Southern California Defense Blog

Anaheim, California, with its 348,467 residents, is the tenth largest city in California (based on population). Located in Orange County, Anaheim is 50.5 square miles in size, and is a popular Southern California tourist destination. Anaheim is well known for Disneyland, Disney’s California Adventure, and the Anaheim Convention Center. With flocks of families visiting the theme parks and numerous businesses making use of the convention center on a yearly basis, Anaheim is no stranger to burglary and theft in which those accused of such crimes deserve a fair trial and quality representation from a skilled Anaheim theft defense attorney.

Based on its size, Anaheim one of the safest cities in the United States, with crime rates well below national averages across the board. In general, crime rate numbers in Anaheim are about 50% those of national crime rates. In 2003, 1,971 burglaries in Anaheim were reported, as well as 8,475 total instances of theft. These statistics, regardless of the fact that they are below the national average, indicate that Anaheim is in need of skilled burglary defense attorneys to ensure that constitutional rights are withheld.

At Wallin & Klarich, our experienced lawyers understand that criminal accusations are difficult to face alone. If you or someone you love has been accused of theft or burglary, please don’t hesitate to contact our law offices at 888-280-6839 for an evaluation of your case. Our knowledgeable attorneys are here to help you with all aspects of your case, and are prepared to help return a sense of balance to your life. Call us today.

Federal Court of Appeals Reverses Child Molest Conviction when Criminal Defense Attorney Precluded from Asking Alleged Victim about Prior Statements about Sexual Matters

On June 16, 2009 the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals issued a critical ruling that anyone who is facing child molestation charges must be familiar with whether they are able to properly defend themselves from these serious charges.

The court in Holley vs. Yarborough ruled that the accused’s criminal defense attorney should have been allowed to question the alleged victim as to statements that the alleged victim had made to other people in regard to “sexual matter” and accusing other people of making sexual advances toward her.

The defense attorney argued that this evidence could indicate that the alleged victim had a tendency to fabricate sexual abuse allegations. In addition, the accused’s lawyer argued that this information could explain to the jury that the alleged victim had knowledge about sexual matters from sources other than her alleged conduct with the defendant.

However, the trial judge denied his request. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to prison. The defendant appealed to the California Court of Appeals and his appeal was rejected. He then attempted to have the California Supreme Court reverse his conviction. They declined. This meant the accused had to turn to the federal courts for possible relief. This was a very wise decision. The federal court of appeals agreed with his legal position and has reversed his conviction entitling him to a new trial. At the new trial he will be able to introduce this critical evidence which likely will result in a different jury verdict.

Continue reading "Sex Crime Conviction Reversed in Federal Court of Appeals" »

The website seattlepi.com reported on May 28, 2009 that police found a man stabbed to death in the 7400 block of Rainier Avenue South, and according to police they suspect that his roommate is the murderer. Police held a news conference to announce that they are searching for Valente Alvarez-Guerrero, 40 for his alleged role in the stabbing death of his roommate whose name was not released. Alvarez-Guerrero was described by police as a Hispanic male, 5 foot 3, weighing 160 pounds with brown eyes and black and gray hair. Witnesses stated that he fled in a gray Mitsubishi pickup truck with the license plate B2875H and is considered armed and dangerous.

Police were called to respond to a domestic violence call at approximately 11:52 p.m. Police reports indicate that Alvarez-Guerrero and his roommate were involved in a physical fight after a dispute about the victim bringing a lady friend home. The report also suggested that the victim’s repeated female visitors had become a big problem between the roommates. The two had known each other for nearly 9 years, but had just moved in together two months ago.

The victim stated to police that when the women left he went to bed. Then Alvarez-Guerrero stormed into the victim’s room, throwing his television to the floor and attacking the victim while he lay in bed, hitting him in the face three times. The victim was able to escape and call 911. Police took action and arrested the suspect and took him to the South Precinct. Police suspect that Alvarez-Guerrero went back home after been released at about 3:00 a.m. and stabbed his roommate, who police said was in his mid 30’s.

Nick Metz, Assistant Police Chief, said, “We do have some questions as to why he was released.”

An arrest and booking is required by state law in all domestic-violence cases, whether there is a romantic relationship or not.

In the State of California, all violent crimes are severely punished. In fact, recent U.S. laws have been passed that will increase the mandatory minimum sentences that will apply to people who are convicted of committing certain violent crimes. If you have been arrested for carrying out a violent crime in Los Angeles, you may be looking at a prison term of 25 years to life.

If you or a loved one have been charged with violent crime charge the lawyers at Wallin & Klarich can help you. Wallin & Klarich have been representing clients who have found themselves accused of assault, battery and assault with a deadly weapon charges cases throughout Southern California for almost thirty years. They know how to win these cases. These are life changing charges do not hesitate to contact Wallin & Klarich. Please call 1-88-749-0034 for a free consultation.

Felony Conviction Reversed when Prosecutors Fail to Turn Over Evidence to Defense: Why You Need an Experienced Criminal Appeals Lawyer to Win Your Case

The Federal Court of Appeals has reversed the conviction of a defendant who had been found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm due to prosecutorial misconduct. The defendant had been sentenced to prison and now will be given a new trial where he can attempt to prove his innocence. This happened because the defendant was wise enough to appeal his conviction.

The key witness for the prosecution was a person who had a serious criminal background. The defense attorney representing the accused made a motion to receive all information pertaining to the prior criminal record of the witnesses for the prosecution. Many of the prior arrests and convictions were not turned over the defense prior to trial. The defendant was found guilty.

After trial it was determined that in fact the star witness for the prosecution had a serious criminal record. The defendant made a motion for new trial. The prosecutor claimed that he could not recall what information he had. However, it was clear that law enforcement knew all about the witness’s prior criminal record.

The trial judge denied the motion for new trial. However, the accused was wise enough to appeal that denial.

The federal court of appeals held that the conviction must be reversed. The court stated that the defendant is entitled to any relevant evidence that might be favorable to the accused whether it be in the possession of the prosecutor or any investigating police officers that are working on the case. The prosecutor could not claim “ignorance” and when a discovery motion is made, he must make certain he speaks to the police officers working on the case to determine what information exists that law enforcement may have that might be helpful to the accused.

Continue reading "Appealing a Felony Conviction in California" »

Prosecution Has the Burden to Prove the Consent Given to Search Was Free, Voluntary and Unequivocal – What a Criminal Defense Attorney Can Do for You

The People have the burden of proof upon them to demonstrate affirmatively by a preponderance of the evidence that the consent to a search was free, voluntary and unequivocal. People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99, 137 Cal.Rptr. 447.

Consent can be given to a search, but the consent must be unequivocal, specific, and freely and intelligently given. Parrish v. Civil Service Commission (1967) 66 Cal.2d 260, 57 Cal.Rptr. 623. Consent must be voluntary and not in response to any express or implied assertion of authority. Thus, if a defendant was detained without an objective, articulable basis for the detention, the detention was a violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights and his consent to a search would not be voluntary.

Understanding and applying your Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures may mean the difference between jail and freedom. This is why if you or a loved one is being accused of a crime it is incredibly important to choose the right attorney and the best law firm to represent you.

Wallin & Klarich criminal defense attorneys in California have over 30 years experience helping their clients stay out of jail. You can speak to one of our attorneys by calling now at 1-888-280-6839, or visit us on the web at www.wklaw.com for more information about setting up an appointment.

The Court Has Authority to Modify Probation at Any Time During the Probationary Term –Success Requires the Knowledge and Skill of an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney

Penal Code section 1203.3 provides in pertinent part as follows: (a) “The court shall have authority at anytime during the term of probation to revoke, modify, or change its order of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence. The court may at any time when the ends of justice will be served thereby, and when good conduct and reform of the person so held on probation shall warrant it, terminate the period of probation, and discharge the person so held.”

The trial court is therefore authorized, during the time of probation upon proper showing, to modify probation. People v. Marin (1957, 4th Dist.) 147 Cal.App.2d 625, 627. 605 P.2d.659.

If you or a loved one is interested in having probation modified or terminated, contact a skilled California criminal defense lawyer from Wallin & Klarich for a free consultation and case evaluation. Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years helping clients in all aspects of criminal defense including probation modification and termination.

You can speak to one of our attorneys by calling now at 1-888-280-6839, or visit us on the web at www.wklaw.com for more information about setting up an appointment.

Will You Know When Your Fourth Amendment Rights Have Been Violated by the Police? – You Need to Have a Business Card for a Wallin & Klarich Criminal Defense Attorney on You at All Times!

Limited intrusions into personal privacy must comport with state and federal constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. People v. Bower (1979) 24 Cal.3d 638, 156 Cal.Rptr. 856. A detention may be deemed unlawful and a violation of Fourth Amendment rights where there is an absence of articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the individual in question has committed a criminal offense.

In order to justify a detention by police “the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1) some activity related to crime has taken place, or is occurring or is about to occur, and (2) the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. United States v. Hensley (1985) 469 U.S. 221, 105 S.Ct. 675.

When you or a loved one is facing a criminal charge, you need an aggressive California criminal defense lawyer who understands state and federal constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. Choosing the correct attorney can make all the difference in your criminal case.

Wallin & Klarich criminal defense attorneys know what it takes to defend you in a criminal case. Such knowledge and experience could mean the difference between staying in jail and having your freedom. Call now to speak to a skilled San Bernardino criminal defense attorney at Wallin & Klarich. You can reach our office 24-hours a day, 7 days a week at 1-888-280-6839, or visit us online at www.wklaw.com for more information.

Santa Ana, California is the most populous city in Orange County, with an estimated population of 339,555 as of 2007. If current estimates hold true, Santa Ana’s population will have grown to 355,662 by 2009. Santa Ana, according to the 2000 United States Census, is one of the most densely populated cities in the United States (of cities that have more than 300,000 people), with 12,471.5 people per square mile, ranking behind only New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago. With such a dense population, alleged crimes of theft and burglary are known to be prominent, and with the help of skilled Santa Ana theft defense lawyers, those accused can receive a fair trial and the legal representation and counsel they need.

Santa Ana is the corporate headquarters for companies such as First American Corporation and Behr Paint, and houses the regional headquarters for Xerox and T-Mobile. Though commercial growth has slowed in years past, with the nearby city of Irvine outpacing Santa Ana, new growth continues to contribute to Santa Ana’s economy and financial well-being.

Boosting a projected population growth of about 5% over the last two years, from 2007-2009, Santa Ana is home to numerous people. However, an increase in population growth often translates to an increase in crime rate. Though Santa Ana’s crime rates are below the national average in most instances (arson and vehicle theft are two of the few exceptions), overall Santa Ana theft and burglary crimes are a problem nevertheless. In 2006, Santa Ana, CA reported 8,630 property crimes, a clear indication that the area is in need of a skilled theft and burglary lawyer who can defend those who are unrightfully accused.

At Wallin & Klarich, our dedicated lawyers have years of experience handling both theft and burglary cases. Our skilled Santa Ana burglary defense attorneys will examine every aspect of your case, and will help prove you innocent of wrongdoing. Please call us today for a case evaluation or visit www.wklaw.com and we will see to it that your rights are upheld every step of the way.

The California Court of Appeal recently held that incriminating statements made by a defendant, after taking a fake polygraph test, and seeing fake test results, may properly be admitted into evidence. In the present case, a defendant was questioned by police about his involvement in a shooting violent crime which lead to the death of the victim. During questioning, the defendant repeatedly stated his innocence and at numerous times asked to take a polygraph test.

After numerous requests to take a “lie detector test,” officers decided to administer a fake polygraph test. After the fake test was administered, officers told the defendant that he had failed, and that the test showed that he had lied. Upon being presented with the fake results of the fake polygraph test, the defendant then changed his story and admitted to being present at the scene at the time of the violent crime shooting.

At trial, the court held that although officers did lie to the defendant regarding the polygraph test, the incriminating statements he made thereafter could be used against him. Typically in criminal cases, involuntary statements made by a defendant cannot be used against them if it is the result of coercive police activity. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court, and ruled that the statements were properly admitted into evidence. The court reasoned that police deception during a custodial interrogation may, but does not necessarily, invalidate incriminating statements.

Continue reading "New California Court Of Appeal Decision Highlights the Need to Hire an Aggressive Criminal Defense Attorney" »

Getting Your Judge Removed From Case Just Got a Little Easier-Why You Need a Highly Skilled Criminal Defense Attorney Who Knows the Law on Your Side

The United States Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision ruled recently that you can make a motion to have your judge removed from the case in certain circumstances. In the decision, the court stated that if you determine that your judge has received a substantial campaign contribution from any lawyer involved in the case (or even a witness in the case) that you may be able to successfully have him removed from your case.

If you feel your judge may be biased against you or your lawyer, then one thing to consider is to ask the court and opposing counsel if they have made any campaign contributions to the judge’s election campaign.

Wallin and Klarich reads every new law and court decision that is decided on a daily basis. Our law firm is always up to date with the most recent laws that may help your case.

Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years of experience and is here to give you the help you need in resolving your criminal case. We have attorneys standing by 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Just call 1-888-280-6839 to speak to a skilled California criminal defense attorney and find out how Wallin & Klarich can help you today.

Long Beach, California is situated about 20 miles south of downtown Los Angeles. The second largest city in Los Angeles County, Long Beach boasts an estimated population of about 493,000 throughout its 65.9 square miles. Long Beach is home to the Port of Long Beach, one of the world’s largest shipping ports. Aside from shipping, the city’s economy is stimulated through the manufacturing of goods, such as aircraft (Boeing) and automobile parts, is the corporate headquarters for large corporations such as Epson America and SCAN Health Plan, and even has a large oil industry (with oil deposits both underground and offshore). As is the case for most booming cities, Long Beach has alleged incidents of burglary and theft in which those who are accused deserve a just trial and quality legal representation from an experienced Long Beach theft defense lawyer.

With its beautiful coastline and tourist attractions such as the Aquarium of the Pacific and The Queen Mary, Long Beach plays host to large numbers of visitors on a daily basis. In addition, as the fifth-largest city in California in terms of population, Long Beach residents are numerous as well. With such a vast number of people, crime is certain to follow. Though the number of burglaries and thefts in Long Beach has been relatively static over the last two years (13,088 cases in 2007 vs. 13,095 cases in 2008, for a 0.05% increase over the course of one year), there is still a definite need for Long Beach burglary defense attorneys in the area.

Misunderstandings occur on a daily basis, and miscommunication can prompt inaccurate accusations. At Wallin & Klarich, we understand that the accused are not always guilty of the crimes they are charged with. Witnesses can confuse the facts, and innocent people can unjustly be arrested for suspicion of theft or burglary. If you or someone you love has been accused of theft or burglary in Long Beach, don’t let them face their charges alone. Please contact the skilled Long Beach burglary defense attorney at Wallin & Klarich for a case evaluation.

An Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney May Be Able to Obtain a Reduction of Your Felony Conviction to a Misdemeanor

A court may hear a petition to reduce certain felony offenses in California to a misdemeanor at any time following the suspension of judgment and granting of probation. In J.M. Meyer v. Superior Court (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 133, 140, the court noted: “the word ‘thereafter’ in Penal Code Section 17 is not followed by a time limit, nor is it by express terms restricted to the probationary period.

Moreover, in conferring upon the court the power to declare an offense to be a misdemeanor after it has suspended imposition of judgment or sentence, the Legislature evidently intended to enable the court to reward a convicted defendant who demonstrates by his conduct that he is rehabilitated.

A court may also reduce a felony to a misdemeanor at any time following dismissal and expungement of the underlying felony. Meyer v. Superior Court (1966) 247 CA2d 133, 55 CR 350.

It is a wise decision to retain the services of an experienced criminal defense law firm if you are seeking a reduction of a felony criminal conviction offense to a misdemeanor under Penal Code 17(b). Wallin & Klarich criminal defense attorneys in California have over 30 years experience helping their clients. You can speak to one of our attorneys by calling now at 1-888-280-6839, or visit us on the web at www.wklaw.com for more information about setting up an appointment.

The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that an accused person who invokes his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation may not be subjected to further interrogation by authorities without the presence of counsel, unless the accused initiates further communication with the police. Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477; Minnick v. Mississippi (1990) 498 U.S. 146. However, the right to counsel attaches only with respect to the specific offenses for which the prosecution has been initiated. People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629.

When facing criminal charges it is critical to speak with an experienced criminal defense lawyer. With your reputation on the line, you need help from an attorney who knows the current law and what it takes to defend you in a criminal case. Seeking this assistance can also help you from unwittingly making an admission upon which guilt can be predicated. Such knowledge and experience could mean the difference between staying in jail and having your freedom.

For an evaluation of your case and to have your questions answered, call now to speak to a skilled Los Angeles criminal defense attorney at Wallin & Klarich. You can reach our office 24-hours a day, 7 days a week at 1-888-280-6839, or visit us online at www.wklaw.com for more information.

A recent report in the Los Angeles Daily Journal indicates that in the last few months several suspected illegal immigrants were arrested inside downtown Los Angeles immigration courts while they waited for their court hearings to begin. One local INS attorney stated that these arrests are “shocking.” One of this lawyer’s clients was arrested by INS agents when he came to court to appear at his court hearing. Two other immigration lawyers said the same thing had happened to their clients.

While the clients were waiting in court, INS agents signaled them to come outside where they were arrested.

A recently retired INS judge called the arrests acts of arrogance on the part of ICE law enforcement.

He was quoted as saying:

“For ICE to just unilaterally say to someone, “You had your day in court. We are sending you home. We don’t care and the court doesn’t have jurisdiction; that seems a bit arrogant.”

If you or a loved one is facing a case where you have to appear in court and you are not here legally, it is always a wise decision to retain an experienced CA criminal defense law firm to appear in court for you so that you can avoid any questions about your immigration status. You can call Wallin and Klarich at 1-888-280-6839. We have been helping people accused of all crimes for over thirty years. You can also reach us at wklaw.com 24/7. We will be there when you call.

Criminal Courts in Big Bear and Needles to Close-Why You Will Need a Criminal Defense Law Firm in Barstow and Victorville to Help You With Your Case

The San Bernardino County Courts have just advised that effective very soon, all criminal cases pending in the Needles or Big Bear courts will be transferred and heard in other San Bernardino Court locations.

Due to the economic conditions that exist at this time in San Bernardino County, the decision has been made to transfer all new and existing criminal cases in Big Bear to the Victorville Court. All criminal cases that are pending or new cases that would have been heard in the Needles court will now be heard in the Barstow court.

What this means is that if you are facing criminal charges for offenses that may have occurred in the Big Bear or Needles jurisdictions, you will need an experienced CA criminal defense law firm fighting for you that helps clients in the Victorville and Barstow courts on a regular basis.

Wallin & Klarich has a full service office in Victorville and has been defending clients in the Victorville and Barstow court successfully for over 30 years. We can help you resolve your case successfully. We have attorneys standing by 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Just call 1-888-280-6839 to speak to a Victorville criminal defense attorney and find out how Wallin & Klarich can help you today.

We will be there when you call or you can reach us at wklaw.com for more information.

San Diego, CA, located along the Pacific Ocean in the Southwest portion of California, is the eighth largest city in population in the United States. San Diego is 372.1 square miles in size, and enjoys a Mediterranean to Semi-arid climate year round. San Diego’s economy is fueled by defense (home to the largest naval fleet in the world), manufacturing (home to companies such as Qualcomm Incorporated), and tourism (home to numerous points of interest that include the San Diego Zoo and Sea World). Located right on the United States-Mexico border, San Diego consists of an eclectic mix of residents and visitors, and is a blend of cultures from all around the world.

With its proximity to beautiful beaches and other relaxing areas, San Diego is a major tourist hub in the state of California. Tourism, however, tends to attract theft (the unpermitted taking of an item from another person). Burglary, another problem that San Diego is not immune to, is the unlawful entry into a building with the intent to commit theft. Although San Diego theft and burglary rates are below the national averages, theft and burglary are still serious issues that affect both the innocent and guilty alike, creating a definite need for San Diego theft defense attorneys in the area. When cultures mix, the potential for miscommunication is higher than usual. Misunderstandings can arise, and those who are innocent of intent to commit crimes are often labeled guilty due to these misunderstandings.

At Wallin & Klarich, we understand that mishaps occur, and that guilt is not always attributed to the correct person. Legal matters can be stressful and costly, both financially and in terms of diminished quality of life. If you or someone you love has been accused of burglary and theft and is facing charges in San Diego, please don’t hesitate to contact the experienced San Diego burglary defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. Call us today at 877-385-4950 for a free evaluation of your case.

It was reported in the Los Angeles Daily Journal recently that there are over 2,000 juveniles in custody facing life sentences without the possibility of parole in the United States at this time. Two cases pending before the United States Supreme Court challenge the constitutionality of these harsh sentences for juvenile crimes.

In 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled that a person could not be executed if they were found guilty of committing a crime prior to their 18th birthday. It was deemed by the court, in Roper vs. Simmons, that to execute a juvenile was “cruel and unusual punishment and thus banned by the constitution. The five justice majority, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy relied upon “international norms and foreign practices” in its ruling.

Now the same types of arguments are being made on behalf of two juveniles who face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. One of the defendants in the pending case was 13 years old at the time his crime was committed.

Wallin and Klarich will closely monitor these two cases and report on the outcome.

When you are facing a juvenile crime, it is essential that you seek out a highly skilled California juvenile criminal lawyer to help you. Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years of experience and is here to give you the help you need in resolving your juvenile criminal case. We have attorneys standing by 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Just call 1-888-280-6839 to speak to an attorney and find out how Wallin & Klarich can help you today. You can also read more about how we have helped people win their juvenile criminal cases by going to wklaw.com.

We will be there when you call.

Do Not Take Your DMV Hearing Lightly, the Risks Are Too High – Hire an Experienced DMV Hearing Attorney

Generally, only 8% of people arrested for a DUI request a DMV hearing in California. Of these 8%, however, 34% of them actually keep their driving privileges as a result of demanding such hearings. In addition, those with experienced attorneys win approximately 50% of these hearings.

Surprisingly, the reason these attorneys win so often has nothing to do with whether or not you actually refused a chemical test, or drove with an illegal level of alcohol in your system. Rather, it depends on the DMV’s dependence on paperwork, instead of live witnesses, in order to suspend your license.

Contrary to the information on the temporary license/notice of suspension provided to you, you do not have to prove that the suspension is not justified. Rather, the DMV has to prove that it is justified, and they try to do this without live witnesses through the introduction of police reports.

Often, such reports are defective in a way that is undetectable to someone that is not trained in the laws pertaining to DMV hearings. That is why retaining a skilled DMV lawyer may help you save your driving privilege.

Continue reading "What is Important in a California DMV Hearing?" »

Los Angeles, CA is the second largest city in the United States in terms of population. Measuring in at 498.3 square miles, Los Angeles is a hub of commerce and tourism, and is home to over 3.8 million residents. Los Angeles is one of the most diverse cities in the world, with visitors from across the globe choosing to become “Angelinos” everyday. Home to a variety of businesses and companies, Los Angeles is perhaps best known as the center of the entertainment industry, with many film and television studios located within the region. Like many major cities, Los Angeles is prone to theft and burglary crimes in which those who are accused deserve a fair trial, counsel, and representation from a skilled Los Angeles theft defense attorney.

Los Angeles becomes home to new residents on a daily basis and welcomes visitors just as often. Unfortunately with so many people from so many different walks of life intermingling in the city, misunderstandings are a common occurrence, and can have serious repercussions if all of the details are not worked out in a timely manner. Although Los Angeles theft and burglary numbers are below the national average (0.77 and 0.68 times the national average, respectively), there is still a significant need for burglary defense lawyers in Los Angeles that are skilled and prepared to clear the names of those who have been accused of burglary or theft.

At Wallin & Klarich, we understand that mishaps occur and that guilt is not always attributed to the correct person. Legal matters can be stressful and costly, both financially and in terms of diminished quality of life. If you or someone you love has been accused of burglary and theft and is facing charges, please don’t hesitate to contact the Los Angeles theft and burglary defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. Call us today for a free evaluation of your case at 888-280-6839.

Arrest Without a Warrant Must Be Supported by Objective Facts Justifying a Reasonable Belief that an Individual Has Violated the Law – What an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Can Do for You

In order to justify an arrest without a warrant, the actions of the arresting officer must be objectively reasonable. The actions must be based on facts that provide a reasonable belief that the person arrested has committed a public offense. (People v. Miller (1972) 7 Cal.3d 219.) This rule is based on a provision of the Penal Code, § 836, which provides: “A peace officer may. . . without a warrant, arrest a person whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony has in fact occurred.”

Cause to arrest exists when facts known to the arresting officer would lead person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain honest and strong suspicion that person arrested is guilty of a crime. People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324. Determining whether an officer had cause to arrest requires two analytical distinct steps. First, the Court must ascertain when the arrest occurred and what the arresting officer then knew. Second, the Court decides whether the officer's knowledge at the time of arrest constituted adequate cause.

Continue reading "The Difference Between a Lawful and Unlawful Arrest Without a Warrant" »

To a person unfamiliar with the law, theft in California may seem to be a very simple and easy-to-prove crime when in fact, it is not. To convict a person of theft, the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that a person took property that did not belong to him or her with “the specific intent” to permanently deprive the true owner of that property.

The key element is the specific intent of the alleged thief. To be guilty, a person must have the mental state of intending to permanently take the property. It is not the crime of theft to take property with the intent of returning it. This means you cannot be convicted of grand theft auto if you take your neighbor’s car and go for a drive around the block; as long as you intended to return the car. (However, just because this example isn’t theft doesn’t make it legal! Here, you could be convicted of another crime, such as joyriding.)

If you are ever accused of committing a theft crime, it is important to remember the key element of specific intent. If you placed a candy bar in your pocket at the grocery store with the intent of paying for it, but forgot it was there and walked out, that is not theft! Never admit to store security, police or anyone that you intentionally stole something. Never sign anything admitting guilt.

If you have been charged with a theft crime, it is important you retain an experienced attorney, like those at Wallin & Klarich, to fight your case. For you to be found guilty, the prosecution has the high burden of proving that at the time you took the property, you had the mental state of intending to permanently take that property from the true owner. With over 30 years of experience, the skilled theft crime defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have dealt with cases just like yours before. Our aggressive attorneys are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week to advise you on your case. Call us today at 1-888-280-6839 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.

Minor in Possession of Alcohol: You Need an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney to Fight the Charges

Are you a minor who was recently cited for drinking alcohol? Does your son or daughter face these charges?

If your answer is yes, you are not alone. There are many incidents that involve underage drinkers. It is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to possess alcoholic beverages of any kind. If you are found guilty of this offense, the DMV will suspend your driving privilege for one year. If this happens, it could greatly impact your employment as well as your education. Consequences are even more severe in the incident of an underage DUI in California.

However, the good news is that you are not alone. the skilled Los Angeles juvenile criminal defense lawyers at Wallin and Klarich has assisted young adults and minors who are facing minor in possession charges for almost thirty years. Contact our law firm as soon you have been cited so we can begin to help you. Contact us at 1-888-280-6839, or visit our website, www.wklaw.com for more information. We will be there when you call.

The anonymous tip is becoming an increasingly annoyance to the drunken driver. More and more California DUI arrests are the result of another person making an anonymous phone call to police reporting what appears to be a drunk driver.

Unfortunately, courts are becoming increasingly more lenient in the legal requirements necessary to initiate a police stop based upon an anonymous tip.

Some of the most frequent calls to police are based on an individual’s belligerent behavior immediately prior to driving (at the bar or in the parking lot).

These calls can come from a bartender, bouncer, or bar patron. It’s important to be aware of your public conduct prior to driving - it could lead to a DUI stop and arrest.

Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years of experience handling DUI defense in California. Let Wallin & Klarich advise you and ensure your rights and freedom are protected under the law. Contact Wallin & Klarich for a consultation at 1-888-280-6839. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.

Being a parent can be overwhelming, especially knowing we are legally responsible for our kids’ actions until they reach the age of majority. Eighteen is the age of majority is most states including California. While we do the best we can to teach our kids good morals and values, right from wrong, there might come a time when kids make the wrong choices.

These wrong choices might lead a parent and child to appear in juvenile delinquency court. This particular court is for children who have committed an act that if committed by an adult would be considered criminal. Fortunately, there are many resources out there to help parents teach their children about the consequences of breaking the law. Perhaps by teaching kids that their actions could have “legal” consequences, they might think twice before committing a juvenile offense.

One of the many resources out there is an extremely informative guide titled “Kids & the Law.” This particular guide is put out by the California Bar Foundation and covers many topics to educate children and their parents about the laws defining children’ rights and responsibilities.

If you are interested in learning more about this guide and where to get a copy of it, contact the Law Firm of Wallin and Klarich so that we may provide you with the proper information. If your child is facing the possibility of criminal charges, it is very wise to seek out the legal advice of an experienced Southern California juvenile criminal defense attorney from Wallin and Klarich. We have been helping minors accused of juvenile crimes for many years. Call 1-888-280-6839, or visit our website, www.wklaw.com for more information.

One of the most frequent causes of drunk driving arrests is being pulled over for something as trivial as a vehicle equipment violation. Some commonly cited equipment violations frequently used to justify a stop and subsequent DUI investigation include: defective headlight, taillight, brake light, absence of license plate, etc.

To prevent a possible DUI investigation, do your best to make sure your vehicle is free from easily apparent equipment violations. Do not make the mistake of exposing yourself to a DUI stop and arrest for an easily correctable equipment violation. A stop based solely on a vehicle code equipment violation is lawful and constitutional. Such a stop can lead to being arrested for a DUI offense in California and driver’s license suspension.

If you or a loved one is facing allegations of driving under the influence, please contact the California DUI specialists at Wallin & Klarich. Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years of experience handling DUI defense. Let the skilled California DUI lawyers at Wallin & Klarich advise you and ensure your rights and freedom are protected under the law. Contact Wallin & Klarich for a consultation at 1-888-280-6839. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.

The City of Orange is located in Orange County, California with a population of over 138,000 in 2005. Orange is known for its charming downtown area with houses build before 1920, reflecting its town motto, “A slice of downtown charm”. As home to thousands of businesses, ranging from major Fortune 500 companies to family-owned stores, Orange is home to the oldest university in Orange County, Santiago Canyon College. Out of the estimated 40,930 households and 30,164 families living in Orange, thirty-seven percent have children under the age of 18 residing with them and fifty-seven are married couples living together. Taking into account the number of families living within Orange’s community, it is important for matters involving divorce, child custody, and child support to be handled by skilled family law attorneys.

The City of Orange child custody attorneys and child support lawyers at Wallin & Klarich have more than 30 years of experience handling cases for clients facing the difficulties of divorce, child support enforcement, child custody, visitation rights, child support, domestic violence, and restraining orders. Given our long history of operating in the area, we have a long-standing acquaintance with local courts, judges and district attorneys that afford our clients the Orange family law counsel and representation they need to assure a positive outcome in their case.

The City of Orange, California child custody and support attorneys from Wallin & Klarich have the knowledge and resources to make sure that high and low profile cases are resolved promptly and professionally. Whether you are facing Orange child support, modification of custody, paternity or child custody, the Orange child support attorneys and child custody lawyers at Wallin & Klarich will exhaust every possible resource to protect the rights of you and your family.

At Wallin & Klarich, we’ve seen just how stressful legal matters can be for our clients and their loved ones. If you or someone you love is facing child custody or support disputes, or any other family law matter in Southern California, you need to call Wallin & Klarich today for an evaluation of your case.

A California Appellate Court affirmed once again that a person convicted of theft in California cannot also be convicted of receiving stolen property when the property in question is the property of the theft. The courts have long recognized that a crime of theft and/or robbery is the taking of personal property of another.

Now, if you are the individual who took that property, you cannot also be found guilty of the crime of receiving stolen property because the property in question is one in the same. In a recent decision, the California Appellate Court added carjacking to the list of thefts, where the Court held that a defendant could not be convicted of both carjacking and receipt of stolen property when the stolen property is the vehicle taken in the carjacking.

In the instant case, the Defendant was not sentenced on the receipt of stolen property, and the ruling court treated the charge of receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496 as a lesser included offense to the carjacking. The Appellate court held that to treat it as a lesser included offense is not correct. Rather, that if the Defendant was found guilty of carjacking, he must be acquitted of the charge of receiving stolen property.

If you or someone you know is being accused of a theft crime, you must be aware that there will likely be an incorrect charge of receipt of stolen property. This will have to be fought, and the best option will be to hire an experienced San Diego criminal defense attorney. Wallin & Klarich has been fighting for people accused of theft crimes for years. If you would like to speak to one of our experienced criminal defense attorneys, just call 1-888-280-6839, or visit our website, www.wklaw.com for more information.

Continued here is a discussion of People v. Coon in which the admissibility of writing in court, such as faxed documents, calls for analysis under the Best Evidence Rule, referred to as the Secondary Evidence Rule in California. James Dale Coon challenged his charges in a California appeal based on the argument that the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting faxed copies of certified court records to determine he was on bail when he committed the crimes.

Concern included matters relating to a purported copy of a writing in the custody of a public entity, or of an entry in the writing, is prima facie evidence of the existence and content of the writing or entry. A copy of a certified copy of an official record is admissible unless there is a genuine question as to the authenticity or contents of the original, or it would be unfair to admit the copy in lieu of the original. (People v. Atkins (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 47, 55 (Atkins); Evid. Code, § 1521.)

Similar to Coon, on appeal, the defendant in Atkins argued that the admission of the evidence violated the best evidence rule, which requires admission of the original of a writing to prove the content of the writing. (Atkins, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 54.) The appellate court rejected the defendant's argument, concluding the copy of the certification fell within an exception to the best evidence rule that permits the admission of a copy in lieu of an original unless a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or it would be unfair to admit the copy in lieu of the original. (Id. at p. 55.)

The exception referred to by the Atkins court has been replaced with the secondary evidence rule. (Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 29B Pt. 4 West's Ann. Evid. Code (2009 supp.) foll. § 1521, p. 127.) Under the secondary evidence rule, the content of a writing may be proved by otherwise admissible secondary evidence unless there is a genuine dispute concerning the material terms of the writing and justice requires exclusion of the secondary evidence, or admission of the secondary evidence would be unfair. (Evid. Code, § 1521, subd. (a).)

Continue reading "California's Secondary Evidence Rule (Part 2)" »

THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A WRITING IN COURT REQUIRES ANALYSIS UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE, KNOWN IN CALIFORNIA AS THE SECONDARY EVIDENCE RULE

PEOPLE v. COON

Faxed copies of documents properly admitted per secondary evidence rule where no genuine dispute existed as to authenticity.

FACTS:

A jury convicted James Dale Coon of transporting methamphetamine possessing methamphetamine for sale, receiving a stolen vehicle, being a felon in possession of a firearm, being a felon in possession of ammunition, and possessing a vehicle component with a defaced or destroyed identification number. In a separate proceeding, the trial court found true allegations Coon committed counts 1, 2, 6, 9, and 10 while out on bail. The trial court sentenced Coon to a term of 3 years 4 months in prison.

Coon appealed, arguing that the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting faxed copies of certified court records to establish he was on bail when he committed the crimes charged in counts 1, 2, 6, 9, and 10.

DISCUSSION:

To prove the allegation Coon was on bail at the time he committed the crimes charged in counts 1, 2, 6, 9, and 10, the prosecutor presented and the trial court admitted into evidence copies of two minute orders and a 28-page case print from People v. Coon, Superior Court Riverside County, 2005, No. SWF011097 (Riverside County case). The documents show Coon was out on bail in the Riverside County case when the acts underlying counts 1, 2, 6, 9, and 10 occurred.

The Riverside County Superior Court's seal is stamped on the documents next to a certificate stating, “Each document to which this certificate is attached is certified to be a full, true and correct copy of the original on file and of record in my office.” The certificate was dated and signed by a deputy court clerk. Above the certificate, a notice stating, “This must be in red to be a ‘CERTIFIED COPY.’”

Printed across the top of the documents was a transmit terminal identification header showing the documents were faxed to the prosecutor from the Riverside County Superior Court Clerk's Office. Because the documents were faxed, the documents were not original certified copies of court records. Rather, the documents were copies of certified copies.

Coon contended that the trial court erred in admitting the documents because they were not original certified copies. However, this court disagreed.

This Legal Information is provided as a service to our readers by the riverside criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich.

The issue in People v. Ponce circulated around jurisdictional validity of the trial court's decision to issue a three-year protective order during sentencing. At defendant Ponce’s sentencing hearing, the prosecutor requested the court to issue a protective order for Lucero. He did not make an offer of proof or explain the reason for this request. The court granted this request and signed a criminal protective order using Judicial Council form CR 160, entitled “Criminal Protective Order – Domestic Violence (CLETS-CPO) (Penal Code, §§ 136.2 and 1203.097(a)(2).” The order provided, “[T]his order expires three years from the date of issuance.”

Ponce contended that the three-year protective order issued during sentencing was unauthorized because under section 136.2 the duration of the order may not extend beyond the trial court’s jurisdiction over the criminal case. The Attorney General disagreed and claimed that the statute on its face did not place any time limit on the duration of the order, meaning, the three-year order was proper.

There was no evidence that after being charged Ponce had threatened, or had tried to dissuade any witness, or had tried to unlawfully interfere with the criminal proceedings. The prosecutor did not make an offer of proof or any argument to justify the need for a protective order. He simply said, “[W]e'd also like to have a stay-away order in this case . . . .” But a prosecutor’s wish to have such an order, without more, is not an adequate showing sufficient to justify the trial court's action. (People v. Stone, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at pp. 160-161.) The final result was that the protective order was stricken.

Understanding the complexities surrounding the issuance and validity of a protective order requires great knowledge and experience. Wallin & Klarich is a large California Law Firm, with over 30 years of experience. Wallin & Klarich is centrally located in Orange County, California, with offices throughout Southern California. The firm boasts an AV rating from Martin Dale Hubble, the highest rating any law practice can obtain. Contact a skilled Orange County criminal defense attorney from Wallin & Klarich for a free consultation at 1-888-280-6839. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.

Just because an Officer violates your Constitutional Rights doesn’t mean you can break the law. A California Appellate Court reasoned recently that if an officer approaches you without probable cause or reasonable suspicion and in violation of your Constitutional Rights, it doesn’t give you the right to accost or assault him or violate the law yourself.

In a recent decision, the Appellate court was asked to decide whether evidence of a new crime can be suppressed pursuant to a suppression motion where the new crime was not necessarily a fruit of the unlawful stop. Facts are these: an officer, based on an anonymous tip, attempts to make contact with an individual and conduct a pat down search. Said individual instead of complying with officer’s request, becomes combative, uncooperative and ends up accosting the officer. Said individual then moves the court to suppress evidence of that entire incident arguing that the officer had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to approach him in the first place, therefore anything that happened as a result of said violation of his rights should be suppressed. The court responded with a resounding- No.

The court held that, “Broadly speaking, evidence may be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree where its discovery results from or is caused by a Fourth Amendment violation.” Exclusion is not required, however, where the evidentiary “fruit” is derived from a source that is independent of the “poisonous” conduct where “the connection between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery of the challenged evidence” has “become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.” In this instant, the Court held that when an intervening, independent act takes place (i.e. defendant assaults officer), the “poison” (Fourth Amendment violation) is declared purged and its evidentiary “fruit” (the new assault) is admissible. The defendant’s new criminal behavior effectively breaks the causal link between any constitutional violation and evidence of the new crime.

If you have questions about an unlawful stop or another criminal defense matter, contact the skilled San Diego criminal defense lawyers from Wallin & Klarich for a consultation at 1-888-280-6839. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.

Recently a California Court of Appeals decision affirmed that an officer is not violating your constitutional rights if he stops you and searches you for weapons based on an anonymous tip, so long as that tip provides the officers with detailed information. In this instant case, the information provided was items of clothing, location, and direction headed. Furthermore, the area was known for gang activity, and officers were aware that there had been a recent shooting in the area. Taking into account all the above information, the court held that it was not a violation of the defendant’s rights when the officer approached him and attempted to search his person for weapons.

The court reasoned that the anonymous telephone report was reliable, and therefore the officers did not go wrong in contacting the Defendant who fit the description given and was in the area where the anonymous tipper said he would be. The court also held that if the prosecution fails to bring the telephone dispatcher to testify to what the anonymous caller said at a suppression hearing pursuant to the “Harvey-Madden rule,” such a failure is not grave enough to warrant granting of the suppression motion.

If you have questions about an illegal search and seizure or another criminal defense matter, contact the experienced Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys from Wallin & Klarich for a consultation at 1-888-280-6839. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.

Anyone who drives while using drugs, either legal or illegal, can be arrested for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). In California, DUID is prosecuted in much the same manner as driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). However, unlike drunk-driving cases, there is no legal limit when it comes to driving under the influence of drugs in California.

The primary issue in any California drug crime DUID case is whether or not the accused motorist meets the legal definition of being under the influence. In a DUID case, “under the influence” is defined as unable to operate a vehicle with the same caution characteristic of a sober person, of ordinary prudence, under the same or similar circumstances. It does not matter if the drug taken is legal or illegal. Even lawfully prescribed medication or medication purchased over-the-counter can result in a DUID charge and conviction.

Like California drunk-driving cases, Prosecutors often use circumstantial evidence when seeking a DUID conviction. Prosecutors will seek to introduce evidence of driving pattern, field sobriety tests, objective symptoms of intoxication, and chemical test results.

Charges alleging driving under the influence of drugs are very serious. An experienced Orange County criminal defense attorney should be contacted immediately to discuss the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest and potential defenses that may be available. The criminal defense firm of Wallin & Klarich has a long-standing track record and deep understanding of the law pertaining to allegations of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs. If you would like to set up an appointment with one of our attorneys, just call 1-888-280-6839, or visit our website, www.wklaw.com for more information.

Los Angeles is the largest city in California and the second largest in the United States. As a booming economic region within the country, it’s no wonder that Los Angeles is part of the largest county by population in the United States at over 10 million people. The 2000 census reported that out of 1,275,412 households and 798,407 families residing in the city, thirty-four percent of households had children under the age of 18 living with them and forty-two percent were married couples. With so many families within the Los Angeles community, it is imperative that any matters involving divorce, child custody and child support be handled by skilled family law attorneys.

The Los Angeles child custody attorneys and child support lawyers at Wallin & Klarich have more than 30 years of experience handling cases for clients facing the difficulties of divorce, child support enforcement, child custody, child support, visitation rights, domestic violence, and restraining orders. Given our long history of operating in the area, we have a long-standing acquaintance with local courts, judges and district attorneys that afford our clients the Los Angeles family law counsel and representation they need to assure a positive outcome in their case.

The Los Angeles, California child custody and support attorneys from Wallin & Klarich have the knowledge and resources to make sure that high and low profile cases are resolved promptly and professionally. Whether you are facing Los Angeles child support, modification of custody, paternity or child custody, the Los Angeles child support lawyers and child custody attorneys at Wallin & Klarich will exhaust every possible resource to protect the rights of you and your family.

At Wallin & Klarich, we’ve seen just how stressful legal matters can be for our clients and their loved ones. If you or someone you love is facing child custody or support disputes, or any other family law matter in Southern California, you need to call Wallin & Klarich today for an evaluation of your case.

California recently lowered the threshold blood-alcohol content for drivers who have already been convicted of a DUI offense in California. Now, anyone on probation for driving under the influence can be judged as a repeat offender if found to be behind the wheel with any measurable alcohol on his or her breath. This new “zero tolerance” law means that a driver who is on DUI probation, who is pulled over for any reason, and shows any measurable trace of alcohol in their system, will have their driver’s license suspended

By keeping yourself informed about California’s ever-evolving vehicle and criminal codes, you can better prepare yourself to stay out of trouble. If you or a loved one is facing allegations of driving under the influence, please contact the skilled California DUI attorneys at Wallin & Klarich.

Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years of experience handling DUI defense. Let Wallin & Klarich advise you and ensure your rights and freedom are protected under the law. Contact Wallin & Klarich for a consultation at 1-888-280-6839. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.

Reckless driving, defined in Section 23103, is one of the most vaguely worded statutes in the California Vehicle Code. It states that “[a]ny person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.” A person found guilty for a first offense of reckless driving in California can face fines of several thousand dollars, a jail sentence of up to 90 days, have their car impounded for up to 30 days, and have their license suspended for a month.

A second or third violation of reckless driving, or if someone was injured as a result of a person’s reckless driving, can result in a mandatory license suspension for a year and up to 6 months in jail. Reckless driving is also considered a “discretionary arrest” misdemeanor, meaning the citing officer can merely give you a ticket, or arrest you and take you to jail.

If you are facing a charge of reckless driving, it is extremely important that you contact a skilled California criminal defense attorney familiar with these types of cases, such as those at the law firm of Wallin & Klarich. A charge of reckless driving is a misdemeanor offense, which, if convicted, will result in a criminal record and two points on your driving record. Generally, two points in any eighteen month period will result in a rise in your car insurance rates. If you have previous points on your record, it could also result in an even longer suspension of your license.

However, if you have been charged with reckless driving, having an experienced Wallin & Klarich attorney on your side makes it very possible to fight and win your case. The vague nature of the phrase “willful and wanton disregard for safety” leaves a great deal of room for a skilled attorney to argue that your case either does not merit a misdemeanor charge or should be dismissed entirely.

Continue reading "Reckless Driving in California: Understanding the Law and What You Can Do if Accused" »

San Bernardino County, California is 20,160 square miles of valleys and mountains located in the southeastern part of California. It is the largest county by area in the United States, and is part of the Inland Empire. About 90% of the county is desert, with the remaining 10% consisting of the San Bernardino Valley and the San Bernardino Mountains. Many winter sport enthusiasts converge on the San Bernardino Mountains during the colder winter months, and many nature lovers flock to the numerous museums and national parks in the area throughout the rest of the year. With an estimated population of over 2 million, San Bernardino County is a place where families are started and children are raised. With such an influx of families in one area, there is a definite need for experienced child custody and child support attorneys to help out families when conditions are less than ideal.

The San Bernardino County child custody attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have many years of experience helping families during the most trying of times. It is important to know that your children are given the proper care and attention that they deserve. Given our long history of operating in the area, we have a long-standing acquaintance with local courts, judges and district attorneys that afford our clients the San Bernardino County family law counsel and representation they need to assure a positive outcome in their case.

Whether you are facing San Bernardino County child support, modification of custody, paternity or child custody, the San Bernardino County child support lawyers at Wallin & Klarich will exhaust every possible resource to protect the rights of you and your family. We have the knowledge and resources to ensure that your case if properly resolved both efficiently and professionally.

At Wallin & Klarich, we’ve seen just how stressful legal matters can be for our clients and their loved ones. If you or someone you love is facing child custody or support disputes, or any other family law matter in Southern California, you need to call Wallin & Klarich today for an evaluation of your case, free of charge. Call 1-888-749-7428 to get in contact with an attorney today.

Recently a 60 year old patient has accused Dr. Horace Newhard, a family doctor who has been a medical doctor since 1973, of sexual assault in California. The patient alleges that during a medical exam of her vaginal area that the doctor "thrust something into her" and then she felt the doctor touch her breasts. The doctor alleges that any touching that took place was entirely for medical purposes without sexual intent.

The Medical Board of California stated when interviewed that the doctors medical license is still active but at this time he is required to have a "third party" present when examining female patients.

When you are accused of a sexual offense, often the "touching" of the alleged victim is not contested. However, the "intention" of the defendant at the time of the touching is critical to the defense. The prosecution must prove that the accused touched the alleged victim with the specific intent" to sexually arouse himself or the alleged victim or both.

At Wallin and Klarich we have been helping people accused of sex crimes for almost 30 years. If you or a loved one finds themselves accused of a sex offense it would be a very wise decision to seek out the professional advise of an experienced California criminal defense lawyer from Wallin and Klarich at 888-220-6839 or go to wklaw.com for more information on how we can help you.