California Criminal Lawyers Blog

The case of missing body parts found in the hills near the Hollywood sign have both captivated and terrified local residents. The Los Angeles Times recently reported that police were able to identify the victim.

Los Angeles murder cases are different than other criminal offenses. While every defendant deserves a fair trial, suspects facing allegations that they killed another person must be assured they are getting the best possible representation.

Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent Howard recognizes that murder is the most serious charge on the books in California and the only charge that can be punished with death by lethal injection. When a person's life has been taken and when another person's liberty, and possibly life, is on the line, it is a serious situation.

In this case, the Times is reporting, police were recently able to identify the victim whose body parts were found in the hills near the Hollywood sign. People walking their dog found the man's head after their dogs were seen playing with a plastic bag that contained it.

Once police were called, they brought in dogs specially-trained to find bodies, which led to the discovery of two hands and two feet that were buried just under the surface of the ground. Authorities have yet to find the rest of the remains.

But they were able to identify the man, likely through fingerprint analysis. The recent news articles haven't reported how police were able to identify him, but they say he is a 66-year-old man from Los Angeles who frequently walked his dogs in the area where his body was found.

Like others in the area, Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent Howard has been following this case from the time it broke to see how authorities would handle the situation. Without an identity, they would have had little way of solving the crime, but figuring out who the man is is a big break.

According to the most recent reports, after identifying the man, police saw that his boyfriend reported him missing eight days before his head was discovered. They then went to the apartment they shared to gather more information.

Friends and family told police they had been in touch with the man until Dec. 26, when he left the couple's apartment. They still heard from him until Jan. 4. It wasn't for five days that his partner reported him missing.

Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent Howard believes this will get police interested, even if there's no proof that this person is responsible. Any time a person goes missing, close relatives are going to be the first to be examined by detectives. In most murder cases, the victim knows the suspect. It is rare for random killings to take place.

Adding fuel to the fire is that a neighbor told police and the newspaper that the man and his partner were in a fight weeks earlier and he was able to hear screaming and yelling and what sounded like furniture being moved around. Police seized a vehicle and executed a search warrant at the apartment, asking neighbors when garbage service would be.

This shows that they are honing in their investigation on that apartment. If they can find blood samples that match the victim inside the vehicle -- which could have been used to transport the body -- or evidence that blood was cleaned up in the apartment, it could spell problems for the partner. But this is all speculation.

It would take a massive amount of privacy and the right type of equipment to chop up a human body. This is not something that the average person can do, which is a roadblock police could face. The fact that no one has come forward saying they saw anything suspicious is a bad sign for detectives.

This is a complicated case and one that may not be solved. Even if police make an arrest, that's not a conviction. A murder defendant must be able to confront all witnesses and examine all evidence. In this case, both of those things will be critical.

Continue reading "Body Parts Case: Police Must Have Strong Evidence in Los Angeles Murder Cases" »

The recent arrest of a former Marine on charges that he stalked and killed four homeless people has calmed the fears of many in the homeless community, which had been on edge.

But Santa Ana Criminal Defense Lawyer Vincent Howard believes this is a case that could be difficult to prove, as are many "serial" crimes. In order to charge one person with many crimes, authorities must have sound evidence linking them.

Often, police and prosecutors in Santa Ana murder cases will try to show a similar "motive" or "pattern" that they believe is proof that a single person is involved in multiple crimes. But that's simply not enough proof.

That's because, as Vincent Howard has seen many times before, the news media is often able to dig up enough information on a case -- from police, family members, witnesses and "inside" sources -- that they can broadcast to the world what really happened. This can inspire copycats who are watching television or reading in the newspaper.

If police rely solely on their suspicion that one person is responsible for the crime, this doesn't result in real justice. There must be physical evidence, such as fingerprints and DNA, or ironclad witness testimony that shows the person police suspected to be responsible really committed the crime.

This is a common problem in Santa Ana burglary cases as well. Burglary is a crime that is often committed over and over by a single suspect, so police typically are looking for patterns when they receive multiple reports of burglary in a certain neighborhood or committed in a certain way.

Santa Ana prosecutors recently said that the man they have arrested and charged with killing four homeless men is scheduled to make an initial court appearance soon, the Los Angeles Times reports.

His Santa Ana murder defense lawyer told the newspaper that the man sleeps in his jail cell most of the day. During their initial visit, he said his client was curled in a ball under a blanket, wearing just underwear. He said the man looked like a "scared, wet cat." The attorney said they had little conversation.

The man is being held in isolation on a psychological watch. He is being charged with murder with special circumstance, meaning he is eligible for the death penalty. The state alleges that he went on a killing spree, outlining the killings with graphic detail. They say the attacks became more violent over time.

Previous news reports indicated that he selected four men after he saw a news article about them. He allegedly stalked the men and stabbed them to death. Police are now saying the former Marine, who saw combat in Iraq, had selected future potential targets and thrived on the press coverage. The man's father is homeless.

Santa Ana Criminal Defense Lawyer Vincent Howard recognizes that this is going to be a large-scale media case, given the circumstances. That will undoubtedly be a factor with which the man's defense attorney will have to contend. More important though will be whether the state has any substantial evidence connecting these four brutal attacks.

Continue reading "Santa Ana Serial Killing Case Requires Experienced Murder Defense Attorney" »

A tragic case was reported in Los Angeles recently, when police revealed that a local soccer star was killed in his front yard following a big soccer match, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Now, police have arrested and charged two people with murder in Los Angeles . Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent Howard recognizes that this is a sensitive matter. All murder cases are. But because of the severity of the accusations, the state must have strong evidence.

Murder in California can lead to life in prison or the death penalty in the most egregious cases. They are the most serious penalties on our books, and therefore the most care should be taken when the state prosecutes.

This means that the state must not rely on poor eyewitness testimony and shaky circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is when assumptions are made as to the defendant's guilt, without strong proof through physical evidence, such as DNA, fingerprints or the murder weapon found on the person.

Unfortunately, this happens a lot. If police make an arrest for murder, the state does all it can to try to prove it and make the charges stick. This isn't to say they are always doing something unethical in murder cases. But sometimes, they use less-than-credible evidence in trying to convict someone of murder.

Not every case is perfect, but that's why the criminal justice system is so important. There are checks and balances in place so that people don't get convicted without strong evidence. Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent Howard has seen many charges be filed by prosecutors who don't have strong evidence.

This is where reasonable doubt comes in. Reasonable doubt means that if a juror believes there is any doubt that the person is guilty, they must vote not guilty during deliberations. If there are any gaps in the state's case, the person is to be set free. Those are the rules we must follow, and jurors shouldn't make assumptions when determining whether a person's liberty should be permanently stripped.

In this case, the 17-year-old soccer player had just returned to his home after a soccer game. Police say a girl knocked on his front door and moments later he was shot to death.

Authorities believe the motive for the shooting was a love triangle. Family members said the girl who knocked on the door had red hair and that they didn't recognize her. They said that shots came from a sport utility vehicle that was parked in front of the house. It's unclear if the girl was part of a setup.

Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent Howard believes it is hard to assess this case with so little information being known at this point. Officials haven't released much information yet. If the motive was a love interest, it's likely that witnesses may end up being teenagers, whose statements must be scrutinized for accuracy, as with all witnesses. Either way, this is a tragic case.

Continue reading "Two Charged In Los Angeles Murder of High School Soccer Player" »

We've all seen the television police dramas when detectives bang on tables and make threats to suspects who aren't cooperating with their questioning. Many of us believe it is just Hollywood.

But for many suspects, they face the harsh realities of being a target of police interrogation. This is especially true in Los Angeles murder cases. Detectives so desperately want a conviction, they will do just about anything to get it.

Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent Howard realizes there may be enormous pressure on police to catch a killer. But he also believes suspects' rights must be upheld when police are looking at them for a crime. Abuse, violating their Constitutional rights and other misdeeds will get officers nowhere and could cost them their jobs.

A recent Illinois case, Aleman v. Village of Hanover Park shows just how terrifying and disruptive police interrogations can be. The court records also show that police will lie, make unethical decisions and trample upon people's rights to try to solve a case.

In this case, Aleman had operated a home day care for about five months when an incident happened one September day in 2005. On that day, a young mother dropped off her 11-month-old son, whom she noted had been lethargic and feverish. Just after he was dropped off, the boy began gasping for air and collapsed. Aleman performed CPR and called for an ambulance. The boy lived only a few more days before dying at the hospital.

Detectives asked Aleman to come in for questioning and he and his wife traveled to the police station. He was placed in an interrogation room and made to wait nearly an hour before he asked if he could leave and return later. They said no because he was under arrest. He waited another five hours before detectives finally entered the room.

They told the man he had the most information and they wanted to talk to him. This was after they had told him he was under arrest, yet hadn't read him his Miranda rights. They began a Miranda form for him to sign and the man wisely asked to call his lawyer. Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent Howard advises all defendants to seek legal counsel before police questioning. You'll see why later.

Police told the man they wanted him to sign a rights waiver, but the man insisted on calling his lawyer. During that conversation, one of the officers picked up the phone and talked to the lawyer, who said the man was going to remain silent. But the Supreme Court has ruled that the defendant must invoke that right, not another person.

Police continued to try to get the man to talk, but he said he wanted to go home. They told him he couldn't go home unless he talked to them. Eventually, they got the man to crack and they talked to him for four hours. His only admission, according to court records, is that he may have shaken the baby too hard, after police told him he was responsible for the death.

But what later came out is a travesty, Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent Howard believes. Prosecutors found out another detective lied to the medical examiner to get her to change her opinion about whether Aleman could have caused the death. That same detective spoke with the boy's mother, who had a history of violence and disdain for her son, and told her not to talk to other detectives.

Eventually, charges were dropped against the man and he sued the town and its police department -- but not before his reputation was ruined. Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent Howard believes this case shows an extreme example of police misconduct. But variations of this type of situation aren't that uncommon. We look to defense attorneys and the justice system to right these wrongs.

Continue reading "Aleman v. Village of Hanover Park Shows Aggressive Nature of Los Angeles Murder Investigations" »

Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent Howard recognizes that some attorneys can give bad legal advice. This is a job that requires attention the entire time, without exception.

When a person has been charged with a crime, whether it be murder in Los Angeles, a sex offense, robbery or even a DUI, there are many potential penalties in play, which means a person needs an advocate and someone who can provide strong criminal defense advice throughout the case.

In Ken. v. State, a court ruled that didn't happen. In fact, the advice was so poor it resulted in the man getting a new trial.

In 2009, the man faced charges of aggravated assault and attempted first-degree murder after a woman told police that a man had fired a gun at her, her son and her fiance in the parking lot of an apartment complex. After providing a description of the man and a license plate of the vehicle. The incident, which happened in July 2008, started when the couple pulled into a parking space aside the man's vehicle. After the fiance made a derogatory comment, words were exchanged. As they walked away, the man shot at them and fled.

Within 40 minutes, police in Utah stopped a similar vehicle and after searching the vehicle, found a semi-automatic handgun. Police questioned the passenger of the vehicle, who said she was sitting in the car when the incident happened. She told officers that she was listening to music and didn't hear a gunshot or any argument goign on outside of the vehicle. She told police she didn't know her boyfriend had a gun until she saw it after he got back into the vehicle.

According to court records, Ken spoke with police and said that he and his girlfriend were arguing in their car when he heard people in the truck that parked next to them yell and thought it was directed his way. He got out and fired a bullet into the sky. He then pointed his weapon at the man, but moved it to the side and fired again. The defendant then shot at the man, striking him. Police discovered two casings and bullet holes each after combing the area.

A day into trial, the man's lawyer discovered that the fiance had previously been convicted of battery a few months before the incident for picking a fight at a bar, which coincided with the self-defense theory. He asked to re-call the fiance because he had already testified. The court requested that a hearing take place.

After the state rested its case, the defense presented its case and then rested. The jury was removed and the judge asked lawyers if they wanted to re-call the fiance as a witness. But the lawyer told the judge it was too late to investigated the battery incident, even though the judge intended to allow the defense to bring the witness back into the courtroom for questioning.

The defense them reiterated that the case had already been rested. Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney Vincent Howard believes that this was a missed opportunity because the judge was offering the defense an opportunity to bring in that critical piece of evidence.

The jury returned a guilty verdict and the man was sentenced to life in prison for the attempted first-degree murder charge and a term of two to six years on aggravated assault. Seventeen days after the deadline for such a motion, the man's defense attorney filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, which was denied because of the missed deadline.

On appeal, based on these errors, the defendant was awarded a new trial on the charge of attempted first-degree murder. Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Vincent Howard sees this as a criminal justice system victory because while bad errors were made, the appeals process worked and the wrong was corrected.

Continue reading "In Ken v. State, Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyers Must Be On Their Game" »

On Dec. 22, a court finally handed down the sentence for a DUI crash that was closely followed by our Costa Mesa drunk driving criminal defense lawyers and many others. As the Orange County Register reported, a Superior Court judge sentenced Andrew Gallo to 51 years to life in prison for the crash that took the lives of Courtney Stewart, Henry Pearson and Nick Adenhart; and nearly disabled Jon Wilhite. The four were in Stewart's car when Gallo ran a red light, pushing the sedan into a pole. Gallo was driving under the influence despite having a suspended driver's license, a result of a previous DUI conviction. The crash received national attention because Adenhart was a young pitcher for the Angels baseball team, and had just pitched six shutout innings in his first start of the season.

Gallo was charged with second-degree murder in the deaths rather than gross vehicular manslaughter while driving under the influence. California caselaw allows this when the defendant has a previous DUI conviction, under the theory that he or she knew drunk driving was dangerous and thus had the requisite "malice" necessary for the murder charge. Gallo's defense attorney argued that he lacked this malice because he didn't intend to drive; his brother, Raymond Rivera, was supposed to be the driver. But the two drank heavily for about seven hours and Gallo took the wheel of their parents' minivan anyway. After the crash, Gallo literally walked away -- he was arrested an hour later while walking along the highway -- leaving Rivera in the passenger seat with a broken arm. Wilhite, the only other survivor, suffered a rare injury called an internal decapitation and is still recovering. All four victims' families spoke at the sentencing.

This is a difficult case in which to defend the driver, given its seriousness and the high profile of Adenhart. But as Riverside DUI criminal defense attorneys, we agree with the defense that DUI manslaughter is more appropriate than second-degree murder. Second-degree murder normally requires "malice aforethought," but a California Supreme Court case, People v. Watson, found that "implied malice" is enough to justify a second-degree murder charge. Under that ruling, prosecutors can read malice into a situation in which a driver knows driving drunk is dangerous and does it anyway. We believe this is overreaching in most cases; after all, negligent acts like Gallo's aren't the same as consciously setting out to commit murder. A conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while driving under the influence would still have gotten Gallo a sentence of more than 30 years in prison, so it's not a question of letting him go free.

Continue reading "Andrew Gallo Sentenced to 51 Years to Life in Prison for Drunk Driving Crash" »

Our San Clemente domestic violence criminal defense attorneys have followed with interest the ongoing fallout from domestic violence case in San Diego. Diana Gonzalez, a 19-year-old nursing student at San Diego's City College, was found beaten to death in a men's bathroom there, allegedly at the hands of her husband, Armando Perez. Perez had beaten, raped and imprisoned Gonzalez in an earlier incident, causing Gonzalez to file a criminal complaint and apply for a protective order against him. Perez was released from police custody just weeks before the murder, due to insufficient evidence. Gonzalez's family and friends, and anti-abuse activists, are upset with the county district attorney's office for its handling of the case and organized a protest march Dec. 9. Perhaps in response to the criticism, San Diego County DA Bonnie Dumanis co-authored an op-ed in the San Diego Union-Tribune Dec. 2 about warning signs of domestic violence.

Gonzalez was married to Perez, 37, in January of this year. They had a child who is now about a year old. Perez had been married before, with two children, but that marriage ended shortly after he was charged with domestic violence against his previous wife. Gonzalez had apparently reported at least 20 incidents of abuse during the couple's short marriage. However, they were already estranged when Perez apparently showed up in the parking lot at City College, kidnapped Gonzalez and imprisoned her in a motel for three days, where he beat, choked and repeatedly raped her. After that incident, she filed for and received a protective order and changed her phone number. Her family made efforts to escort her everywhere she went, but apparently Perez escaped notice when he found Gonzalez on campus and beat her to death. His car was later found abandoned in Tijuana. Protesters are upset that the prosecutor's office won't explain why Perez was not charged.

We understand the outpouring of grief and anger from Gonzalez's family, friends and community. However, as Manhattan Beach domestic violence criminal defense lawyers, we suspect there's more to it than people who aren't familiar with the law realize. In the op-ed, Dumanis and her co-author say prosecutors file charges in every case prosecutors believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the standard for every criminal case, and domestic violence defendants deserve the same protections afforded to everyone in our legal system. In some cases, the problem is a lack of witness testimony or evidence to corroborate the accuser's story, because much of the behavior that leads to accusations happens behind closed doors. In others, the accusers may even change their stories. Prosecutors can continue their cases even when this happens, but changing the story typically hurts the case against the accused.

Continue reading "Handling of San Diego Domestic Violence Case Spurs Protest Against Prosecutors" »

As Anaheim domestic violence criminal defense lawyers, we were sad to read about an active police hunt for an Irvine man accused of attempting to kill his wife. The University of California at Irvine campus police are looking for Gregory Scott Turner, 33, a graduate student in criminology. Turner's seven-year-old daughter called 911 on the afternoon of Dec. 15, according to the Orange County Register, and responders found her mother choked into unconsciousness. Turner fled their home and is believed to be suicidal. He is described as a white man, six feet tall, 225 pounds and may be driving a royal blue 2006 Chevrolet pickup truck with the California license plate number 8P53538. Campus police can be reached at 949-824-5223.

The OC Weekly said Turner's seven-year-old daughter called 911 at 2:20 in the afternoon to report the violent confrontation between her parents. The couple also has a five-year-old daughter who witnessed the assault, which took place at the Verano Place apartments on UC Irvine's campus. Neither girl was physically harmed in the attack, but authorities said Turner beat and choked his wife into unconsciousness and tried to kill her. She was hospitalized overnight and expected to be released Dec. 16 into a domestic violence safe house. The girls were in the custody of Child Protective Services. The Verano Place apartments made the news for domestic violence last year as well, when graduate student Brian Hughes Benedict shot his ex-wife, Rebecca Clarke, in a parking lot with their toddler son already in a car seat. Benedict is being tried for murder.

Our Colton domestic violence criminal defense attorneys hope Turner understands how serious these charges are. When an incident of alleged domestic violence results in life-threatening injuries like these, prosecutors may skip domestic battery or corporeal injury on a spouse charges altogether, and charge the defendant with attempted murder or aggravated battery. Those are serious felonies that are also likely to be counted as strikes for the purposes of the three-strikes law. Aggravated battery can get you up to four years in prison -- not counting penalties for related crimes like assault or child endangerment -- and attempted murder can even earn a sentence of life in prison. Furthermore, even though these are not expressly domestic violence crimes, courts can and will grant restraining orders to the alleged victims. That's why people facing these kinds of charges should retain an attorney as soon as possible.

Continue reading "Police Hunting for UCI Grad Student Accused of Serious Domestic Assault on Wife" »

Our Westminster drunk driving criminal defense attorneys have written here several times before about the high-profile case of Andrew Gallo. Gallo, 23, was accused of driving under the influence of alcohol on the night when he ran a red light and barreled into a passing car, killing three of the people inside and seriously injuring a fourth. Now, the Orange County Register reported Sept. 28, an Orange Superior Court jury has convicted Gallo of the murders of Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart, Cal State Fullerton student Courtney Stewart and law student Henry Pearson. A fourth passenger, Jonathan Wilhite, suffered an internal decapitation, a serious spinal injury. Gallo was also convicted of two felony counts of DUI causing great bodily injury and one felony hit and run. He faces 51 years to life in prison at his sentencing Dec. 10.

The case became famous because of Adenhart, a young pitcher for the Angels who had pitched six shutout innings a few hours earlier. The trial focused largely on whether Gallo's actions the night of the crash met the definition of second-degree murder. Deaths caused by intoxicated driving are generally charged as DUI manslaughter, a crime with less severe penalties. But the prosecutor charged Gallo with second-degree murder under the theory that he deliberately chose to drive drunk even though he knew, because of a previous DUI, that it was dangerous. Jurors told the newspaper that they thought carefully about this, considering whether Gallo consciously disregarded the potential consequences of driving drunk. One juror said he became convinced after reading police interview testimony, in which Gallo said he had done shots even though he knew they had a strong effect on him. His DUI defense attorney said she believed jurors should have had the option of convicting Gallo for vehicular manslaughter instead.

We agree. As Nigel Pearson, Henry Pearson's father, told the newspaper, this was a situation with no winners. The conviction will prevent Gallo from driving and has undoubtedly convinced him of how dangerous drunk driving is. However, our San Bernardino intoxicated driving criminal defense lawyers do not believe second-degree murder was appropriate in this case. Second-degree murder carries heavy penalties, but Gallo would have faced 12 to 30 years in prison for DUI manslaughter -- hardly a lenient punishment. More importantly, murder requires "an abandoned and malignant heart" under California law, not just criminal negligence. While Gallo's actions were irresponsible and the risks were clear, we believe it's important that he did not set out to kill. We suspect this will be an argument in his inevitable appeals to higher courts.

Continue reading "Jury Convicts Andrew Gallo of Triple Murder in DUI Crash That Killed Angels Pitcher" »

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" »

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 Santa Ana drunk driving criminal defense attorneys and many others in Orange County have been closely following the trial of Andrew Thomas Gallo, the alleged drunk driver accused of killing an Angels pitcher. So we weren't surprised to see that the defense asked for a change of venue recently, arguing that Gallo cannot get a fair trial in Orange County because of all the publicity surrounding the deaths of Nick Adenhart, Courtney Stewart and Henry Pearson. As the Orange County Register reported July 16, a judge on that day denied the requested change of venue, saying news coverage has been balanced and jurors take their jobs seriously. However, the judge noted that he could reconsider if there are problems seating a jury.

Gallo is accused of crashing his minivan into Stewart's car in April of 2009, the night of a game 22-year-old pitcher Adehart had started for the Angels. Adenhart was riding in a car driven by Stewart, 20, with Pearson, 25 and Jonathon Wilhite, 24, as fellow passengers. Gallo allegedly had a BAC of nearly 0.24 when he ran a red light and t-boned Stewart's car, pushing it into a light pole. Wilhite was the only survivor in that car, and he suffered a serious injury known as an internal decapitation. Gallo was apparently unharmed, although his stepbrother, who was riding in the minivan, sustained injuries. Gallo left the scene, and it was later discovered that his license had been suspended for a previous DUI. He is charged with three counts of second-degree murder -- a more serious charge than DUI manslaughter -- as well as DUI with great bodily injury, leaving the scene of an accident and driving on a suspended license.

Adenhart was a young pitcher who wasn't well known at the time, but his death resulted in an outpouring of affection from teammates and Angels fans. As a result, this case has been closely watched by the media, and that's why our Riverside DUI criminal defense lawyers believe Gallo was right to ask to move the trial. A change of venue is appropriate when there's so much pre-trial publicity that the court can't be sure jurors will be unbiased. It's worth asking whether a fatal drunk driving accident, even one of this magnitude, would have gotten the same coverage if none of the victims had been a promising young pitcher for the hometown baseball team. Since the judge in this case has denied the motion, we hope he's right that jurors do their best to be fair in Orange County.

Continue reading "Judge Denies Bid to Move Trial of Alleged Nick Adenhart Killer Out of Orange County" »

Our Santa Ana drunk driving criminal defense lawyers wrote several times here about Andrew Thomas Gallo, the allegedly drunk driver who is charged with killing Angels pitcher Nick Adenhart and students Courtney Stewart and Henry Pearson. Gallo is charged with second-degree murder under the legal theory that because he had a prior drunk driving conviction, he knew it was wrong to drive drunk but did it anyway. We thought this was a stretch for the prosecution, so we were surprised to see the same theory being tested in another trial in Orange County, that of Alex David Trujillo. As the Orange County Register reported June 9, Trujillo is accused of being both drunk and high on prescription painkillers when he drove his car directly into a Seal Beach sidewalk, killing Catherine Busse, 46, and slightly injuring her then-14-year-old son, Sam Busse.

Trujillo does not deny that he caused the crash. However, his attorney argued in court that Trujillo had not had a drink since the night before and that his blood-alcohol content may have been under the 0.08 legal limit. The prosecutor disputed this, saying Trujillo's BAC was 0.10. He was also accused of having Xanax, Vicodin and Oxycontin in his system, which his attorney said were all legally prescribed for medical conditions. Trujillo has a previous DUI from 2002, for which he took DUI classes and attended a MADD victim impact panel. For that reason, the prosecutor argued that he knew drunk driving was wrong and got behind the wheel with "complete disregard for the danger he placed on the road," meriting a second-degree murder charge. Trujillo's attorney said he did not have a conscious disregard for human life, a requirement for a guilty finding for that charge.

As Pomona intoxicated driving criminal defense attorneys, we remain skeptical that the second-degree murder charge is truly the best fit for this crime. Second-degree murder is charged for planned killings or killings that show "an abandoned or malignant heart." Drivers should know that intentionally choosing to drive while intoxicated is dangerous and irresponsible -- but even when they make that choice, they aren't consciously setting out to kill someone. For this exact reason, California state law offers a different charge to fit DUI-related deaths -- gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. The difference is not academic. Trujillo faces 15 years to life for a conviction for second-degree murder, but would face four to ten years for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. Given the stakes, if the jury believes Trujillo doesn't meet the standards for second-degree murder, they may choose not to convict him at all.

Continue reading "OC Man Charged With Murder for Intoxicated Driving Crash That Killed Bicyclist" »

Our Ontario DUI criminal defense attorneys wrote a few months ago about the ongoing murder trial of alleged drunk driver Andrew Thomas Gallo. As baseball fans may remember, Gallo is the driver accused of killing 22-year-old Nick Adenhart, a pitcher for the Angels who had just started his fourth major league game. The same crash also killed Courtney Stewart, 20, a Cal State Fullerton student; and Henry Pearson, 25, a law student and aspiring sports agent. A fourth passenger, Jonathon Wilhite, suffered a serious injury called an internal decapitation and is still recovering from the April 2009 accident. Gallo's passenger and stepbrother, Raymond Alejandro Rivera, was also injured. Gallo is accused of speeding through a red light with a blood-alcohol content nearly three times the legal limit, broadsiding Stewart's car and pushing it into a light pole. His driver's license was suspended at the time because of a previous DUI conviction.

In April, Gallo's criminal defense attorney motioned to move the trial out of Orange County, saying Gallo could not get a fair trial in a county full of Angels fans. Now, the Orange County Register reported June 1, Gallo's attorney has also asked for a delay in the trial. Defense attorney Jacqueline Goodman Rubio became the attorney of record on April 16 of this year, after Gallo successfully moved to replace his public defender with the private lawyer. Rubio told the court that despite working full-time to catch up on the case, she needs more time to prepare for the July 26 trial, and to prepare a motion to move the trial. The prosecutor opposed both the change of venue and the delay, as does the private attorney for the victims' families.

As our Placentia drunk driving criminal defense lawyers wrote in April, Gallo is charged with three counts of second-degree murder instead of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. (This is in addition to DUI and other charges.) The prosecutor in the case says the charge fits because Gallo had a previous DUI conviction, which means he knew driving drunk was dangerous. However, second-degree murder is a substantially more serious charge, carrying 15 years to life for each count, rather than the four to ten years possible for each gross vehicular manslaughter conviction. And, as we wrote in April, second-degree murder requires "malice aforethought," meaning premeditation or "an abandoned and malignant heart." Driving drunk is not a good decision, but we believe it's a stretch to argue that Gallo set out to kill three people he'd never met. Given the wide discrepancy between the manslaughter and murder sentences, we hope his jury thinks carefully about whether a conviction is truly just.

Continue reading "Allegedly Drunk Driver Who Killed Angels Pitcher Loses Request to Delay Trial" »

As Paramount homicide criminal defense attorneys, we were interested to see that prosecutors have withdrawn a plea deal in a high-profile stabbing case. The rare move comes in the case of Abdullah Wahihi, 22, who is accused of stabbing Andre Murillo, 22, a basketball player for Concordia University. The Orange County Register reported April 16 that prosecutors changed their minds on the plea bargain after Murillo discovered that Wahidi would spend only six months in jail after pleading guilty to assault with a deadly weapon. The deal would have dropped a charge of attempted murder. A spokesperson for the district attorney's office said the original deal was offered based on the facts and the office's understanding of Murillo's position, but when it found out he did not support the deal, the office decided for prosecution instead.

Wahidi, of West Hills, is a member of the Afghanistan National Basketball Team. He is accused of stabbing Murillo, now 19, outside of a party last April 26. Murillo suffered a 3.5-inch knife wound that deflated one lung and nicked his heart. The would required four surgeries and was complicated by pneumonia and a 40-pound weight loss, but Murillo is now back with Concordia's basketball team. Wahidi was charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, plus sentence enhancements for use of a deadly weapon and causing great bodily harm. Under the plea deal, however, he would only have been sentenced for the assault charge. When explaining its decision, the district attorney's office cited Marsy's Law, a victims' rights law that gives crime victims the right to confer with prosecutors about pretrial disposition of the case, among other things.

Our Lake Forest murder criminal defense lawyers were drawn to this story because it's unusual for prosecutors to cancel a plea bargain. Marsy's Law does not give crime victims the power to revoke prosecutions, just the right to stay informed and voice their opinions. We don't know the circumstances behind the charges, so we can't say whether the plea bargain was fair. However, we do know that an attempted second-degree murder charge, which is what Wahidi most likely faces, carries a sentence of five, seven or nine years in prison. Felony assault with a deadly weapon carries two to four years. These are without the sentence enhancements, which add time in prison. That means the discarded plea deal would likely have been much better for Wahidi. It might also have been better for the California justice system, which is already so overwhelmed that nonviolent prisoners are being released early.

Continue reading "Prosecutor's Office Withdraws Plea Bargain After Victim Objects to Sentence" »