Southern California Defense Blog

If you are convicted of a crime against another person, you have the right to have a hearing to determine how much restitution is owed to the victim. At that hearing, there needs to be a showing in front of a judge to determine the amount that the victim is entitled to, as a result of the crime.

Most people would expect that the victim be entitled to reimbursement for certain medical expenses as well as psychological or other mental health counseling (not to exceed $10,000.00).

What many people may not know is that victims of crimes may be entitled to be reimbursed for many other expenses, including:

• Non-medical remedial care and treatment in accordance with a religious method of healing recognized by the state


• Job retraining


• Claims for an increase in residential security for the victim’s home


• Relocation costs


• Child care


• Funeral costs (if the victim died as a result of the crime)

Continue reading "How Reimbursement For Victims of Crimes Affects Restitution Costs In Criminal Cases - Restitution May Include Many More Things Than You Might Think" »

Conspiracy is a complicated area of criminal law. In general terms, a "conspiracy" is an agreement or partnership for a criminal purpose. Each member or the alleged conspiracy becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

When evaluating the prospect of criminal allegations of conspiracy, consider whether some sort of agreement (formal or informal) was in place. Additionally, this "agreement" needs to be followed by the commission of any overt act to further the conspiracy.

The following elements of criminal conspiracy must be proven by the California prosecutor:

1. Two or more persons came to an "understanding" to commit a criminal act


2. The accused knew of the criminal purpose and willfully joined in


3. Any of the conspirators knowingly committed an overt act to advance the objective of the conspiracy

Continue reading "What Kind of Agreement or Partnership Amounts to Criminal Conspiracy in California?" »

The crime of carjacking comes under the broad scope of California theft-related offenses. To be found guilty of carjacking in California, the defendant must have taken a motor vehicle from the custody of another person by force, violence, or assault.

For the prosecution to meet its burden for a carjacking conviction, it must be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the taking of the motor vehicle was done with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the true owner of their right to use or possess the motor vehicle. As you can see, several complex elements must be met and proven to support allegations of carjacking.

Continue reading "What the Prosecution Must Prove to Charge and Convict Someone of Carjacking - Penal Code Section 215" »

Pasadena is a popular city situated in Los Angeles County. Known mostly for hosting the nationally watched Tournament of Roses parade and the annual Rose Bowl Football game, Pasadena is also a cultural attraction in the San Gabriel Valley. Pasadena is the sixth largest city in LA County with an estimated population of 146,518 residents. It is no wonder then that four major freeways pass through Pasadena, thus making law enforcement more alert for signs of drivers operating vehicles while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

After being arrested for DUI in Pasadena, a DMV hearing will most likely take place. However a hearing does not just happen. A person must schedule a DMV hearing ten days after their arrest. It is fairly common for motorists to not know that their driver’s license will be taken away by the police officer who conducts their arrest. If a person fails to schedule their DMV hearing within the allotted time, their driving privileges will be automatically suspended for thirty days, or more, and they surrender their DMV hearing.

Although being arrested for DUI can be an overwhelming experience, a person should be as proactive as possible and seek out a skilled Pasadena DMV hearings attorney who will help them through their challenging time. An experienced lawyer will also make sure that you keep your driving privileges after being charged with DUI. At Wallin & Klarich, our aggressive Southern California criminal defense attorneys have been defending the rights of those charged with DUI and several other offenses for more than 30 years. We have the legal knowledge and resources that you need to obtain a positive outcome at your DMV hearing and in your DUI case. Contact Wallin & Klarich today by calling 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

It was recently reported that a minor was taken into custody and charged with 232 counts of vandalism in Vista, California. The police also suspect him in 85 additional vandalism incidences. His alleged graffiti tags have caused over $101,000 in damage according to police. His name has not been released because he is a minor.

In this case, the minor will be facing charges in juvenile court. Juvenile courts are specifically designed to handle cases involving children under the age of 18 charged with crimes. Juvenile courts hope to rehabilitate children as well as continue to ensure that they progress in their education. The courts also seek to provide counseling for the children.

Continue reading "Minors and Vandalism Charges" »

In California, “an officer must activate a red light when in pursuit of a traffic offender who attempts to flee.” (People v. Copass (Dec. 14, 2009, No. B211281) 2009 WL 4757252 (hereafter Copass).) But what if a police officer loses a traffic offender during a pursuit and deactivates the light, only to moments later spot the traffic offender and reactive the light to resume the pursuit? The California Court of Appeal recently determined a police officer can deactivate the red light during the period the officer momentarily loses sight of the offender.

In Copass, a police officer observed a motorcyclist traveling at 90 miles per hour. The officer activated his red light, and a chase ensued. At some point the police officer lost sight of the motorcyclist, and the police officer turned off his emergency lights while continuing to search for the suspect. Within 5 minutes, a CHP surveillance airplane located the suspect and notified the officer of the suspect’s location. The officer did not immediately turn on his red light because he wanted to wait until he got close enough to the suspect. The officer turned his emergency lights and siren back on when he saw the suspect commit a traffic violation. The officer eventually forced the suspect to stop, and the suspect was arrested.

Continue reading "The Proper Use of Police Officers' Emergency Lights When Pursuing Traffic Offenders in California - California Vehicle Code 2800.1 " »

In a recent California Court of Appeals case (People v. Tuggles) the court ruled that the trial judge has the power to subpoena any juror that he or she feels may have been involved in misconduct during the trial. The judge can do so at the request of the defense or of the prosecution.

California Code of Civil Procedure sections 206 and 237 allow jurors to prevent the release of information to parties, their attorneys, investigators working for counsel, and members of the general public. The court must heed the wishes of reluctant jurors to bar disclosure of their personal identifying information to these persons. However, Code of Civil Procedure sections 206 and 237 do not infringe upon the trial courts' inherent power to investigate strong indicia of juror misconduct. (People v. Cox, 53 Cal.3d)

Continue reading "Trial Judge Has the Power to Subpoena Jurors that May Have Been Involved in Misconduct" »

As probably the most famous districts in California, Hollywood is a historical hub of movie studios and movie stars. Some of the most well-known landmarks in Hollywood range from the Hollywood Bowl to Capitol Records to Grauman’s Chinese Theatre. With over 210,777 people residing in Hollywood and with a population density of about 8,443 individuals per square mile, Hollywood travelers and inhabitants encounter their share of arrests for driving under the influence (DUI) in which a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing will most likely take place. In 2007, the California DMV reported 203,866 DUI arrests, 197,602 of which were misdemeanor offenses.

Being arrested for DUI in Hollywood may feel like something right out of a movie, but the reality is that there are several harsh penalties and punishments that a person may face if he or she is convicted. Most motorists are not aware of the fact that the officer who arrests them will also take away their driver’s license. In addition, a person only has 10 days from the date of their arrest to schedule a DMV hearing to contest their driving privilege suspension. Failure to schedule a hearing will result in an automatic surrender of a hearing and a license suspension for thirty days or more.

If you face charges for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in Hollywood, it is important for you to contact a skilled Hollywood DMV hearings attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our experienced Southern California criminal defense lawyers have been aggressively defending the rights of those accused of crimes such as DUI for more than 30 years. We have the legal knowledge and resources that you need to obtain a successful outcome at your DMV hearing and in your DUI case. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 1-888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

In California, a police officer does not have to be behind you with his or her lights on in order to pull you over. A recent California Court of Appeals case (People v. Pakes) held that the police only need to make a reasonable effort to overtake your vehicle in order to technically be in pursuit.

Evading a police officer is a violation of the California Vehicle Code Section 2800.2. Section 2800.2 states that if a driver flees a pursuing police officer, and the pursued vehicle is driven in a willful or wanton disregard for safety, the driver can be punished by serving jail time. In the Pakes case mentioned above, the defendant argued that the "pursuing" officer needed to be behind his vehicle for a violation of Section 2800.2 to occur. Looking at Section 2800.2's plain meaning, the court found that the word "pursue" includes "the concept of overtaking for capture," which does not require that a pursuing officer place himself behind a suspect.

Continue reading "Evading a Police Officer in California, Vehicle Code Section 2800.2: How Knowing the Law Could Spare You Jail Time" »

A recent California Court of Appeals decision in People v. Hirata held that a search warrant is invalid after the passing of a substantial period of time. In this case, the period of time was 84 days.

The defendant (Hirata) was charged with possessing drugs and being part of a drug conspiracy ring. Investigators had built substantial evidence against Hirata and a number of other co-conspirators. Armed with this information, the authorities put together an affidavit and were able to secure a search warrant for a number of the residences believed to be a part of the conspiracy. The search warrant was signed and put into effect on June 14; however, it was not executed (when the search actually took place) until September 4.

Continue reading "Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply Where the Search Warrant is 84 Days Old - Penal Code Section 1538.5" »

A recent California Appeals Court decision (People v. American Surety Insurance Co.) held that bail was not forfeited when a defendant failed to appear at an arraignment.

California Penal Code Section 1305 provides that a trial court shall not have jurisdiction to declare a bail forfeiture if no complaint is filed within 15 days from the arraignment. In this case, the defendant appeared at his initial arraignment, but the case was not officially called on the court calendar.

The district attorney in charge of the case wrote the defendant a letter, informing him that he would have to appear on the new date. When the defendant failed to appear on the date requested, the trial court ordered that bail be forfeited and contacted the insurer of the bail company.

Continue reading "District Attorney's Letter Does Not Substitute For a Court Order: Why Having a Good Defense Attorney Can Save You Money-Penal Code Section 1305 and the Law of Bail Forfeitures" »

Private investigators are essential to any criminal investigation. If accused of a crime, you cannot rely solely on the police investigation. Police are trained to gather evidence to convict; they are not trained to search for evidence of innocence.

Private investigators are often former police officers who know the ins and outs of police investigation. Finding an investigator that is reliable and has significant experience is a difficult task. Some people hold themselves out as private investigators, but after a check of their credentials, one will find that they are not even licensed to be a private investigator.

Continue reading "How a Good Private Investigator Can Help Your Attorney Win Your Case" »

Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at the Brennan Legacy Award Dinner. At the event, which is named in honor of United States Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Attorney General Holder addressed some issues which have scary implications for those with a pending criminal case. Due to the current economic environment, Public Defender’s offices throughout the country are facing record caseloads. This issue is creating a detrimental situation in which those individuals who are assigned a public defender are receiving little to no attention on their cases.

In one state, it was reported that one county public defenders office was assigned more than 10,000 cases in 2008 and they were handled by only six lawyers. This means lawyers could spend an average of just under an hour per case. High caseloads leave even those lawyers with the best of intentions little time to investigate, file appropriate motions, and do the basic things lawyer must do for their clients. Unfortunately, this scenario is now playing itself out in California as well. County public defender offices throughout the state are being buried with cases. It is not complicated. Would you want a doctor doing surgery on you if he had 25 other surgeries that day? Of course not. This is the reason so many people accused of crimes are doing all that they can to retain the services of experienced private criminal defense law firms to help them when they are facing criminal charges.

Continue reading "High Public Defender Caseloads Could Lead to Nightmare Results if You Are Accused of a Crime" »

Valencia is a planned community in California that forms Santa Clarita along with three other major communities. Aside from being used for the location of many TV series, Valencia is well known for being a safe neighborhood and having a convenient network of walkways (paseos) that connect the community without crossing streets at grade. Valencia is home to approximately 32,642 residents and attracts several visitors throughout the year. As a busy city, it is no wonder that arrests are made once in a while for driving under the influence (DUI) in which a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing is very liable to take place.

It is normal for motorists to be unsure of their legal rights or defense opportunities when charged with DUI in Valencia. Many individuals arrested for drunken driving do not realize that the officer who arrests them will take away their driver’s license. A DMV hearing is available to arrested individuals as a way to retain driving privileges. However, a person has only ten days from the date of arrest to schedule a DMV hearing. Failure to do this will result in the automatic suspension of a DMV hearing and will suspend a person’s driving privileges for thirty days from the date of arrest.

The skilled Valencia DMV hearing attorneys at Wallin & Klarich understand how important it is for those arrested for DUI to understand their legal rights and receive quality counsel and representation. Our aggressive Southern California criminal defense lawyers have been defending the rights of individuals charged with DUI and other offenses for more than 30 years. We know what it takes to help our clients reach a positive outcome at their DMV hearing and in their DUI case. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 1-888-280-6839 for a case evaluation or visit www.wklaw.com for more important information.

A man was recently arrested on suspicion of committing several burglary offenses. He is suspected of being the “Back Room Bandit” who is believed to have burglarized at least 19 different businesses since September in San Diego County. San Diego News 10 reported on Jones’ arrest in San Ysidro. No one was hurt in any of the alleged crimes of the “Back Room Bandit” (as he has been called). This “Bandit” would order employees of the businesses to the back room of the stores and demand cash using a gun. The man will be arraigned in early November and will be facing multiple charges including second degree burglary.

Second degree burglary is more commonly called Commercial Burglary. Second degree burglary does not take place in a residence but rather at a business. The charge can either be filed as a misdemeanor or felony depending upon the value of the items taken. Generally if the item is worth less than $400.00, the crime is a misdemeanor. If it is worth over $400.00, the charge is a felony. Each of these charges can result in jail time so it is important to contact an experienced San Diego criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Continue reading "Are You Facing Second Degree Burglary Charges?" »

Anytime a Defendant in a California pleads guilty to a misdemeanor or a felony, that defendant must be advised “on the record” that the consequences of the guilty plea could result in deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the Untied States. Unfortunately, when some defendants agree to a plea bargain, their attorneys don’t adequately warn them of these potentially dire consequences which can lead to significant problems down the road. Many times, attorneys will simply tell their clients just to initial and sign important plea bargain and advisement of rights forms.

Our law firm is seeing more and more cases where clients come into our offices and explain that they or a loved one is in danger of being deported or can’t gain citizenship due to a guilty plea in a criminal case. More often than not, these people explain that they had no idea that what was happening to them or their loved ones was possible because either the court or the attorney handling the case didn’t tell them.

Continue reading "All Persons Accused of Crimes in California Need to Be Advised on the Record of Immigration Consequences of Guilty Plea" »

Situated in San Bernardino County, the city of Ontario is home to approximately 171,691 residents. Interestingly, Ontario’s population has increased by almost one hundred times the size it was one hundred years ago. Now, it is the location of a small international airport and the Ontario Reign (an ECHL hockey team). With its economy mainly centered on service and warehousing, Ontario also has some agriculture and manufacturing facilities. Considering the vast amount of inhabitants and visitors who utilize freeways passing through Ontario as well as other roadways, arrests are made from time to time for driving under the influence (DUI) in which a hearing at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) may take place.

Being arrested for DUI in Ontario may present many challenges and inconveniences. In addition, most people charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs are not fully aware of their legal rights or what options are available to them in terms of building a strong defense. Many motorists do not realize that their driver’s license will be taken away if they are arrested for DUI. An individual only has ten days to schedule a DMV hearing from the date of their arrest to fend for their driving privileges. This is why having a skilled Ontario DMV hearing attorney on your side can help you be informed about how your case should be presented.

In order to make sure that your rights are accurately and aggressively defended after being charged with DUI in Ontario, you may want to contact the experienced Southern California criminal defense law firm of Wallin & Klarich. Our attorneys have been helping those accused of crimes, such as DUI, for more than 30 years. Wallin & Klarich has the legal resources and knowledge to assist you in obtaining a successful outcome at your DMV hearing and in your DUI case. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com to find out more about how we can help.

There may be cases in which the trial court determines it necessary to ask questions of the prosecution, in addition to questions it has posed to the defense, in camera to protect privacy rights of third parties. The court may solicit suggestions from the defense on how best to ask these questions without disclosing defense strategies. In many cases this goal may be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. In that event, the defense may be forced to choose either to disclose the subpoenaed document to the prosecution or to forego receiving the document.

The trial court's ruling on the question of the delivery of any documents to the defendant should be made in open court without identifying the third parties who produced the documents or the nature of the documents produced. Because section 1326 precludes the trial court from disclosing the records to the prosecution, the clerk's public (or long form) docket notes should not identify the names of the third parties from whom documents have been received. Needless to say, the prosecution may not receive copies of transcripts of in camera hearings held pursuant to section 1326. Those transcripts shall remain sealed as provided by section 1054.7.

Continue reading "Court Can Exempt Certain Subpoenaed Documents From Discovery, Leaving the Defense in a Better Position to Defend, Part 3 " »

As discussed in yesterday’s blog, a recent court decision has held that documents the defense subpoenaed do not always need to be viewed by the prosecuting agency.

Consistent with Evidence Code section 1560, subdivision (d), the trial court may open the sealed envelopes containing records produced in response to defense subpoenas without disclosing to the prosecution the identity of the third parties or the nature of the documents. If the court has questions concerning the relevance of the documents produced, the court should conduct an in camera hearing in the presence of defense counsel only. Before deciding whether the defense is entitled to receive the subpoenaed documents, the trial court may ask the prosecution questions it deems appropriate to protect the privacy rights of parties subpoenaed. The court acknowledged that this requires great care because it must do so in a manner that does not prejudice the defense.

Continue reading "Not All Subpoenaed Documents Need to be Turned Over to the Prosecution, Part 2" »

A recent California Appeals court case (Kling v. Superior Court) held that the prosecution is not always entitled to view or even be present when the court is opening documents that have been subpoenaed by the defense. The court points to Penal Code Section 1326(c) in its opinion and then adds to it some relevant case law.

Penal Code Section 1326(c) provides, in relevant part, “When a defendant has issued a subpoena to a person or entity that is not a party for the production of books, papers, documents, or records, or copies thereof, the court may order an in camera hearing to determine whether or not the defense is entitled to receive the documents. The court may not order the documents disclosed to the prosecution except as required by Section 1054.3.” Section 1054.3 requires disclosure of “names, addresses of persons defendant intends to call at trial” and “any real evidence which the defendant intends to offer at trial.

Continue reading "Not All Subpoenaed Documents Need to be Turned Over to the Prosecution" »

The California Supreme Court seems likely to allow wide latitude for prosecutors to use DNA evidence to extend the statute of limitations in crimes such as rape. The statute of limitations is the amount of time a prosecutor has to file charges against the alleged defendant. If the prosecutor does not file charges in time, then the defendant cannot later be prosecuted for that crime.

In November, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case where a man was arrested for rape based upon a no-name “John Doe” warrant. Prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for a “John Doe” 4 days prior to the running of the six year statute of limitations. Six weeks later, Paul Eugene Robinson was arrested for rape after state computers matched his DNA to the no-name warrant.

Typically, an arrest warrant names the specific person that is to be arrested. However, prosecutors are beginning to use “John Doe” warrants as a way to get around the statute of limitations. When a sex crime is committed, the police collect DNA evidence from the scene of the crime. When the DNA evidence is processed, a unique genetic code corresponding to that particular DNA evidence is obtained. If a person has never been arrested, the state is unlikely to have their DNA in the state database. In these instances, a certain amount of time is required to match a person to that genetic code. Therefore, in order to prevent the statue of limitations from running, prosecutors will issue an arrest warrant for “John Doe,” rather then a specific person, since the person has yet to be identified.

A “John Doe” warrant gives prosecutors the freedom to file charges against the true defendant even after the statutory period has passed. If you have been charged with a sex crime involving DNA evidence and arrested on a no-name “John Doe” warrant, please contact our experienced criminal defense attorneys. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of criminal defense experience in handling similar cases involving DNA evidence and no name warrants. Our attorneys can provide clarity to something as complicated and scientific as DNA evidence. Call 1-877-230-1528 today to speak to one of Wallin & Klarich’s aggressive and experienced Southern California sex crime defense attorneys. Please visit us at www.wklaw.com.

Defendants often wonder what they can do when it is just their word against the arresting police officer’s word. One option is to file a Pitchess motion to review the police officer’s personnel record.

A Pitchess motion is a request made by the Defense in a California criminal case, for the personnel records of the arresting officer if the defendant has filed an affidavit alleging the use of excessive force or if there is reason to believe that the officer has a record of fabricating facts. If granted, the motion will expose the police officer’s record of duty and any complaints that may have been made against him or her. The defendant has a right to this information under California state law.

Pitchess motions can be very effective in getting charges dismissed. If the officer has a history of using excessive force or lying, then it is more likely that he or she will repeat these acts in future cases. These motions are particularly important in cases where the only two witnesses were the police officer and the defendant.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime, you should call the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich immediately. Our Ventura County criminal defense attorneys have over 30 years experience in handling criminal cases in California. We have the skill and expertise needed to compose and argue Pitchess motions. Hiring an attorney from Wallin & Klarich could mean the difference between jail time and freedom. Our attorneys can be reached via phone at 1-888-749-0034or through our website at www.wklaw.com.

Irvine is situated in Orange County and has an approximate population of 207,500. As home to numerous Universities and located within close proximity to popular beach sites like Newport and Laguna, Irvine attracts several visitors and new residents throughout the year. CNNMoney.com named Irvine the fourth best place to live in the U.S. due to having desirable jobs, housing, and schools. Nevertheless, similar to many major cities, arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs do take place in Irvine. As a result, a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing is likely to occur.

It is of the utmost importance for individuals arrested for DUI in Irvine to be fully aware of their legal rights as well as receive quality legal assistance from a skilled Irvine DMV hearings defense lawyer. So why does a DMV hearing need to take place after a DUI arrest? First of all, the arresting officer will take away your driver’s license. In addition, a person only has ten days from the date of their DUI arrest to schedule a hearing with the DMV to retain their driving privileges. Failing to do this will automatically surrender the DMV hearing and will suspend an individual’s driving privileges for thirty days from the date of arrest.

At Wallin & Klarich, we understand how important it is for you to keep your driver’s license and have your rights defended. Our experienced Southern California criminal defense lawyers have been protecting the rights of those charged with DUI and other offenses for over 30 years. We have the legal resources and knowledge to help you obtain a successful outcome in your DMV hearing and DUI case. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 888-280-6839 for a case evaluation or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

Recently it was reported that two men were shot in a North Hollywood synagogue parking lot by an unknown assailant. Immediately after the shooting, there was great concern that these shootings were the result of a “hate crime” or possibly an act of terrorism. The Los Angeles Police Department’s counter Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau has stated, however, that there is no reason to believe that the shootings were in fact hate crimes or terror related. For this reason, the anti-terror squad will not be conducting the investigation.

The identity of the shooter remains unknown, although his image was captured by a surveillance camera. Detectives are now looking into the possibility that the shooting was related to a business or personal dispute. Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, who also arrived at the shooting site, stated that the shooting was only a random act of violence and cautioned against further speculation regarding the incident.

Continue reading "The Los Angeles Police Department Maintains that Synagogue Shooting Not a Hate Crime" »

Babatunsin Olukunle has been arrested for setting a fire in the Angeles National Forest near where the Station Fire originated. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Lieutenant Liam Gallagher stated they are now also investigating into whether Olukenle has any connections to the Station Fire that was started 6 days later.

Olukunle was seen by two Forest Service Officers setting a smaller fire six miles from where the Station Fire was started, however, he escaped while they worked to extinguish the blaze. There had also been reports that Olukunle had been known to roam that area in the months prior to the Station Fire. Olukunle, who is a Nigerian national, has pleaded not guilty to the felony charge of setting a fire on U.S. Forest Service Land.

Continue reading "Los Angeles County Sheriff Announces a Possible Suspect in Station Fire Arson Case" »

San Bernardino is a major city within California’s Inland Empire that covers 78.5 square miles. As the 18th largest city in California based on population, San Bernardino has an approximate population of 205,010. San Bernardino is situated at the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. Considering California’s popularity for tourism and the many inhabitants who call San Bernardino home, many motorists take to the road within the area. Due to being a large city with busy roads, arrests are often made for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol in which a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing will most likely occur.

A handful of motorists in San Bernardino do not realize that if they are arrested for DUI, their driver’s license will be taken away by the police officer who arrests them. After a person is arrested, he or she has only ten days to schedule a DMV hearing. If a charged individual fails to schedule a DMV hearing within the designated time, he or she surrenders a DMV hearing and will face an automatic driving privilege suspension of thirty days or more. Even though being arrested for DUI in San Bernardino can be an intimidating experience, an individual should not waste any time in obtaining the important information and resources they need to keep their driving privileges.

Continue reading "San Bernardino DMV Hearings and DUI Attorneys" »

A recent California Court of Appeals decision held that a biological parent may request a hearing before his or her child is put up for adoption by the state. In M.T. v. Superior Court (San Francisco Dept. of Human Services) the Court of Appeals cited to the California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 366.26 for the proposition that the parent has the right to the hearing and must have the opportunity to present evidence that the adoption would not be in the best interest of the child.

The court noted that the father in this case had been absent from his children’s lives for over 5 years and, during that time, the children had been living in foster care. The court ruled that even with the passing of time and the children’s stay in foster care, the father still had parental rights and had the opportunity to present evidence that adoption would not be in their best interest.

The provisions of the WIC section 366.26 are very complicated and span for many pages. If a parent is unsuccessful in convincing the court that adoption would not be in the best interest of the child, then the court can terminate the parent’s rights over the children and order that they be put up for adoption.

Continue reading "In Dependency Cases Parents Are Entitled to a Hearing Before their Biological Children Are Put Up for Adoption, Even if There Has Not Been Continuous Contact " »

A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision dealt a blow to racially motivated juror dismissals.

When choosing a jury, attorneys are allowed a certain number of challenges to remove jurors form the jury pool. The attorneys may challenge “for cause” or may exercise a limited number or peremptory challenges. The “for cause” challenges must be clearly stated and relate to a juror bias that would affect the impartiality of the decision. Peremptory challenges do not require an explanation, but cannot be related to race, gender, or sex.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just made the peremptory challenge harder by ruling that the appeals court can conduct a comparative juror analysis when determining if the peremptory challenge was made because of race, gender, or sex.

Continue reading "Recent Ninth Circuit Decision Makes Jury Selection More Even-Handed" »

2010 has brought a host of new laws regarding criminal defendants that are currently serving time in jail. The new law allows for 1/2 time credit while in a jail in California. While not all defendants will benefit from this law (persons convicted of violent crimes or certain sex crimes), a far majority do.

The old law gave a qualifing inmate who served 4 days in jail an additional 2 days for a total of 6 days credit. The new law effective 1-25-10 in dealing with 4049 of the California Penal Code will give the inmate 4 days credit for every 4 days served for a total of 8 days credit.

Continue reading "New Law Cuts Jail Time You Must Do if Sentenced to County Jail" »

Huntington Beach is situated in Orange County, California and is widely known for its beautiful beaches and preserved wetlands. Also referred to as “Surf City”, Huntington Beach has an estimated population of 190,000 within its stretch of 31.6 miles. As a host to several surfing events every year, Huntington Beach draws a variety of visitors to an already densely populated area. As a consequence, it is not a stretch to say that arrests are sometimes made for driving under the influence of alcohol in which a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing will likely follow.

Many motorists do not realize that they only have ten days after their DUI arrest to schedule a DMV hearing. A lot of drivers also do not know that the police officer who makes their DUI arrest will take away their driver’s license. If a person fails to schedule their DMV hearing within the allotted time, he or she will surrender their hearing, thus suspending their driving privileges for thirty days, or more.

In the event that a person is charged with driving under the influence, it is important to know that there are skilled Huntington Beach DMV hearings attorneys who can examine the validity of charges and work towards providing the best defense possible. To ensure that you keep your driving privileges after being charged with DUI in Huntington Beach, you may want to contact Wallin & Klarich. Our experienced Southern California criminal defense lawyers have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges such as DUI for over 30 years. We have the legal knowledge and resources to help you obtain a successful outcome in your DMV hearing and DUI case. Contact our aggressive attorneys today by calling 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

Every year, tens of thousands of veterans fight for service-related benefits denied by the U.S. Government. For decades, non-profit groups and pro-bono firms were the only ones helping veterans navigate the complicated appeals process. Currently, veterans who are unsatisfied with a determination and want to fight it, must appeal to their local VA office by filing a “notice of disagreement,” and then can hire a lawyer.

Since the landmark 2006 law which allowed United States military veterans to pay private attorneys to handle benefit appeals, signs have emerged that the legal profession is enlisting in droves. Now, paid attorneys can get involved on a case as soon as a veteran receives their first denial letter.

Continue reading "New Laws Allow Veterans to Hire Private Lawyers to Fight Service-Related Benefits Denied by the U.S. Government " »

Veterans Court is Meant to Provide Veterans with Treatment they Need and Deserve for their Great Service to Our Country

In California, several Superior Courts have created a special court, called Veterans Court, for veterans who are facing pending criminal charges, both misdemeanors and violent felonies, such as driving under the influence, drunk in public, assault, drug crimes, and many more criminal allegations.

The goal of the Orange County Veterans Court is to provide a non-adversarial treatment strategy for veterans in the criminal justice system who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder, psychological or substance abuse problems, as a result of having served in a combat theater. The mission and purpose of veterans court is not to incarcerate defendants, but rather to allow them the opportunity for the often intense treatment they need. Veterans Court is designed for veterans who have served in a combat theater and suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and related serious problems such as addictions, mental illness and traumatic brain injuries. Veterans Court does not mimic the procedures and process found in Orange County criminal courts

California Penal Code Section 1170.9 is the governing code section giving allowance for veterans who develop PTSD were similar problems in combat theaters to earn credit for time spent in court ordered treatment programs. The presiding judge, along with a strong support staff of criminal justice and treatment professionals, closely supervise each defendant. Each defendant must frequently appear in court and must complete an assortment of treatment and educational programs. After 18 successful months in the Orange County Veterans Court program, along with a warm felt congratulations from the judge, the criminal charges are dismissed against the defendant.

Continue reading "Orange County Veterans Court is Designed for Veterans Facing Either Misdemeanor or Felony Charges" »

When your past interferes with your future, you might need an experienced San Diego criminal defense lawyer to assist you in cleaning up your record. Because a criminal record is a public record any one can view, several people can see your case file and view what happened in your criminal case. However, if an attorney assisted you through the process of obtaining an expungement under California Penal Code Section 1203.4, then they could provide some relief for you and your family.

An expungement is the process whereby the court will dismiss the conviction against you. First, you can withdraw your plea of guilty, or the judge can set aside a guilty verdict. Next, you will enter a plea of not guilty. Finally, the court can dismiss the case against you.

Sounds Great! However, the case can still be found by anyone looking at your file, as it does not erase or wipe away the conviction. Any conviction you received will still remain on your record and this process does not absolve your criminal conduct.

Continue reading "Have a Criminal Past and Looking for a Job?" »

As the third largest city in Los Angeles County, Glendale has an approximate population of 207,303. Covering 30.7 square miles, Glendale’s estimated population density is 6,770.6 individuals per square mile. Glendale is home to The Walt Disney Company, Dreamworks SKG, Nestle, and contains a wide variety of retail shopping developments including the recent addition of the Americana at Brand. Considering its closeness to several nightlife scenes, such as Old Town Pasadena, Universal Citywalk, and the Hollywood area, and as a large city with access to many major freeways, Glendale is no stranger to arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

As a consequence of a DUI arrest, a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) hearing is very likely to occur in which an individual should be fully prepared. Most drivers are not aware that a police officer who arrests them for DUI has the power to take away their driver’s license. Even though experiencing a DUI arrest can be overwhelming, a person should not hesitate to seek critical information that they need to keep their driving privileges. An individual arrested for Dui only has ten days from the date of arrest to schedule a hearing with the DMV. Failing to do so will suspend a person’s driving privileges automatically for thirty days from the date of the arrest and is a surrender of a DMV hearing.

It is important for you to keep your driving privileges. It is also important to remember that just because you were arrested for DUI does not mean that you are in fact guilty. To ensure that you keep your license after being charged with DUI in Glendale, it may be in your best interest to contact an experienced Glendale DMV hearings lawyer. At Wallin & Klarich, our skilled Southern California criminal defense attorneys have been defending the rights of those facing criminal charges such as DUI for over 30 years. We have the legal knowledge and resources to assist you in obtaining a successful outcome in your DMV hearing and DUI case. Contact Wallin & Klarich for an evaluation of your case by calling 888-280-6839 today or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

Many times, out of court statements are the only evidence available to the prosecution at trial. This usually happens because the victim is unwilling or unavailable to testify at trial. For example, a prosecutor would want a cop to be able to testify that a victim told that officer that the defendant hit him or her if the alleged victim is now unwilling to testify.

The rules of evidence require that a person must be present in court and subject to a cross examination by opposing counsel in order for his/her statements against the defendant to be admitted into evidence. The United States Supreme Court upheld this requirement in Crawford v. Washington. The effect of this decision is that statements given to the police after the emergency part of the investigation is done will not be admissible as evidence against the defendant when the witness is unavailable to testify in court.

Continue reading "Conviction Based on Out of Court Statements Reversed" »

James Tyrell Harris, a South Los Angeles anti-gang activist, was arrested for allegedly misappropriating $85,000 in city funds. While serving as chairman and treasurer of the Empowerment Congress Southwest Area Neighborhood Development Council, Harris is said to have made unauthorized withdrawals and purchases for travel expenses and hiring his daughter for administrative work.

Harris already has two prior felony convictions for robbery in Los Angeles during the 1980s. Although Harris could face up to 25 years to life in prison because of the two previous strikes, Los Angeles prosecutors believe this is unlikely because the nature of the crime was not violent. Harris is not the first neighborhood council member to be accused of misappropriating funds in Los Angeles; four others within the last two years have also been charged. These recent trends have alerted officials of the need for more supervision of Los Angeles neighborhood councils given city funds.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Neighborhood Councilman Facing Felony Charges for Misusing City Funds" »

The Issue of Possession of Marijuana for Personal Medical Needs, Versus, Possession of Marijuana for the Needs of Others

Defendant, Nathaniel Archer, was found guilty of cultivation of marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11358, a felony, and of simple possession of marijuana in violation of section 11357(a). On appeal, the parties were in agreement that the trial court erred when it included the numerical limits set forth in section 11362.77, subdivision (a) of the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) in instructing the jury regarding the amount of medical marijuana that Archer could lawfully possess and/or cultivate because this section unlawfully amends the Compassionate Use Act (section 11362.5) (CUA) passed by voters in 1996 as Proposition 215. On appeal, the parties disagreed as to whether the error was harmless.

Defendant contented that because he possessed and/or cultivated an amount of marijuana in excess of the numerical limits set forth in section 11362.77, subdivision (a), his convictions were not based on a determination of his medical marijuana needs of and at least two of his "patients" who had designated him as their "primary caregiver" within the meaning of section 11362.5, subdivision (e).

The People argued that because Defendant admitted growing marijuana for at least four other people, in addition to himself, and because as a matter of law he does not qualify as a primary caregiver for the only two qualified patients he identified at trial. The Defendant did not present any evidence to show he was the primary caregiver for any of them, including the two that testified on his behalf at trial. As such, the People argued that the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court agreed.

Continue reading "A Common Legal Issue in the Context of Medical Marijuana Litigation" »

After a new member of the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity was injured with second degree burns during a bonfire ceremony, 9 members have been suspended while 45 other members have been put on probation. Though the injury itself was not caused by direct hazing, university officials believe that hazing was a factor because new members were blindfolded during the ceremony and the victim was refused immediate medical attention.

The case has been referred to the Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County district attorney’s office. The San Bernardino County has not yet responded as to whether they will press charges, but the Los Angeles County has already reported that it does not seek to press charges against the fraternity members.

Continue reading "Cal Poly Fraternity Members Suspected of Hazing" »