California Criminal Lawyers Blog

As Mission Viejo sex crimes criminal defense attorneys, we were interested to see an article showing how easy it is for a sex-related conviction to destroy a career. The Orange County Register reported Sept. 20 on the case of Mark Petrash, 42, who is facing two counts of misdemeanor indecent exposure. Petrash was accused of exposing himself to adult women in two separate incidents. He is currently on leave from his job as a music teacher at Serrano Intermediate School in Lake Forest. If convicted, Petrash would face a lifelong obligation to register as a sex offender, which would disqualify him from having a teacher credential in California. The indecent exposure convictions would also disqualify him. In addition to the professional consequences, Petrash would also face a maximum sentence of two years in jail.

The charges against Petrash stem from his son's visit to an orthodontist in August of 2009. The receptionist at the orthodontist's office alleges that Petrash pulled down his pants in the waiting room and exposed himself to her. More than a month later, on Oct. 1 of 2009, Petrash was arrested at the school where he worked. He pleaded not guilty and was released on $10,000 bail. After learning of the first charges, a female colleague from a different school in the district stepped forward to report that Petrash had exposed himself to her as well. She said that during a district-wide meeting, he followed her to the restroom, exposed himself and touched himself. Petrash's sex crimes defense attorney said the sex offender registration would be an overly severe penalty for someone who had received no complaints from his students. A spokesperson for the Orange County district attorney's office said sex offender registration is legally permitted for these charges.

Our Corona sex crimes criminal defense lawyers can see from the state code that the DA's office is correct -- but that is only half of the story. In the interest of justice, we believe prosecutors should also consider whether a penalty is fair and in proportion to the crime, not merely whether it is legally permitted. In this case, Petrash is accused of exposing himself to adult women. We don't think this behavior should be encouraged, but that doesn't mean it is worthy of the severe burden that is lifetime sex offender status. Petrash did not exploit children and his crime was not violent. Compare this to other crimes that trigger sex offender registration status, such as forcible rape and long-term child molestation. Some punishment may be appropriate for Petrash if prosecutors show that he is guilty, but sex offender status seems inappropriately harsh.

Continue reading "Teacher May Have to Register as Sex Offender if Convicted of Indecent Exposure" »

Our Pomona domestic violence criminal defense lawyers were interested to read about a Ladera Ranch man who was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence Sept. 21 for throwing a dog leash at his estranged wife. The man is Simon Robert Barney, the estranged husband of Tamra Barney of the television show "Real Housewives of Orange County." The Orange County Register's Sept. 21 article noted that the two are in the process of a divorce. Simon Barney was arrested later "because of an emergency protective order," the newspaper said. It did not say whether the protective order was a result of the leash-throwing incident or any past history of physical confrontations between the two. He is being held in Orange County's central jail in lieu of bail and was scheduled to appear in court Sept. 22.

The Register said Simon Barney was at the family's home to care for the dog when Tamra Barney and their 10-year-old son arrived home. The son opened the door, and Simon Barney allegedly threw the leash as Tamra Barney entered the house. She told deputies that the retractable leash, which was covered in hard plastic, was aimed at her head, so she threw up her hands and it hit her wrist. No injury was reported, and the newspaper was not able to say what the Barneys were fighting about, although a spokesperson for the district attorney's office did describe the situation as a fight. However, Tamra Barney called Orange County sheriff's deputies shortly after Simon Barney left, around 8:50 Monday night. Deputies later found Simon Barney in another location and arrested him early on Sept. 21. It was not clear whether the arrest was for domestic violence or for violating a protective order.

As Tustin domestic violence criminal defense attorneys, we would like a lot more information before deciding whether Simon Barney's charges are appropriate. But we suspect many people would be surprised to learn that even if Tamra Barney was not injured, Simon Barney could still be convicted under the most common domestic violence charge, domestic battery (California Penal Code 243(e)(1)). To be convicted under that statute, you must willfully inflict force or violence on an "intimate partner." Any unwanted touching is enough to qualify for the statute, even if it doesn't cause any visible injury or pain. In practice, this means any angry or unkind touching is enough to cause a criminal charge. Simon Barney may also have been arrested for violation of a protective order, if there was a protective order keeping him out of the home or ordering him not to interact with his estranged wife.

Continue reading "Estranged Husband Arrested for Throwing Dog Leash at 'Real Housewives' Cast Member" »

As San Marcos medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we were interested to see a recent article about the start of a trial for a man accused of illegally selling medical marijuana for profit. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported Sept. 20 that Jovan Jackson, 32, is being tried in California state court for drug possession and drug sales. The charges stem from a raid on his San Diego medical marijuana dispensary, Answerdam Alternative Care in Kearney Mesa, on Sept. 9, 2009. Medical marijuana is legal throughout California, but prosecutors in Jackson's case argue that he was operating Answerdam for profit, which is not allowed under state law. In opening statements, a prosecutor argued that the business was a profitable drug enterprise, not a medical dispensary.

This is actually the second trial for Jackson on similar charges. Last December, he was acquitted of drug sales charges stemming from a separate investigation, in which an undercover detective bought drugs on two separate occasions using a valid marijuana card. In that trial, Jackson was permitted to present evidence that he was selling the marijuana legally under California's medical marijuana laws, an he was acquitted on all charges. However, the Union-Tribune said he cannot use the same defense in this trial, because the judge has ruled that the medical marijuana defense applies only to groups whose primary purpose was cultivation, not retail sales. The defense did not make an opening statement in the trial, but Jackson has said in the past that he believed he was running Answerdam legally. Jackson's San Diego medical marijuana defense lawyer said he was confident about another acquittal.

Our Temecula medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys wish them luck. We are particularly disappointed in the San Diego district attorney's office for trying Jackson twice on similar charges. Because the trials stem from different incidents, this is not "double jeopardy" as prohibited by the Constitution, but it certainly seems like an attempt by prosecutors to retry the same issues. The article does not give many details explaining the judge's reasons for denying Jackson the right to use a medical marijuana defense, but under state law, medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives have a clear right to use such a defense. A collective or cooperative, including a dispensary, should not be prosecuted only for providing medical marijuana, as long as it is not for profit and does not violate other sections of the law. We hope the jury in Jackson's case is aware of this and makes its decision fairly, even if Jackson's defense is not permitted to bring it up.

Continue reading "Trial Starts for San Diego Man Facing Criminal Charges for Medical Marijuana Shop" »

Our Fountain Valley DUI criminal defense lawyers have written in the past about the practice of charging DUI defendants with second-degree murder. This has been used in several recent Orange County drunk driving cases, including the ongoing high-profile case of Andrew Gallo, who is accused of killing Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart and two other people. The practice is striking because murder is a far more serious charge than DUI manslaughter, the typical charge when alleged drunk driving leads to a death. But according to a Sept. 13 article from the Orange County Register, murder is also the charge in the trial of a Los Angeles man who is accused of killing a 29-year-old woman in a wrong-way drunk driving accident. Angel Herrera Leal, 30, could get 15 years to life in prison if he is convicted of killing 29-year-old Rebecca Moon.

According to the article, Leal had two previous drunk driving convictions from 2005 and 2007 at the time of the December 27, 2008 crash. He was driving even though his license had been suspended. He is accused of having a blood-alcohol content of 0.29 when he entered Interstate 5 at 4:45 a.m. and drove north in the southbound lanes. Near Disney Way, he crashed head-on into a car driven by Jisun Park, 29. Moon, a passenger in Park's car, suffered blunt force trauma to her head and died, and Park suffered abdominal injuries. Park was also charged with driving under the influence, although the article did not give details. Nonetheless, Leal was charged with third-degree murder in Moon's death. The Orange County District Attorney's office said the murder charge was appropriate because Leal knew from his previous convictions that driving drunk is wrong, but did it anyway.

As Carson intoxicated driving criminal defense attorneys, we do not buy this logic. Every American who is old enough to drive knows that driving drunk is illegal and dangerous. If this had been Leal's first drunk driving charge rather than his third, he would still have known it was wrong -- and could still have been charged with DUI manslaughter. That crime better fits the circumstances -- an accidental killing caused by gross negligence under the influence, rather than an intentional killing with "an abandoned and malignant heart." It's difficult to argue that Leal had those types of feelings for Moon, whom he had probably never met, or that he intentionally set out to kill someone when he got behind the wheel. Rather, he made an irresponsible decision to drive under the influence of a lot of alcohol, with foreseeable results. This is a crime that carries serious penalties of up to ten years in prison -- already a very serious penalty, even without inappropriate second-degree murder charges.

Continue reading "Man Charged With Murder for Allegedly Driving Drunk in Fatal Anaheim Car Accident" »

As Fullerton medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we were pleased to read some good news or the medical marijuana community for once. The news came Sept. 13 from the San Diego Union-Tribune, which said the City Council has taken a step toward approving zoning laws that would allow dispensaries in certain non-residential areas. Currently, there are no zones at all in the city that allow medical marijuana dispensaries, which means all dispensaries are illegal within city limits. The council did not change the law in its vote Monday night, but it did approve moving forward with the ordinance in a 6-1 vote. Councilman Carl DeMaio was opposed and Councilwoman Marti Emerald was absent. The city said a final vote could happen in January.

The city department in charge of finding violators has said that there are 125 dispensaries operating illegally within city limits. Under the proposed ordinance, none of these would be grandfathered in; all of them would have to comply with the terms of the ordinance. That law would require all dispensaries to have a nonprofit legal structure; to be located in commercial or industrial zones; and to be at least 1,000 feet from other dispensaries, parks, youth centers, religious buildings, day care centers and schools. The council considered adding colleges and universities to that list, after receiving a petition from the University of California at San Diego; the University of San Diego; and Point Loma Nazarene University. That measure failed because some of the councilmembers wanted to study the effect before approving it; Councilwoman Donna Frye said she did not want to create a "de facto ban."

Our Leucadia medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers are pleased that the councilwoman and others are considering these issues without intentionally seeking a de facto ban. This issue has become huge in our home base of Orange County, where many cities have outright legal bans despite a recent court ruling saying bans are not necessarily legal. The zoning restrictions laid down in San Diego's proposed ordinance are certainly restrictive, but they do allow patients to avoid driving over the city border into neighboring cities like La Mesa or Chula Vista. Similarly, we appreciate that the council is considering allowing patients to fill prescriptions at nonprofit dispensaries. State law does not exactly require a nonprofit legal structure, although the attorney general has said that dispensaries must not be for profit. This is far more restrictive than the rules for other types of pharmacy or even for liquor stores, but it does at least allow patients to get their medicine.

Continue reading "San Diego City Council Moves Closer to Allowing Some Dispensaries With Regulation" »

As Seal Beach sex crimes criminal defense attorneys, we were interested in a short item about a man who pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor sex crimes related to children. The Orange County Register reported Sept. 14 on Alejandro Lorenzo Contreras, 24, who was accused of "annoying" a child as well as possessing child pornography. Both of those charges are misdemeanors, and Contreras is expected to receive a year in jail as well as three years of probation when he is sentenced on the charges. However, because those charges are on the list of crimes that fall under Megan's Law, Contreras will also be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, even if he stays in California. That is in doubt because officials suspect that he is in the United States illegally and are holding him in jail on an immigration hold, in lieu of bail. No sentencing date was reported.

According to the article, Contreras got into trouble July 13 in Stanton, when he approached a 12-year-old girl at the Stanton Public Library. He followed three girls inside the library, then asked the 12-year-old victim if she would take a picture of herself with her cell phone and send it to him. She did not, but chose instead to call the police on him. When they arrived, they found a pornographic picture of another minor on the phone. They also searched a home computer belonging to Contreras, but the article did not report whether they found anything illegal. Contreras pleaded guilty to the crime of annoying or molesting a child under 18 years as well as the crime of possessing obscene material depicting a minor. He may also face deportation and other penalties for an immigration crime if authorities confirm that he is in the country illegally.

The defendant's possible immigration status is bound to attract a lot of attention because it is a controversial subject. But our Cerritos sex crimes criminal defense lawyers would like to focus on the sex-related charges instead. We were interested in this crime because Contreras pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors, but will still have to register as a sex offender (at least for as long as he stays in the United States). This is in contrast to most of the crimes that are considered registrable offenses in California, which include very serious crimes like continuous sexual abuse of a child and rape by force or fear. Most registrable offenses in California are felonies, but as this case shows, some are misdemeanors that might be considered relatively minor, such as indecent exposure. We believe it's unfair to put that crime -- or, in some circumstances, "annoying" a child -- in the same category as violent rape and molestation crimes.

Continue reading "Man Obligated to Register as a Sex Offender After Pleading Guilty to Two Misdemeanors" »

Our Buena Park theft criminal defense lawyers took note of a recent article announcing charges against a man who allegedly exploited an elderly woman with dementia. Adam Michael Margaros, 30, is accused of installing a $25,000 security system in the home of a 74-year-old woman, then charging her more than $320,000. According to a Sept. 9 article from the OC Weekly, prosecutors say it should have been obvious to Margaros that the unnamed woman suffered from paranoia and early-stage dementia or Alzheimer's disease. He was arrested that week and pleaded not guilty to charges of elder abuse and grand theft, with a sentence enhancement for a theft of more than $200,000.

Margaros owns two businesses, including a closed-circuit television installing business, and is a member of the Westminster Chamber of Commerce. He was originally recommended by another security business to install a security system worth about $1,800. However, the Orange County Register wrote, Margaros allegedly befriended the woman and used her paranoia and dementia to convince her to spring for multiple upgrades. The victim's adult son told the Register that Margaros had said the government had installed secret listening devices in her home. The son also said that his mother is functional but clearly paranoid, with an imagination that carries her away easily. Margaros ended up installing a keyless entry system and a 20-camera system connected to monitors inside the home, allegedly worth about a seventh of the price he charged.

Our Huntington Beach theft criminal defense attorneys were interested in this case because it seems to be a crime solely because of the woman's diminished mental capacity. Overcharging a mentally competent adult is not a crime under most circumstances. Nor is "upselling" -- suggesting buying something that's more expensive. These are realities of capitalism, and some people might argue that they are smart business moves. For that reason, we believe that Margaros could have a case if he can show that he reasonably believed the woman to be mentally competent. Judging by the articles, the woman does not have an active diagnosis of any mental illness and her family hasn't seen fit to move her into some place where they can keep an eye on her. If the other circumstances are right, Margaros may be able to argue that it was not at all obvious that the woman suffered from mental illness.

Continue reading "Westminster Man Charged With Grand Theft in Alleged Fraud Against Elderly Woman" »

As Orange theft criminal defense lawyers, we were interested to read about the conviction of a woman who allegedly stole $70,000 from the city of La Habra, through a part-time job she had processing paperwork there. Kimberly Lynn Duncan, 24, pleaded guilty Sept. 7 to one count each of second-degree burglary, forgery and misappropriation of public funds. By pleading guilty, the Brea resident admitted to failing to deposit checks and credit card receipts into city accounts, presumably diverting the funds into her own accounts. A city councilman told the Orange County Register Sept. 7 that the theft had no effect on city services, but that he is glad Duncan admitted guilt. She will be sentenced on Nov. 9, when she will face up to five years and four months in prison. She may also be asked to repay the money she stole.

Duncan was a part-time clerical employee for La Habra (not the elected city clerk). In that capacity, she was responsible for depositing payments to the city every day. One source of those deposits was the La Habra Community Center, which took in money for classes, weddings and other events held at the center. Duncan admitted to stealing more than $26,500 in cash from the center that she was supposed to deposit with City Hall. She also admitted to failing to deposit another $24,000 in checks and $20,700 in credit card receipts. To achieve this, she forged the initials of City Hall and Community Center employees on checks, using a counterfeit City Hall stamp and filling out deposit forms fraudulently. The theft was only discovered when a resident called City Hall to complain that a month-old check had not yet been cashed.

Our Cerritos theft criminal defense attorneys noticed this case in part because Duncan's plea appears to be to charges less than the maximum prescribed for her crimes. Misappropriation of public funds, California Penal Code sec. 424, carries two to four years in prison as well as a lifetime ban on holding any public office. Commercial burglary and forgery each carry another year in prison. This could get Duncan up to six years in prison, not five years and four months. The article does not tell us whether these are the same charges Duncan originally faced, but we do notice that she could also have been charged with embezzlement -- the theft of funds entrusted to her. The potential sentence for this amount of embezzlement is slightly lower, but there is nothing to prevent prosecutors from attempting to get a conviction on both charges. Thus, we wonder if Duncan's guilty plea was in exchange for dropping a charge of embezzlement or another charge that fit the circumstances well and would have carried even more prison time.

Continue reading "La Habra Clerical Employee Convicted of Stealing $70,000 in Money Belonging to City" »

As Temecula drunk driving criminal defense lawyers, we were disappointed to see a story about an alleged DUI that resulted in injuries to nine pedestrians, including two toddlers. The Orange County Register reported Sept. 7 that Miguel Angel Sandoval, 43, is facing a charge of driving under the influence with injury, plus three sentence enhancements for causing great bodily injury. Sandoval was driving a Chevy Suburban on the evening of Sept. 6 when witnesses saw the SUV swerve across several lanes of traffic and onto the sidewalk alongside West McFadden Avenue in Santa Ana. There, he hit two pedestrians and kept going, striking seven more before coming to a halt. Sandoval himself was not injured, and was being held in Santa Ana city jail.

In all, the Register said, three adults and two children were injured, although none were killed. The most seriously injured were a two-year-old girl and her mother, who were struck first by Sandoval's vehicle. The two, who were not named in the article, were trapped under the SUV and dragged 50 feet along the road. Witnesses were able to rescue them. The woman suffered a broken leg, and the girl underwent surgery Sept. 7 for injuries not specified. The other child injured, also a two-year-old girl, underwent surgery for serious injuries. Injuries to the other victims were not considered life-threatening. Witnesses said Sandoval swerved while heading west on McFadden, just before Graham Lane. In all, he faces five to nine years in prison if convicted on all counts, plus a felony "strike" on his record.

In this kind of case, we recommend contacting our Costa Mesa DUI criminal defense attorneys as soon as possible. Regardless of any other circumstances, a defendant charged with the same crimes as Sandoval faces severe penalties, including prison time. A conviction on these charges would also mean losing his driver's license for five years, fines of up to $5,000, 18 to 30 months of court-ordered DUI school, habitual traffic offender status for three years and a permanent increase in his auto insurance rates. And because a conviction for felony drunk driving counts as a strike for the purposes of the three-strikes law, he would face increased penalties for any future felony criminal conviction. But even when the case is a very serious one, as with this one, that doesn't mean there is no hope of defending the charge. An experienced attorney can often find flaws in the case or mistakes by officers that can break down the prosecution's case.

Continue reading "Suspected Drunk Driver Hits Nine People After Driving onto the Sidewalk in Santa Ana" »

As Laguna Beach medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we were interested to read an article about a marijuana "bust" in which the men arrested said they were growing medical marijuana. The Orange County Register reported Sept. 2 that the two men were arrested in a condominium complex in Laguna Hills after a six-hour standoff with the police. One was released; a second man, 34-year-old Matthew Greenberg, was arrested on unnamed charges and booked into Orange County's Men's Central Jail. A third man fled the building and remains at large, according to the article. The Orange County Sheriff's department rejected the medical marijuana claims, saying the operation was "way outside the medical marijuana program."

The incident started at 1:30 p.m. that day, when U.S. Marshals attempted to serve a search warrant at the condo. The article did not say what the search warrant was for or whose home it was. It also did not say what led to the subsequent standoff with police, which reportedly lasted five and a half hours, although a photo caption said a man with a high-powered rifle was believed to be inside. However, a SWAT team was called and surrounded the building on Caminito Luisito. When the standoff was ended around 7 p.m., for reasons not reported, sheriff's deputies were able to enter an empty condo. There, they found 171 marijuana plants being cultivated with elaborate indoor lighting and irrigation systems, as well as a device to increase the electricity in the condo. Deputies also found 1.5 pounds of dried marijuana, a shotgun and two semi-automatic weapons. The two men taken into custody said the marijuana was intended for a medical collective.

Our Cypress medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers would like very much to see more information that could help determine whether this was a legitimate collective's growing operation or an excuse from people who are selling drugs illegally. Without a doctor's recommendation for more, patients and their primary caregivers may have up to six mature marijuana plants or 12 immature marijuana plants at a time, plus up to eight ounces of dried marijuana. That means a collective or cooperative that is a primary caregiver can have those amounts for each patient. The grow operation the deputies found would support 14 to 29 patients, depending on the maturity of the plants -- if it was really a collective's farm. If it was, Greenberg and the other men should be able to prove their claims relatively easily by providing all of the right paperwork. Police officers prejudiced against medical marijuana may not be willing to look at that paperwork, but an experienced attorney can use the paperwork to have the case thrown out of court.

Continue reading "Men Arrested for Cultivating Pot Indoors Claim Plants Were Medical Marijuana" »

Our Laguna Niguel domestic violence criminal defense attorneys were interested to read about the arrest of a high-profile athlete -- Los Angeles Lakers player Matt Barnes. According to the Sacto 911 blog of the Sacramento Bee, Barnes was arrested on the evening of Sept. 8 after a fight with his fiancée turned into a 911 call. The Sacramento County Sheriff's Department told the newspaper that Gloria Govan had tried to call 911 during the fight, but was apparently prevented from completing the call by Barnes. After traveling to their home and speaking to both Barnes and Govan, deputies arrested Barnes on charges of felony domestic violence as well as maliciously obstructing the use of a telephone line. He posted bail and was released the same night.

Barnes and Govan reportedly have twin sons together, and had planned a wedding in Santa Barbara before it was called off. The two live together, according to the Sacramento sheriff's deputies. According to the blog post, 911 dispatchers received a call at 4:15 p.m. that afternoon, but the call was incomplete. Dispatchers said they heard the sounds of a struggle before the call was disconnected. When deputies arrived at the home, they found that both Barnes and Govan had injuries. After speaking to both parties, they decided Barnes was the primary aggressor and arrested him for domestic violence. Govan later released a statement through the couple's public relations firm, saying Barnes never hit her or her family and the allegations are false. Barnes texted a Sacramento television station to say that he was a victim but was still arrested because of bias against men in domestic violence situations.

As Riverside County domestic violence criminal defense lawyers, we agree that police officers and prosecutors do tend to assume that the man is guilty in domestic violence situations. This article does not give enough evidence for us to judge whether that's true in this case, but we did notice that Barnes and Govan both had injuries. That means they may both be guilty of domestic violence. If that's true, officers may have chosen to arrest Barnes because they believed he was the more violent, or the one who caused the violence. Or, they may have chosen to arrest him because they were biased toward believing women are victims (and perhaps also better suited to care for the couple's sons). Men are more often the aggressors in domestic violence, but that doesn't mean officers should simply assume they are, especially when the evidence tells a different story. This kind of bias is a form of sexism that officers should not practice.

Continue reading "Lakers Player Matt Barnes Charged With Felony Domestic Violence in Sacramento" »

As Riverside County sex crimes criminal defense lawyers, we were interested to see a recent report on a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy accused of filing a false report on child molestation. The Orange County Register reported Aug. 31 that Patricia Margaret Bojorquez, 43, actually faces two charges in Orange County stemming from two separate off-duty incidents. In one, she is accused of calling Huntington Beach police to report that her ex-husband was molesting a 13-year-old girl, possibly their daughter. After police looked into this and determined it was false, they charged Bojorquez with filing a false police report. She also faces a count of discharging a firearm with gross negligence for firing a shot through the window of her Westminster home. No one was hurt, but the bullet went into the street where children were playing.

According to a press release reprinted by the OC Weekly, Bojorquez allegedly made up the molestation charges in November of 2009 because she was upset about child custody matters. The girl reportedly had not made any accusations. Later, in January of this year, Bojorquez is accused of firing her gun through a bedroom window and into the street with "a disregard for the safety of the children outside." Her brother and fiance were present and called the police. Bojorquez is already on probation for two separate drunk driving convictions stemming from 2009 and 2010. In one incident, she also pleaded guilty to child endangerment by a caretaker because her children were in the vehicle. In the other, a passer-by spotted her driving drunk and naked from the waist down in a parking lot. If convicted on the new counts, Bojorquez faces up to three years in state prison.

Our Seal Beach sex crimes criminal defense attorneys are disappointed when anyone files a false police report on a serious matter like child molestation. But it is especially disappointing to see when the false reporter is also an officer of the law. Sexual assault on a child is a heavily penalized crime that carries years in prison, lifelong sex offender registration status and permanent ineligibility for certain careers. If the ex-husband had been charged by hasty police officers, he could have had an uphill battle just to clear his name. The charge for firing the gun is not a sex charge, but it too shows poor judgment by someone who was sworn to uphold the law. The articles suggest that Bojorquez may have a drinking problem, and if so, we hope she gets help before someone is hurt. But if it is proven that she intentionally lied about her ex-husband, the court should ensure that she understands how serious the consequences could have been.

Continue reading "Los Angeles County Sheriffs Deputy Charged With Filing False Child Abuse Report" »

As Anaheim sex crimes criminal defense attorneys, we watch the news for information on new penalties for sex offenders -- already some of the most heavily penalized people in the criminal justice system. For this reason, we were not surprised to see the news that "Chelsea's Law," or Assembly Bill 1844, was ready for the governor's signature Aug. 30. As the San Diego Union-Tribune reported that day, the law mandates tougher sentences for people accused of sexual violence against minors and improves testing and treatment. It is named in honor of 17-year-old Chelsea King of Poway, who was raped and murdered this year by John Albert Gardner. Gardner confessed to this crime as well as the rape and murder of 14-year-old Amber Dubois of Escondido. He had a previous conviction for sexual violence against a 13-year-old neighbor girl. He is currently serving two life sentences with no possibility of parole.

The Pasadena Star-News reported on the bill earlier, after it passed the state Senate. One main provision mandates a life sentence without the possibility of parole, under certain circumstances, for defendants found guilty of rape, spousal rape, sodomy, lewd and lascivious acts, continuous sexual abuse and oral copulation on a minor 14 or younger. To trigger the law, the offender would have to have a prior sex offense conviction or be guilty of committing the offense while committing a burglary, using a weapon or seriously injuring, tying up or drugging the victim. In addition, the bill would require lifetime parole for those sex offenders considered the worst; lengthen parole for other sex offenders; lengthen prison sentences for sex crimes against minors under 15 achieved by force or fear; bans certain sex offense parolees from entering parks; tracks more offenders with GPS technology; and implements a "containment model" for sex offenders.

The press coverage of this law typically notes that it was passed unanimously in the state Assembly and that the governor has indicated that he looks forward to signing it. But as Corona sex offense criminal defense lawyers, we would like to highlight some of the problems we see with it. While we certainly appreciate a more nuanced approach to deciding which offenders are safe to parole, we do not believe that nuance is in other areas of the bill. For example, the lifetime ban on entering parks restricts parolees' freedom without doing much to protect children, since study after study has shown that the vast majority of victims know and trust their molesters. And any "one strike" law runs the risk of sending someone to prison for life based on faulty evidence, especially if that person did not have the benefit of experienced legal representation. Punitive laws for sex offenders are understandable reactions to genuinely horrifying crimes -- but they give judges less and less flexibility to consider whether very harsh laws are truly just.

Continue reading "Governor Expected to Sign One Strike Law for Violent or Repeat Child Molesters" »

Like others in Orange County and Southern California, our Santa Ana drunk driving criminal defense attorneys have followed the trial of Andrew Gallo on three charges of second-degree murder while driving drunk. Gallo is the driver accused of causing the deaths of Nick Adenhart, a pitcher for the Angels, as well as Courtney Stewart and Henry Pearson, among other crimes. Gallo's attorney has repeatedly argued that his trial should be moved out of Orange County, saying the he cannot get a fair trial here because of the media surrounding Adenhart's death. Lower courts have ruled against that motion, so pretrial motions began Sept. 1, the Orange County Register reported. However, Gallo has appealed his case to the California Supreme Court, which may decide in his favor before jury selection starts on or around Sept. 13.

Gallo's criminal defense attorney filed the appeal with the high court Aug. 30. In it, she argues that Orange County Register readers rated Adenhart's death as the most important story of the year in an online poll, eclipsing the death of Michael Jackson, the economy and the inauguration of Barack Obama. In a phone survey, she said, 76 percent of potential jurors said they believed Gallo was guilty. Similar arguments have already been rejected in the Fourth District Court of Appeal and the Orange County Superior Court, although the judge in the case says he may consider a change of venue for the verdict or sentencing. Gallo is accused of driving drunk when he ran a red light in his minivan and slammed into Stewart's car, pinning it against a lamp post. In addition to killing Stewart, Pearson and Adenhart, the accident also seriously injured passenger Jonathan Wilhite. Gallo had a previous DUI and was driving on a suspended license, leading prosecutors to charge him with second-degree murder rather than DUI manslaughter.

As Garden Grove DUI criminal defense lawyers, we hope that the lower courts are right that Orange County jurors can be fair to Gallo. But we believe that Gallo has a reasonable argument that they may not be. Courts allow changes of venue when the case has gotten so much publicity that it's not clear whether jurors can be fair and unbiased. Given the publicity around the trial, and especially the phone survey cited in the Supreme Court filing, this appears to be an open question. So we hope the Supreme Court considers the petition carefully. A lot is riding on this outcome, because Gallo is accused of very serious crimes. In particular, the prosecutors have chosen to charge him with second-degree murder rather than manslaughter, reasoning that his prior conviction means he knew drunk driving was wrong when he did it anyway. A conviction on those charges alone could put Gallo in prison for 45 years, rather than the 12 to 30 years he would have faced for DUI manslaughter. Anyone with this much at stake deserves a fair trial.

Continue reading "Pretrial Motions Begin in DUI Murder Case as Court Considers Change of Venue" »

Our Long Beach medical marijuana criminal defense lawyers wrote in mid-August about the appeals court ruling in Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim. That ruling by the Fourth District Court of Appeal was called a mixed victory in the media, but one victory for patients was its ruling on federal preemption of California's Medical Marijuana Program Act. That is, the court said the city of Anaheim may not ban all medical marijuana dispensaries on the grounds that federal law makes all marijuana illegal. The case was sent back to trial court to consider other issues. But, as media outlets including the LA Weekly reported, medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access contacted more than 140 local governments Aug. 31 to remind them that cities will have to find other justifications for a complete ban.

The letter from ASA (PDF) came two weeks after the ruling, which said unanimously that federal law alone does not preempt state law, and that the court should explore the issue of whether state law can preempt local dispensary bans. The letter said that this shows that local dispensary bans may violate state law, and asked cities to reconsider. No news reports show that any city has changed its laws in response. In fact, media reports show that at least two cities are considering their own dispensary bans, including the city of Downey in Los Angeles County as well as the Sacramento suburb of Elk Grove. At least one of the proposed bans is based on the same federal preemption argument that was discredited in the Qualified Patients ruling. That ruling is the only such ruling thus far in California, although observers expect the issue to eventually reach the state Supreme Court. The letter ends by noting that ASA will "explore [its] legal options," although the accompanying press release does not mention litigation.

As Ontario medical marijuana criminal defense attorneys, we hope no further lawsuits are necessary. We are disappointed in the attempt by Downey to ban medical marijuana based on federal preemption, since the ruling explicitly said this alone is not an acceptable reason for an outright ban. Both cities also use arguments that dispensaries attract crime, which were discredited as unproven in the ruling, as well as by an ASA study (PDF) showing that well-regulated dispensaries actually see a slight decrease in crime. ASA's letter to the cities with dispensary bans offered to help those cities develop appropriate regulations to achieve this. However, we suspect cities will continue to fight for outright bans, using the same spurious arguments. Not only does this deny patients access to the medicine they have been legally prescribed, but it makes them and the dispensary operators into criminals for doing what they are legally allowed to do under state law.

Continue reading "Americans for Safe Access Calls on Cities to Abide by Qualified Patients Court Ruling" »