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.

If you're charged with driving drunk or on drugs in California, HOWARD | NASSIRI can help. To set up a free consultation, call us today at 1-800-872-5925 or send us a message online.

The article says Schmitz was driving through a residential area with two other adults when a sheriff's deputy pulled them over. The deputy said she thought Schmitz was lost. When she saw that his arms were covered in abscesses, which is typical for intravenous drug users, she asked if he or anyone else in the vehicle was on probation or parole. Schmitz was not, but his front-seat passenger was. The deputy then asked for permission to search the car. Schmitz did not answer, so she searched the car anyway and ordered the occupants out. In that search, the deputy found a purse containing two syringes, a syringe cap and some methamphetamine, which eventually led to the charges against Schmitz. In its opinion, the appeals court said that even though the parolee passenger did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because he was on parole, Schmitz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in every part of the vehicle but the seat where the parolee was sitting.

Our Corona drug crimes criminal defense lawyers are pleased to see that the appeals court is willing to uphold citizens' Fourth Amendment rights, even when the citizen may not have been blameless. The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches and property seizures, and part of those protections is the right to deny police permission to search you unless there are circumstances allowing it. Evidence of a crime might be one such circumstance; parolee status is another. Because the parolee status of the passenger did not apply to Schmitz, the appeals court said the police should not have searched his car. We want our clients to take away an important lesson from this story: When the police violate your civil rights, you can and should challenge the evidence they get from doing so. Even though Schmitz actually pleaded guilty to the charges against him, the court in this case threw out his conviction, because the guilty plea came on charges that should never have existed in the first place.

If you're charged with a drug crime in California, don't hesitate before you call HOWARD | NASSIRI for help building a strong defense. To learn more or set up a free evaluation of your case, contact us through the Internet or call 1-800-872-5925 today.

The article said Orozco and Olivia had stopped their vehicle at 12:30 a.m. on Aug. 13 because one of the women was feeling ill. Both got out and stood on the side of the road, along with fellow passenger Omar Guzman, 25, of Oceanside. A fourth person, 21-year-old Gerardo Cortez of Oceanside, had remained in the car. Guzman had just stepped away from the women when Sumi's Jeep swerved into the stopped car and the women. The crash killed both women and flipped the Jeep, also killing Alvarez. Authorities later discovered that Sumi did not have a valid driver's license or insurance. Neither Sumi nor Alvarez was wearing a seat belt. Guzman was reportedly not hurt, but Cortez, who remained in a front seat, suffered minor injuries after being thrown from the car. The North County Times reported that Cortez had been wearing a seat belt, but the Jeep hit the car with such force that it broke his seat.

The article does not say exactly what charges Sumi may face, but as San Clemente DUI criminal defense lawyers, we suspect they will be extensive. Sumi could face up to three counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, to account for the three victims. These charges alone carry four to 10 years in prison for each count, meaning she could face a total of 12 to 30 years in prison. Those are in addition to the drunk driving charge. The article does not report any prior drunk driving convictions for Sumi, but we noticed that she was driving without a valid license. This is unfortunately not an uncommon choice for people who have already lost their driver's licenses due to a prior DUI conviction. And if you have no valid driver's license, you cannot buy auto insurance, no matter how much money you have. If this was the situation for Sumi, she will face at least her second drunk driving charge. Under the circumstances, this charge could also mean prison, plus alcohol treatment and other penalties.

If you're facing a DUI, don't wait before calling HOWARD | NASSIRI for help. To set up a free consultation, contact us through our website or call 1-800-872-5925.

According to neighbors and friends, Veldhuizen, a painter, had recently suffered from a string of financial and personal problems. In addition to the vehicle repossession, a neighbor said Veldhuizen had recently been served with an eviction notice. Police records also show that he had been arrested July 29 for making criminal threats and brandishing a weapon. A former roommate of two years told the newspaper that he moved out after Veldhuizen became increasingly agitated and unfriendly; a neighbor said he had gotten "unstable." On Tuesday evening, firefighters responded to a call and discovered someone burning trash in the home's back yard. This was followed by the U-Haul ramming incident on Wednesday at 2:48 a.m. It was unclear how he came to barricade himself inside the home, but crisis negotiators worked for 11 hours to get him out before he finally walked out voluntarily around 1:30 p.m.

As Corona vandalism criminal defense attorneys, we're interested in the choice to charge Veldhuizen with felony, rather than misdemeanor, vandalism. In California, the penalty for vandalism changes according to how much damage was done, but most first vandalism charges are still misdemeanors. There are exceptions -- such as vandalism of a grave or house of worship -- but they don't seem to apply to this case. Outside of those circumstances, the most common way for a vandalism charge to be a felony is for the defendant to have a previous record of vandalism or other crimes. In this case, Veldhuizen's previous charges for brandishing and criminal threats could be the cause. However, we suspect both sets of charges may actually stem from Veldhuizen's financial problems and understandable emotional upset. We hope the courts take this situation into account when they judge his behavior.

HOWARD | NASSIRI offers free, confidential consultations, so you risk nothing by speaking to us about your rights and your case. To learn more or set up a free consultation, contact us through the Internet or call 1-800-872-5925 today.

The accident took place in October of 2009, on the San Joaquin Hills toll road (73). Caselli had allegedly spent five hours drinking cocktails at a bar in Newport Beach before driving south in his Volvo sedan. Witnesses said the Volvo was weaving in and out of traffic and reached speeds over 100 mph at times before rear-ending Boynton's SUV. The resulting crash flipped over the SUV and rolled it over, ejecting Boynton. Boynton died at the scene. Officers saw signs of intoxication from Caselli at the scene and took him into custody. He later entered a residential treatment facility and has expressed interest in working for MADD. He pleaded guilty to the DUI manslaughter charge in May, and his attorney had requested probation and one year in prison.

As Riverside County drunk driving criminal defense lawyers, we believe this is a good example of why some defendants might choose to plead guilty in a serious DUI case. Of course, we never, ever advocate entering a guilty plea if you truly did not drive drunk, and we can help clients in that situation prove their innocence. But in this case, Caselli's guilty plea seems to stem from remorse for his actions. The article does not mention blood test evidence related to the cocaine, but the presence of strong evidene may also have been a factor. The article note that Caselli sought treatment after the crash -- presumably meaning substance abuse treatment -- and wept through the statements given by Boynton's family and friends. By taking those steps and pleading guilty, Caselli may have avoided a much higher sentence than he might have faced if he tried to fight the charge against him. We note, for example, that the story mentioned no cocaine-related criminal charge.

HOWARD | NASSIRI offers free case evaluations, so you can speak to us about your drunk driving case at no further risk. To set up a meeting, call us toll-free at 1-800-872-5925 or send us a message through the Internet.

According to the article, Linda Wilborn called 911 last year to report that Millicent was not breathing. She gave several incorrect addresses for her home in a military housing complex, where her husband Derrick Wilborn works. Paramedics and emergency room doctors noticed suspicious bruises on the girl, so they called police and child protective authorities. They found signs of abuse and neglect on all four children, who ranged from eight months to three years. At the home, police officers found that the three older children were kept in a back room behind a child gate for much of the day. They found tooth marks on the doorjamb and discovered that the malnourished children were eating paint chips and bits of carpet. Derrick Wilborn was frequently absent, in part because he pursued a career as a golf pro every day after he finished his work for the military. When he came home to discover that Millicent had collapsed, he left the room and began putting together golf clubs.

In the previous incident, child protective workers intervened after Linda Wilborn left Millicent and her twin brother in a hot car at the age of four months. That investigation found that Wilborn had unspecified mental illness problems and did not meet her children's basic needs. Nonetheless, the report concluded that the risk of abuse was low and the social worker set up a "safety plan" requiring her to get caregiving help from others. On the day Millicent died, a police detective thought the couple's displays of grief were odd. He left a tape recorder running when he left the couple alone and captured them discussing conversations they believed Derrick Wilborn had had with God. Derrick Wilborn said God had told him Millicent died, and Linda Wilborn seems to imply that Derrick should have used his inside information from God to stop her. All three remaining children are in county custody.

This very sad story raises a lot of questions for our Laguna Beach domestic abuse criminal defense lawyers. From the story, it looks like Linda Wilborn may well be mentally ill. For that reason, we wonder whether the criminal charges facing her are the best way to handle the situation. Californians may plead not guilty by reason of insanity -- but to do that, they must show that they did not have the mental capacity to understand what they were doing, or to tell right from wrong. A successful insanity plea is often followed by commitment in a mental institution, so it is not much like an acquittal. Meanwhile, the article mentioned no charges at all for Derrick Wilborn, despite his apparent sanity and reported lack of attention to his family. Being a bad father is not a crime, but allowing a child to be injured or ignoring a child's dangerous situation are forms of child endangerment and neglect, both of which are crimes in California.

If you're charged with domestic abuse in California and you know you need legal help, you should call HOWARD | NASSIRI. To learn more or set up a free consultation, contact us through our website or call 1-800-872-5925.

The Register's report was drawn from a Huntington Beach police department report. According to the report, Alarcon responded to the repossession worker by getting angry, then displaying, loading and pointing a shotgun at the worker. The police were called around 6 p.m. July 25 with a report of a man with a shotgun. When they arrived, they found Alarcon without a firearm. However, the police investigated further and were able to obtain a search warrant for Alarcon's home. That search turned up the shotgun, disassembled and hidden. The Huntington Beach police arrested Alarcon and booked him into city jail on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon. It was not clear whether he was still jailed as of the article's publication.

Some people may be surprised to find that it is illegal to order someone off your own property with a firearm. In fact, it can be legal -- under the right circumstances. In California, you can legally use force to eject a trespasser, as long as the trespasser doesn't leave within a reasonable amount of time and the amount of force was reasonably necessary. As Lake Forest assault with a deadly weapon criminal defense lawyers, we don't believe this applies under the circumstances described in the article. But to use the trespassing argument, Alarcon would first have to show that the repo worker was a trespasser -- which would be an uphill battle if the worker was on public land or the front steps. Generally, there are also exceptions for people who enter others' property to do a job, like postal workers. He would then have to show that the amount of force used was necessary, and that the worker didn't leave after being asked. The article doesn't go into enough details to judge this, but it may be another uphill battle.

If you are charged with aggravated assault and you need help learning more about your legal rights, HOWARD | NASSIRI can help. To set up a free consultation, call us toll-free at 1-800-872-5925 or contact us through the Internet.