Articles Tagged with California criminal defense attorney

A new proposed bill in the state of California, A.B. 2466 now sits on Governor Jerry Brown’s desk for his approval. The bill would redefine who is entitled to register to vote, with the intent of restoring voting rights for the many ex-offenders within the state.

Today, racial minorities remain disproportionately excluded from voting as a result of the documented bias in drug law enforcement and sentencing. The “war on drugs” and subsequent decades of mass incarceration have blocked millions of people out of the electoral process. In California prisons, three out of every four men are either African American, Latino, or Asian American. African Americans, who comprise less than 7% of California’s voting-age population, currently represent 28% of those who cannot vote because of felon disenfranchisement.

Voting rights in the rest of the country depends on the state law. For example, two states, Maine and Vermont, allows felons to vote while behind bars. Fourteen states restore voting rights after a prisoner has been released from prison.

An animal rights activist by the name of Anita Krajnc, 48, is being tried in Canada for criminal mischief because she gave water to thirsty pigs at a traffic stop.   

Back in November 2015, Krajnc was charged with criminal mischief after clashing with the driver of a tractor-trailer transporting pigs to the slaughterhouse. She and her fellow protestors tried to give the thirsty pigs water as they were stopped at a traffic light on the way to the Fearmans Pork processing plant. The Ontario based hog farmer, Eric Van Boekel, who owned the pigs, filed a police complaint the next day. He claimed he was concerned for the safety of his product the animal rights protesters, who sometimes crowd near the large transport vehicles when they are stopped in traffic. Krajnc is the founder of an animal rights group called Toronto Pig Save. The video that went viral online shows her approaching the driver first to ask him to give the pigs water, since it was such a hot day.

Several online petitions numbering in the hundreds of thousands of signatures have already sprung up in Krajnc’s defense. Krajnc faces a maximum of six months in jail or a $5,000 fine if convicted, and she has pleaded not guilty.

Difference Between Criminal Mischief and Disorderly Conduct

Under California law, CA Penal Code § 594(a), criminal mischief, or malicious mischief, refers to the act of intentionally damaging, graffiti-ing or defacing property. You will be charged with criminal mischief/malicious mischief if you intentionally deface or destroy another person’s property without his or her permission. It does not involve taking another’s property, which is considered theft. A key element of the crime is intentional behavior, and not accidental behavior.

The majority of malicious mischief cases are prosecuted as misdemeanors punishable by a fine up to $10,000 and one year in jail if the amount of property damage is under $10,000. If property damage is under $400, the crime is punishable by up to $5,000 in fines.   

Disorderly conduct in almost every jurisdiction, is like a catch-all charge for those crimes that do not have a specific statute covering it. While disorderly conduct laws significantly differ amongst states, the crime is mainly known as “disturbing the peace.” This encompasses any behavior that causes other people alarm, anger, annoyance, or causes them to engage in unlawful activity.  California categorizes disorderly conduct offenses into five categories:

  • General disorderly conduct which includes public intoxication,
  • Fighting, noise, and offensive words,
  • Rioting,
  • Disturbing the peace on a school campus, and
  • Refusing to disburse such as during a protest.

Continue reading

Last month, it was reported by CNN that the unsympathetic Dylann Roof, the accused shooter in Charleston, was attacked and beaten on his way to the shower in Charleston County Detention Center. Roof made headlines last year when he was arrested for his racially motivated massacre of nine black churchgoers at Charleston’s Emanuel AME Church in North Carolina.

Although he is currently in protective custody, Roof, 22, was vulnerable because only one guard was in the area and he was fetching toilet tissue for another inmate. That allowed another inmate, 25-year-old Dwayne Stafford, to run down the stairs from his cell into the protective custody unit and sucker punch Roof. It is reported the detention officer quickly responded and separated the two. There were no weapons involved, and the injuries Roof faced were minor – bruising on the face and back.

It is not surprising that the nature of his crimes make Roof vulnerable to attacks, and that is why he is under protective custody in the prison where he awaits trial. His murder trial is set to start at the end of January, and there are already three federal courtrooms dedicated to it. Roof currently faces nine counts of murder, three counts of attempted murder, and gun charges.

What is Protective Custody?

Protective custody in prison is a type of imprisonment intended to protect an inmate from harm, either from outside sources or other prisoners. Inmates have the right to request protective custody if they believe that the environment they are living in is harmful to their well-being. They can make this request at any time if they feel their physical safety threatened. Corrections officers then keep the inmate making the request locked up and unable to leave until the request is granted. The request may be granted if officials decide that the inmate is truly at risk. Once ‘protected,’ an inmate is typically segregated from the rest of the prison population.

Ideally, inmates under protective custody are housed in a stand-alone unit, with their own eating facilities, shower areas, recreation yards, and visiting rooms. Doctors and staffers visit the unit so the prisoner does not have to travel. Protective custody units have numerous cameras and guards, and can have anywhere from 10 to 100 inmates. Continue reading

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

Riverside, California, is home to the West Coast terminal of trucking company CRST, located just off Interstate 215, where a woman named Cathy Sellars has filed a lawsuit against CRST for sexual harassment. Over the last 20 years, hundreds of women have brought gender discrimination lawsuits against the trucking industry. It is reported by the EEOC, that an average of one of six of those claims involved race-based harassment.

The trucking incident is still currently 95% male. The few women in the industry allegedly suffered from everyday harassment, from catcalling to rape. Sellars reportedly suffered instances of sexual harassment, assault, and intimidation from her trainer during her first few weeks as a truck driver for CRST. She says she reported the incidences of harassment with human resources for CRST on the phone, and called her trainer’s dispatcher, but failed to get the help she needed.  She also says she would be catcalled at the truck stop, with the on-duty terminal manager at Riverside ignoring the behavior of male drivers.

Catcalling and Sexual Harassment: Free Speech, or a Crime?

While it is obvious that sexual assault (grabbing, flashing) is a serious crime, most states vary on public comments and gestures. Some have considered catcalling protected under the first amendment if it does not arise to a true threat. Simply put, it is not a crime to be a rude person.  In other states however, behavior like catcalling is illegal under the broad legal definition of “lewd conduct.” In California, catcalling and verbal sexual harassment can still be considered a crime by way of different laws. The state has more protective laws against gender-based harassment, and currently has six laws that protect against verbal harassment:

  1. Disorderly conduct- this includes explicit sexual comments or solicitations or obscene gestures. See CA Code, Title 15, Chap. 2 § 647.
  2. Any harassment at adult education schools– including loitering or catcalling on campus. See CA Code, Title 15, Chap. 2 § 647(b).
  3. Harassment on public transportationSee CA Code, Title 15, Chap. 2 § 640.
  4. Vagrancy near a school- including loitering near campus. See CA Code, Title 15, Chap. 2 § 653(b).
  5. Public nuisance- this includes those who routinely harass passerbys at the same street corner. See CA Code, Title 10, §370-372.
  6. Unlawful assembly- California law defines this as whenever two or more persons assemble together for an unlawful or lawful act, in a boisterous or tumultuous manner.  See CA Code, Title 11, §407-409.

Continue reading

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.

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?

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.

In the ongoing saga of the Malheur wildlife refuge occupation in Oregon, defense lawyers for Ammon Bundy and his crew are generally concerned that the jury will not be impartial. Prior to this, they have also accused federal judge Jennifer Navarro in Nevada of being biased and have tried to disqualify her from overseeing the case.  

Andrew Kohlmetz, an attorney who represents defendant Jason Patrick, one of the refuge’s occupiers, had requested a change of venue for the September 2016 trial and asked a federal judge Wednesday to approve funding for an analysis of the media attention the case received and, possibly, a survey of community attitudes. The two requests would total almost $130,000. Kohlmetz states that the media attention this case has garnered may have biased potential jury members.

U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown in Oregon seemed inclined to request the funding request until a thorough jury selection process is done to provide more information. She does not believe that jury members from Portland will be too “liberal.”  It is reported she would like a jury comprised of residents from all over Oregon to represent diverse mindsets.

California Juries and the Jury Selection Process

In our criminal justice system, being judged by a ‘jury’ of our “peers” is amongst one of the most heralded constitutional rights. Juries are mentioned in the fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments in our Constitution. The theory was that an impartial jury would lead to the most just results in every case.

Who is Eligible?

In the U.S., any citizen over the age of 18 is eligible to serve on a jury. However, they must understand and speak English. They must live in the Court’s jurisdiction with a valid government issued ID, but cannot be on active military duty. Juries are randomly selected from various lists including voter registries. An individual cannot be summoned more than once a year.

In California, trial juries are generally made up of 12 jurors. But in civil trials and in criminal cases involving a misdemeanor, there can be fewer than 12 jurors if both sides agree to it.

Rooting out Bias

An important part of jury selection involves asking the court to dismiss certain candidates. After a potential juror is asked a series of screening questions, the attorney can request to dismiss him/ or her “for cause,” meaning he or she expressed some bias. These requests are unlimited.  Alternatively, an attorney can also exercises a “peremptory challenge,” to a candidate meaning he or she does not have to state a reason for striking the person. There are only 6-20 requests allowed.

Lawyers are not allowed to veto prospective jurors based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. If they are suspected of doing so, the opposing party will likely file what is known as a “Wheeler motion,” meaning the entire jury will be dismissed and a new panel will be ordered. Continue reading

According to police, a woman in North Miami Beach, Florida was arrested at a nightclub and was using someone else’s Driver’s license to cheat the system. On the night of April 17th, the suspect was allegedly being disruptive and even pushed bouncers at the G5ive club. She also allegedly pushed an officer when police arrive at the scene. When she was taken into custody, she gave a fake driver’s license with the name and address of a woman who lives in Los Angeles, California. She was fingerprinted, but the fingerprints would only confirm her identity  if she had a prior criminal history.

As a result, this woman has since paid bail and left the area under the California woman’s name.  She also did not show up on her court date, which resulted in a letter being sent to the California address. The true victim in this case called the police and stated she has never even been to Miami.

Prosecutors said she fooled everyone with the fake driver’s license. In this case, officials are asking for the public’s help in identifying her. Unless this is cleared up, the victim of the identity theft will now have to carry a letter with her at all times in case she is ever stopped by authorities to prove that she has never in fact committed a crime.

It is a Crime to Use a Fake Driver’s License or ID

Under California Penal Code § 470(b), it is a crime (either a misdemeanor or felony) to display or possess any fake ID with the intent to commit a forgery or fraud. The legal definition of displaying a fake ID also consists of the following elements:

  • You possessed/displayed a government issued ID card such as driver’s license, social security card, or passport;
  • That ID card was altered, counterfeited, reproduced, or forged;
  • Your knew it was a fake ID.

Specifically, teenage minors under the age of 18 who are caught with a fake ID face a fine of $250 and 24-32 hours of community service and a one-year suspension of their driver’s license.    Continue reading

Contact Information