Southern California Defense Blog

As recently reported in the L.A. Times, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office is pursuing a new tactic to eliminate tagging and vandalism of public property. The “Metro Transit Assassins” (MTA) are the most notorious tagging crew in L.A. and are responsible for hundreds of acts of vandalism. Last year, seven of their members were charged with a half-mile long “MTA” scrawl on concrete banks of the Los Angeles River. To further prevent these acts from recurring, the city attorney filed civil injunctions on ten members. This would bar them from associating with each other, institute a mandatory curfew, and prevent them from possessing graffiti tools. The civil suit also seeks $250,000 in civil penalties and $3.7 million in damages for the 500 documented incidents of graffiti vandalism.

Vandalism and tagging is a violation of California Penal Code Section 594, which makes it a crime to deface, damage, or destroy real or personal property. When the damage is under $400, then defendant may be subject to up to one year in county jail, $5,000 fine, and be ordered to clean and repair the damaged property.

However, if the damage is greater than $400, the crime is a “wobbler.” This means that the defendant may be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony. A misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in county jail; whereas a felony is punishable by up to three years in state prison. The defendant may also be fined up to $50,000 and be required to clean and repair the damaged property.

The city attorney also has the power to file civil injunctions against these individuals as a part of the public nuisance abatement. Under California Penal Code Section 166, a defendant who violates a civil injunction is in contempt of court and is guilty of a misdemeanor. A conviction may be subject to up to six months in county jail and a $1,000 fine.

Continue reading "New Approach To Eliminating Graffiti: City Attorney Files Civil Injunction Against MTA – California Penal Code Sections 594 & 166" »

It was recently reported by the Associated Press that gunmen assassinated the front-running candidate for governor of a Mexican border state. Mexican President, Felipe Calderon, called the murder as a drug cartels seeking to influence local elections. The attackers ambushed governor candidate Rodolfo Torre's car as he headed to the airport in Ciudad Victoria, border state littered with violence as a result of rival turf battles between two drug cartels. At least four other people traveling with Torre were also killed. Drug gang violence has only increased since President Calderon deployed the Mexican Army to combat violent drug gangs.

Under California Penal Code section 187, murder is defined as the killing of a person with malice aforethought. First degree murder is defined as any murder perpetrated by willful or deliberation or means of a destructive device or by premeditation. (See California Penal Code section 189). Second degree murder is all other murder. In addition, punishment for first degree murder is a felony punishable by death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 25 years to life. Second degree murder is a lighter, yet still severe punishment, which is imprisonment in state person for 15 years to life. In this case, the assailants would be charged with first degree murder, as they likely spent adequate time preparing for the murder of Torre.

If you or a loved one is facing charges for murder or any other serious homicide crime, contact our Southern California attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling murder cases. Our attorneys will defend your rights and fight to get you the best possible result in your case. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

A Chico man who plead guilty to burglary with intent to commit unlawful sexual penetration was placed on probation and his prison sentence was stayed. He faced up to six years in state prison.

According to defendant Jeremy Hoptowit, 28, after a night of playing poker with friends, he broke into a house while intoxicated. The victim, a resident of the house, claimed that Hoptowit pushed her onto a bed and groped her under her dress. The victim stated that she resisted and Hoptowit fled. He was eventually apprehended by police.

Under California Penal Code sections 459 and 460(a), a person who enters a residence with the intent to commit a felony is guilty of first degree burglary. Under California Penal Code section 289(a)(1), a person who commits sexual penetration by means of force and against the victim’s will is guilty of a felony.

Hoptowit was a volunteer and coach at a local school and had over 50 letters in support from Chico residents. He had no prior criminal record.

The sentencing judge stated that because of Hoptowit’s lack of a prior criminal record, the unusual circumstances of the case indicated that probation was appropriate.

The victim and the district attorney both urged the judge to give Hoptowit the harshest punishment possible. Several prison officials also recommended imprisonment, but a prison psychologist opined that Hoptowit was not likely to reoffend and recommended probation.

Hoptowit is required to register as a sex offender under Megan’s Law, California Penal Code section 290, and any violation of his probation terms may result in a prison sentence.

If you or someone you know has been accused of a sexual assault, you will need a competent defense attorney who will present all relevant facts to the court in order to get the best result possible. At Wallin & Klarich, we have over 30 years defending a variety of criminal cases, including sex offenses. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Allen Dawes was arrested by law enforcement officers for an alleged burglary of the First St. John's Church in York, Pennsylvania. Police say Dawes broke into the church and stole the collection box, which had been set out for church members to make donations to those less fortunate.

Law enforcement was able to track down Dawes as the burglar because Dawes left his birth certificate at the church. Police say that in addition to stealing from the collection box, Dawes talked on his phone, ate cereal, and smoked cigarettes in the church. Under California Law, burglary is codified under penal code section 459. It defines burglary as "entering a structure with the intent to commit a felony (or a petty theft) once inside".

It is important to differentiate burglary cases from robbery cases. Cases of robbery occur when someone takes something from someone’s person with force or threat of force. Armed robbery occurs in the same situation, but with a deadly weapon. In this case, the taking of the drugs was from a structure (a pharmacy), so the crime is burglary.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, it is imperative that you hire an aggressive, Southern California criminal defense lawyer. Hiring an experienced criminal defense law firm can greatly increase your chances of keeping your freedom, and ensuring you receive the lowest possible sentence. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been helping people for over 30 years. Please feel free to contact Wallin & Klarich to discuss your case. You can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 877-466-5245 or go to our website at www.wklaw.com for more information.

Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the May 1, 2010 terrorist bombing attempt in New York’s Times Square, plead guilty to all 10 counts he was facing. In a case of domestic terrorism, Shahzad attempted to set off a vehicle bomb on a busy Times Square street. The vehicle bomb failed to go off, and Shahzad was arrested 2 days later at New York’s JFK International Airport as he attempted to leave the county. The terrorism news became a top news item for the month of May.

Shahzad was arrested after a massive police investigation and subsequent man hunt. Shahzad claimed that he traveled to Pakistan with two friends to join the Taliban. The Justice Department reported that Shahzad received explosives training in Pakistan from a militant extremist group.

It has been indicated that prosecutors will ask for the maximum sentence on the charges. Sentencing is scheduled for October 5. Of the 10 charges Shahzad plead guilty to, 6 carry a maximum sentence of life.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, it is imperative that you hire an aggressive, experienced criminal defense firm. Hiring an experienced criminal defense law firm can greatly increase your chances of keeping your freedom, and ensuring you receive the lowest possible sentence. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been helping people for over 30 years.

Please feel free to contact Wallin & Klarich to discuss your case. You can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 877-466-5245 or go to our website at www.wklaw.com for more information.

Recently, the Ninth Circuit held that a federal prisoner may not challenge his or her sentence pursuant to a petition for a writ of audita querela if the requested relief can be obtained through a writ of habeas corpus. Defendants in California have a right to challenge their conviction in either state or federal court by way of filing an appeal and later a writ of habeas corpus.

The writ of habeas corpus, which is translated from Latin as “We command that you have the body” is a writ, or legal action, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention. On the other hand, a common law writ of audita querela is issued to afford a remedy to defendants against whom a judgment had been rendered, but who have discovered new matters in support of their defense not available at their original trial.

Although both writs share similar features, there is one important distinction between the two. Unlike habeas corpus that is available for all petitioners, the writ of audita querela is a limited extraordinary legal remedy that applies in the circumstances when defendants exhausted all other available avenues in challenging their criminal conviction. It is rarely used in federal criminal matters, and primarily applies to civil matters after a final judgment is filed in a trial court.
It is essential to contact an experienced criminal appeals attorney who can provide clarity and quality representation in your appeals matter. Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years of criminal appeals experience.  Call (888) 749-0034 to speak to one of Wallin & Klarich’s aggressive and experienced criminal defense attorneys in California today.  Please visit us at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

A woman whose name has not been released claimed that Al Gore sexually assaulted her on October 24, 2006. The woman, a massage therapist, stated that her employer sent her to Al Gore’s hotel room to perform a massage. During the course of the massage, the woman alleged that he sexually assaulted her.

The woman first contacted the police in 2006 but did not wish to proceed with a criminal investigation and cancelled multiple scheduled interviews with detectives. In 2009, she contacted the police and gave a detailed statement, but again declined to initiate a criminal proceeding against Gore.

Police have declined to arrest Gore, citing a lack of evidence and the woman’s refusal to cooperate with the investigation. Law enforcement creates a police report and may forward that report to the local district attorney’s office for formal filing of criminal charges. It is the D.A.’s office that makes the final determination regarding what charges, if any, to file against a defendant.

Under California Penal Code section 243.4(e)(1), any person who touches an intimate body part of another against the other’s will and for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery, punishable by a fine of up to $2,000 and up to a six month jail term. The particular circumstances of the sexual battery may increase the severity of the punishment.

If you or someone you know has been accused of a sex crime, an experienced criminal attorney can be the difference between winning and losing your case. At Wallin & Klarich, we have been helping people accused of sex offenses for over 30 years. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution assures the defendant the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Under California Evidence Code section 594, “a client. . .has a privilege to disclose or refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer if the privilege is claimed by (a) the holder of the privilege, [or] (b) a person who is authorized to claim the privilege by the holder of the privilege.” Both the right to confrontation and the attorney-client privilege have long been recognized at common law, so what happens when the two directly conflict?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, recently addressed this issue in Murdoch v. Castro (No. 05-55665; 2010 DJDAR 9274). Appellant Charles Murdoch was charged with first-degree robbery-murder. One of the witnesses against Murdoch was Dino Dinardo, a person who confessed to the robbery-murder and implicated Murdoch in the crime. At Murdoch’s trial, Dinardo testified that Murdoch had actively participated in the offense, despite the fact that Dinardo had previously written a letter to his attorney stating that his confession was coerced and Murdoch was not involved in the robbery-murder. However, the trial court excluded the letter based on attorney-client privilege, and Murdoch was life in prison without the possibility of parole. After exhausting his state avenues of appeal, Murdoch filed for habeas relief in federal court for violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.

To grant federal habeas relief for a state conviction, the state conviction must be “contrary to, or involve[] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” (28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1).) A plurality held that, under this deferential standard, there was no explicitly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent on this issue and, consequently, Murdoch was not entitled to relief. The Ninth Circuit plurality declined to determine whether, despite the lack of an explicit pronouncement by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Constitution did recognize the primacy of the Confrontation Clause over attorney-client privilege and, if so, under what circumstances.

FEDERAL CASES

The United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the conflict between the Confrontation Clause and other rights and privileges are Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974), and Douglas v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 415 (1965).

In Crawford v. Washington, petitioner stabbed a man who he suspected of raping his wife. Under Washington’s marital privilege law at the time, a spouse generally could not testify against the other spouse without the other spouse’s consent. In a criminal proceeding against the husband for attempted murder, the prosecution sought to use potentially damaging statements made by the wife, who declined to testify under state marital privilege law. The husband argued that the wife’s statements could not be used against him because he had not had an opportunity to cross-examine her. After a thorough analysis of the historical underpinnings of the right to confrontation, the Court determined that testimonial statements could not be used against the defendant unless the declarant was unavailable and was subject to a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Since the husband had no opportunity to cross-examine his wife prior to her invocation of the marital privilege, his right to confrontation was violated by the admission of her testimonial statements at his trial.

In Davis v. Alaska, petitioner was on trial for burglary. The main witness for the prosecution was a 16-year-old minor with a juvenile criminal record. The prosecution moved to disallow any reference to the minor’s record during cross-examination, which the trial court granted. Because “[c]ross-examination is the principal means by which believability of a witness and truth of his testimony are tested,” the Court ruled that the trial court violated petitioner’s right to confrontation. (Davis, 415 U.S. at 316.) The Court concluded that “the right of confrontation is paramount to the State’s policy of protecting a juvenile offender.” (Id. at 319.)

In Douglas v. Alabama, petitioner and an accomplice witness were tried separately for assault with intent to murder. The witness was tried first and convicted. At petitioner’s trial, the prosecution called the witness, but on advice of his counsel, the witness asserted his right not to incriminate himself and refused to answer the prosecutor’s questions. The trial court granted the prosecutor’s request to treat the witness as hostile and, on cross-examination, the prosecutor proceeded to read a document alleged to be the accomplice’s confession for the stated purpose of refreshing the witness’s recollection. The Court recognized that right of confrontation was applicable to the states and determined that the prosecutor’s tactic elicited the equivalent of testimony from a witness that petitioner could not cross-examine. Thus, his constitutional right to confrontation was violated.

Every U.S. Supreme Court case that has explored the tension between the Confrontation Clause and other rights and privileges has determined that the defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses has preeminence over the conflicting right or privilege.

Continue reading "WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION CONFLICTS WITH WITNESS’S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE?" »

The California Court of Appeal recently held that Killibrew error [People v. Killibrew (2002) 103 CalApp.4th 644] resulted from a gang expert’s response to an improper hypothetical question posed by the prosecutor. The rule set forth in Killibrew is that an expert witness may not offer an opinion on what a particular defendant is thinking. The Court in this case noted that the prosecution cannot circumvent that rule “by asking the expert a hypothetical question that thinly disguises the defendants’ identity.” In this case the Court held the Killibrew rule was violated because the only difference between the hypothetical and the facts of the case were the names of the parties. Although the rule was violated, the Court nevertheless affirmed the defendants’ convictions, finding that the error was not prejudicial.

In the case, four individuals alleged by the prosecution to be members of a gang were charged with beating the victim. One of the special allegations in the case was that the defendants committed the beating “for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further and assist criminal conduct by gang members….” (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) To prove that special allegation, the prosecution called to the stand a gang expert.

In the hypothetical posed to the gang expert, the prosecutor called the victim “young baby gangster,” instead of his real name Phanakhon, and called the four defendants “three baby gangsters and one O.G. [Original Gangster].” The Court, finding that Killibrew error had been committed, stated that “the prosecution may not use a hypothetical question to conceal an expert’s improper testimony on the real defendants’ subjective knowledge and intent.” Nevertheless, the Court affirmed the judgment of conviction after finding that the error was not prejudicial to the defendants.

Because of the serious nature of gang allegations and their complexities, it is critically important that someone charged with a gang allegation immediately consult an experienced Southern California criminal defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our experienced criminal defense attorneys have been handling gang allegations for more than 30 years and we will aggressively fight the charges on your behalf. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 for a free telephone consultation, and visit us on the web at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

In People v. Keating, No. B210240, the court held that the 2009 amendment to California Penal Code § 4019http://www.wklaw.com applies retroactively to sentences handed down even before the amendment was passed. Keatings appealed his conviction claiming that there was not enough evidence to have found him guilty of several crimes. Between the initial sentencing and the appeal, California Penal Code Section 4019 was amended, which changed the procedure of good conduct credit during presentence custody. Though the court affirmed the conviction, the court found that the amended section 4019 applies retroactively to reduce his prison sentence.

Before Section 4019 was amended, the defendant would be entitled to two days of credit for every four days the defendant spent in presentence custody. However, after Section 4019 was amended, the defendant would be entitled to two days of credit for every two days in custody. The good conduct credit earned and the days of actual custody served would be reduced from the sentence. When these are added together, the defendant is deemed to have served four days for every two days in custody if all days are earned.

While the statute did not explicitly state whether or not it was to be applied retroactively, the court determined that the amended section 4019 is retroactive based upon the legislative intent. In this case, there was a compelling implication that the state legislature determined that the former penalty was too severe and that a lighter punishment was proper. Coupled with the state’s budget crisis, the sentence reduced by additional conduct credit was intended to apply to cases both past and present.

Continue reading "Good Conduct Credit for Presentence Custody Doubled – California Penal Code § 4019" »

It was recently reported in the L.A. Times, a Trader Joe’s was robbed by two men. In an attempt to fend off the two robbers, the store clerk hit one of the robbers with a wine bottle. The other armed robber then shot the clerk in the leg. The two robbers fled the store in a car driven by a third person. All three are still at large.

Under California Penal Code Section 211, robbery is defined as an illegal taking of personal property in the possession of another by means of force or fear. The felony is then divided into two degrees. Robberies of the first degree are punishable of up to nine years when the robbery is committed against any vehicles used for transportation or in an inhabited building. All other robberies are of the second degree, which are punishable of up to five years. In addition, robberies are considered as a strike under the California Three Strikes law, which may lead to life imprisonment. Armed robberies will enhance the punishment of the crime by an additional one year in state prison.

For more information on this crime, visit our website for information at www.wklaw.com and read out robbery section.

If you or a loved one faces a charge of robbery, it is critical to speak with an experienced Southern California criminal defense attorney. With 30 years of experience, Wallin & Klarich understands the criminal law system. We appreciate that robberies are a severe offense and we will provide you with the representation you deserve. Call us today at (888) 749-0034 or visit us on out website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

On June 17, 2010, the night of the Los Angeles Lakers Game 7 victory over the Boston Celtics, Los Angeles fans took to the streets. Rioters threw bottles and rocks at police, set bonfires, and overturned vehicles.

The police declared an unlawful assembly around the Staples Center after fans poured out of the arena to celebrate the Lakers 2010 NBA championship. Los Angeles police arrested around 38 people, mostly for public intoxication.

Under California Penal Code section 407, an unlawful assembly occurs when two or more people, assembled and acting together, meet to commit an unlawful act or commit a lawful act in a violent or obnoxious way.

Under California Penal Code section 647(f), anyone found in a public place under the influence of a drug and who is either a danger to himself or others or who interferes with the use of a public street is guilty of public intoxication.

If you or someone you know has been charged with disorderly conduct, you will need experienced and competent counsel to defend you. At Wallin & Klarich, we have over 30 years defending a variety of criminal cases, including those related to disturbing the public. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

KOAT recently reported that Joey Maes was convicted of one count of aggravated burglary and one count of aggravated battery for biting off a man's nose. The charges stem from an incident when Maes was asked to leave a party he had been attending. Maes returned soon after leaving, kicked in the front door of the home, ran into the kitchen, grabbed a knife and began threatening the occupants. When one man tried to take control of Maes' knife, Maes bit the end of the man's nose off. At his sentencing hearing, Maes was ordered to serve 10 years in a New Mexico State Penitentiary.

While in most states battery is a misdemeanor, aggravated battery is a felony. Aggravated battery is the act of beating and using intense force against somebody with serious consequences. It may or may not include the use of a weapon. Under California Penal Code (CPC) Section 243 (a) a battery is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both.

However, when a battery is committed against any person and serious bodily injury is inflicted on that person, the battery is punishable as a wobbler. This means that, depending on the circumstances of the case and your criminal history, the crime may be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony by either imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years (See CPC Section 243 (d)). If the battery is charged as a felony because the victim suffers a great bodily injury, it will be labeled a violent felony.

Under CPC 459 there are two types of burglary. A burglary committed in someone's home is considered first-degree burglary, which is always a felony. All other types of burglary are considered to be second degree and defined as entering a building, vehicle, vessel or cargo container with the intention of either stealing property or committing a felony. Under the law, the state does not need to prove that you succeeded in your act; it must only prove your intent.

If you are found guilty of an aggravated battery or burglary, you will be subjected to a "strike" under California's Three Strikes Law. If you have a prior strike, be aware that if at anytime in your life you are convicted of a new felony, your potential sentence may be doubled by the court. It is important to consult with Wallin and Klarich, an experienced criminal defense law firm, to determine the consequences of a strike conviction.

Aggravated battery and burglary can both be prosecuted as a felony. If you or a loved one is accused of either of these felonies it is essential to retain an experienced California defense attorney at Wallin and Klarich so we can aggressively defend you from these serious charges. Our attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience taking on cases just like yours. We will look at the particular facts of your case to determine the best defense strategy available. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be here when you call.

CNN recently reported that Ronnie Lee Gardner, 49, was executed by firing squad for the shooting death of attorney Michael Burdell during a failed escape attempt from custody in 1985 at a Salt Lake City, Utah courthouse. A hood was placed over Gardner's head and a paper target pinned to his chest. He was heavily restrained as a five-person firing squad took aim at the target and shot him. Gardner is only the third person to die by firing squad in the United States in 33 years.

The last time that California used firing squad for death row inmates was just before the state joined the union. Currently, under the California Penal Code Section 3604, the death penalty is carried out by the administration of a lethal gas or by an intravenous injection of a substance in a lethal quantity sufficient to cause death. If a person sentenced to death does not choose either lethal gas or injection within ten days after the warden’s service of an execution warrant, the default method is lethal injection.

Being charged with a felony that carries the possibility of death as a sentence is a grave offense. Choosing the right defense attorney could save your life. If you or a loved one has been charged with a serious felony you must seek the assistance of an experienced defense attorney immediately. Our attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience taking on cases just like yours. We will look at the particular facts of your case to determine the best defense strategy available to you that will result in the best possible outcome. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be here when you call.

The current trial of a white transit officer accused of killing an unarmed black man recently focused on the officer’s accidental discharge of a firearm instead of a Taser.

Officer Johannes Mehserle, 28, shot Oscar Grant on January 1, 2009, in Oakland. Mehserle stated that he intended to subdue Grant with a Taser, but accidentally drew and fired his .40 caliber handgun instead.

According to expert testimony, police officers are trained to follow a certain procedure in drawing and holding their firearm. They are also cautioned to take note of their surroundings in determining whether to fire. An expert testified that Mehserle would have had to push down and forward on a holster, then pull back a lever to fire the weapon.

In a criminal case, expert testimony is crucial to interpreting facts that are not commonly known to lay people. At Wallin & Klarich, we have over 30 years experience in dealing with criminal matters, including the selection of experts who will present the evidence in a way that is most favorable to your case. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

It was recently reported by TMZ that Soprano’s star, Joseph Gannascoli was arrested early Friday morning and charged with drunk driving. Gannascoli was arrested after officers claimed they observed him making a wide right turn and then drifting between lanes. After the officers stopped Gannascoli, they noticed that he had bloodshot eyes, smelled of alcohol, and slurred his speech. The actor submitted to a field sobriety test and blew a .111. Gannascoli posted $500 bond and was released.

California Vehicle Code Section 23152a prohibits driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or both regardless of your blood alcohol level. However, if your blood alcohol level is 0.08 percent or more it is automatically illegal. If you are driving a commercial vehicle, your blood alcohol level cannot exceed 0.04 percent. It is important to note that even if your blood alcohol level is under 0.08 percent, you may still be charged with a DUI if your mental or physical abilities are so impaired by drugs or alcohol that you are no longer able to drive a vehicle with the same caution as a sober person using ordinary care under similar circumstances. The numbers are merely a guideline.

In California, if you have been arrested for a DUI you will have to go to court, and you will also likely face a DMV hearing. You have ten days from your arrest to request a DMV hearing, or your driver’s license will automatically be suspended for four months if it is your first offense. If you are convicted for a DUI your driving privileges will be suspended for six months.

On a first offense, if you are convicted you could be imprisoned in the county jail for 96 hours up to six months, and you will have to pay a fine of $390 up to $1,000. It is extremely important to note that the more convictions you acquire, the higher your penalty will be. If you have been convicted of four or more DUI offense, you could be charged with a felony meaning that you could serve time in a state prison and face much higher fines.

Sentencing practices for DUI charges vary widely depending upon the specific court your case is pending in, as well as the number of prior DUI offenses you have. Some courts demand jail time on a first DUI offense. In other courts you can avoid mandatory jail time and do community work service and complete Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. The list goes on and on with potential punishments.

It is very important when you first get arrested for a DUI that you immediately contact our law firm. We can meet with you and contact the DMV on your behalf to demand a DMV hearing be set. Once we do that this will preserve your driving privilege, meaning that you will be able to continue to legally drive pending the outcome of the DMV hearing. Our defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience taking on cases just like yours. We will look at the particular facts of your case to determine the best defense strategy that is available to you. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be here when you call.

TMZ recently reported that Lindsay Lohan may be cleared of her potential probation violation. Following the MTV Movie Awards, Ms. Lohan’s SCRAM alcohol monitoring bracelet detected alcohol in her system, a clear violation of her probation. However, it is reported that the following morning, Ms. Lohan went to the L.A. County Probation Department where her urine tested negative for alcohol. Allegedly, sources connected with the Probation Department have stated that Ms. Lohan is in full compliance with her bail conditions.

It is California public policy to decrease the likelihood of repeat drug offenses by providing rehabilitation services to those convicted of nonviolent drug possession offenses. Under the California Penal Code Section 1210.1(a), any person convicted of nonviolent drug possession will receive probation instead of incarceration. As a condition of probation, the defendant must participate in and complete an appropriate drug treatment program. In addition, the court can require participation in vocational training, family counseling, literacy training and/or community service. It is important to note that a court may not impose incarceration as an additional condition of probation.

If you have been charged with a nonviolent drug possession offense, it is important that you retain an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. If you successfully complete your drug treatment program, all charges will be dropped. However, if at any point during the course of your drug treatment you have been found to be un-amenable to the drug treatment programs, for example by consistently violating your probation, the probation department can revoke probation and impose incarceration as the appropriate alternative punishment.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a nonviolent drug possession offense, you should seek the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney, as the consequences of probation violation in nonviolent drug possession cases can become serious. Our criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience taking on cases just like yours. We will look at the particular facts of your case to determine the best defense strategy that will result in the most advantageous outcome. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be here when you call.

Federal prosecutors charged Dr. Stephen Schneider and his wife Linda, a nurse, with illegally prescribing and distributing pain medication to drug abusers out of their Kansas clinic. The defendants argue that the prescriptions were for the legitimate treatment of medical symptoms. If convicted, the defendants face up to life in prison.

Prosecutors allege that the Schneiders operated a “pill mill,” regularly prescribing painkilling drugs more powerful than symptoms warrant and in excessive dosages. Furthermore, prosecutors claim that dozens of Dr. Schneider’s patients had died of overdoses and suicides.

The DEA has cracked down on physicians prescribing large quantities of pain medication, and have identified painkiller abuse as the nation’s most prevalent drug crime problem.

The Schneiders contend that they committed no drug crimes or ethical violations. They argue that the clinic served low-income patients who have no other access to expensive pain medications.

Advocacy groups have defended the Schneiders and criticized the current federal drug crime enforcement regime. Siobahn Reynolds, president of the Pain Relief Network, stated that pain relief patients are harassed, abused, and neglected by society. A medical ethics group fears that the government crackdown may have a “chilling effect” on physicians who have a legitimate basis for prescribing pain medication but are wary of potential litigation.

If you or a loved one have been accused of illegal possession or distribution of prescription pain medication, call the drug crime attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. We have over 30 years of experience handling a variety of criminal matters, including drug crime defense. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

According a recent Ninth Circuit ruling, a Los Angeles man convicted of murder and attempted murder will be able to argue that his conviction should be overturned because his trial lawyer did not interview the survivor, who stated that the defendant did not shoot him.

In 2003, Deandre Maurice Howard was convicted of shooting two people outside a liquor store, killing one. Howard repeatedly asked his trial attorney to question the survivor of the shooting, but the attorney refused. The survivor was not called to the witness stand, and Howard was sentenced to life in prison. The survivor later wrote to Howard’s appellate attorney (Howard’s trial counsel did not handle his appeal) that Howard did not shoot the survivor or the dead man.

At trial, the prosecution relied exclusively on two eyewitness identifications. One of the witnesses initially identified Howard as the shooter, but at trial testified that he was not.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel. Ineffective assistance of counsel occurs when the defense attorney’s representation is deficient, meaning that the representation fell below the reasonable standard expected of attorneys. The law presumes that an attorney’s representation is not deficient, so this is a high standard for the defendant to overcome. Furthermore, the deficiency must have prejudiced the defendant, meaning that if representation had not been deficient, the outcome of the case would have been different. Ineffective assistance of counsel may be a form of legal malpractice.

At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys understand the importance of communicating with you, listening to you, and responding to your concerns. We have over 30 years experience in all aspects of criminal trial, and we will vigorously pursue every factual issue relevant to your defense. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

CNN recently reported that Joran van der Sloot has been officially charged with the murder and robbery of a 21-year old student in Lima, Peru. Van der Sloot was also one of the prime suspects in the 2005 disappearance of American teenager Natalie Holloway, but was never charged due to a lack of evidence. Van der sloot is thought to be responsible for the murders of both Holloway and Flores.

In the current case, van der Sloot has been charged with the murder and robbery of Stephany Flores Ramirez after the two met while playing in a poker tournament. Video surveillance shows Flores and van der Sloot entering his hotel room together, and him leaving alone more than three hours later.

Van der Sloot admitted that he attacked Flores after she read an email on his computer regarding the Holloway case. It is reported that van der Sloot savagely beat Flores, eventually breaking her neck. After killing her, the police statement says that van der Sloot cleaned the room in an attempt to hide evidence of the crime, changed clothes and fled with Flores' money, bank cards and black Jeep.

Under California law, murder is a felony. There are two degrees of murder; first degree and second degree. Under California Penal Code (CPC) Section 189, first degree murder is any premeditated murder such as torture, lying in wait, or the use of a destructive device or explosive, or murder which is committed in the act or attempt to commit arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, or kidnapping. Most other types of murders are of the second degree.

Every person guilty of first degree murder will face the death penalty, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or 25 years to life. Every person guilty of murder in the second degree will face imprisonment in the state prison for 15 years to life. However if the person is guilty of second degree murder of a peace officer, the penalty is imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole.

Under the CPC Section 211, robbery is defined as the wrongful taking of another’s property against his will by means of force or fear of immediate injury to himself or a relative. Robbery is also divided into first and second degrees. First degree robbery is any robbery of a person operating a public transportation vehicle, any passenger of a public transportation vehicle, robbery committed in an inhabited home including a boat and a trailer, or the inhabited portion of any other building, and any person using an ATM. Robbery of the second degree is any other type of robbery not mentioned.

Robbery is a felony, and is punishable as such. Under CPC Section 213, robbery of the first degree is punishable by up to 6 or 9 years in state prison depending on the type. Robbery of the second degree is punishable by up to 5 years in state prison.

Murder and robbery are some of the most seriously punishable crimes under California law. Simply being accused of committing either of the two could place a stigma on your reputation for the rest of your life. If you have been charged with murder or robbery, you must seek the assistance of an experienced Southern California criminal defense attorney immediately. Our attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience taking on cases just like yours. We will look at the particular facts of your case to determine the best defense strategy that is available to you that will result in the best possible outcome. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be here when you call.

Conspiracy is a complicated area of criminal law. In general terms, a "conspiracy" is an agreement or partnership in 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 - in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The following elements must be proven by the California prosecutor:

1. Two or more persons came to an "understanding" to do a criminal act; and
2. The accused knew of the criminal purpose and willfully joined in; and
3. Any of the conspirators knowingly made an overt act to advance the object of the conspiracy

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

The crime of carjacking comes under the broad scope of California theft-related offenses. To be 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 was 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 allegation of carjacking.

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

In the context of a domestic dispute, arresting the wrong individual has significant legal consequences, but also other consequences that are not as apparent. A concern that is largely overlooked are the effects that a wrongful arrest can have on victims, especially children.

Children are very insightful and more intuitive than people realize. Children embroiled in domestic disputes are learning to distrust police. In cases where both parents are arrested, children are left abandoned, and they associate the presence of police with the breakup of the family. It is not difficult to recognize the gradual changes in the way that police approach domestic violence situations. Police departments are operating under "pro-arrest policies" in the domestic violence situations.

Arresting the wrong individual in domestic violence situations has consequences that include serious issues of child dependency, child custody, housing, emergency protective orders, criminal protective orders, no-contact orders. Further, immigration and naturalization of citizenship issues arise, which may lead to deportation from the United States.

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

If you were arrested for drinking and driving even though no police officer actually saw you driving a vehicle, the Orange County District Attorney and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) may still proceed with your DUI case. Because of this, it is important to have an experienced Orange County DUI lawyer if you are arrested for driving while intoxicated.

The prosecutor and the DMV may introduce circumstantial evidence (as opposed to direct observation) to prove you were driving. Examples of circumstantial evidence of you driving include: being found in the driver’s seat; the vehicle’s keys found in your pocket; the vehicle is registered to you; the vehicle hood was warm to the touch; and the driver’s seat was adjusted for your height. As you can see, the critical element of “driving” in any Driving Under the Influence case can be met even when no law enforcement officer or private citizen witness observed you driving. DUI charges, both in court and at the DMV, are vulnerable to diligent legal research and investigation.

The aggressive Orange County criminal defense lawyers at Wallin & Klarich have been defending the rights of those facing DUI charges for over 30 years. We know what it takes to ensure that you keep your driver’s license and may be able to get your DUI charges reduced or even dismissed. Contact Wallin & Klarich today to learn more about how we can help. Call 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com and www.wklawdui.com for more information. We will be there when you call.

When an individual (male or female) uses violence upon another, which is not in self-defense, it is considered a crime. In the arena of domestic disputes, domestic violence laws are intended to apply equally to men and women. Police officers and prosecutors are required to evaluate the facts and alleged offenses in each case, all while considering the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continued abuse.

It is important to acknowledge that women, as well as men, use violence. Over the past few years, there has been an increase in the number of females arrested for domestic violence in California. With the increase in numbers of females being arrested, it is inevitable that more females will be prosecuted for various kinds of domestic abuse. Violent women can certainly be identified as the primary physical aggressor, when force is used to control a partner, spouse, or cohabitant.

California Penal Code Section 273.5 is the primary law that governs domestic violence in the state of California. It is defined as the infliction of some corporal injury on a person with whom the defendant currently has, or previously had, a domestic relationship. Domestic violence can also be referred to as domestic abuse, spousal abuse or spousal battery. Corporal Injury is defined as a willful (deliberate) use of violent force. Examples include hitting, punching, kicking, slapping or pushing.

In order to make sure that your rights are accurately and aggressively defended after being charged with domestic violence in Southern California, you should contact the experienced Southern California criminal defense law firm of Wallin & Klarich. Our attorneys have been helping those accused of crimes for more than 30 years. Wallin & Klarich has the legal resources and knowledge to assist you in obtaining a successful outcome. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for a case evaluation. We will be there when you call.

It was recently reported that Joran Van der Sloot, the Dutch citizen who was the prime suspect in the disappearance of American student Natalee Holloway in Aruba in 2005, confessed to the murder of 21-year-old Stephany Flores Ramirez in Lima, Peru. Ramirez was found murdered in Van der Sloot’s hotel room. The two met hours earlier playing poker at a casino. Ramirez was an avid poker player and Van der Sloot was allegedly traveling through South America entering poker tournaments.

Ramirez, the daughter of a Peruvian circus impresario, was found by hotel employees with a broken neck and bleeding from the nose. Though she was found half-clothed, there was no evidence sexual assault took place. During Van der Sloot’s police interrogation, he stated that the two got into a verbal and physical confrontation after Ramirez allegedly found incriminating information about Natalee Holloway’s disappearance on Van der Sloot’s laptop. Van der Sloot told police he was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the incident.

After the incident, Van der Sloot fled to Chile, where he was arrested and turned over to Peruvian authorities. Hotel employees found Ramirez’s body while checking on Van der Sloot’s room.

In the Peruvian justice system, sentences are lighter in cases where the suspect confesses. There is no death penalty or life sentence. Van der Sloot faces a maximum of 35 years in prison. Van der Sloot had access to a public defender, but it is not known if he had any legal counsel.

If you are charged with any crime, you should seek the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Our attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience of defending all types of criminal matters. We will look at the particular facts of your case to determine the best defense strategy that is available to you that will result in the best possible outcome.

Dog fighting has been a popular subject ever since NFL quarterback Mike Vick was convicted. California has increased criminal penalties for being a spectator of an organized dog fight. Prior to this change, Penal Code section 597.5, subdivision (b), provided that any person who was knowingly present as a spectator at a place where preparation for a dog fight took place, was guilty of a misdemeanor. Now, the legislature has added the language specifying that this person will be guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, or by a fine up to five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

At the same time, the law continues to allow the use of dogs in the management of livestock by the owner of the livestock or his or her employees, in hunting as permitted by the Fish and Game Code, and in training of dogs or the use of equipment in the training of dogs for any purpose not prohibited by law.

Modification of section 597.5, subdivision (b), has exemplified an ongoing effort by the California legislature to financially cripple and eventually eliminate this widely-spread practice. The modification becomes effective together with another section of the California Penal Code, section 598.1, which gives the prosecution charging an individual with a violation of section 597.5, the right to file a petition for forfeiture and confiscate certain profits, proceeds, and instruments used in illegal dog fighting activities.

Now with increased penalties, it is important that you speak with an experience attorney if you are charged with dog fighting. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling all types of criminal matters. We are constantly researching the law to stay current with any changes. This allows the attorneys to give our clients the best representation they can get. We will examine every fact in your case to be sure you get the best possible result in your case. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

In a recent decision by the California Court of Appeals, it was held that the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant and highly prejudicial gang evidence of the defendants' membership in a motorcycle club, where there was no evidence that the club was a street gang or a criminal enterprise, and where the prosecution offered this evidence in its case-in-chief primarily to show defendants’ criminal disposition to commit murder. (People v. Memory (March 5, 2010) Case No. Co54422.)

In California, evidence that defendants are members of a certain street gang is relevant to prove identity of those individuals suspected of violating the law. Moreover, gang evidence is relevant and admissible when the very reason for the underlying crime is related to gang activities. In Memory, however, the prosecution offered gang related evidence that the defendants were members of the Jus Brothers motorcycle gang. The prosecution wanted to show that membership in this gang required the members to carry knives and to fight when challenged by other people.

The court held that evidence of gang membership could not be introduced to prove intent or culpability of the defendants. The court found the evidence to be irrelevant. The evidence could not be admitted at trial where its sole relevance was to show defendants’ criminal disposition or bad character as a means of creating an inference that the defendant committed the homicide. By admitting this highly inflammatory and irrelevant evidence, the trial court committed reversible error resulted in a miscarriage of justice requiring reversal of defendants’ convictions.
Our firm has over 30 years of experience in representing clients in criminal matters and has been recognized as an AV rated law firm. Wallin & Klarich offers outstanding representation to clients charged with gang related crimes. We have the legal knowledge and the resources to ensure that your rights are protected. Please call us at (888) 280-6839 or visit our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Drunk Driving in California has been a danger to drivers and pedestrians for a number of years. By choosing to drive drunk you can cause catastrophic or fatal injury to yourself and others. If you are convicted of a DUI there will be a number of costs associated with your decision. Recovering from a drunk driving conviction can be a tedious and drawn out process. Some of these costs associated with a DUI conviction include:

• Bail
• Towing Fees
• Court Costs
• Attorney Fees
• Ignition Interlock Costs
• Higher Insurance Premiums
• Alcohol Education Enrollment Fees
• Driver License Reinstatement Fees

These are only some of the many costs that can be associated with a DWI conviction. If there was a serious or fatal injury involved there could be more serious consequences.

Drunk Driving Statistics

Drunk driving continues to kill a number of people every year. According to AlcoholAlert.com's 2008 report, there was 1198 fatal personal injuries, in California, that were alcohol related. Out of all traffic fatalities, 30% involved a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher, which accounted for 1029 deaths.

These alarming numbers have led a number of people to protest drunk driving with articles such as "The DUI Crash: Is it Murder on the Highway?."

California DUI Car Accident Laws

Under California law it is a serious crime to operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. California Vehicle Code section 23152 (a) states: "It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle." This same section also states that it is illegal for any person to operate a vehicle with blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 percent or more.

Finding An Experienced California Personal Injury Lawyer

A DUI Victims' Rights should not be overlooked. If you have been injured there are a number of resources to aid you. Once such resource is the Personal Rights Handbook for the Victims of Drunk Driving. This handy guidebook was developed to help DUI victims understand the legalities of their case.

Personal injury victims who have suffered from the negligence of a drunk driver are well advised to seek the council of a DUI Accident Victim Lawyer. Recovering Personal Damages From a DUI Accident can be important to your future and well being. A skilled California personal injury lawyer can help you to receive fair compensation for your injuries.

The California Courts of Appeal for the Fourth District recently held that an individual may be guilty of embezzlement even if that person intended to return the property in the future. Jorge Casas, a car salesman, was carrying out a trade-in transaction with a customer. To complete the exchange, it required Casas to drive the trade-in to the customer’s house to collect a $1,500 down payment. Casas turned a standard procedure into a 400 mile road trip in search of drugs. He was charged with embezzlement and convicted of the crime. On appeal, Casas argued that he did not intend to permanently deprive the owner; however, the conviction was upheld.

The white collar crime of embezzlement, as defined in California Penal Code § 503, is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been entrusted. The prosecution is required to show that (1) the owner entrusted the property to the defendant, (2) the owner did because he/she trusted the defendant, (3) the defendant fraudulently used or converted the property for his own benefit, and (4) the use was intended to deprive the owner of its use. Under this fourth element, however, the defendant has the requisite intent if the use significantly interferes with the owner’s enjoyment of the property.

The punishment for embezzlement depends on the value of the property. Embezzlement is a misdemeanor offense when the value is $400 or less, which carries with it up to 6 months in county jail and a maximum fine of $1,000. When the value exceeds $400, then it is felony embezzlement, which is punishable of up to 3 years in state prison and a maximum fine of $10,000.

Embezzlement often occurs in the workplace where employees are entrusted with valuable items by virtue of their employment. It often happens in these workplace situations that people are charged with embezzlement when in fact they may have been absent-minded or merely forgetful. Therefore, it is important to have an experienced attorney look at the unique facts of your case and zealously defend you against embezzlement accusations. Our attorneys at Wallin and Klarich have over 30 years of experience handling countless embezzlement cases and will raise all viable defenses to aggressively protect your rights.

Please call Wallin and Klarich today at 888-280-6839 or visit our website at www.wklaw.com to speak with one of our Orange County embezzlement defense attorneys regarding your matter. We will be there when you call.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District recently held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a criminal defendant to due process, which includes the right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. In Lunbery v. Hornbeak, No. 08-17576, Kristi Lunbery was convicted of second-degree murder of her past husband, Charlie Bateson. Bateson was murdered in 1992, but the case was reopened in 2001. Upon interrogation, Lunbery initially denied the allegations but eventually admitted to the crime. Lunbery was indicted for first-degree murder but she denied her guilt and repudiated her confession. The jury, however, found her guilty of second-degree murder due to lack of evidence of premeditation. Lunbery then appealed the conviction by filing a petition for habeas corpus. The decision was reversed and remanded.

The heart of the appeal was the evidence of third party culpability that the trial court had excluded. By not permitting certain pieces of evidence to be entered into trial, Lunbery argues that she was not given a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. A confidential informant told police that the murder was a case of mistaken identity. Another individual, Rory Keim, corroborated that story with a statement by Henry Garza, who was linked to a drug conflict and admitted that the murder was a mix-up. The trial court found this evidence as inadmissible hearsay and was never presented before the jury.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, found that the trial court’s denial of admitting this evidence was in error. In Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, the Supreme Court held that exclusion of probative admissible evidence that another person may have committed the crime is a violation of an individual’s constitutional rights to due process. The omission of this evidence denies Lunbery her due process rights to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Garza was linked to the drug deals, his statement was against his interest, and was dead at the time of the trial. Under these circumstances, Keim’s account of Garza’a statement should have been admissible hearsay.

The criminal law system can be intimidating and overwhelming, but it is always important to know that you have protected rights. With over 30 years of experience, the Southern California Attorneys at Wallin & Klarich are familiar with the laws and the legal system. It is absolutely necessary for you to hire the best defense attorney to work for you and defend your case. Call us at (888) 280-6839 or contact us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

The Daily Appellate Report recently reported that Michael Henry can be charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Henry was pulled over for running a red light, and subsequently fled the scene after being asked if he had anything illegal in his possession. Henry was pursued by several officers while one officer returned to the vehicle and called a tow truck. When the truck arrived, Henry’s vehicle was opened and searched and a pistol was discovered. The other officers had arrested Henry in the meantime. It was decided by the court in People v. Henry, No. A125270, that evidence seized from a suspect’s car incident to arrest is admissible where the officers relied in good faith upon the decision allowing the search of the entire compartment if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the compartment at the time of the search.

Under California Penal Code Section 12025, the only way to legally carry a concealed weapon is to obtain a concealed weapons permit. Otherwise, carrying a handgun that is small enough to be concealed is a punishable offense. In other words, if it is a handheld gun, it is concealable. Handguns such as pistols and revolvers generally fall under this category. Larger guns such as shotguns and rifles do not, as they are not considered to be handguns. A firearm can be concealed on your person or within a vehicle to which you are either an owner or have unrestricted access.

If a firearm is found on your person, you will be found guilty of carrying a concealed firearm if you carried a firearm capable of being concealed, you knew you were carrying a firearm, and the firearm was substantially concealed when you were carrying it. If a firearm is found in a vehicle, it must be shown that the firearm was capable of being concealed, that you knew the firearm was in the vehicle, that the firearm was substantially concealed, and that the vehicle was under your control or direction.

If you are found with a concealed firearm in your possession, you could be found guilty of a misdemeanor which comes with either serving up to one year in the county jail, or a fine of up to $1,000. However, the penalties and fines for carrying a concealed weapon can become increasingly more severe if conditions make the offense more serious.

If you are charged with carrying a concealed firearm, you should seek the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Our attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience taking on cases just like yours. We will look at the particular facts of your case to determine the best defense strategy that is available to you that will result in the best possible outcome. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be here when you call.

The United States Supreme Court has recently reviewed the laws pertaining to the Miranda Rights. The Supreme Court has loosened the restrictions of how the Miranda Rights are enforced. In Berghuis v. Thompkins, No. 08-1470, the Court held that once a suspect has been informed of his or her right to remain silent, he or she must affirmatively invoke those rights. A crime suspect's words can be used against him if he or she fails to clearly tell police that he or she does not want to talk.

Prior to this decision, the court said the burden rests on the prosecution to show that a crime suspect had "knowingly and intelligently waived" his rights. Some police departments tell officers not to begin questioning until a suspect has waived his rights, usually by signing a waiver form.

In a 5-4 decision, the court shifted the balance in favor of the police, saying a suspect has a duty to speak up and say he does not want to talk.

The police are not required to obtain a waiver of the suspect's right to remain silent before interrogating him. Some experts on police questioning said the court's shift will have an immediate impact across the country.
In Thompkins, Van Thompkins, was arrested a year after the shooting of two men outside a mall in Southfield, Michigan. One of the men died from that incident.
A detective read Thompkins his rights, including the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer. Thompkins said he understood, but did not sign a form.
For about three hours, Thompkins stayed silent during the interrogation and said almost nothing in response to questions. The detective asked Thompkins if he believed in God and then asked: "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?"
Thompkins says "Yes," and looked away. He refused to sign a confession or to speak further, but he was convicted of first-degree murder, based largely on his one-word reply. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no evidence of Thompkins not understanding his rights, his answer to the question of praying indicated a waiver, and there was no evidence that the statement was coerced. The Court went further on to conclude that it is up to the defendant to indicate that they are invoking their rights to remain silent.
If you or a loved one is facing a criminal charge, it is important that you speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in fighting criminal charges for our clients. Our attorneys are always researching the constantly changing laws. This is one of the ways we provide the quality representation that you deserve. If you are arrested, you must know say you want to remain silent and to speak with your attorney. Call us at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.