Criminal Defense

September 2, 2016

The ‘Slender Man’ Trial

A Wisconsin Appeals Court recently released two decisions to try the two 12-year-old girls, Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier, in the “Slender Man” case as adults. For those of you who have not heard of this case, two girls in 2014 admitted to leading their friend into the woods along Interstate 94 and stabbing her 19 times as a means to please the “Slender Man,” an Internet horror meme. Amazingly enough, the two girls have stated that they believed in the existence of this fictional horror character.

The origins of Slender, as Weier called him in interviews with police, can be traced back to a photoshop contest on the Something Awful forums in 2009. A graphic artist inspired by the authors H.P. Lovecrqaft and Stephen King and horror video games like Silent Hill, manipulated an image to show a tall, thin humanoid lurking behind children. The internet then crowd-sourced the story behind Slender Man, making him a legend or ghost story for impressionable minds to believe.

Rolling Stone has come out with an article on how absurd it is to try two 12-year-olds as adults when it is clear there may have been underlying mental illness causing them to believe this story. Morgan Geyser believed she would get to go live at Slender Man’s mansion if she killed her friend, and that he would harm her family if she did not go through with it. She had also been diagnosed with early onset schizophrenia.

Incompetency and Adolescents in Trial

Juvenile courts exist because it has long been understood that children are less culpable for their actions than adults. Research shows their brains are not finished developing, and they are immature.

In California, A.B. 2212 was signed into law on September 22, 2012. It added §709 in the CA Welfare and Institutions Code. It sets forth basic procedures to follow when a minor’s counsel or the court expresses concerns over a child’s competency to stand trial.

A minor is incompetent to proceed if s/he:

“lacks sufficient present ability to consult with counsel and assist in preparing his or her defense with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or
lacks a rational as well as factual understanding, of the nature of the charges or proceedings against him or her. See Protocol for Competence in CA Juvenile Justice Proceedings.

Incompetency is not an affirmative legal defense. It does not speak to one’s mental state during the crime, it only speaks to whether they can understand their proceedings. It is common practice to treat a defendant until s/he is competent enough to prosecute. Continue reading

August 31, 2016

Prosecutors: Bill of Rights Should not Cover Malheur Occupiers’ Actions

by David M. Boertje

In the saga of the Bundy wildlife refuge occupation, Federal prosecutors in Oregon filed a trial brief outlining their case against the occupiers. Prosecutors noted that that evidence teams recovered more than 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Defendants have claimed they were exercising their first amendment rights, but government prosecutors have rejected these defenses. They note that “Taking a gun into a government office is not First Amendment protected activity.”

The Rights Enumerated in the Bill of Rights are Not Unlimited

The first 10 amendments in the U.S. Constitution is also called the “Bill of Rights.” But constitutional rights are not absolute, and do not automatically have a legal defense for a crime by simply citing a constitutional right. In fact there are plenty of restrictions that have been imposed on other rights by the Supreme Court.

The First Amendment prohibits the impediment of the free exercise of religion, speech, press, the right to peaceably assemble or the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Specifically, it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

However, the Supreme Court over the years has placed many restrictions on these rights. You are free to exercise your religion for example, but not if it involves human and animal sacrifice. One’s free speech may also not be protected if it falsely defames someone’s reputation, incites violence, threatens someone, reveals a trade or military secret and threatens national security, or if it is deemed to be obscene. When, where, and how speech is expressed is also restricted. The government has put limitations on who can speak, such as students, prisoners, and government employees. It can also restrict your speech if you are blocking a public throughway (ie. street) while doing it. While determining limitations on speech, courts must carefully weigh the value of protecting speech against the countervailing public interests, including public safety.

The second amendment has been mostly invoked in the gun-rights debate as the “right to bear arms” and has been interpreted to include for the purposes of self defense. It states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

While the NRA would have you believe otherwise, the second amendment is also limited. You cannot point a loaded gun at someone or use it to threaten them, for example. The case of District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 specified that we have a constitutional right to use firearms for self defense in our private homes. But the opinion did not suggest that right extended to other areas. Continue reading

August 26, 2016

Numbers Show Increase in Assaults Against San Diego Police Officers

by David M. Boertje

While the nation is on edge from the high profile killings of unarmed citizens and police in Dallas and Baton Rouge earlier this year, the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) is currently trying to investigate whether a shooting death of Officer Jonathon DeGuzman, 43, was a deliberate act. It is reported that DeGuzman and a cohort stopped someone in the Southeast part of San Diego, which ended in a shootout. DeGuzman died in the hospital.

At the same time as tensions between citizens and police are high, statistics obtained by KGTV San Diego show that between January 2013 and July 2015, the numbers of assaults on officers increased. According to the news report, there were 252 assaults in 2013 and 319 in 2014. From January 2015 to July 2015, there were 254 reported assaults on officers, which is more than half of the assaults in all of 2013. The report was intended to identify the situations that are currently most dangerous for cops, and can be found here. However, other national studies shed doubt on KGTV’s study, concluding that fatal shootings of officers have actually decreased over the previous few decades

Crimes Against Police (“Peace”) Officers

As one could imagine, crimes against police officers are not treated like any other crime, even if the attacker did not know the victim was a police officer. San Bernadino County, for example, has its own “Crimes Against Peace Officers Prosecution Unit” dedicated to prosecuting crimes against police.

Under CA Penal Code § 148(a)(1), it is a misdemeanor punishable by one year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine just to resist arrest or ‘impede’ an officer from doing his job. Moreover, you can be charged with assault on a peace officer under CA Penal Code § 241(c) for threatening harm. It is a crime punishable by one year imprisonment and a fine of $2,000.

It is a first-degree attempted murder charge punishable by a minimum 15-year sentence (and up to a life sentence) if the crime is committed against a peace officer. Lastly, it is an aggravated penalty to kill a cop trying to fulfill his police duties in California. It is also punishable by the death penalty. Continue reading

August 17, 2016

It is Now Perfectly Legal to Take Upskirt Photos in Georgia

by David M. Boertje

In another bizarre legal ruling from a right-leaning state, a Georgia Court of Appeals ruled the state’s invasion of privacy laws does not prohibit taking a photo up a woman’s skirt (an “upskirt photo”) unless she is “behind closed doors,” with an expectation of privacy, like in a bathroom stall or dressing room. Otherwise, a secret photo taken without the permission of the woman in a public place like a supermarket or sidewalk is fair game.

In a 6-3 opinion, judges ruled in the recent case of Brandon Lee Gary, a Publix store clerk who was accused of taking upskirt photos of a female shopper, that criminal “invasion of privacy” laws only protect victims if the conduct takes place somewhere that is not “visible to the public.” The problem, the judges note, lays in the language of the law, and that it is up to the state legislature to fix it in the next legislative session. However, the next session will not occur until Spring 2017.

The state of Georgia is not alone. Dozens of states do not have specific laws against sexual harassers taking upskirt photos of women in public. For example, a Washington, D.C. judge ruled in 2014 that a woman does not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” if she were photographed “clothed and positioned in a public space, even if the photographs in question are incredibly invasive and demeaning.” Often, this kind of behavior is not considered illegal due to technicalities of the wording of laws that have not kept up with technology.

August 12, 2016

Federal Judges Say California Supreme Court is Jeopardizing Constitutional Rights

by David M. Boertje

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Jay S. Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, and Stephen Reinhardt, appointed by President Carter, are expressing their frustrations in a California Supreme Court ruling that would allow a state prisoner to challenge his detention in federal court. The case, Freddy Curial v. California dealt with legal deadlines, and the appellate panel on the 9th Circuit found itself having to deduce why the state’s supreme court rejected the prisoner’s habeas corpus filing. In that case, the prisoner was sentenced to life without parole. The lower state court rejected his petition for habeas corpus due to a procedural technicality- a missed legal deadline. His rejection, written by state judge, did not even state the reason why the petition was denied.

It is reported that the state Supreme Court system is overwhelmed by legal challenges from inmates each year, and ends up deciding most of the cases with one paragraph summary rulings citing almost no legal authority. This frustrates the federal judges from the federal court system who have to later review them. However, to complicate things even more, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have held that federal courts must defer to state judges except for limited circumstances.

The Court System and the California Appeals Procedure Explained

August 10, 2016

Ramsey Orta, the Man Who Filmed Eric Garner’s Death, to Serve Four Years

by David M. Boertje

Earlier this month, the news broke that two years after Eric Garner’s chokehold death went viral on the internet, the only person heading to jail is the man who filmed it, Ramsey Orta. This makes him the only person at the scene of Garner’s death who will serve jail time. In the beginning of July, it was reported that Orta took a plea deal on weapons charges that were unrelated to the filming of Garner’s death. He claims he has been repeatedly arrested and harassed by cops since he filmed the Garner incident.

Orta was arrested back in August 2014, shortly after the Garner incident in Staten Island, by the NYPD. The police claim that he was in a drug-dealing part of town, and that he tried to pass a teenager on a block that was known to have drugs. They claim they found a .25-caliber Norton semiautomatic handgun on him after they stopped and frisked him, and Orta was charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon. The NYPD had also arrested the teenager Orta passed, Alba Lekaj, 17, charging her with possession of the gun and possession of a small amount of marijuana. The police were in plain clothes.

Earlier this month in Manhattan Criminal Court, Orta pleaded guilty to the weapons charges. He will likely be spending the next four years in jail as part of the plea deal.

August 5, 2016

California Violent Crime and Property Crime Jump Increase in 2015

by David M. Boertje

It has already been reported several times that Prop 47 may be affecting crime rates in the state, but the state’s most damning evidence was just recently released. According to the state’s attorney general’s most recent report, the number of violent crimes jumped 10% across California last year, reversing several years of declines.

According to Attorney General Kamala Harris, homicides have increased by 10%, while robberies and aggravated assaults were up more than 8% from 2014 to 2015. Aggravated assaults with a firearm were even higher, with a reported jump of 15.7%. It was also reported that property crimes such as burglary and car theft have increased by 8%.

Harris, who is currently running for the U.S. Senate in anticipation of Boxer’s upcoming retirement, did not comment on the causes of these crime spikes. Many factors could be to blame, ranging from unemployment rates to the police departments being short staffed.

August 3, 2016

Exonerated Man Thanks San Diego Lawyers, Law Students

by David M. Boertje

In 1993, California man William Richards was convicted and sentenced to 25 years for killing his wife Pamela. During the 23 years he spent behind bars, Mr. Richards has always maintained his innocence. For years San Diego-based California Innocence Project lawyers and California Western School of Law students worked to exonerate him. Back in 1993, Pamela was found dead by her husband when he arrived home from work. Her head had been crushed by a cinder block. The police who investigated the case did not find any footprints other than their own, and no defensive wounds on Richards, even though Pamela was missing a fingernail from scratching someone. The bloodstains on Richard’s clothing and shoes corroborate his statements that he had found his wife dead and held her in grief.

Justin Brooks, director of the California Innocence Project, took on Richard’s case because he felt there were too many unsolved questions of the crime if Richards had to withstand three trials in order to be convicted. Richard’s conviction had come in his third trial, based on the expert testimony of a dental expert.

It is reported that at least 16 law students from San Diego have worked on his case. Now age 66, penniless, homeless and without relatives, Richards is staying at the Riverside County home of a former student who worked on his case to try to get his life back on track. He was greeted and hugged by a law student who worked on his case when he was released from prison.

July 29, 2016

The Pre-Med Student Who Found Prince Dead Could Face Drug Charges

by David M. Boertje

Andrew Kornfeld, the son of the California addiction specialist who was hired to treat the late singer Prince, could face criminal charges for possessing a prescription drug (Suboxene), which is used to help kick opiate addiction. Kornfeld was at Prince’s estate when the singer was found dead in an elevator. Kornfeld was the one who made the 911 call. Kornfeld was on the scene in his capacity as a consultant for his father’s California outpatient addiction clinic, Recovery Without Walls.

The drugs were taken into possession by the Carver County Sheriff’s Office, as they are considered a controlled substance in Minnesota. According to criminal Defense lawyers, the Minnesota Good Samaritan law does not protect Kornfeld from drug charges because he had those drugs prior to Prince’s death. In Minnesota, possessing Schedule III controlled substances like Suboxone without a prescription is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Can I Get in Trouble for Being a Good Samaritan?

July 27, 2016

Authorities Can Not Force the Homeless Off the Street

by David M. Boertje

While the act of being homeless itself is not an official crime, many cities have begun dealing with the issue of homelessness by way of “neutral” laws that criminalize the poor or discourage them from camping out on city streets. Over the past several years San Diego has been no stranger to the controversy as exploding rents, unaffordable housing, and a lack of resources have pushed more and more people out into the streets. With the near-perfect weather and laid back West Coast lifestyle, the city draws thousands of homeless people per year.

San Diego does not know what to do with the influx of people and homeless encampments. In Sherman Heights and Logan Heights for example, some locals have praised the installation of jagged rocks under the Sherman Heights underpass to discourage people from sleeping and camping out there. Others feel that the blame should be on officials and their lack of political will to provide low-income and homeless housing in an effort to solve a problem that is not going away.

So, what is the city doing? Homelessness itself may not be a crime, but common elements of homelessness can be.