Southern California Defense Blog

The California Court of Appeal recently held that a Court abuses its discretion when it fails to make clear the statement of calculation method it used in ordering restitution to the victim of the crime.

In People v. Jones, No. C063113, the defendant entered a plea of no contest to driving under the influence and admitted prior DUI convictions. As part of a plea agreement, a charge of hit and run was dismissed. Nonetheless, the trial court ordered Jones to pay restitution to the victim of the hit and run.

At the restitution hearing, the victim testified that Jones damaged a camper that the victim used in her business. She testified that it took nine months to complete the repairs and sought $5,606.62 for lodging and meal expenses, wages she had to pay to others to run her business, and the cost of repairing her car’s bumper, which was torn off when she came to court. The court ordered restitution in the sum of $4,468.40, noting that the time it took to fix the camper was unreasonable. The court did not otherwise explain the method of calculating that figure.

Jones appealed the case arguing that the trial court erred in failing to explain its calculation method. The court of appeal agreed and reversed and remanded to have the trial court explain it’s calculation methods. Under Penal Code Section 1202.4, if a victim has suffered economic loss due to the defendant’s conduct, the court must require the defendant to make restitution to the victim. Courts must employ a method of calculating restitution that is rationally designed to determine the victim’s loss, and make a clear statement of the method used and how that method justified the ordered amount. Here, the trial court failed to make a clear statement of the calculation method it used.

If you or a loved one is facing a criminal charge, it is possible that you may also face restitution. It is important that you speak with an experienced attorney who can make sure the court follows the proper procedures when dealing with a determination of a proper restitution amount. At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California criminal defense attorneys have over 30 years of experience. We will fight to defend your rights and 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.

Evidence of a prior offense is most often used by the prosecution to increase seriousness of the crime or to increase the sentence. For example, a defendant with a prior conviction for driving under the influence, will face much harsher punishments if the prior convictions occurred within 10 years.

The California Penal Code allows a foreign conviction to be used as a serious felony prior when the record of conviction for the foreign offense shows conduct that qualifies as a serious felony in California. In other words, if the defendant’s actions in the foreign jurisdiction would amount to a felony in California, then the prosecution may use the prior conviction against the defendant in the new case.

There are a number of circumstances where a prior felony conviction from a foreign jurisdiction may not be used against a defendant. Hiring an experienced aggressive criminal defense firm is the best way to ensure you are not exposed to potentially stricter punishments.

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 Southern California criminal defense lawyer 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 (888) 280-6839 or go to our website at www.wklaw.com for more information. We will be there when you call.

Federal prosecutors are going forward with their perjury case against former MLB star Barry Bonds. This may be a surprise move by the prosecutors after the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a San Francisco federal judge’s ruling excluding crucial evidence to the prosecution’s case on hearsay grounds. The excluded evidence included certain blood and urine test results that the government could not link to Bonds. The government’s best chance of linking the test results to Bonds is to have Bonds’ friend and personal trainer, Greg Anderson, testify. Anderson has refused to testify and is serving jail time for that decision. Both sides stated the earliest a trial date can be set would be in March 2011. Prosecutors must prove that Bonds lied when he told a grand jury that he did not knowingly use anabolic steroids and human growth hormone.

Under 18 U.S.C. Section 1623 of the United States Code, it is a federal crime to make false statements before any court or grand jury of the United States while under oath. A perjury conviction shall be punished by up to five years in federal prison.

This case illustrates the importance of having an experienced attorney at your side. Although some may say that it was obvious that Barry Bonds used performance enhancing drugs, it is the prosecution’s duty to prove the crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution can only use admissible evidence, which includes evidence that is legally obtained. It will be tough for the prosecution to prove that Bonds lied to the grand jury when crucial evidence is not admissible.

If you or a loved one is facing a perjury charge, the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can help you. Our Southern California perjury attorneys have over 30 years of experience. We will fight for your rights and provide the best possible perjury defense. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

According to TMZ, officials have begun investigation into the extortion claims by Mel Gibson against his ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva. Gibson claims that he has hard evidence of Grigorieva trying to extort him for money with the threat of releasing the audio recordings of a phone conversation between the two. The audio recordings may have indicated that Gibson committed domestic violence by punching Grigorieva and knocking out two of her teeth. Gibson is alleging that Grigorieva threatened to release the audio recordings if Gibson did not agree to pay her a sum of money.

Under California Penal Code Section 518-519, extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.

Fear, such as will constitute extortion, may be induced by a threat, either:
1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person; or,
2. To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his family, of any crime; or,
3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime; or,
4. To expose any secret affecting him or them.

Every person who extorts any money or other property from another, under circumstances not amounting to robbery or carjacking, by means of force, or any threat, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years. See California Penal Code Section 520.

Attempting to extort money or other property from another is also a crime and considered to be a “wobbler.” This means that the prosecution has discretion to charge the crime as a misdemeanor or a felony. A misdemeanor conviction is punishable by imprisonment in county jail for up to one year. A felony conviction is punishable by up to three years in state prison. A fine can also be issued for up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000). See California Penal Code Section 524.

If you or a loved one is facing a charge for extortion, it is important that you speak with an experienced extortion attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California extortion attorneys have over 30 years of experience. We will aggressively fight to get you the best possible result. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Continue reading "Mel Gibson Claims he has Hard Evidence of Ex-Girlfriend Extortion – California Penal Code Section 518" »

The usage of DNA evidence has been in the media lately because of the arrest of the alleged Grim Sleeper. In that case, the police found the alleged serial killer’s DNA from a discarded pizza slice and was able to track him down using a familial DNA search.

California voters approved the state DNA program by passing Proposition 69 in 2004. The law required that people arrested for a felony must provide DNA samples to be stored in a criminal database accessible to law enforcement agencies. The DNA sample must be submitted even before they are convicted.

ACLU filed a challenge to the law last year in federal court, contending that the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure bars mandatory DNA testing of individuals arrested of a felony, without suspicion or warrant, before being convicted. The ACLU is appealing the denial of a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of the law.

Lawyers for Attorney General Jerry Brown struggled to persuade a federal appellate panel that felony arrestees should be forced to give DNA samples as required by the enacted law.

Circuit precedent seems to be against this law. In Friedman v. Boucher, 580 F. 3rd 847, a case out of Nevada which held that extraction of DNA from an arrestee, done to generate cold hits in a DNA databank, violates the 4th Amendment.

The collection of DNA samples can be highly controversial because of the potential constitutional violations. If you or a loved one was arrested and a DNA sample was taken from you, it is important to speak with an experienced DNA attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California DNA attorneys have years of experience in DNA evidence. We have been defending the criminally accused for over 30 years. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

A woman whose 6-month-old son was attacked by two pit bulls in Murrieta after she left him alone with the animals has been charged with felony child endangerment. . The attack occurred in April inside a condominium on Arboretum Way. The baby boy was fastened in a car seat and had been bitten by a pit pull while the boy’s mother and a male friend were in another room. Police said the diaper was ripped off and the boy was bitten on the scrotum, leaving the child with permanent injuries. Both dogs, a 70-pound pit bull and a 60-pound pit bull-mix, were taken by animal control officers from Animal Friends of the Valleys and later euthanized.
Child endangerment can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor depending on the circumstances of the case and the degree of endangerment that the child is exposed to. If the child is exposed to harm under conditions where great bodily injury or death is NOT likely, and the person willfully causes or permits the child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or, having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor. If, on the other hand, the child is exposed to harm under conditions where death or great bodily injury IS likely, and the person willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years.

In this case the mother of this poor infant is facing up to 6 years in prison and has already lost custody of her children. If you or a loved one are facing felony child endangerment charges in Southern California then don’t hesitate to contact the competent and experienced attorneys at the law firm of Wallin & Klarich. We’ll be there when you call or check us out at www.wklaw.com.

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" »

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.

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.

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" »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.