Southern California Defense Blog

A 25 year old Marine, Jared Ray Hale, stands accused of three felony counts of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in Orange County. It is alleged he was driving his car while intoxicated when it slammed into a tree killing his three passengers, all of whom were marines stationed with him at Camp Pendleton.

Mr. Hale is in dire need of an experienced vehicular homicide defense attorney in Orange County, who can help him try to avoid the serious consequences associated with a conviction for this serious crime. The accused faces up to ten years in prison if he is found guilty of the charges pending against him.

Mr. Hale suffered brain trauma and a broken arm and remains in a medical facility. However, the Orange County District Attorneys office plans to ask that his bail be set at $100,000 when he is arraigned.

Having a vehicular homicide defense attorney in Orange County fighting for you in a case like this is critical to the likely outcome of the case. Wallin & Klarich has been successfully defending those accused of vehicular homicide for over thirty years. If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges for vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in Orange County, please contact our office at 1-888-280-6839 or fill out our intake form to receive our immediate professional assistance.

As reported by the LA Times on January 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional to sentence any juvenile tried as an adult who is under 18 to a life sentence behind bars with no chance to be released. The court’s majority (a 5-4 vote) found it to be a “cruel and unusual punishment” under the constitution because our society requires every judge to consider carefully a juvenile’s individual case before making such a decision.

This new ruling invalidates the laws of 28 states in the US that sentence to life imprisonment any individual who is tried as an adult and found guilty of certain serious crimes even if he/she is 14 years old.

This is a great victory for those that believe that juveniles have to be treated differently than adults. Many of these juveniles have been raised without parental supervision, and they come from a life of poverty and abuse. The highest court of our country, lead by the Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion, decided that kids cannot be locked up for life with no hope of release without having a judge reviewing each case individually.

This decision should make clear to every state legislature not to pass laws without taking into consideration the individual situation of each juvenile when he/she is found guilty of a serious crime. This decision does not mean that the crime the juvenile was convicted of does not deserve to be severely punished. It means we must view juveniles as juveniles individually and not to toss every single juvenile in prison for a lifetime without hope of release.

For over 30 years, Wallin & Klarich has been helping families when their children are facing serious criminal charges. Wallin & Klarich’s outstanding juvenile criminal lawyers are ready to help you now. Contact us at (1-888-280-6839). We will be there to help your family when you call.

In a bizarre turn of events, two Orange County attorneys are being prosecuted for a felony charge of conspiracy after being accused of unlawfully planting drugs in a parent volunteer’s automobile with the intention to have her arrested and prosecuted for a drug offense. It is alleged that these two attorneys were unhappy with the manner in which the parent volunteer supervised their son in 2010. The “drugs” found in the vehicle included marijuana, vicodin and percocet.

If the two lawyers are found guilty and convicted of felony charges of conspiracy, they are both facing a maximum of three years in custody.

When the parent volunteer vehemently denied that she knew anything about the drugs, the Irvine Police Department conducted a lengthy investigation that resulted in the prosecution of the two lawyers. Both lawyers were arrested and posted $40,000 in bail. They will be arraigned in Orange County Superior Court on July 17, 2012.

If the allegations in this case are true, one has to wonder what could possibly make these lawyers go to such extremes to falsely have a parent volunteer arrested for felony charges. The prosecution believes that this case is made even more serious because “these people are in a position where they understand the consequences of their actions.”

At Wallin and Klarich we have helped people for 30 years facing all types of criminal charges, including crimes that involve giving false information to police officers. Normally this offense is filed as a misdemeanor. However, in this case, due to the conduct resulting in an innocent person being arrested, the prosecutors have filed felony charges against these two lawyers. We will keep you posted on developments on this case.

If you or a loved one has been accused of a felony charge in California, please contact Wallin & Klarich's Orange County felony defense attorneys at 1-888-749-0034 or fill out our intake form to receive immediate assistance and answers to all your questions regarding felony charges in California.

If you are charged with a criminal offense, it is extremely important that you hire a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney.

Police in Ontario believe that at long last they have solved a murder case that went cold 18 years ago. A truck driver was sitting in his big rig at the massive truck stop in Ontario on December 29, 1994 when someone shot him to death and stole his wallet. Police believe it was merely a random robbery that turned violent.

Despite interviews with various witnesses at the time, police were unable to develop any leads. The case went cold until 2010 when homicide investigators took a fresh look at it. Using a national crime database the officers came up with a DNA match to a truck driver who was on federal probation in Florida for a drug trafficking conviction. They arranged for him to be arrested during a visit with his parole officer. The U.S. Marshal took the suspect, Demus Lushan Peterson, into custody pending extradition to California.

Peterson is charged with murder (PC 187) and murder with the use of a firearm (PC 245). The murder charge carries a mandatory 15 years to life penalty on conviction. The gun charge can add another 25 years to life to the original charge.

While the family of the murder victim must be resting easier, the defendant retains the right to a fair trial. As the penalties explained above suggest, a murder conviction can destroy a defendant’s hope of ever having a life free from state custody again. If you are charged with murder or another crime, it is in your best interests to hire a Southern California criminal defense attorney. We at Wallin & Klarich will work diligently for you. Call us today at (888) 280-6839).

Murder charges are serious business, and require the legal expertise of a southern California murder defense attorney. A recent story from Texas has made national headlines, and brings to bear a question that has found its way into the press elsewhere lately as well: when does an act of self-defense become an act of aggression, or offense?

Last week the quick actions of a father made him something of a national hero in many people’s minds. A so far unnamed rancher from Shiner, Texas was informed that his 4-year-old daughter was being molested by a hired ranch hand. While details of the attack remain unclear, apparently he raced to the scene and attacked the molester, hitting him repeatedly in the head. The suspect died during the beating. On first consideration, one may feel that he was justified, for he was merely doing what any father would do.

But is “what any father would do” justifiable under the law? Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon suggests as much; he indicated that the father probably is not going to be arrested. The fact that much of what actually occurred has not been reported, it is difficult to argue whether this is the case or not. However, what is clear is that if the molester was actually caught in the alleged act, the father was justified in applying force to restrain him. How much force was necessary is a point that warrants consideration.

The father admits to hitting the alleged molester repeatedly. If the initial hit subdued the attacker, however, an argument could be made that the subsequent ones no longer fell under defense, but became acts of aggression. In such a case in California, the father could be charged with manslaughter (PC 191.5), or even second-degree murder (PC 187). An autopsy may show whether the alleged attacker died before the final blows were made.

Some of the more important details have yet to be reported. For instance, it is unclear whether the father actually caught the molester in the act of sexual assault. Sheriff Harmon indicated that the child was not physically injured. Obviously the father felt he needed to protect his daughter, but was this evoked simply by his being told of the attack?

What the father actually saw, whether his initial blows were enough to stop the attack, after which police could have been called – these are issues that need clarifying. Certainly the father’s actions are understandable. However, while this case and that of Trayvon Martin are dissimilar, they do both raise the question of when an act of self-defense turns offensive.

If you face a charge of murder or other offense, hire a southern California defense attorney who has the resources and know-how to take on the challenge. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience successfully defending persons accused of murder. Call us today at (888) 280-6839.

An individual charged with automobile burglary in Los Angeles (PC 459) would do well to seek the assistance of a Southern California defense attorney. This charge is a wobbler, meaning it may be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony; however, a felony burglary conviction can mean serving time in state prison.

California law distinguishes automobile burglary from theft in order to provide stiffer sentencing for individuals who actually break into the vehicle. In many ways the two are comparable – an intent to steal is necessary, but in both cases the defendant doesn’t actually have to take anything. The most significant difference, however, is as mentioned, the defendant must actually have broken into the car.

This factor creates a dimension of complexity to this charge. What if the defendant breaks the window? Case precedent shows that, while a broken window can indeed be a means of entering the vehicle, in itself it does not always establish automobile burglary. A defendant who is caught breaking a car window may, for instance, admit that he did so, but suggest he was merely vandalizing the vehicle.

Similarly, if the defendant enters an unlocked vehicle and uses the inside latch to open the trunk, this is not considered breaking and entering. If he steals something from the trunk, the charge would be theft, but not automobile burglary. On the other hand, a charge may be made if the defendant applied pressure in some way which resulted in the door unlocking. Generally the door or trunk lock must have been compromised for an automobile burglary to be successfully prosecuted.

Automobile burglary is charged either as a misdemeanor or felony burglary depending on the specifics of the case and the defendant’s criminal history. A misdemeanor conviction carries up to a year in county jail; a felony can bring as much as 3 years in custody. For this reason, if you are charged with automobile burglary you need to speak with a Southern California defense attorney. We at Wallin & Klarich have spent over 30 years successfully defending persons accused of automobile burglary. Call us today at (888) 280-6839.

A competent Orange County defense attorney can play a vital role in the outcome of a case. From the outset he can wield influence, even when it comes to the setting of bail. Indeed, bail fees are so inconsistent between and within counties that the matter bears discussion.

Redding, California’s KRCR News reported recently that bail for a woman arrested for stealing four beers out of a neighborhood garage was set at a full $100,000. The same bail was applied to another case in Redding where a CHP officer faces 11 felony charges ranging from possession of assault weapons and explosives to embezzlement. How can such an inconsistency be explained?

It is often very difficult to try to understand the logics that some judges use when they set the amount of bail in a particular case. Judges possess significant discretion in setting the amount of bail. A defendant who is unfortunate enough to be assigned to a court whose judge is particularly strict may find himself facing a much higher bail than one tried for a similar crime in a courtroom next door. Judges will argue that they are fair, and apply their bail practices without bias, and no one is arguing that they don’t. But is it really necessary for a woman who stole four beers – at most a misdemeanor – to have the same bail as a person who faces many years in state prison?

The Los Angeles County Jail is dealing with a serious condition of overcrowding. Reports circulate that inmates are fighting over trying to locate a place to sleep when in custody. However, the judges in Los Angeles County definitely differ greatly from judge to judge in terms of the setting of bail in criminal cases. While it is true that certain factors such as a defendant’s prior record play a role in determining the bail amount, the county of arrest and legal philosophy of the judge leave California with no uniformity whatsoever.

If you are arrested on a criminal charge, you will need a competent Southern California defense attorney in your corner. We at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years working with clients facing a range of charges. Call us for a consultation at (888) 280-6839.

In some cases, a husband and wife want to be legally separated instead of divorced. Generally, the spouses are not looking to be divorced for religious or other personal reasons. In such cases, you need a qualified Orange County family lawyer who knows how a legal separation differs from a divorce.

Legal separation proceedings can be brought on the same grounds as divorce actions. However, unlike in a divorce, a judgment of legal separation does not terminate the marital status of the parties. In effect, the parties remain married in name only without the related rights and responsibilities that attach to marital status. Legal separation is an alternative to a divorce.

Sometimes spouses who have come to parting of the ways often seek a legal separation instead of a divorce because their religious faith prohibits from getting divorced. Other times, the spouses seek a legal separation instead of a divorce in order to retain eligibility for medical insurance that would otherwise be lost by a termination of the marriage.

Aside from terminating the marital status of the parties, a legal separation is very similar to a divorce. Like a divorce, in a legal separation the court makes final orders on support, child custody and visitation as well on the division of property and debts. Following a judgment of legal separation, the parties acquire no further community property and owe each other no spousal duties of care and support except as ordered by the court in the legal separation judgment.

It is important to note that following a judgment of legal separation, the court may grant a divorce judgment, terminating the parties marital status. A new petition for a divorce will have to be filed with the court.

If you want to file for legal separation or are seeking legal advice as to whether it is in your best interest to file for legal separation, Wallin & Klarich has experienced Orange County family lawyers who can help you. Call toll free at 888-749-7428 to speak with an attorney today.

If you are facing a burglary charge, the Los Angeles burglary defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich may be able to help. Burglary is a strike offense in California; receiving a conviction can seriously impair your ability to work or find housing.

A string of recent burglaries in the Southland are thought to be connected. The modus operandi of the perpetrators is to pose as Department of Water and Power employees or city construction workers. They work as a team: one appears at a resident’s door, introduces himself, and then lures him to the backyard or other part of the house. Meanwhile, a second member of the team sneaks inside and steals whatever he can find of value.

The Los Angeles Police Department reports that as many as nine homes have been burglarized in the San Fernando Valley in the past year. Burglars using a similar ruse have struck in West Los Angeles and North Hollywood as well. Police believe the various crimes are being committed by the same group despite what are sometimes conflicting descriptions of the perpetrators given by victims. Certain details are common in most all cases; e.g. the individual who introduces himself refers to himself as “Jerry,” and the “teams” communicate with each other via cell phones or walkie talkies.

The suspects are still at large.

California state law defines burglary of a residence (PC 459) as first degree burglary, whether or not anything is actually taken. This is a strike offense, and carries a potential penalty of 2-6 years in state prison. Add to this the offense of false impersonation in order to harm an individual or gain a benefit for oneself (PC 529), and the suspects, if caught and convicted, may face serious punishment, indeed.

If you are charged with a burglary, don’t rely on a public defender to help you. You need a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney on your side that is aggressive and experienced. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have spent over 30 years defending clients with a large range of issues. Call us today at 1-888-749-0034.

A retired Houston-area firefighter faces up to life in prison after a jury convicted him of murder for gunning down his unarmed neighbor during a dispute over a noisy house party.

Rodriguez used Texas’ “Stand your ground” law in his murder defense. As in many other states, the law is an expansion of basic self-defense doctrine. The law in part "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used.

Raul Rodriguez made a number of calls to police dispatch before he decided to confront his neighbors late at night about the noise coming from their party. Rodriguez brought his cell phone and a handgun and while walking over to the neighbors’ house, he was confronted by two men who jumped out of a pick up. Rodriguez, who recorded the confrontation on his cell phone video, indicated that he was in fear—and he shouted out that he was armed and would use his weapon to protect himself.

One of the men then shouted that he was going to get his weapon. At some point after that, one of the men can be heard laughing—a scuffle then ensues—and a single shot rings out, killing one of the men who confronted Rodriguez.

Perhaps a major flaw in the defense case was the failure of Rodriguez to take the witness stand in his own defense. While all criminal defendants have a constitutional right to remain silent and refuse to testify, there are instances when it is critical that an accused explains to a jury why he or she decided to take action. This was clearly one of those cases.

Rodriguez murder conviction could result in a life sentence in prison. Stay tuned as his appeal takes place. A new trial could result, in which case he will have new lawyers who should tell him he should explain his actions---which were likely lawful--to the jury!

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges in Southern California, please contact our Southern California murder defense attorneys of Wallin & Klarich at 1-888-280-6839 or submit one of our forms to receive immediate assistance.

An Alhambra man was convicted in early June of voluntary manslaughter (CA PC 192) for a brutal slaying in 2007. The circumstances of the case – he was found by the courts to have killed his girlfriend and stuffed her body in a plastic bag – beg the question why he didn’t receive a more stringent conviction. In this case the coroner was unable to definitively name the cause of death. Thus, during the first trial the jury was unable to convict the defendant on first degree murder (CA PC 187). In other words, they knew he was guilty, but resorted to a lesser conviction out of necessity.

This case illustrates how courts will rule when a number of different statutes are in play. It also serves as an introduction to the way different forms of homicide are distinguished by the law. In a nutshell, all murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders. Murder by definition is the killing of a human being with malice.

A first degree murder includes malice and premeditation, and carries a maximum penalty of 25 years to life in California. A Special Circumstances enhancement (190.2) carries a penalty of death or life without the possibility of parole. Second degree murder entails malice, but without premeditation. It carries a penalty of 15 years to life.

Manslaughter (PC 192) is also homicide, but it is not murder from a legal standpoint. There are two major categories for manslaughter – voluntary and involuntary. A third may be included – vehicular manslaughter (PC 191.5), since it carries its own set of penalties. Voluntary manslaughter is defined as homicide in a sudden heat of passion. Penalties for PC 192(a) range from 3-11 years in state prison. Involuntary manslaughter is unintentional homicide.

Courts have not had very much discretion in sentencing since indeterminate sentencing was superseded by clear penalty ranges in 1977. The lack of a clear cause of death in the Alhambra murder case allowed prosecutors to seek a conviction on a lesser charge.

If you have been charged with murder or manslaughter, it is vital that you secure the services of a strong and competent Los Angeles criminal defense attorney. We at Wallin & Klarich have a history of over 30 years successfully defending clients. Call us today at (888) 280-6839.

Some people are their own worst enemy. Lenny Dykstra had it all – talent that allowed him to play major league baseball and win a World Series, money, and fame. Unfortunately, his alleged actions after leaving baseball have gone a long way toward casting a pall on what otherwise would be a brilliant career. A denial of a motion to drop federal charges last week is just the latest in a long succession of legal issues for this one-time Mets star.

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson heard a motion in a Los Angeles federal court last week to dismiss charges ranging from embezzlement to bankruptcy fraud, according to CBS Sports. Dykstra was arrested in April of 2011 for allegedly hiding, selling, or destroying over $400,000 worth of items from a home of his that had been placed in a bankruptcy trust. If he is convicted on all charges, he faces a maximum of 80 years in federal prison.

If that were not enough, Dykstra is already serving three years in prison for grand theft auto and providing a false statement about his finances. In addition, he was sentenced to nine months in jail this year for exposing himself to women he met online.

Dykstra’s legal issues began over 20 years ago when he crashed his car while driving under the influence. He and a former teammate were both injured. Allegations have been made against him in the past of sexual assault and sexual harassment. An investigation conducted by ESPN found that he has faced more than two dozen criminal charges since 2007.

The future appears bleak for this once great talent. However, the hallmark of our justice system is that he is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the courts.

If you have been charged with theft or embezzlement, it is vital that you secure the services of a strong Los Angeles criminal defense attorney. A felony conviction can severely impact your future in many ways. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience defending clients. Call us today at 1-888-749-0034.

In a Massachusetts case that is likely to have nationwide impact, accordingly to goodmorningamerica.com, a teenager was found guilty of motor vehicle homicide after causing an accident as he was texting while driving. He was the first person in that state to be charged and convicted of motor vehicle homicide for texting while driving. The defendant had pleaded not guilty to a series of charges before being convicted in court June 6.

The incident occurred on February 20 of this year when then 17-year-old Aaron Deveau was driving his automobile down a street in Boston. He allegedly was sending a text to a friend when he lost control of the car and swerved to the other side of the road, crashing head-on with a truck. The victim received massive trauma to the head to the extent that, according to his sister, “There was no hope for him.”

Deveau was arraigned on an armful of charges, including:

• Motor vehicle homicide
• Negligent operation of a motor vehicle
• Using a mobile phone while operating a motor vehicle
• Reading or sending an electronic message
• Negligent operation of a motor vehicle
• Illegally moving into an opposing lane of traffic
• Injury from mobile phone use

The defendant argued that he was not texting when the accident occurred. However, police in charge of investigating the accident determined that the accident occurred at 2:36 p.m., and that Deveau had sent and received a message within two minutes of that time. He faces a maximum penalty of four years in state prison. The death of the victim, meanwhile, has left three children without a father.

38 states currently have laws that make texting while driving illegal, including California. This case is likely to set a precedent for others. Indeed, a dramatic upsurge in injury accidents caused by distracted individuals who text while they drive demands that courts crack down on violators.

While texting and driving is foolish and dangerous, it is so widespread that is has become common practice even for individuals who otherwise are upstanding citizens. If you are charged with vehicular homicide, it is imperative that you hire an attorney who will fight to keep you out of jail. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience defending clients. Call us today at (888) 749-0034.

Not all driving under the influence convictions in California involve alcohol. For a conviction based in whole or part on drug use:

1. The drug must be a substance or combination of substances other than alcohol that can impair driving to an appreciable degree (California Vehicle Code section 312); and
2. It must be proved that the defendant was in fact impaired by that drug (People v. Enriquez (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 661).

Note that the ruling in People v. Enriquez does not say that in drug cases juries must be instructed that the level of impairment must be “appreciable.” However, the opinion makes it clear that this is a correct statement of law. In People v. Hasson (2007), the defendant was charged with vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. The prosecution’s toxicologist testified that because of the unpredictable effects of marijuana, a scientific conclusion that an individual is driving under the influence of marijuana cannot be based on a blood sample absent field sobriety tests.

Intoxication was evidenced solely by the defendant’s bad judgment in driving on the shoulder in a conditional use lane outside the hours that driving there was permitted. The prosecution’s expert testified that small amounts of alcohol can combine with methamphetamine to produce a euphoria that impairs good judgment and increases risk-taking and reckless driving.

If you have been convicted of driving under the influence in Orange County, you will need the professional assistance of the experienced dui defense lawyers at Wallin & Klarich to vigorously represent you. At Wallin & Klarich, we have helped people accused of dui offenses in California 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.

The Seattle Times reports that the Supreme Court has decided not to review two cases which highlight a long-undetermined issue: how much latitude do officers have in using Taser guns against suspects. The denial of this much-anticipated review will likely leave the issue largely unresolved.

An appellate court combined two cases from two states in determining that while police officers used excessive force, they cannot be sued in federal court. The central case, which grew out of an arrest in Seattle, was brought by a woman who claimed her Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

Malaika Brooks was stopped by officers in 2004 for excessive speed in a school zone. She refused to sign the citation, which led to an altercation when police tried to arrest her. They Tasered Ms. Brooks in three locations – the neck, arm, and thigh. One of the issues involved the short interval police allowed between each shot. All three occurred within about a minute. It is argued that she had no opportunity in each case to recover and submit to authorities. Another issue is that Ms. Brooks was seven months pregnant. Officers verbally acknowledged that they knew this, considering aloud where to apply the Taser.

It was ultimately determined that the police did use excessive force, but could not be sued in federal court. It was noted that at the time Seattle Police had no clear policy on Tasers. This has since been rectified.

The Supreme Court refused to review the two cases, citing that each was too specific and did not bring into question general Taser practices. Many law enforcement officials are disappointed, having hoped that a ruling from the high court would help clarify the issue.

If you are arrested for a criminal charge, you retain certain rights. It is very important that you secure the services of an attorney who will fight for you. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience defending clients. Call us today at (888) 280-6839.

A coach who has been released from his position at Bellflower High School was arraigned at Norwalk Superior Court on Monday. He pled not guilty to 20 felony counts related to alleged incidents of molesting his stepdaughter over a four year period.

Bryan E. Shepherd has been in custody since December on charges that he repeatedly performed sexual acts on the minor beginning when she was 13. Allegations include child molestation, unlawful sexual intercourse, and sodomy of a minor and sexual penetration by a foreign object. The defendant is being held on $1 million bail.

Bellflower High School officials emphasized that the acts did not occur on school grounds. Moreover, while Shepherd was a part-time coach at the school, he did not teach there. Often high schools hire coaches from outside their teaching staff to work with students when necessary. However, coaches have to be screened with the same process as teachers, substitutes, and aides, having their fingerprints taken and run to determine whether any felony convictions exist. Needless to say, if an individual has never faced charges, such a screening would produce a negative result.

If Shepherd is convicted, he faces significant prison time, particularly for the acts which occurred before the victim was age 14. It is important to keep in mind, however, that in the eyes of the law he is innocent until proven guilty.

If you are charged with child molestation, the consequences of a conviction can be dire. You may face jail or prison time, and may be required to register as a sex offender. It is vital that you secure the services of an experienced and competent attorney who will fight for you. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have spent more than 30 years defending clients charged with many kinds of criminal charges. Call us today for a consultation at (888) 280-6839.

“Keep talking and I’m going to get my gun!”

Careless words, even when spoken in jest, can leave a person vulnerable to prosecution. Certain criteria must be met under the provision which covers terrorist threats in Orange County – including that the recipient of the threat must be rendered fearful – but gray areas can become a matter of judgment.

The term “terrorist” carries connotations which may leave a person who is taken into custody wondering how such a charge could be made. After all, you didn’t threaten a room full of people, or draw a weapon on an airplane. However, California Penal Code, Section 422 is designed to protect individuals from threats that evoke fear, or terror. The issue may seem nothing more than a matter of semantics, but it is a serious one, indeed, and if you have been thusly charged, you need a Southern California defense attorney.

PC 422 defines a terrorist threat as a threat to “commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement be made verbally, in writing, or by means or an electronic communication device.” In essence, you are breaking the law even if you have no intention of carrying out the threat. Calling a neighbor whose barking dog is keeping you awake in the middle of the night and saying, “Shut that dog up or I’m going to come over there!” can be enough to put you in a jail. Veiled threat though it is, the context suggests you plan to commit violence

Note that a threat need not be made in person or by phone, either. Sending a threatening email falls under the umbrella of a terrorist threat as well. You may notice that the news these days often includes stories of individuals who are arrested for making threats by text or email message. They may be lured to write things in the virtual world that they would not dare say face-to-face because there is an illusion of distance and anonymity.

What if you didn’t mean what you said? Can you really spend years of your life in state prison for an idle threat you had no intention of carrying out? That depends on how it is perceived. To be convicted under PC 422 it must be proven that:

• The receiver, or victim, was legitimately made fearful by the threat
• The victim’s fear must be reasonable
• The fear must be sustained over time.

An estranged spouse may claim to be living in fear after you make an idle threat in a heated phone exchange. Whether she is actually fearful is one of those gray areas. If the spouse wants to pursue a terrorist threat charge against you out of spite, it may be difficult to show she was not fearful. While the burden of proof is on the prosecution, one can imagine that a jury will look at the threat and circumstances, along with the spouse’s actions thereafter, to determine whether true fear existed.

The third criterion also leaves room for argument. What constitutes “sustained over time”? How much time would need to elapse during which the victim is fearful? Case precedent may be used by either side to help support a definition.

Ultimately, the point that should be taken away from this discussion is that you may be walking on thin ice if you are imprudent in the words you use. A seeming innocuous comment made in a moment of frustration can result in criminal prosecution.

If you are accused of making terrorist threats, seek the assistance of legal professionals who have over 30 years of experience helping clients just like yourself. Call Southern California defense attorneys Wallin & Klarich for a consultation today at (888) 280-6839.

For some individuals who are truly destitute financially, a public defender in Orange County may be the only option. However, as with anything else, getting legal services for free can come with a price. Moreover, a public defender may not be free at all.

While public defenders must pass the California Bar, they generally are new to law. Moreover, top graduates often get offers with good firms right out of law school. Using a public defender may mean, then, getting someone who is inexperienced and mediocre. And if a defendant hopes for a lawyer who is a specialist in the area of the charge, a PD is unlikely to be a good candidate.

Public defenders are actually civil servants. As such, they receive a salary that is generally much less than what a private attorney makes. They don’t receive any extra pay for success, so there is little incentive for them to give a particular case that extra effort aside from altruism. Indeed, since many PD offices load their employees down with as many as 100 -200 cases at a time, there is little time for work on individual cases at all.

Many times a defendant meets his public defender for the first time just before entering court to enter a plea. Such a brief encounter cannot provide a lawyer with sufficient information to know what the client’s best interests are. Crucial details of a case are likely to be missed. In cases where the PD may meet with the client after the initial arrangement, he or she may be so burdened with other cases that he or she does not have time to digest the pertinent facts of a case adequately to develop an effective defense strategy.

Indeed, a defendant is fortunate if he has only one PD. The Office of the Public Defender often has such a high caseload that a particular assignment may be shared among several attorneys. The emphasis in such an environment is often placed on closing cases quickly. We often receive calls from defendants or their families with stories that their public defender did no investigation of their case. Also, we are told that the public defender never provided the accused with a copy of the police report or even sat down to discuss the report with the accused. Of course, no defendant should ever consider making any decision on their case without having reviewed the police reports with his or her attorney.

If all this were not enough to convince a person that a private attorney is almost certainly a better option, public defenders aren’t really free to many clients. If the client has a job or bank account, or some other asset, he may be required to help pay the costs. The court is required by law per Penal Code Section 987.8(b) to conduct a hearing to determine the ability of the accused to repay the county for using the public defender.

You will have a choice when you or your loved one is facing criminal charges. You can do all you can to obtain experienced criminal defense representation, or you can “gamble” that the public defender will do all that is necessary to aggressively defend you. You should ask yourself whether you can afford to “gamble” on your freedom and your criminal record. The criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have more than 30 years of experience helping clients with their criminal matters, and we are here to help you. Call us for a consultation today at 1-888-749-0034.