state what charges he faces, but he will likely face charges related to an assault or battery, fleeing and other charges. Given that the officer is considered the victim, the prosecutors will likely levy as many charges as they can come up with against this defendant.

Continue reading "Can Fullerton Man Charged With Running Over Officer Get a Fair Trial?" »

Two men have been arrested after they were allegedly involved in a high-speed chase with police in Ontario, The Sun of San Bernardino reports.

High-speed chases have been made popular by California criminals, with the most popular chase likely belonging to O.J. Simpson. But a warning to those who may consider fleeing from police at high rates of speed -- not only are these dangerous, but police usually catch the suspects and they end up facing a host of additional charges.

For someone who faces a charge of assault in Santa Ana or burglary in Ontario, it's understandable that seeing a police officer in your rear view mirror can be terrifying.

But fleeing at high rates of speeds can result in injury to you, injury to other drivers or pedestrians or possibly death, if driving on a crowded highway or busy side streets. This can multiply the charges a person faces because police will go from curious to furious and put up as many counts against the driver as possible.

In any scenario, charges require the skills and experience of an Ontario criminal defense lawyer who will be able to look at all the evidence and create a strong defense strategy for the client. Not every charge is what it looks like and every criminal defendant deserves the right to a fair trial.

According to The Sun, a 31-year-old man and his 22-year-old passenger were arrested recently after one of these chases. Officers arrived on West D Street around midnight one recent day after receiving a call of people loitering in the area.

When officers pulled up, they saw a vehicle driving away. When cruisers attempted to pull over the vehicle, it sped off, police said.

The 31-year-old driver alleged drove at high speeds, on the wrong side of the road at times and tried to ram a police car during the chase. Officers bumped back, using a patrol car to bump the man's vehicle, causing it to stop on West Locust Street.

The driver ran off, but was apprehended by police. The man allegedly dropped a gun during the chase. His passenger was held on a warrant for burglary, but he doesn't face charges related to the chase.

The driver, though, now faces charges of assault with a deadly weapon, felony evading and resisting arrest.

And the whole thing started over a call for loitering in the area. Had police pulled the vehicle over and they talked things over, no charges may have been filed. Of course, they could have run the passenger's name and found he had a warrant, but otherwise, it's possible no one would have gone to jail.

Now, the driver faces many years in prison if convicted of the charges because of his decision to allegedly speed off rather than being pulled over and talking with police. This snap judgment can cost drivers in the long run. And it usually only comes down to a split-second decision.

Continue reading "Two Charged After High-Speed Chase With Ontario Police " »

It's probably far from a rosy atmosphere at the Fullerton Police Department these days. Some officers have been charged with murder, and another charged with groping women. Adding to the department's woes is the revelation that a squad of officers busted into the wrong house during a raid and never told anyone about it.

Hopefully, prospective jurors out there are taking note that some officers do make mistakes, just like everyone else. Just because they say "this is the person who committed the crime" doesn't mean it's so.

Whether arrested and charged with robbery in Santa Ana or other high-penalty crimes, an experienced Orange County criminal defense attorney must scrutinize all police actions in order to determine if they followed policies and procedures in making an arrest.

Think about the recent alleged actions of Fullerton police officers and the recent injustice in Italy with Amanda Knox being imprisoned for four years for a murder she didn't commit and for which there was little evidence. It should be painfully clear that there are police officers and prosecutors who want an arrest so badly they will act dishonestly and bend the truth in order to get it. And when the news media is involved, their job is intensified and the desire to nail down an arrest becomes that much more of a pressured situation.

Two veteran police officers have been charged in connection with the July death of a homeless man in Fullerton. Both have been placed on unpaid leave after being arrested. One faces charges of second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter and another faces charges of involuntary manslaughter and excessive use of force.

On July 5, four officers were involved in an alleged beating that led to the death of a 37-year-old homeless man, the Los Angeles Times reports.

In another embarrassing moment for the department, officials are now planning on firing an officer who was allowed to return to work after allegedly groping several women. He was placed on leave in 2008 and returned to work after allegations made by seven women. He was against placed on administrative leave July 9. The city has already paid out $500,000 to settle claims made by two women.

And the hits don't stop coming.

Just recently, the department had to issue an apology because it raided the wrong home during a drug probe. When officers were attempting to perform a search of a home where a person on probation was living, they went into a back alley and entered the wrong gate, leading them to the wrong house. Officers recognized the error immediately, but apparently didn't report the incident right away, the newspaper reports. The department eventually came up with a new policy for handling such incidents, which officials say rarely happen.

While all these incidents certainly don't mean that every police officer makes such mistakes, it means that mistakes do happen. Jurors shouldn't take police officers at their word compared to lay witnesses, including the defendant.

Some might say that the defendant's words shouldn't be trusted because his or her liberty is on the line. Others might point out that officers' jobs are on the line if they fail -- on a grand scale -- to prove a case.

Continue reading "Bad Year For Fullerton Police In Dealing With Orange Country Crimes" »

The recent case of a store clerk getting pistol-whipped during a robbery in Anaheim brings up a critical issue in our criminal justice system -- the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

Police are still searching for suspects in that case of robbery in Anaheim, but investigators will no doubt rely heavily upon the words of the victims as well as grainy video tape from the store, if available.

California courts must take note of what's going on in New Jersey, where authorities have changed the rules when it comes to how much credibility is given to eyewitness testimony in criminal cases. Justices for the New Jersey Supreme Court recently passed rules that would allow for a hearing and a specific jury instruction if witness credibility issues are brought up.

An experienced Anaheim criminal defense attorney will be able to identify any problems or inaccuracies in a witness's testimony. This could result in convincing jurors or a judge that the witness shouldn't be trusted, but not always. Further rules would allow defendants to get a fair trial where others before them have been locked up based on poor witness testimony.

This issue is especially pertinent after Georgia officials recently executed convicted murderer Troy Davis after seven out of nine witnesses changed or recanted their testimony that he killed a police officer there. Despite pleas from throughout the world, Georgia officials denied his pardon and executed him.

According to The Orange County Register, police responded to a liquor store one night that had been robbed. As police arrived, they searched for two men who ran out of the store, but couldn't find them.

Two clerks said two men walked in and one jumped over the counter, demanded money and hit the clerk in the head with a gun. The other clerk ran to help, but was also hit in the head. After taking money, the two ran out of the store. The police provided vague descriptions to the public of two 20- to 30-year-old men.

The problem is that not only were both men struck in the head, which could affect their memories, but they were also terrorized, which can lead them to false memories or tainted accounts of what happened. Obviously, they have a motivation to see someone arrested and the longer there isn't an arrest, the more pressure they may put on police or police on them.

At least New Jersey officials are taking notice. The New York Times reports that judges there must hold a hearing if questions are brought up about a witness's credibility or shaky testimony and a number of factors must be considered. Police influence, whether they were taking drugs or alcohol at the time they saw an event unfold, the time of day, distance between them and the suspect, and other factors must be considered.

Judges may also be able to give jurors a specific instruction -- even in the middle of trial -- that would tell them the dangers of witness credibility and the factors that could cause a witness to be untruthful or unreliable.

Justices wrote that there is a "troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications." The newspaper speculates that New Jersey's decision could influence other states as it has been a trendsetter for criminal justice issues. Let's hope California court officials are taking notice.

Continue reading "Witness Identification in Santa Ana Cases Must Be Scrutinized" »

A man and a woman have been arrested and charged in connection with a shooting that happened in July at a Costa Mesa parking lot, the Daily Pilot reports.

This is a curious case because it took investigators more than two months to make an arrest. While the initial news reports aren't very detailed, it will be interesting to see what evidence detectives uncovered and whether it can lead to convictions.

Charges involving weapons, violence or even murder in Santa Ana are to be given the most attention because they can lead to a person spending years and even decades behind bars. California lawmakers have increased possible penalties against suspects charged with gun crimes as a deterrent to others who may consider committing a crime that involves a violent weapon.

But this often puts the defendants -- even before they are found guilty -- at a great disadvantage because the state has a leg up in plea negotiations with possible penalties being so high. An experienced Santa Ana criminal defense lawyer must be brought in to assess the facts and determine whether there are any inaccuracies in the police reports and investigations.

In this case, a 26-year-old man and 30-year-old woman have been arrested and are being held in custody on charges of conspiring to commit murder and attempted murder, Costa Mesa police are saying.

Officers have charged them with being involved in the July 16 shooting of a 26-year-old man who told police he was sitting in the driver's seat of a car that was parked at Paularino Elementary School. While he was waiting to meet a woman after work, he said he spotted a man wearing a dark, hooded sweatshirt who was talking on a cell phone.

The man allegedly approached the victim and opened fire, hitting him in arm, torso, shoulder and neck. Police say that the victim was at the school to meet the 30-year-old woman who was arrested. She is an ex-girlfriend who still had contact with the man who was shot.

Police allege that the woman called her ex-boyfriend to the school at the request of her co-defendant, who intended to harm him.

Police must establish a link between the two co-defendants in order to charge them with conspiring to kill the other man. And they must have identified the shooter with strong eyewitnesses and not shaky, less-than-credible people.

It's likely they have looked at cell phone records to determine whether the two spoke before the shooting, but that doesn't mean they conspired to kill the man. If the woman and her co-defendant were previously friends, that can explain a random phone call. The woman may have had no idea why the two wanted to meet, and she certainly may not have known it was to set him up to be killed.

In cases with multiple defendants, it's important that no one speaks with police unless he or she first consults with a Santa Ana criminal defense lawyer. Defendants' statements are used against them at trial. So if they contradict each other's or the police officer's account of the facts, it can turn bad quickly for the defense.

Continue reading "Santa Ana Pair Charged In Costa Mesa Shooting in School Parking Lot" »

An Irvine man faces charges of child endangerment, a felony, after authorities allege he threw his 7-year-old son over a boat during a cruise when the boy wouldn't stop crying, The Orange County Register is reporting.

The 35-year-old man also faces a misdemeanor charge of resisting and delaying officers after the incident, which happened August 28, the newspaper reports.

This is a case of parental discipline gone wrong and the father now faces a potential prison sentence as a result. Charges of child abuse in Santa Ana are particularly difficult because when children are considered victims, the state can be particularly aggressive in determining which charges to file and how many.

That's why an experienced and aggressive Santa Ana Criminal Defense Attorney is needed in order to defend against these serious allegations.

In this case, child endangerment in California is defined under California Penal Code 273a.

Under that code of law, a person can be charged with the felony version of child endangerment if they are "likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering," willfully causes pain or puts them in a position where they are endangered. Under that law, a person who is convicted could be sentenced to two, four or six years in a state prison.

If there are other scenarios in which a child could be placed in danger other than those described above, a person can face a misdemeanor. If a person is sentenced to probation in lieu of prison time, the law mandates the person spent 48 months on probation. They may also be ordered to stay away from the child and must complete one year of child abuser's treatment.

In this case, the man and his son were aboard the Queen, a tour boat, when the man allegedly was under the influence of alcohol when he repeatedly poked his son in the chest and slapped him before tossing him 10 feet down into the water, prosecutors allege. They say the boy was thrown into the path of oncoming boat traffic.

Authorities allege he was on board with his girlfriend and two sons when the incident occurred. Police say he made no effort to save his son, but rather jumped off the boat only to avoid other passengers, who were angry at him.

A boat captain had to maneuver to avoid hitting the boy, who stayed afloat until a captain of another boat tossed him a life ring and carried him to safety. The man is scheduled for arraignment in the coming weeks.

Given the high-profile nature of the case, an Orange County Defense Attorney must be able to control the news media. A defendant has a right to a fair trial, and that includes not having the potential jury pool tainted by one-sided media reports of what the prosecution and police say happened. This pre-trial work is also an important as the defense prepares for trial.

Continue reading "Dad Charged for Allegedly Throwing Son Overboard in Santa Ana" »

Authorities are finally listening -- after years of Orange County Criminal Defense Attorneys and others trying to tell California officials that the prisons are overcrowded and their hard-line stance that everyone should be locked up, even for minor crimes, is ruining lives and costing billions.

But it's not because of some kind of proactive planning move. They're desperate. The state's budget is in disarray and prisons are overcrowded to epic proportions. Inmates and staff are sick as a result and it's unconstitutional.

But as of Oct, 1, 2011, AB 109 will go into effect, realigning the way California treats convicted criminals, according to the California State Association of Counties.

Under the new plan, those convicted of non-serious, non-violent, non-sex offenses will begin serving their sentences in local jails rather than in state-run prisons. There are 60 such charges that are excluded from the new rule. Some of these charges include drug crimes, minor assaults and theft in Santa Ana.

Because of the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Plata, the state had to immediately revamp is unconstitutionally overcrowded prison system. Under the Plata decision, the government "realigned" the burden of housing convicts from the state to counties.

But the American Civil Liberties Union has a different plan for "realignment" that would better serve Californians and the decimated budget that the government is attempting to overhaul. This is a list of the twelve key elements of realignment planning as sent to all California counties by the ACLU:

-Set up a process from the beginning that is transparent.
-Assess the plan of the currently supervised population and the new realignment population.
-Determine whether programs have a valid basis for success, set targets and evaluate.
-Create a comprehensive approach that includes underlying causes of criminal behavior and recidivism.
-Create a pre-booking and pre-charging diversion for the low-risk population.
-Reduce immigration-based booking and detention costs.
-Expand alternatives to imprisonment using home detention and work furlough programs.
-Use community correction alternatives over jail for punishment.
-Ensure that jail conditions and other sanctions are constitutional and subjected to legal review.
-Use evidence-based post-release supervision programs.
-Develop financing model that prioritizes funding programs for rehabilitation, treatment and reentry instead of just adding jail beds.
-Don't just exchange prisoners.

It's unfortunate that it's taken years of wasted money for California's leaders to figure out that they can't just keep sending people to prison and paying for it without investing something in the defendants. Recidivism is one of the biggest problems in America's criminal justice system -- the same people going through the system year after year.

If the prison system would work with inmates, teach them life and work skills and give them the ability to find jobs and maintain finances when they get out, the system overall will be in much better shape. But officials would rather just keep shipping people back to prison.

This may finally be the start of California getting smart about its prison system instead of continuing to operate without new or innovative ideas.

Continue reading "California Prison Realignment Is State's Newest Money-Saving Venture" »

The family of a Laguna Beach man is asking for the public's help locating the man's body, which has been missing since last summer, The Orange County Register reports.

Yet authorities have arrested his business partner and charged him with the murder.

This will be an interesting case to watch, as authorities have no physical evidence against the defendant to charge him in this Orange County murder case. Murder is the most serious crime on the books in California, as it's punishable by the death penalty in certain cases.

Therefore, hiring an experienced Santa Ana Defense Attorney to defend these charges is extremely important. Motions can be filed to suppress evidence or statements that the state intends to use against the defendant and an aggressive attorney can scrutinize all aspects of the prosecution's case.

According to the newspaper account, the two men ran an ad agency in San Juan Capistrano and detectives believe the two had a falling out and the victim wanted to split. He was supposed to get $1 million to buy his half of the company, but authorities believe his business partner killed him instead.

After the time authorities believe he was killed, they received messages and emails from his accounts, which described vacations. For months, family members thought it was strange but didn't take any action until they finally reported him missing.

A month before authorities believe the man was killed, his business partner was convicted of embezzlement and ordered to pay restitution and he was sued by the victim. Police believe that was motive enough for the killing.

They say the man confessed to killing the man in their San Juan Capistrano offices and an assistant helped get rid of the man's vehicle, which was found in San Jose, as well as the man's possessions.

Yet officials still don't know where the body is. So, without that evidence, it may be difficult to get a conviction. Police often tell the media that a person confessed, but what exactly they said won't be made public for a while.

And if the state manages to get the man's assistant to become a witness, his testimony must be scrutinized. He is likely going from a possible prison term to maybe probation or less serious sanctions and will probably say just about anything the prosecutor tells him to say.

If the defendant tells a different story in his own defense on the stand and was possibly so nervous at the thought of being questioned in connection with a homicide that he said things construed by police as a confession, he may be able to avoid a conviction.

What the general public fails to understand sometimes is that sitting in a tiny cinder block room with two detectives who want nothing but a full admission to a murder is daunting. To know that you may be going to jail and to have police officers screaming at you is nerve-racking beyond belief. People sometimes say things that aren't true.

These things must be explained at trial in order for a jury to understand. This isn't a police television show; this is real life. And in real life, the state must prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Continue reading "Irvine Faces Murder Charge Without a Victim's Body" »

A Fullerton man convicted earlier this year for twice ejaculating in a co-worker's water bottle for was ordered to pay $27,000 on top of the jail time for battery, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Charges of battery in Orange County can be serious, as can allegations of sex offenses. Both can require time in jail or prison as well as possible registration as a sex offender or sex predator. These types of charges require the services of an experienced Orange County Criminal Defense Lawyer, who can scrutinize all evidence the state intends to use in its prosecution.

According to the newspaper, the 32-year-old man was recently ordered to pay the woman $27,410.80 to cover lost wages, therapy and medical expenses, including the money she paid to have the tainted water tested.

The man was found guilty of two misdemeanor charges of battery in February after he left semen-laced water on his co-worker's desk at the Newport Beach office they shared on two occasions. The woman drank from the bottles both times. She threw the first away after detecting an unusual taste. She saved the second to test it. The man's DNA later matched the water bottle.

Depending on the circumstances, it may have been possible for the state to charge him with some type of sex crime. In California, convictions for certain sex crimes can require the defendant to register as a sex offender for a period of time and sometimes for life.

These sex offender and sexual predator registries are viewable to everyone. In California, people are required to notify law enforcement when they move so neighbors get notices telling them a person has moved in nearby. It can be very intrusive for people, which is why an aggressive defense is necessary.

Obviously, sex crimes can vary. They can range from indecent exposure, which many times is accidental and charges aren't warranted, to a forcible rape. Failing to register as a sex offender is also a crime.

The same goes for battery. Battery charges are different than assault charges. Assault is an attempt or threat of violence against a person. Battery is actually physically abusing someone, therefore the charges are more severe. In this case, the man was charged with battery.

Much like sex crimes, battery charges vary depending on the circumstances. The amount of harm done to another person and whether a weapon was used -- such as a knife, gun or baseball bat, for instance -- can determine the possible penalties.

And while restitution is typically reserved for white collar crimes that include stealing money, a judge determined it was applicable here. The victim in the case apparently lost time at work, had to go through counseling and had to pay to get the water tested at a private laboratory, which all cost money. And because the man was convicted, a judge ordered him to repay the costs.

The criminal justice system is complex and there are many things to take into consideration when defending charges that threaten a person's liberty. Between defense strategies, determining if restitution is applicable and many other considerations, an experienced and aggressive Orange County Criminal Defense Attorney must be consulted in order to work on getting the best possible resolution for the client.

Continue reading "Fullerton Man Pays $27,000, Serves 6 Months for Ejaculating in Co-Worker's Water Bottle" »

Do a quick Google search you can find nearly 1.5 million results in less than a second for "Caylee's Law." While it hasn't become a law in any state or under federal guidelines, politicians are rushing to cash in on the public's outrage in order to boost their re-election hopes.

Caylee's Law, as proposed, would make it a felony if a parent doesn't report a child missing within 24 hours or if they fail to report the death of a child within an hour. Rarely do gut-reaction bills make for good laws, but it is likely that somewhere, it will be a law. Some are pushing for this type of law on a federal level, while 16 states have already had lawmakers propose similar bills, The Associated Press reports.

Orange County Criminal Defense Lawyers believes that rushing to push through this type of legislation is irresponsible and continues the trend of laws named after crime victims that play more to emotion than reason. Though they have become predictable, these laws usually get pushed through legislatures without applying common sense first.

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few months, you probably have some knowledge about the Casey Anthony trial in Orlando, Florida. In 2008, her daughter Caylee went missing from their home. Casey Anthony failed to report her missing and after five months her mother finally reported her missing.

Casey Anthony was charged with first-degree murder, manslaughter and other related charges, but a jury recently found her only guilty of four counts of lying to police. She initially told detectives a babysitter abducted the child and other lies. But her jury found her not guilty of the murder and manslaughter charges after the state failed to prove its case with no physical evidence linking the girl's mother to the crime.

A recent column in The Huffington Post makes some good points about the rush to push through legislation. For one, a high-profile media case like the one of Caylee Anthony isn't representative of what normally happens in courthouses across the country. Juries usually get it right, but when prosecutors fail to prove a case or a defense lawyer outsmarts the state, people get all bent out of shape. Among the columnists points, this stands out:

"Even more regrettable is that every time a Casey Anthony-type trial captures the public's attention, someone gets the idea that we need a new law in response to the completely unrepresentative case, a law that presumably would have prevented that particularly travesty from happening. The problem, of course, is that the new law -- usually poorly written and passed in a fit of hysteria -- is too late to apply to the case it was designed for. But it does then apply to everyone else."

Activist Michelle Crowder came up with the 24-hour and 1-hour time limits, though she recently told CNN she didn't consult with any law enforcement before coming up with the idea, which has gone viral on the Internet and caused droves of people to call and email their lawmakers to push for such a bill. There may be no way to even show when a child went missing or when the child died, so this law could prove to be pointless anyway.

Despite when unrealistic crime television shows may portray, it is nearly impossible for medical examiners to determine the time of death of a person who has died. It is often difficult to nail down how a person died, let alone what the exact time was.

The column also brings up these important points in this ill-conceived law, such as:

What if the child dies during the night and isn't discovered until the morning?

What if a parent or guardian falls asleep and a child dies playing outside? Neglect maybe, but a felony punishable by prison time?

How do you pinpoint when a child goes missing? From the time it was discovered or from the time the child gets abducted, if the child is ever found?

If a family is on a camping trip and a child drowns, but no one has cell phone service are the parents going to be charged with a crime?

This proposed law has many problems and while it is being proposed based on anger rather than sound reasoning, it is our hope that reasonable lawmakers take a look at these proposals and make law that can help rather than hurt.

Continue reading "Caylee's Law a Bad Gut Reaction to the Public's Mob-Like Mentality After the Casey Anthony Trial" »

Two Riverside men were recently arrested and charged with abandoning a bruised and starving horse, according to The Los Angeles Times.

Animal cruelty charges are not only serious in terms of their punishment in California, but also in the stigma attached in the eye of the public. That's why consulting with the Riverside criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible would be in your best interests to protect your rights and ensure the best possible resolution in your case.

According to the article, the two men were spotted pulling the horse by a rope and then leaving without the horse. Animal Services officers say this is a growing problem in Riverside County. More than 40 abandoned horses have been recovered so far this year.

Under California Penal Code 597, animal cruelty in California is punishable by prison time as well as a fine of up to $20,000. The charge can be pursued by prosecutors as either a misdemeanor or felony, which would change the amount of time and fine a person could face. A suspect could face 1 to 3 years in prison, under the law.

Obviously, it would be better for the suspect to be charged with a misdemeanor. And while the state controls the defendant's destiny, hiring an experienced criminal attorney early in the process can be advantageous.

For one, the attorney can speak with the prosecutor who will be handling the case before he or she files formal charges against the defendant. This is important because it allows the state to hear a second opinion. Rather than relying 100 percent on the police officer's opinion, the prosecutor now hears from the attorney, who can relay the defendant's perspective.

This sometimes can lead to the state not filing charges at all or filing a reduced charge. Because law enforcement's standard of proof is "probable cause," which is a low standard to meet and the state's burden of proof is "beyond all reasonable doubt," a high standard, prosecutors have to take a careful look at the facts and determine if they can prove the charges to a jury "beyond reasonable doubt."

That's why hiring an Riverside County felony attorney who can sort through the facts can be a big advantage. For one, it helps in plea negotiations. Or, it may mean the state doesn't file charges at all and the defendant can go free.

This applies to any type of charge, whether animal cruelty, robbery, assault or even juvenile cases from Riverside to San Jacinto.

But waiting a long time to decide which attorney to choose would be a mistake. This opportunity may long be gone and the state may have a better chance for victory. Don't wait. Call today.

Continue reading "Riverside Men Charged With Animal Cruelty After Alleged Horse Dumping" »

In a 90 page ruling which has started a floodgate of criticism, Judge Urbina dismissed the murder charges that were filed against Blacwater contractors who were accused of killing innocent Iraqi civilians in 2007. According to New York Times the issue was that the contractors who were considered government agents were obligated to give an immediate report of what they had done, however, the United States Constitution prevents the government from requiring a defendant to testify against himself, so those statements could not be used in the prosecution of the con tractors. The Warren court in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) established that government employees should not be coerced to give statements that can be used against them under the threat of unemployment. Orange County Felony Attorneys of Criminal Defense Team handle cases brought against government and public sector employees for such allegations as embezzlement, fraud, battery and assault. In embezzlement cases especially, protections provided by Garrity can be essential to a defendants case and anyone facing felony or misdemeanor embezzlement charges should consult with our Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys.