criminal defense

May 20, 2016

Man Accused of Setting Man Ablaze Charged With Torture

A man named Jose Ricardo Garibay, 26, is accused of dousing a stranger, 39-year-old Julio Edeza, with a flammable liquid in a busy Oak Park parking lot and setting him on fire. The victim Edeza has been hospitalized and is currently in critical condition. He was taken to UCSD Medical Center with burns covering most of his body.

Garibay was arrested near his home in the 6200 block of Estrella Avenue. He surrendered without incident, and according to police accounts, was “very matter-of-fact about [his] arrest.”

Earlier this week, Garibay pleaded not guilty to charges of attempted murder, aggravated mayhem, and torture. He is being held without bail and faces life in prison if convicted. Additionally, special circumstance allegations could be added if the victim does not survive. Investigators have not determined a motive for the apparently random attack and law enforcement do not believe the assailant and victim knew each other. A status conference was set for April 29 and a preliminary hearing for May 3.

The Crime of “Torture” in California

While it sounds like a crime associated with a federal terrorism statute, the state of California has its own law addressing “torture,” which was passed into law in 1990 by way of a California ballot initiative. See CA Penal Code § 206. CA Penal Code § 206 defines torture as:

Inflicting great bodily injury on another person,;
With the intent to cause extreme pain and suffering or permanent disability;
“For the purpose of revenge, extortion, persuasion or any sadistic purpose.”

It is not necessary for the perpetrator to intend to kill a victim to be able to be charged and convicted of torture. However, in California, if a murder is committed willfully using torture, it is then considered a “special circumstances murder,” which means an automatic life sentence with no possibility of parole. This means that if someone dies as a result of being tortured. even if you only intended to maliciously assault him, you will be looking a life sentence.

By itself, torture is a felony punishable by a life sentence and a fine up to $10,000. If you are convicted with torture, you will not be eligible to seek a parole hearing until at least seven years into your sentence. Continue reading

May 4, 2016

The U.S. Government Creates Fake University to Lure Fake Students

by David M. Boertje

According to a DOJ press release, brokers, recruiters, and employers from across the United States who allegedly conspired with more than 1,000 foreign nationals to fraudulently maintain student visas and obtain foreign worker visas through a “pay to stay” fake New Jersey college. The University of Northern New Jersey is a fake school made up by the Department of Justice with no teachers, no counselors, no curriculum, and no classes. It was just an office “staffed with federal agents posing as school administrators.”

The defendants were arrested in New Jersey and Washington by special agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and charged with 14 complaints including conspiracy to commit visa fraud, conspiracy to harbor aliens for profit, and other offenses. The defendants operated recruiting companies for international students. Acting as recruiters, they solicited undercover agents to participate in a scheme to get F-1 student and H-1B skilled worker visas. They admitted to the undercover agents their clients would not take classes, and were getting a commission for obtaining visas.

Most of the clients were from China and India, and used the visas to get coveted jobs at Apple and Facebook. The feds are now working to terminate the nonimmigrant status for the foreigners involved in the scheme and deporting the participants. The government claims creating the fake university was not entrapment because those who tried to defraud the immigration system were already predisposed to criminal activity. The 1000 foreigners looking for visas were also willing participants.

What is Entrapment?

Entrapment can be generally defined as when law enforcement induces someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not have been likely to commit. The key, then, is that if you were already predisposed to criminal activity, it is not entrapment. See CA Penal Code § 647. This is based on the premise that reasonable law abiding citizens will say “no” when given an opportunity to commit a crime.

Entrapment is an affirmative legal defense, but you will have the burden to show that law enforcement was acting illegally. More importantly, the defense only applies to entrapment caused by law enforcement. The defense does not apply if private citizens not acting as a police agents convince you to commit a crime. Continue reading

April 29, 2016

Cliven Bundy’s Chosen Attorney Has Ethical Conflicts; Precluded From Case

by David M. Boertje

In the continuing saga of Cliven Bundy and his band of anti-government followers, Nevada’s chief federal judge Gloria Navarro has formally refused to allow nationally known conservative lawyer Larry Klayman join Cliven Bundy’s defense team. In a three page legal order, Navarro revealed that Mr. Klayman has some potential discipline issues with the D.C. Bar Association. She has that his disclosure in court papers claimed that no disciplinary action has been taken and the proceedings were likely to be resolved in his favor. This was “misleading and incomplete.”

According to court documents, his troubles with the Washington bar stemmed from three separate alleged conflicts of interest in litigation involving Judicial Watch after he left the organization as its legal counsel.

Klayman, the founder of the Washington-based public interest groups Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his litigious strategy in pursuit of conservative issues. Bundy is now currently represented by Las Vegas attorney Joel Hansen, who is active in the ultraconservative Independent American Party of Nevada. He filed papers pleading for the court to allow Klayman to be part of Bundy’s defense team. Klayman is allowed to reapply to represent Bundy pending he submits documents related to those proceedings.

January 6, 2016

Man Accused of Hate Crime, Arson in California Mosque Fire

by David M. Boertje

Earlier this weekend, a 23-year-old man named Carl James Dial from Palm Desert, CA, was arrested on on suspicion of committing a hate crime and arson in connection to a mosque in Riverside County, CA. On Friday afternoon, a fire was reported at the Islamic Center in Palm Springs. The fire was contained to the building’s front lobby, and no one was injured. The mosque is only 75 miles from San Bernardino, where the deadly shooting committed by Islamic extremists killed 14 people last month. It is the only mosque in Coachella valley.

In a statement released Friday evening, Congressional Rep. Raul Ruiz, whose district includes the area in which the mosque is located, called on authorities to investigate the fire as a possible hate crime. That same mosque was also hit by gunfire last November 2014 in what was also investigated as a possible hate crime.

Mr. Dial was arrested and is being detained at the Riverside County Jail in Indio on suspicion of committing a hate crime, two counts of arson, one count of maliciously setting a fire, and one count of second-degree burglary. He is being held in lieu of a $150,000 bail. Authorities provided no details on how the fire was set. Mr. Dial is scheduled to appear in Court next week.

California Arson Law

California Penal Codes § 451 and 452 make it a crime to set fire to any building, forest land, or property willfully and maliciously or recklessly. The punishment for arson in California depends on:

The type of property that was burned;
Whether someone was injured;
Whether you set fire willfully or only recklessly.

Setting a fire recklessly is a misdemeanor, but it becomes a felony if someone is injured in the fire. Willful and malicious arson is always a felony in California, and you will even be charged with murder if you accidentally kill someone in the process (under the felony-murder rule).

California Hate Crime Law

California has its own specific statute which makes it a stand-alone crime to commit a hate crime. It is a felony to commit an act of assault or vandalism if your are motivated by one’s nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, or ethnicity. Hate crimes are punishable by three years imprisonment for each act. See CA Penal Code 422.6. Continue reading

December 22, 2015

Man Arrested in Officer Assault During Black Friday Brawl

by David M. Boertje

As the country braces for yet another holiday shopping season, it has already been reported that shoppers have been brawling all over the country at shopping malls. A man in El Paso has been arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer during a Black Friday brawl at a Walmart store. Authorities in El Paso arrested a 23-year-old man named Ruben Garcia after he allegedly hit an off-duty officer multiple times while he was working security at the store. Police claim Garcia was trying to take a TV that was already being held by an elderly woman. She was crying and asking for help. When the officer approached him, a fight ensured. Garcia is also accused of attempting to choke the officer. Garcia was booked into the El Paso County Detention Facility and charged with assault of a public servant.

What is Assault and/or Battery?

People often confuse the terms “assault” and “battery,” but the reality is that they are two distinct crimes in California. Under CA Penal Code § 240, assault is defined as the attempt to use force or violence against someone else. Battery on the other hand, results in the actual use of force or violence on someone else. Actual injury does not have to occur for battery charges, as long as the unlawful touching and force was committed.

December 18, 2015

U.S. Appeal Court to Hear Rasmea Odeh was Denied Fair Trial

by David M. Boertje

Last month, lawyers for Palestinian American community leader and activist Rasmea Odeh (associate director for the Arab-American Arab Network) argued before a U.S. Appeal court that Odeh was denied her constitutional right to a fair trial. In November of 2014, Odeh was convicted of immigration fraud by a jury in federal court in Michigan for failing to disclose her prior conviction, arrest, and imprisonment by an Israeli military court.

In 1969, the Israeli military charged Odeh with helping to coordinate a pair of bombings in Jerusalem that left two men dead. She has always maintained her innocence in these matters. More importantly, the court in Michigan sentenced Odeh to 18 months imprisonment, ordered her to pay a $1,00 fine, and stripped her of her U.S. citizenship. She now faces deportation back to Jordan after she serves her sentence. US District Judge Gershwin Drain who had presided over her trial barred Odeh from speaking about the torture and abuse she suffered in Israeli detention. He also did not allow her to call an expert witness to testify that she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder because Odeh asserts she did not knowingly lie on her immigration and naturalization applications.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a Legal Defense

Post traumatic stress disorder is defined by the Mayo clinic “as a mental health condition that’s triggered by a terrifying event.” Symptoms may include nightmares, flashbacks, anxiety, and depression. In the criminal law context, PTSD may serve as an affirmative defense or raised as an evidence of mitigation to help the defendant receive alternative sentencing or more lenient treatment. Affirmative defenses that can be offered are insanity and diminished capacity. With diminished capacity, one would argue that the defendant was less capable than a normal person of having the required mental state for the offense. In other words, due to his/her diminished capacity, s/he did not have the wrongful intent to commit the crime.

If PTSD is used as a mitigation factor, you must show that due to your emotional trauma, your behavior did not rise to as a high level of culpability as it otherwise would have. For example Section 1170.9 of California Penal Code allows judges to sentence certain military veterans suffering from PTSD to treatment instead of jail or prison. The statute allows veterans to seek treatment instead of jail time if a veteran committed their crime as a result of PTSD. If a defendant alleges s/he is eligible under the statute, he/she will have to ask for a hearing to determine eligibility. Continue reading

December 11, 2015

California Judge Will Not Seek Third Psych Report

by David M. Boertje

A Humboldt County Superior Court judge recently ruled that he will not be seeking a third psychiatric expert to evaluate accused murderer Gary Lee Bullock’s insanity plea, reasoning that he was only legally obligated to hire two. Gary Bullock will be standing trial for bludgeoning to death Friar Eric Freed at St. Bernard Catholic Church back on New Year’s Day, 2014. He also allegedly attempted to burn Freed’s body and blow up the rectory before stealing the victim’s car.

According to California state law, Bullock’s trial will be bifurcated as a result of his plea. This means that the first portion of the trial will have the jury determine whether or not he is guilty of the charged offenses. Then, if the jury returns a guilty verdict, it must follow Section 8 of the California State penal Code (known as the M’Naghten Rule) in order to determine whether Bullock was legally insane at the time of the accused act.

Bullock’s trial was delayed six times when the psychiatric evaluations were pushed back. Jury selection for Bullock’s case began last month.

November 18, 2015

Update on Body Cameras Worn by SDPD

by David M. Boertje

As I have written before, Police agencies across the country have begun outfitting officers with cameras as an attempt to regain the public’s trust. It has been shown that the San Diego Police Department’s (SDPD) use of body cameras on officers has resulted in fewer complaints from the public. However, while complaints against officers fell 23% between July 2014 and June 2015 instances of force increased 10% in the same time period, according to an SDPD report. It is not known why. Currently, 871 officers across the department wear cameras. However, the report only analyzed data from the Southeastern, Central, and Mid-City division (the only departments that have used body cameras for a full year).

Recently, the California Western School of Law in downtown San Diego held a forum with San Diego police Chief Shelley Zimmerman, the ACLU, law students, and members of the general public on whether body camera footage should be publicly available. The SDPD takes the position that privacy issues outweigh expectations that a police agency would release footage of a controversial event, such as use of force by an officer. SDPD’s 15-page body camera policy requires officers to hit “record” when they are about to encounter a member of the public. Public access to police body-worn camera videos continues to be part of the national discussion over police use of force.

Public Records Requests

With body camera video more common either voluntarily or mandated by law, criminal defense attorneys will be able utilize the more-accessible footage to gain evidence to aid in your case. Whether or not body camera footage will be publicly available, the California Public Records Act § 6250 et seq allows for members of the public to request records from a state agency such as a police department.

Public records in the California Public Records Act are defined as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” Specifically, while individual’s ‘rap sheets or arrest records are exempt from disclosure due to privacy, information in the “police blotter” (e.g. time and circumstances of calls to police; name and details of arrests, warrants, charges, hearing dates, etc.) must be disclosed. While identifying data in police personnel files and misconduct complaints are exempt, disclosure may be obtained using special procedures under Evidence Code section 1043. Continue reading

November 13, 2015

Green Beret Facing Charges for Beating Molester

by David M. Boertje

During the last Afghan civil war, the warlords that ruled their territory later became U.S. allies in our fight against the Taliban in Iraq. Now, an American Green Beret, Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland, who refused to ignore the child molestations he witnessed overseas, is fighting for his career. Mr. Martland beat an Afghan militiaman who kidnapped a 12-year-old boy and chained him to his bed as a sex slave whilst stationed in Afghanistan. He was formally reprimanded for assaulting an Afghan police officer, and he is not the only one (Sgt. Dan Quinn was punished for freeing a child back in September). Soldiers who are sent overseas are often instructed to ignore the corruption and violence committed upon the local populace.

While this sad story occurred overseas, it is a stark reminder that Americans face criminal charges or legal consequences every day for defending themselves or others in need from danger.

Self Defense as a Legal Defense

September 9, 2015

California Stalking Laws

by David M. Boertje

Each year 7.5 million people are stalked, with 61% of the victims being female. 44% of the victims are stalked by a former intimate partner. In the current digital era, studies indicate that the rates of stalking and harassment have increased, and areas such as Southern California have higher rates than other parts of the nation. Stalking, cyber-stalking, harassment, and bullying are all similar bad acts. Sometimes it can be the result of a misunderstanding or vindictive accuser. Other times, spouses dealing with divorce start accusing each other of stalking or harassment.

What is Stalking?

California Penal Code 646.9 defines stalking as following, harassing, and/or threatening another person to the point where s/he fears for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her family. As with the standard for threats, one must have had a ‘reasonable fear’ in order to fulfill the standard for stalking.