Articles Tagged with California criminal defense attorney

by

While defense lawyers attempt to get through the nearly 100 cases involved with the Dakota Access protests, the sudden imprisonment of two activists came as a shock to them, making them wonder if the state has decided to be vindictive.

Alex Simon, 27, a teacher from New Mexico claims that he was singled out and unjustly arrested. He served 13 out of the 18-day sentence for locking arms with activists against a police line on October 22, 2016. That same day, 140 others were arrested with him. Aside from himself, only one other activist who received a jail sentence, 65-year-old Mary Redway, a retired environmental planner from Rhode Island.  Ms. Redway claims she was jailed immediately, and she served four days inside the women’s booking cellblock of the Burleigh Morton Detention Center. In fact, the booking guard refuse to believe that she had been jailed for “disorderly conduct” since no one ever receives a jail sentence for disorderly conduct.

So far, 310 cases for activists arrested during the Dakota Access Pipeline controversy have been dismissed or acquitted. An additional 107 activists made plea deals, and 24 cases have had pre-trial diversions, and one case has made an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court.  Another 109 cases are inactive, and 259 cases remain to be tried, calendared until July 2018. In total, the Water Protector Legal Collective reports that 854 people were arrested during the encampment of the pipeline.

Judge Merrick, one of the judges on the case, was one of the petitioners who attempted to change the Supreme Court law to stop out-of-state attorneys from defending out-of-state defendants.  The petition failed after the North Dakota Supreme Court received 536 comments against changing the law. In October Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) petitioned Jeff Sessions to help prosecute “to the fullest extent of the law any criminal who try to destroy energy infrastructure.”

Protest Charges

Despite our First Amendment right to free speech, law enforcement officials can stick a number of charges against you just to retaliate against you for protesting.

They include but are not limited to:

  • Criminal trespass
  • Loitering
  • Incitement/rioting
  • Blocking a sidewalk or sweet
  • Failure to cooperate with lawful orders from police
  • Disorderly conduct
  • You can also be charged with violations of city noise ordinances

If you are arrested at a protest, do not resist the arrest; police will certainly place additional charges against you if you do. You do have the right to ask why you are being arrested. Beyond that, you have the right to remain silent, and you should exercise your right to ask for a lawyer immediately once you are taken into the booking facility. You should have the number of your criminal defense attorney ready, and should not go to a protest these days without being prepared with your own lawyer. Continue reading

by

Blaming an erosion in public safety, California law enforcement and victims’ rights organizations recently introduced an initiative that would expand the list of violent crimes and make other changes. This is likely the backlash to the series of legislative changes that passed into law in 2017 that was intended to lower the state’s overcrowded prison population.

The proposed measure, backed by a state lawmakers such as Assemblyman Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, and Sacramento County District Attorney Anne-Marie Schubert, could appear on next year’s November 2018 ballot. More information on this ballot initiative can be found here.

If approved by California voters, the proposed bill(s) would:

  • Add 15 new offenses to the list of violent crimes. This includes trafficking of a child, rape of an unconscious person, or assault of a police officer. Under this proposal, those convicted would no longer be eligible for early release from parole under Proposition 57, which passed in California last year.
  • Reinstate DNA collection for offenders convicted for seven drug or theft offenses. This is in reaction to the felony crimes that were reduced to misdemeanors under California’s Proposition 47, which was passed in 2014. Prop 47 had ensured that DNA samples were purged when someone’s crimes were reduced from felony to misdemeanor.
  • Create a felony for serial theft if someone is caught stealing three times for goods worth over $250. Proposition 47 had set the felony threshold for crimes like shoplifting for goods worth $950.
  • Require the state parole board to consider an inmates entire criminal history rather than its most recent offense.

Proponents of these new measures claim that the recent criminal justice policies have increased crime and emboldened repeat offenders that led to the increased crime rates in the state. It is reported that violent crime in California has increased by 13% in the past two years. However, it is debated whether this increase can be attributed to Proposition 47. Prop 47 was successful in dropping the recidivism rate to below 50%. Continue reading

by

Prostitution has been illegal in California since 1872.  However, despite the over-a-century-long history, some sex workers claim that engaging in sexual activity for money is part of their right to earn a living. A sex workers’ advocacy group, the Service Providers Legal Education and Research Project, is seeking to decriminalize prostitution and has filed a constitutional challenge to the anti-prostitution law in California, saying it violates constitutional protections on free speech, freedom of association, and due process. The plaintiffs also include three unidentified former prostitutes and a disabled man who says he wants to be a respectful client of erotic services.

Citing the landmark 2003 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the sodomy law in the state of Texas, the plaintiffs in this case argue that sexual conduct among consenting adults is a “fundamental right.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled that the legal challenge may proceed.

A change in the status of sex workers could have a big impact on California beyond escorts and prostitutes. Deterring human trafficking is one reason that state authorities have cited for keeping the law as is. Currently, prostitution is illegal in all 50 states with the exception of a few Nevada counties.

Current California Law on Prostitution:

California Penal Code § 647(b) explicitly prohibits:

  • Engaging in the act of prostitution, and
  • Offering or agreeing to engage in the act of prostitution.

The crime of prostitution or solicitation of it is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months imprisonment and a $1000 fine. However, California law does not automatically require registration as a sex offender if you have been convicted of prostitution.

California Penal Code § 653.22 further makes it a crime punishable by six months imprisonment to loiter to commit prostitution (i.e. standing in a street corner).

Legal Defenses

Entrapment occurs when police behave in a way that applies pressure or defrauds you to engage in behavior you otherwise would not have. Entrapment defenses are sometimes used, since a number of prostitution/solicitation arrests are made by undercover cops. Many defendants are unfairly lured by saavy cops.

Other Related Crimes

California Penal Code § 266 covers the crimes of “pimping” and pandering, while California Penal Code § 647(a) covers lewd conduct in public. Lewd conduct occurs when  someone engages in a sexual act in public. Continue reading

by

A federal judge recently postponed the criminal trial for the six men allegedly involved in the Bundy-Bunkerville standoff, as the state of Nevada, including potential jurors and lawyers in the case, grapple with the horror of the Las Vegas shooting. The trial for Gold Butte rancher Cliven Bundy, two of his sons, and three other men was initially slated to start Tuesday, October 10th, but one defendant, Ryan Payne, had already asked the federal court to postpone the trial.

The bloody Las Vegas shooting left at least 59 dead and 400 injured. Assistant Federal Public Defender Brenda Weksler, counsel for Mr. Payne, had stated: “The shooter is a white male reported to be from Mesquite, Nevada — only a few miles away from the Bundy ranch and the site of the April 12, 2014, events in the wash by Highway I-15. Regardless of the facts, when and if they all come to light, many people have and will associate him with Cliven Bundy and his supporters, who have been previously described as ‘domestic terrorists’ by (former) Nevada Senator Harry Reid and others.”

Back in 2014, Cliven Bundy and his clan allegedly pointed assault rifles at Bureau of Land Management agents when they tried to round up Bundy’s cattle that was grazing on public lands without a permit.

Lawyers on both sides of the case agreed a trial delay would be necessary, even though Bundy and other defendants had wanted a speedy trial.

Delaying a Trial in California

While the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial, sometimes it is necessary or strategic to reschedule or delay a hearing or trial. In instances such as if external current events make it almost impossible for a jury to be unbiased, such as in the case of the Las Vegas shooting, both sides typically agree to a reschedule. Defense attorneys have to file something called a “Motion to Continue” which is a request by one or both parties in a legal dispute to the Court to extend or reschedule a hearing or trial date to a specified new date.  See CA Rules of Court 3.1332.

Other grounds for continuance in California include:

  • “The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”;
  • “The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”;
  • “The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances”;

Other factors a judge considers is the length of the delay, how close the trial date is, etc. Continue reading

by

In another bizarre twist of events surrounding the Bundy family, Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy just lost his courtroom bid to be able to represent himself (pro se) at his upcoming criminal trial. The extreme “state’s rights” advocate is scheduled to go to trial this fall for the armed standoff in Nevada with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents back in 2014.  Cliven Bundy and the other defendants currently face a retrial when they were acquitted by a jury for allegedly assaulting federal officer(s) and brandishing weapons. The defendants are accused of leading a conspiracy to prevent federal agents from removing Bundy cattle from illegally grazing on what is now Gold Butte National Monument.

In September, Mr. Bundy filed court documents saying he wanted his current defense attorney, Brett Whipple, removed from the case. Mr. Whipple had responded by saying he is bound by legal ethics to respect his client’s wishes. However, U.S. Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen ruled that Mr. Bundy could not fire his lawyer because Mr. Bundy would not recognize a court ruling that land could be owned by the federal government.

Jury selection is due to start October 10 in U.S. District Court for Bundy, his two sons, and four other men, including the two defendants whose retrial ended last month with acquittal on most charges.

Should You Represent Yourself in a Criminal Trial?

Self-representation is referred to as “pro se” representation. The 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that all persons accused of criminal acts have the right to the assistance of counsel, which includes a public defender, if you cannot afford a lawyer. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this to include the right of the accused to represent themselves at trial. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).

Representing yourself in a criminal trial is a bad idea for several reasons:

  • Most people do not understand the formal procedures and rules of criminal court. Missing a deadline or a mistaken filing can doom your case.
  • You will not avail yourself all the available defenses. The law is a hard topic to master. Skilled criminal defense lawyers will know all the available defenses to you.
  • You do not know California specific law. California has some of the most comprehensive and long criminal law statutes in the nation. Judges will not go easier on you just because you are representing yourself; you have to plead all the right motions under all the specific state statutes in order to win your case.

Continue reading

by

The San Diego Union Tribune reports that there has been a sharp spike in the use of police dogs in San Diego, and this has raised questions about how and when officers call on the dogs to quell dangerous situations. Police officials say canine units help de-escalate situations and prevent the elevated use of force, but some recent high-profile biting incidents have prompted complaints from community members, lawsuits for excessive force, and a large city settlement.

Specifically the number of suspects bitten per year has risen sharply from 15 in 2013 to 86 in 2016. The number of times officers deployed a canine increased from 1,778 to 3,222 over that time. This increase in usage of canines has occured despite an overall decrease in crime and drop in emergency responses by the Police Department. The police department claims that there has been a continued rise in the number of dog bite incidents involving suspects with mental illness and suspects who have been using drugs or alcohol.

Additionally, the number of canine units slowly increased from the initial 14 in 1984 up to 20 in 1990, and then has more than doubled to 44 units in 1991.

Last July, a YouTube video went viral of a man being bitten while handcuffed. It is predicted that a lawsuit will be likely. Last December, the city of San Diego paid out $385,000 after a dog bite left one man’s leg badly damaged.

Last year, Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman ordered a review of canine policies and training to include more role-playing activities and emotional intelligence components. However, there are currently no plans to shift away from having police physically remove dogs from suspects during a biting incident.

When are Police Dogs Considered Excessive Force?

There are still limits to the injuries police dogs may inflict in the course of their duties.  California has fairly strict liability laws for dog owners, but there is an exception for police dogs in certain circumstances. For example, dog bite statutes might still apply when a dog bites an innocent bystander or witness to a crime.

The use of a dog in the course of police activity can be unreasonable when the nature and quality of the intrusion is not justified. When it is unreasonable, it can result in a 4th Amendment or 8th Amendment violation, which gives rise to civil damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Continue reading

by

Earlier this year, a federal jury in Las Vegas refused to convict defendants from the Bundy clan for their alleged roles in armed standoffs. In another stunning setback to federal prosecutors, the jury acquitted Cliven Bundy, Ricky Lovelien, and Steven Stewart of all 10 charges, and delivered not-guilty findings on most charges against Scott Drexler and Eric Parker. Back in 2014, Cliven Bundy made national headlines after his family engaged in an armed standoff with federal agents when they tried to take his cattle that were illegally grazing on public lands. Some of the charges the defendants faced included threatening federal officers and brandishing a firearm against them.

Prosecutors began retrial in July after their first attempt to prosecute resulted in a failure to reach a jury verdict against Drexler, Parker, Lovelien, and Stewart. The judge then ordered Lovelien and Stewart to be freed immediately and declared a mistrial for Drexler. Only defendants Gregory Burleson of Phoenix, Arizona, and Todd Engel of Idaho were found guilty on some charges. The initial prosecution concentrated on six of the least culpable of the 19 defendants charged in the case. 17 co-defendants still remain in federal custody with the release of Lovelien and Stewart.

Back in November of 2016, a Portland district court jury also acquitted Ryan Bundy and five of his alleged co-conspirators of his federal charges of theft and impeding federal workers from their jobs on an Oregon wildlife refuge.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Las Vegas confirmed that it will push for retrial for a third time in an attempt to convict Drexler and Parker, who are accused of taking up arms against federal agents. This pushes back the other criminal trials for the 11 defendants who are currently awaiting their court dates.

Jury Acquittal and Jury Nullification

Jury acquittal, also known as jury nullification, occurs when a jury renders a unanimous “not guilty” verdict. It is based on the legal concept that jury members vote “not guilty” if they do not support the government’s law, or do not believe it is constitutional or humane.

Acquittal is different from a hung jury, also known as a mistrial, which occurs when jurors simply can not reach a unanimous verdict to reach a guilty or not guilty conviction.

Typically in criminal trials, a unanimous jury is required if the jury is comprised of six people.  However, California is different from most states in that all jurors have to agree in a criminal trial, even if it is a 12-person jury. Continue reading

by

In a 4-3 decision by the California Supreme Court, it has been held that California judges have broad authority to refuse to shorten the sentences of “three strike” inmates, despite the revisions to the “Three Strikes Law” with Proposition 36. Proposition 36 was first passed in 2012 to allow three-strike offenders to receive sentence reductions if their third offense was neither serious nor violent. The law provided an exception for judges if they believed an inmate to be an “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.”

However, two years later, Proposition 47 which was passed in 2014, reduced the penalties for a number of drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Under that law, inmates can be denied a sentence reduction only if they posed an unreasonable risk of crimes including murder, a sexually violent offense, child molestation, or other crimes punishable by life imprisonment or the death penalty.

Court Opinion

In the case at hand, The People v. Valencia; The People v. Paul Chaney, led by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, ruled that the definition of ‘safety risk’ does not apply to three-strikers who have been sentenced to 25 years to life for repeated crimes. In other words, it has become harder for three-strikers to get sentence reductions. It would “result in the release of more recidivist serious and/or violent offenders than had been originally contemplated under Proposition 36,” the opinion says. The Chief Justice also noted in her opinion that Prop. 47 would not affect three-strike prisoners nor amend the resentencing criteria governing the Three Strikes Reform Act, since it only lowered nonviolent felonies to misdemeanors.

This ruling comes as a result of the criminal appeals filed by inmates David J. Valencia and Clifford Paul Chaney, who were both sentenced to 25 years to life under the three-strikes law and both eligible for reduced terms. Valencia’s criminal history included kidnapping, making criminal threats, and beating his wife. Chaney’s record included armed robbery and three convictions for driving under the influence. In Valencia’s case, a judge refused to reduce Valencia’s sentence, calling him a threat to public safety, in particular, to women. Another judge denied Chaney’s resentencing application, concluding he was likely to drive again while intoxicated. Both inmates had argued that the previous judges should have based their decisions on the narrowed definition of ‘safety risk’ after Propositions 36 and 47 have passed. Continue reading

by

California corrections officials on Friday began accepting public comments on the new set of proposed regulations that have overhauled the state parole system. See Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016. State regulators gave the guidelines initial approval in April. They have been used to implement Proposition 57.

Last November, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 57 (64% to 35%) which would emphasize rehabilitation and incentivizing inmates to play a role in their own rehabilitation through credit-earning opportunities for sustained good behavior. Proposition 57 also allows the state Board of Parole Hearings to grant early release to those convicted of nonviolent crimes, and allows the moves up parole consideration of nonviolent offenders who have served the full-term of the sentence for their primary offense and are not determined to pose a risk to their community.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) issued a Public Notice on July 14, 2017 which begins the public comment period for a minimum of 45 days. This would allow the public to submit comments regarding Prop. 57 through mail, fax, and email. Changes to the credit system began in May and the new parole eligibility requirements took effect this month. Final approval is expected in the fall.

However, the rules have come under fire from law enforcement and prosecutors who have largely opposed Proposition 57. Specifically, they are concerned that Proposition 57 did not include language exempting sex offenders from the process.

Parole Conditions

Regardless of who is eligible to be released and when, all inmates released from a California State prison are subject to conditions of parole that must be followed. Some parolees also have special conditions of parole which must also be followed.

General conditions that apply to all parolees include:

  • You and your residence and your possessions can be searched at any time of the day or night, with or without a warrant, and with or without a reason, by any parole agent or police officer. See CA Penal Code § 3067.
  • You must report to your parole agent within one day of your release from prison or jail.
  • You must always update your parole agent with updates to your address and phone number.
  • You must notify your parole agent within three days if the location of any job changes.
  • You must get permission from parole agent for permission to travel more than 50 miles from your residence.

Continue reading

by

Months after the criminal trial of the nine defendants involved in the Oregon Wildlife refuge standoff were acquitted, it has been reported that F.B.I. agent W. Joseph Astarita, 40, has been indicted on five counts regarding the lethal shooting of Lavoy Finicum. The agent is now being accused of lying about firing two shots at Finicum. He is being charged with two counts of obstruction of justice and three counts of making a false statement. Astarita has pleaded “not guilty” on all charges and will remain out of custody pending trial.

Astarita is accused of firing twice at Finicum but missing him. The indictment says Astarita, who served as a member of the elite FBI Hostage Rescue Team, “falsely stated he had not fired his weapon during the attempted arrest of Robert LaVoy Finicum, when he knew then and there that he had fired his weapon.” He is accused of lying to three supervisors in the F.B.I. for not alerting the Oregon investigators or the FBI’s Shooting Incident Response Team that he fired his weapon.

It was state troopers, and not the F.B.I. that fired the three lethal shots that killed Finicum.

This criminal indictment stems from an 18-month-long investigation by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Justice.  However, the Oregon Attorney general stated that this indictment still does not change the findings that Oregon State Police were justified in using deadly force against Finicum.

What is Obstruction of Justice?

Obstruction of justice can be generally defined as interference with the administration of criminal investigation. It can consist of bribery, murder, intimidation, lying—anything to hinder the criminal investigation process. The crime is covered by different federal and state statutes.

In 2016, a study conducted by researchers at Bowling Green State University and funded by the National Institute of Justice found that police officers are getting arrested around 1,000 times per year. larmingly, 41% of the total crimes were committed while on duty, concluding that police, breaking the laws they are supposed to be upholding, is not that uncommon.

CA Obstruction of Justice

Section 148 of the California Penal Code makes it a crime to willfully “resist, delay or obstruct” a cop or first responder in the performance of on-the-job duties, which includes lying to an officer in an investigation, providing misleading information, destroying evidence, etc.  If convicted you face a $1,000 fine and a year imprisonment.

One of the most important questions that could come up in an obstruction of justice charge is whether the police violated your Constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. Continue reading

Contact Information
SAN DIEGO OFFICE
501 W Broadway #800
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 229-1870Fax: (760) 230-5888Toll Free: (888) 476-0901Email: dboertje@boertjelaw.com
NORTH COUNTY OFFICE
1808 Aston Ave #235
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: (760) 476-0901Fax: (760) 230-5888Toll Free (888) 476-0901
We accept the following credit cards: Credit Cards Icons

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, David M. Boertje
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design