Southern California Defense Blog

On September 28, 2010, 13-year-old Seth Walsh was pronounced dead after sustaining injuries from apparently hanging himself from a tree in his backyard on September 19.

According to a police report, emergency personnel found Walsh unconscious and not breathing after attempting to commit suicide. He had reportedly been subject to years of alleged bullying because he was gay, including alleged bullying on the day he died.

Police interviewed some of the children who had allegedly bullied Walsh on the day he died. A police official stated that several of the children broke down in tears after being informed of Walsh’s apparent suicide attempt and stated that they never expected this outcome. Police determined that, despite the tragic consequence, no hate crime against Walsh had been committed and no charges have been filed.

Under California Penal Code section 422.6, “No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.” Penal Code section 422.55 is a hate crime law and punishes discrimination based on several actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including sexual orientation.

If you or someone you know has been accused of a hate crime or a crime related to bullying, you will need a Southern California criminal defense attorney who will aggressively represent you against these serious charges. At Wallin & Klarich, we have helped people accused of a variety of a charges, including hate crimes. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Theft cases with prior offenses can have serious consequences and also risk the possibility of state imprisonment.

It is imperative that the attorney who represents you is knowledgeable of the courts where your case is being heard at and also the prosecution personnel as that could be the difference between state prison, jail time, probation or a dismissal of the case.

Not too long ago our San Bernardino attorneys represented an individual facing state imprisonment for shoplifting clothing at two major department stores within months of each other and the fact that the client had previous theft convictions over the years.

Our San Bernardino Attorneys worked the case and investigated the case vigorously as well as working with the prosecution which resulted in misdemeanor offenses to run concurrent of each other. The client was very happy with the outcome as significant prison/jail time was avoided.

Wallin & Klarich have represented defendants for over 30 years. Our knowledgeable San Bernardino Attorneys can make the difference between your freedom and being locked up for a long time. Contact us now at Wallin & Klarich by calling or emailing us at www.wklaw.com to set up an appointment.

On September 24, 2010, in the late afternoon, a Los Angeles Superior Court allowed Lindsay Lohan to post bail and be released from custody after her lawyer appealed an earlier ruling that morning denying her the right to post bail.

The previous judge’s ruling denying bail meant that Lohan would have been in custody at least until her October 22 probation violation hearing.

Lohan’s attorney argued that the superior court must give Lohan the right to post bail for misdemeanor probation violations. Her probation stemmed from two drug-related convictions in 2007. Lohan admitted two weeks ago via tweet that she violated her probation by failing a drug test.

After posting $300,000 bail, Lohan agreed to wear an electronic alcohol-monitoring anklet as a condition of her release. The day after her release, she visited a homeless teen shelter and voluntarily checked herself into a drug rehabilitation program. The judge may still sentence her to jail during her October 22 hearing.

Under the California Constitution, article I, section 12, a person has a right to bail unless the person is accused of a capital crime or certain other felonies after a court has determined that evidence of the person’s guilt is substantial or the risk to public safety is too great to allow the person to post bail. Under California Penal Code section 1271 and the California Constitution, if a person is charged with anything other than a capital offense or certain felonies, a person has a right to bail.

If you or someone you know has been accused of a probation violation, you will need an experienced Los Angeles County criminal defense attorney who will thoroughly explain the probation violation consequences to you. At Wallin & Klarich, we have helped people accused of probation violations for over 30 years. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

On September 21, 2010, eight current and former city officials were arrested and charged with numerous counts of misappropriation of city funds and crimes related to the abuse of their authority. Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley alleged that the accused Bell officials misappropriated over $5.5 million in city funds.

The accused officials are former city manager Robert Rizzo, the alleged mastermind behind the corruption scheme; Mayor Oscar Hernandez; former Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia; Vice Mayor Teresa Jacobo; council members George Mirabal and Luis Artiga; and former council member George Cole and Victor Bello.

The scandal gained national attention when news broke of the accused officials high salaries. Rizzo’s salary at the time he left the city manager position was almost $800,000, and since he was hired city manager in 1993, the council voted to raise his salary 16 times. Rizzo is currently charged with 53 counts of misappropriating public funds.

Rizzo’s attorney accused Cooley of political grandstanding because Cooley ensured that media were present to witness Rizzo’s arrest. Cooley is a candidate for California attorney general in the upcoming November 2010 election.

Attorney General Jerry Brown has also filed suit on behalf of the state against the accused officials to recover the excess taxes the city collected to pay for the Bell officials’ salaries. He also seeks to reduce the accused officials’ pensions.

Under Penal Code section 424(a), a local official who improperly uses publicly entrusted funds is guilty of misappropriation of funds. If convicted, the person will serve two, three, or four years in state prison, and is barred from holding state office.

Under Penal Code section 503, “[e]mbezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been [e]ntrusted.”

If you or someone you know has been accused of a white collar crime, you will need an experienced Los Angeles white collar criminal attorney. For over 30 years, Wallin & Klarich has helped people accused of a variety of criminal matters, including white collar crime. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

A former partner of Morrison & Foerster (MoFo), a prestigious law firm based in San Francisco, and his wife pleaded “not guilty” to felony charges in connection with an alleged scheme to defraud the San Francisco Unified School District, the firm and its health insurance provider out of nearly $400,000 in fraudulent services for their autistic son.

Jonathan Dickstein and his wife Barclay Lynn, both 43-years-old, have been charged with 31 felony counts including grand theft, forgery, insurance fraud, and conspiracy. The prosecution alleges that between 2006 and 2008, the couple set up a fraudulent education company called “Puzzle Pieces” that they used to double-bill the school district and Morrison & Foerster’s then health insurance provider Blue Cross for their son’s in-home autism care. By billing both entities for the same services, the prosecution alleged that the scheme allowed the couple to pocket approximately $100,000 per year.

Dickstein had been a prominent life science attorney for Morrsion & Foerster since he joined the firm in 1999. He resigned from the firm roughly five months ago. Both Dickstein and Lynn are now out on bail after posting $100,000 each. The case is scheduled to return to court in early October.

In California, a grand theft crime is a serious offense that is defined as the unlawful taking of money, labor, or property of another that is valued above $400. (California Penal Code Section 487). The penalties for a felony grand theft conviction include imprisonment for a period of 16 months, or two or three years in state prison.

Forgery is a “white collar” theft crime in California that involves falsely altering documents, signing another person’s name without authorization, or fabricating documents with the intent to defraud another out of money, property, or legal rights. (California Penal Code Section 470). If charged as a felony, a conviction for forgery may include a prison sentence for a period between 16 months and three years in state prison.

If you or someone you know is facing charges of grand theft or forgery, it is imperative that you contact an experienced Southern California criminal defense attorney. With over 30 years of experience, our Southern California attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can help you present the best possible defense in your case. Call us today at 888-764-2615 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

On September 20, 2010, Paris Hilton pled guilty to possessing cocaine and for lying to a police officer about it.

Hilton was arrested after a small bag containing the cocaine fell out of her purse in the presence of a police officer. She told the officer that the cocaine did not belong to her.

Hilton was charged with felony possession of cocaine, but by admitting possession, she was allowed to plead to a lesser possession charge. According to the terms of her plea, she must serve a year of probation, complete a drug program, pay a $2,000 fine, and complete 200 hours of community service.

In California, under Penal Code section 11350(a), cocaine possession is a felony. However, a person convicted of drug possession may be eligible for an alternate to imprisonment under Penal Code section 1000 or Proposition 36. Talk to an experienced Southern California criminal defense attorney to discuss your legal options.

Lying to a police officer is a violation of Penal Code section 148(a)(1), which punishes “[e]very person who willfully. . .obstructs any…peace officer…in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her employment.” Obstructing a police officer is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail, up to a $1,000 fine, or both the imprisonment and the fine.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a drug crime or obstructing a police officer, you will need an experienced Southern California criminal defense attorney to assist you in your case. At Wallin & Klarich, we have helped people accused of drug crimes and obstructing a police officer for over 30 years. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

On August 23, 2010, the Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s determination that appellant, a driver who collided with another vehicle and killed the other vehicle’s passenger, had the requisite intent to be convicted of murder.

On November 29, 2006, appellant Hal Moore drove north on Hill Avenue in Pasadena at a rate of between 80 to 90 miles per hour, according to officer testimony. The posted speed limit was 35 miles per hour. At trial, evidence indicated that Moore was angry because his apartment was burglarized while he was on vacation and he blamed his fiancée for not being present at the apartment.

Trial evidence established that Moore collided with another vehicle after crossing an intersection on a red light and without trying to stop. A passenger in the other vehicle was killed. Appellant admitted that he did not stop to check the condition of the victims and continued to drive north on Hill Avenue.

A patrol officer noticed Moore’s vehicle, which had sustained significant front-end damage and which had steam or smoke coming from the vehicle’s hood. The officer turned on his patrol vehicle’s lights and siren and attempted to initiate a vehicle stop. Moore continued to drive without yielding to stop signs until he reached his residence.

Moore resisted arrest and it took three officers to subdue him.

After being subdued and after waiving his Miranda rights, Moore told officers that he did not intend to kill anyone, he was just going too fast. Moore admitted that he knew the other driver died, and that he did not think it was a problem to leave the scene of the accident because he knew the other driver was dead.

According to Penal Code section 187(a), “murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. . .with malice aforethought.” Malice can be established when a person acts with profound disregard of the significant probability of death, and the person subjectively knew of the risk of death.

On appeal, Moore claimed that the facts did not establish that he acted with malice because he did not have subjective knowledge that his driving had a high probability of killing someone. He cited cases where, prior to the fatal incident, the defendants were either under the influence or had swerved to avoid a collision. He argued that since he was not intoxicated and did not have a near-collision prior to the fatal incident, he did not have an awareness of the risk of death sufficient to be convicted for murder.

The court of appeal disagreed, stating that while driving while intoxicated or a previous near-collision is relevant to determining malice, neither fact is necessary to prove subjective knowledge of the risk. The jury is entitled to analyze all the circumstances to determine whether Moore had an awareness of the risk of death.

The court of appeal also disagreed with Moore’s contention that his prior conviction for driving under the influence was inadmissible because Moore was not intoxicated during the fatal incident. The court stated that his prior conviction was relevant to determining whether he had subjective knowledge of the consequences of his driving.

If you or someone you know has been convicted of driving under the influence or murder, you will need an experienced Southern California defense attorney to help defend you against these serious charges. At Wallin & Klarich, we have helped people accused of DUI and murder for over 30 years. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (888) 280-6839      end_of_the_skype_highlighting or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

On September 15, 2010, boxer Floyd Mayweather, Jr., was charged with four felonies and four misdemeanors stemming from an alleged incident with his ex-girlfriend and their three children at her apartment.

The Nevada felony complaint alleged that, on September 9, 2010, Mayweather threatened two of his children by stating that if they called 911 or left the apartment, he would “beat [their] ass.” Mayweather also allegedly beat his ex-girlfriend and took her cell phone. He allegedly threatened to make his ex-girlfriend or her current boyfriend “disappear.”

Mayweather was charged with two counts of a felony assault-type crime, one count of felony robbery, one count of grand larceny, one count of misdemeanor battery, and three counts of a misdemeanor assault by conditional threat-type crime. Mayweather’s arraignment is set for November 9, 2010.

In California, assault is “an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.” (Penal Code section 240.) Assault by conditional threat occurs when a perpetrator threatens to use force against the victim unless the victim does something which the perpetrator has no right to demand. (See People v. Page (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1473.) Whether an assault is a misdemeanor or felony depends on the circumstances, such as the status of the alleged victim or whether the alleged victim used a deadly weapon.

Under Penal Code section 242, “[a] battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Battery against a person with whom the perpetrator has a child may be considered domestic violence. (Family Code section 6411(d).) Battery may be a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the circumstances of the crime.

Grand larceny is a theft when the value of the property taken is over $400, or certain other items regardless of value, such as domestic livestock or a firearm. (Penal Code section 487.) Grand larceny is punishable by either up to a year in county jail, or 16 months, two years, or three years in state prison. (Penal Code section 487(a).) If the item taken was a firearm, then the punishment is 16 months, 2 years, or three years in the state prison. (Penal Code section 487(b).)

Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property of another from his or her person by force or fear. (Penal Code section 211.) Robbery is a felony, but the punishment varies depending on the circumstances of the crime. (Penal Code section 213.)

If you or someone you know has assault and battery charges pending, you will need an experienced Southern California defense lawyer who is familiar with assault and battery laws. At Wallin & Klarich, we have defended people accused of assault and battery for over 30 years. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

It was reported on KSBW.com that a woman in Watsonville, California was dragged approximately 30 feet while attempting to stop a man from stealing her car outside a public library. Which is known as Car Jacking in California, PC 215.

Police say that the 40-year-old woman was taking her children to the library when a man, identified as 47-year-old Mark Anderson, tried to drive away with her car, which still had the woman’s keys and purse inside.

When the woman confronted Anderson, he drove off, dragging the woman through the library parking lot. Anderson then hit a parked car and a sign post before abandoning the vehicle.

Anderson was shortly apprehended by police and booked on carjacking charges among other crimes. The woman was treated at Watsonville Community Hospital for scrapes and bruises and is expected to make a full recovery.

Under California Penal Code Section 215, a carjacking occurs when a person uses force or fear to take a motor vehicle of another with the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive that person of the vehicle. Carjacking is a felony offense that is punishable by imprisonment in state prison for up to nine years. The penalties may be increased if a weapon is used in committing the offense.

A carjacking case is a very serious matter, which is why it is imperative that you contact an experienced carjacking defense attorney who can aggressively present your case and protect your rights. At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California attorneys have been in practice for over 30 years and can provide you with highly effective legal representation. Call us today at 888-280-6839 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

On September 13, 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1844, known as Chelsea’s Law, which mandates life in a prison without the possibility of parole if a person is convicted of a violent sex crime against a minor and if aggravating factors are present.

Chelsea’s Law was named after Chelsea King, a 17-year-old high school senior who was sexually assaulted and murdered while jogging near a park. The murderer, John Gardner III, was previously convicted of committing lewd and lascivious acts against a minor under 14 years old, but was released on parole after serving five years of his sentence.

After Gardner led police to King’s body, Gardner led police to the body of another victim he had sexually assaulted and murdered, 14-year-old Amber Dubois. Dubois had been missing for over a year before her body was found.

Gardner admitted both murders and was sentenced to two life sentences without the possibility of parole, plus 25 years for assaulting a woman in December 2009.

Chelsea’s Law applies to violent sexual crimes committed against a minor under 14 years old by a perpetrator over 18 years old, as long as certain aggravating circumstances are present. Relevant sex offenses include rape, sexual penetration, oral copulation, or sodomy of a minor under 14 years old. Aggravating circumstances include inflicting great bodily injury on the victim, kidnapping the victim prior to the sexual crime, torturing the victim, or drugging the victim. Contact Wallin & Klarich to determine whether the circumstances of your alleged crime fall within Chelsea’s Law.

If you or someone you know has been accused of a sex crime, you will need an aggressive Southern California sex crime attorney to defend you, especially considering the social stigma associated with sex offenders. At Wallin & Klarich, we have helped people accused of sex offenses for over 30 years. Call us at (888) 764-2615 or visit our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

An off-duty Riverside County sheriff's deputy was arrested in Temecula in late August after assaulting another deputy in a dispute involving his wife. Jaime Morales, 32, who is assigned to the sheriff's Moreno Valley station, was arrested early Aug. 24 on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon and spousal battery. Assistant Sheriff Jerry Williams said Morales and Deputy Joseph Sinz got into an argument that turned physical in the parking lot of the Party City store near the Temecula mall. Apparently, Morales' wife tried to intervene and Morales pushed her, Williams said. Sinz, who is assigned to the Lake Elsinore station, suffered serious injuries including a broken jaw, broken nose and broken teeth.
Felony assault causing great bodily injury is a “strike” under California law and can carry a prison term of up to 4 years. “Strikes” are serious or violent felonies and are treated much more seriously by the District Attorney’s office and often result in “straight” time in country hail or prison time. Spousal battery is a misdemeanor and can carry a sentence of up to 1 year in county jail and require 3 years of probation and a year-long anger management course.
Morales, who is 6 feet tall and 200 pounds, has participated in the "Battle of the Badges" charity boxing tournament as Jaime "The Bull" Morales, according to fliers for the annual event in which law enforcement officers face off against firefighters. The “Bull” is in serious need of an experienced criminal defense attorney to help him as he is facing very serious charges. If you or a loved one are facing criminal charges in Southern California don’t hesitate to contact the experienced and aggressive attorneys at Wallin & Klarich We’ll be there when you call.

M was juvenile attending high school in California who just went through a tough breakup with his ex-girlfriend, S. Following their breakup, M sent two text messages to S . in the first he threatened to come to school with a gun and kill half the school before committing suicide in front of S. In the other, he used expletives including “F___,” “B____”, and “C___”. M was charged with a violation of California Penal Code 653m which reads:

653m. (a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or
makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with
another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene
language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict
injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any
member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in
this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic
contacts made in good faith.

At M’s trial in juvenile court S testified that the words were commonly used at their high school and that she was not offended by the language. Another student testified that the above language was commonly used by their peer group. The court sustained the petition which is akin to a finding of guilt.

In reversing the trial court’s finding, the appellate court found that neither text communicated a physical threat to the recipient, S. The court also found that while the texts might be “upsetting”, neither text was obscene, lewd as used, or offensive to prevailing notions of modesty or decency in the context of the law.

This case illustrates how a competent criminal defense attorney can fight for a client’s rights and get a positive outcome despite a prior court’s mistake in applying the law. If you or your child are facing criminal charges don’t hesitate to contact the experienced and aggressive attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. We’ll be there when you call or you can visit www.wklaw.com.

It was recently reported in the OC Register that a man was stabbed outside of a Santa Ana, 7-Eleven store after he refused to hand over his beer during an attempted robbery. The Police officers stated that a man and his sister walked out of the store and were approached by two men in dark clothing. One of the men brandished a knife and demanded the victim give them his beer and money. The victim refused and was then stabbed by the suspect. The two alleged perpetrators ran away without the money or beer. The victim was transferred to the hospital where he is in serious but stable condition.

Under California Penal Code Section 211, robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. Felonious taking is defined as the illegal taking away of something.

Robbery is classified in two degrees. Robbery in the first degree is when the robbery is committed in the following situations: 1) Against any person who is performing his or her duties as an operator of any bus, taxicab, cable car, street car, trackless trolley, or other vehicle, 2) Every robbery of any passenger which is perpetrated on any vehicles used for transportation for hire, 3) Every robbery which is perpetrated in an inhabited dwelling house, 4) Every robbery of a person while using an automated teller machine (ATM), or immediately after the person has used the ATM, 5) Or the inhabited portion of any other building is robbery of the first degree.

All other robberies are considered to be in the second degree. In this case, the crime would be an attempted second degree robbery, among other possible charges. Robbery of the second degree is punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two (2), three (3), or five (5) years. A conviction for an attempted robbery is punishable by imprisonment in state prison for up to three (3) years.

If you or a loved one is facing a robbery charge, it is important that you speak with an experienced robbery attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our Orange County robbery attorneys have over 30 years of experience. We will provide you with an aggressive legal defense to get you the best possible result in your case. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

If you are thinking about modifying your child custody arrangement with and Southern California Child Custody Lawyer, you have a couple of options. First, you can attempt to persuade the other parent to modify the arrangement to accommodate your needs. Second, if you feel you will be unsuccessful with the other parent, you will have to ask the court to modify your child custody and/or child visitation.

Before going to court, you will want to know what types of issues or facts the judge will consider when making the decision about your California child custody and visitation. When we at Wallin & Klarich are discussing child custody modification with our clients, our clients frequently already have in mind many issues that they want to bring up. Here are some issues that sometimes people don’t think about right away. See if any of these issues are applicable in your situation:

- Home environment: Is the other parent’s home a mess? Does your child have his or her own room in the other parent’s home? What about your home? Do you have pictures of your home and the other parent’s home?
- Relatives: Are close familial relationships important for you and your child? Are there any close relatives that live near your home or the other parent’s home? Are there relatives near your child’s age who live close by?
- Culture: Are there cultural or racial differences in your home or the other parent’s home? Will your child be able to appreciate and be educated as to his or her ancestral background if he or she is placed in one parent’s home versus the other parent’s home?
- Extra-curricular activities: Are there more opportunities for extra-curricular activities in one home versus the other home? Is one parent more likely to encourage hobbies than the other parent?

We are sure you can think of other issues that may apply in your specific situation. The bottom line is that you need to remember that the judge does not know your child and does not know your child’s needs. You do. It is your job to give the judge all the information that is important for your child’s growth and happiness. We are here to help you. If you would like to speak to a dedicated Southern California child custody lawyer, please contact us today at 888-749-0034 or visit www.wkfamilylaw.com.

Both the juvenile and adult justice system in California have the shared goal of public safety. However, this is one of the few goals both systems have in common. The adult justice system has the goal of punishment of offenders, where as the juvenile justice system has the goal of treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.

The goal of treatment and rehabilitation, in lieu of punishment in juvenile proceedings is evident by the wide array of programs aimed at addressing behavioral problems of juveniles. The juvenile courts often allow its offenders to complete diversion or treatment programs as part of their rehabilitation. If an offender is allowed to complete a diversion program, the court may dismiss the underlying offense against the juvenile.

Although the adult justice system also has a number of diversion related programs, these programs are offered much less, and under more stringent circumstances than they are offered in the juvenile justice system.

If you or a loved one has been arrested, it is imperative that you hire an aggressive, experienced Los Angeles Juvenile Criminal Defense Lawyer. Hiring an experienced criminal defense law firm can greatly increase your chances of keeping your freedom. 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 888-749-0034 or go to our website at www.wklaw.com for more information.

The Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) was created by the Legislature in 1965 as a tool for state and local agencies to help protect the health and safety of California’s children. Although the idea of protecting California’s children by establishing an index of known abusers is theoretically a good idea, the resulting outcome has been that many are listed on the index based on unsubstantiated claims against them.

Recent court decisions have mandated those who are placed on the index, must be given notice and an opportunity to have a hearing to remove name from the child abuse central index. Although this safeguard has ensured many to be excluded from the index, that otherwise would be listed, many feel that the safeguards and standards are insufficient.

Perhaps the most common criticism of CACI is the standard required to be placed on the index. For purposes of CACI, a person will be kept on the list if the child abuse claims are either deemed substantiated or inconclusive.

Most agree that if the claims are found to be substantiated, the inclusion of that person on CACI is warranted. However a fervent criticism comes from those that oppose listing people on the index when the claims against are found unsubstantiated. In those cases, the person will remain on CACI.

If you or a loved one has been placed on the Child Abuse Central Index, it is imperative that you hire an aggressive, experienced criminal defense firm. Hiring an experienced Orange County criminal defense law firm will ensure your rights are protected. 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 888-749-0034 or go to our website at www.wklaw.com for more information.