Southern California Defense Blog

The US Supreme Court is deciding that very issue. The case stems from a Florida case, where a police dog in the front yard of a house smelled marijuana, thus prompting police to enter the house and search the premises. Police found marijuana inside the residence and made an arrest.

After being found guilty of the related charges, the defendant appealed and the Florida Supreme Court overturned the ruling, saying that the search was a violation of the defendants 4th amendment rights.

The police and the DA say that this is legitimate “police investigative work”. However, defense lawyers and citizens are strongly protesting this police conduct.

The argument is clear on behalf of those who support the constitutional right of all citizens to be free from unlawful searches in their home. Isn't a police dog nothing more than an extension of law enforcement? Shouldn’t the law require that police obtain a search warrant before busting into your home and arresting you because a dog “sniffs” out what he or she believes is unlawful drugs?

The Florida Supreme Court said the police went to far this time and threw out the drug conviction. However, the US Supreme Court is considering taking on the “dog sniffing case” and if they do nobody knows how they will rule.

What are your thoughts?

While most people know that smuggling immigrants into the United States is a federal crime, most people don't know that employing an illegal immigrant is also a federal crime. Knowing the laws surrounding these crimes is imperative if you want to avoid lengthy jail sentences or heavy fines.

Federal law criminalizes the full spectrum of activities that comprise:

• Smuggling
• Inducing an alien to enter
• Bringing an alien to the U.S.
• Transporting him/her within the U.S.
• Harboring an illegal alien
• Employing an illegal alien.

Punishments vary from misdemeanor sentences/fine to felony mandatory minimum prison sentences. In addition to the type of activity involved, it is important for the Federal Criminal Lawyer to be mindful of other potentially aggravating factors that can make a dramatic difference in penalty, such as:

• The identity of the smuggled alien (e.g., aggravated felon?)
• The number of aliens
• The creation of danger or an injurious result
• The purpose for smuggling (e.g., for financial gain)

Common defenses that must be considered by the Federal Criminal Defense Attorney are:

• Lack of specific intent to violate the law
• Lack of knowledge of the alien’s immigration status
• Is the alien’s immigration status actually illegal?
• Alien under official restraint
• Religious organization exception
• Duress
• Free exercise clause

To navigate through the Federal Court system successfully and have a better chance of not being charged with a Federal Crime, you must contact Wallin & Klarich to help you or your loved one. With over 30 years of experience as Federal Criminal Lawyers, Wallin & Klarich will assist you in this difficult time. Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.

Federal laws regarding bribes are broadly construed in order to effectuate the legislative purpose of deterring corruption. It is a crime to corruptly give, offer or promise anything of value to any public official with intent:

• To influence any official act
• To influence such public official to commit any fraud on the U.S.
• To induce such public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official

These are extremely serious charges and require an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer, as the federal court system is much different than the state court system.

In essence, the law is violated when a defendant expresses an ability and a desire to pay the bribe…no matter how small. The punishment for bribing a public official is imprisonment up to 15 years.

The crime of bribery is distinguished from the crime of “illegal gratuity.” Bribery requires a quid pro quo (a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act). An illegal gratuity, on the other hand, may constitute merely a reward for some future act that the public official will take or for a past act that he has already taken. The punishment for an “illegal gratuity” is much less than bribery – up to 2 years imprisonment.

With this major discrepancy in punishment, every Federal Criminal Attorney should consider and evaluate the elements of the crime alleged and other lesser related crimes.

To navigate through the Federal Court system successfully and have a better chance of not being charged with a Federal Crime, you must contact Wallin & Klarich to help you or your loved one. With over 30 years of experience as Federal Criminal Lawyers, Wallin & Klarich will assist you in this difficult time. Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.

The federal court system is very different than the state court system. If you are ever charged with a federal crime, the first thing you should do is contact a Southern California federal crimes attorney. This is especially true if your immigration status is in question.

In some instances, a person may or may not know if he/she is a U.S. citizen. For example, birth abroad does not automatically exclude U.S. citizenship because a person may acquire or derive U.S. citizenship from one or both parents.

The immigration code sections setting forth the rules on acquisition and derivation of citizenship are among the most difficult to decipher, and Congress frequently amends the relevant statutes, sometimes making the new provisions retroactive and sometimes prospective.

Whether an individual born abroad has acquired or derived U.S. citizenship turns on the confluence of several factors, including:

• Year of the person’s birth
• Whether both parents are U.S. citizens?
• If not, which parent?
• When the parent(s) became citizen(s)?
• The marital status of the parents
• If born out of wedlock, whether the person was legitimated?
• The length of time the citizen parent(s) resided in the U.S. prior to the person’s birth abroad
• Whether the person was legally admitted to or resided in the U.S.
• Whether the non-citizen’s parents, grandparents or great-grandparents were born in the U.S. or ever became naturalized U.S. citizens

To navigate through the Federal Court system successfully and have a better chance of not being charged with a Federal Crime, you must contact Wallin & Klarich to help you or your loved one. With over 30 years of experience as Federal Criminal Lawyers, Wallin & Klarich will assist you in this difficult time. Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.

If you thought that government lawyers do not lie in court to obtain convictions, you better think again. In a major terrorism prosecution a federal judge in Orange County imposed monetary sanctions against the FBI and prosecution lawyers for deliberately withholding material documents from the defense in violation of a court order.

A US District Court Judge ruled on Thursday November 17, 2011 that “parties cannot choose when to tell the court the truth”. “They must be truthful with the court at all stages of the proceeding if judicial review is to have any real meaning”

The court imposed monetary sanctions and ordered the FBI to pay the opposing party's legal fees due to the FBI’s unlawful conduct.

This decision by the federal court could have major implications in future US terrorism investigations.

Every member of our society has to be protected from such conduct by the government. If the FBI and government officials can deliberately withhold critical evidence from the court then we are all in trouble.

When you are facing criminal charges the law requires the prosecution to be honest and deal in a fair manner with the defense. When your feel that the prosecution is not acting in good faith it is your job as a competent federal crimes attorney to file the appropriate motions to protect your client. Wallin and Klarich knows this and has been doing all we can to protect our clients from inappropriate actions on the part of prosecutors for over 30 years.

If you would like our help in protecting your legal rights go to wklaw.com for more information about how we can help you or call us toll free at 877-466-5245.

If you are ever contacted by Federal Agents as part of an investigation, the first thing you should do is remain silent and ask to contact a Federal Criminal Lawyer because the Federal criminal justice system is an overwhelming place to be. Even though you may have given incriminating statements to Federal Agents, there still may be hope of excluding those incriminating statements and keeping you out of jail.

The most common ground for suppression of statements is a violation of a person's Miranda rights, which are warnings to guard against self-incrimination during the interrogation of suspects in settings dominated or controlled by law enforcement officers. Statements elicited through a “custodial interrogation” cannot be used against someone unless the Miranda safeguards guarantee that the accused has been informed of and freely waived his/her right to remain silent and right to have an attorney present prior to the interrogation.

First, was the questioning done in a “custodial interrogation” setting?
• Would a reasonable person in the same situation have felt he/she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave?
• Where did the questioning take place? Particular locations are more threatening than others.
• Were the statements made by the suspect in response to government interrogation or express questioning?
• Were the statements incriminating?

Next, did law enforcement officials administer the Miranda warnings. Contrary to popular belief, a Federal Agent's failure to administer the Miranda warnings to a suspect is not by itself a violation of his/her rights; a violation of the suspect's rights occurs only when an "un-Mirandized" confession thereafter is introduced at a criminal trial.

Last, if the Miranda warnings were given:
• At what point were they given?
• Were they adequate?
• Were they waived? Was the waiver voluntary, knowing and intelligent?
• Were the Miranda rights invocated

To navigate through the Federal Court system successfully and have a better chance of not being charged with a Federal Crime, you must contact Wallin & Klarich to help you or your loved one. With over 30 years of experience as Federal Criminal Lawyers, Wallin & Klarich will assist you in this difficult time. Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034.

If you ever contacted by Federal Agents as part of a search and seizure of your person or property, the first thing you should do is contact a Federal Criminal Lawyer because the Federal criminal justice system is a frightening place to be and you have specific constitutional rights that must be protected

The 4th Amendment provides that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….” This protects two distinct types of expectations, one involving searches and the other seizures.

• A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed
• A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property
• A seizure of a person denotes a meaningful interference, however brief, with an individual’s freedom of movement

The legality of a search and seizure of a person and/or property can potentially be challenged by a Federal Criminal Lawyer. To establish viable grounds for a claim, counsel must have:

• A legitimate expectation of privacy by the client
• Governmental action that violates that expectation

The 4th Amendment only protects against searches by the U.S. government against “persons” affiliated with U.S.; it does not apply to the acts of private citizens, the acts of foreign officials, or the acts of U.S. officials in foreign countries against foreign citizens. In sum, a Federal Criminal defense lawyer will have to identify something tantamount to government action against a person connected to the U.S. to have a valid claim.

To navigate through the Federal Court system successfully and have a better chance of not being charged with a Federal Crime, you must contact Wallin & Klarich to help you or your loved one. With over 30 years of experience as Federal Criminal Lawyers, Wallin & Klarich will assist you in this difficult time. Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.

One can only hope to never be investigated or charged with a Federal crime. But if you receive a subpoena to testify before a Federal grand jury, the first thing you should do is contact a Federal Criminal Lawyer because the Federal criminal justice system is an intimidating place to be and you have know idea whether you are:

• the target of the investigation
• a subject of the investigation
• a witness

There is no 6th Amendment right to counsel in a grand jury proceeding, even for the target of a grand jury investigation. However, counsel may be retained by a grand jury witness and may serve important functions:

• to learn about the intentions of the grand jury
• to assist the client in making an informed decision about how to respond to the grand jury’s subpoena
• to inform the prosecution that the client will not be bullied during the testimony
• to counsel the client about the risks of testifying or not
• to obtain a continuance of the schedule grand jury appearance if necessary

If a grand jury witness decides to testify, counsel will prepare the witness for the type of questioning likely to occur inside the grand jury room. A witness has no right to counsel inside the grand jury room. However, counsel will wait outside the room to be available to consult with the client during questioning. Counsel will explain to the client which areas are suitable for questioning and which are not, so that the client recognizes when to ask to leave the grand jury room to confer with counsel.

To navigate through the Federal Court system successfully and have a better chance of not being charged with a Federal Crime, you must contact Wallin & Klarich to help you or your loved one. With over 30 years of experience as Federal Criminal Lawyers, Wallin & Klarich will assist you in this difficult time. Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.

Brent Wilkes, head of a company called ADSC, lobbied California congressman Randall Cunningham to secure funding and support for ADSC. Mr. Wilkes provided Congressman Cunningham with expensive meals, a houseboat, lavish trips and mortgage payments. As a result, Mr. Wilkes received many government contracts that were worth millions of dollars through Congressman Cunningham’s earmarks. Mr. Wilkes was subsequently charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, bribery, and money laundering. At trial, Mr. Wilkes asked the court to grant immunity to one of his key witnesses, explaining that the witness would provide significant rebuttal testimony that would contradict the immunized prosecution witnesses. The District Court denied Mr. Wilkes request to grant immunity to his witness absent a showing of prosecutorial misconduct. At trial, Mr. Wilkes was convicted.

The Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that a District Court can grant immunity to a defense witness absent any prosecutorial misconduct if the Defendant’s due process rights and right to a fair trial will be violated. The Court of Appeal explained that immunity shall be granted to a witness in exceptional cases where the fact finding process was so distorted through the prosecution’s decisions to grant immunity to its own witnesses and a denial of immunity to a defense witness with contradictory testimony violates a defendant’s due process. Here, Mr. Wilkes’ witness would have been material and relevant evidence to rebut any testimony presented by the immunized prosecution witnesses. The Court of Appeal stated that an evidentiary hearing should have been conducted to gather additional evidence regarding the proposed testimony of Mr. Wilkes’ witness.

If you or a loved one is charged with crime, it is important that you speak to the experienced federal crimes attorneys at Wallin and Klarich. Our Southern California attorneys will do a thorough investigation of all the facts and raise all possible defenses. Wallin and Klarich has over 30 years of experience in dealing with evading cases and has successfully defended similar individuals. Please call (888) 280-6839 anytime to speak with one our attorneys regarding your matter.

In a previous blog, we explained some of the general differences between Federal Court and the California State Court system. Now we will expand on some of the ways a case may end up in Federal Court as opposed to the California State Court system:

1. As stated earlier, Federal Court deals with Federal Crimes. Thus, if a person is alleged to have committed a Federal Crime, the case will be heard in Federal Court.

2. Another way a case may end up in Federal Court is if a civilian (non-military) commits a crime on a United States military base, in violation of a military code. Since the civilian is not subject to a military court marshal, their case must be heard before the Federal Court. The most common instance is a spouse receiving a DUI on a base.

3. Another way a case may end up in federal Court is if the alleged crime involves an act that crosses State borders. The most common example involves a crime that is committed over the internet, such as the trafficking of Child Pornography, etc.

4. Note: there are specific crimes as enumerated in Article Three of the United States Constitution, such as Treason, of which must be heard in Federal Court.

We hope that this gives you some general information about some of the ways a case may end up in Federal Court as opposed to the California State Court system. If you or a loved one needs the help of a federal criminal defense lawyer, call Wallin and Klarich today. Wallin and Klarich has a team of highly skilled, aggressive criminal defense attorneys ready to take your call 7 days week, 24 hours a day! Wallin and Klarich has been in the business of helping people with their Federal Criminal Defense matters for over 30 years and we would like to help you with yours! A qualified, experienced Federal Criminal Defense attorney from the firm will be able to evaluate your case when you call.

One can only hope to never be charged with a federal crime. But if you are arrested, the first thing you should do is contact a Southern California Federal Criminal Lawyer because the Federal criminal justice system is convoluted and often stringent in regard to bail and release.

Pretrial release under the Federal Bail Reform Act gives four provisions for setting bail:
(1) release the defendant on personal recognizance or unsecured bond;
(2) release the defendant on conditions;
(3) temporarily detain the defendant to permit revocation of conditional release, deportation or exclusion; or
(4) detain the defendant.

Factors the judicial officer shall take into account are
• the nature and circumstances of the offense charged
• the weight of the evidence
• the characteristics of the defendant (community ties, criminal history, employment, family ties, financial resources, mental condition, etc.)
• the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant’s release

Pretrial release on personal recognizance or an unsecured appearance bond will not be granted if the court determines that such release will not reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community. Federal judges have been given broader discretion to detain a defendant if there is a concern for the safety of the community, which includes a foreign community and not just physical harm.

To navigate through the Federal Court system successfully and have a better chance of being released from Federal custody, you must contact Wallin & Klarich to help you or your loved one. With over 30 years of experience as Federal Criminal Lawyers, Wallin & Klarich will assist you in this difficult time. Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.

Recently, it was reported that the former president of the Ventura County Chapter of the Hells Angels was arrested on federal charges stemming from an extortion plot and the firebombing of two competing tattoo shops back in 2007.

George Christie Jr., 64, of Ventura, was one of four defendants arrested recently on charges of federal conspiracy, extortion, and arson charges contained in a six-count indictment.

The indictment alleges that Christie conspired to threaten the owners the tattoo parlors in an effort to get them to close down their businesses. When the owners refused to close Christie allegedly conspired to firebomb the businesses. Christie is charged with extortion conspiracies, one count of conspiracy to use fire or explosives to damage property, and two counts of use of fire or explosives to damage property.

Both of the tattoo parlors were damaged in July of 2007 when Molotov cocktails were thrown into the businesses by individuals acting in furtherance of this conspiracy.

The three counts in the indictment that charge the extortions each carry a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison. The counts in the indictment that allege arson each carry a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison, and a mandatory minimum of five years in federal prison. Therefore, if he is convicted of all six counts in the indictment, Christie would face a statutory maximum penalty of 120 years in federal prison.

If you or a loved one have been accused or charged with a federal crime, it is very important that you speak with an experienced federal criminal defense attorney immediately, like the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. We have over 30 years of experienced handling this type of matters and can assist you in obtaining the best possible result. Call the law firm of Wallin & Klarich today at, (888) 749-0034 to speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney about your case.

One can only hope to never be charged with a Federal crime. But if you are, Federal sentencing has become the most crucial stage of the criminal justice process. Sentencing consequences is a major consideration for decisions made earlier in the process, including:
• the prosecutor’s selection of charges
• the defendant’s decision whether/when to cooperate with the government
• the defendant’s decision whether/when to plead guilty
• the terms and stipulations included in any plea agreement
As such, Defendants and their Federal Criminal Lawyers need to understand and predict the sentencing effects of their decisions from the outset of the case.
Unfortunately, the importance of sentencing has not resulted in clear and consistent laws proven effective at achieving the purposes of sentencing. Over the past 25 years following Congress’s enactment, and subsequent disregard, of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which has lead to a hodgepodge of statutory provisions that affect sentencing, including:
• mandatory-minimum penalties
• “mandatory” Sentencing Guidelines
• Case law
For most sentencing matters, the pre-sentence investigation and report prepared by the probation officer, and the sentencing hearing conducted by the judge, are the primary means for determining the nature and circumstances of the offence and the history and characteristics of the offender. However, prosecutors, and even law enforcement and probation officers, can have considerable influence over the sentencing options available to the judge by:
• control of the facts that are relevant to the statutory and guideline provisions
• their choice of what charges to bring and which facts to allege
• their control of motions for various types of sentence reductions
• penalizing non-cooperation and the exercise of a defendant’s rights
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently reinvigorated the role of judges and the opportunities for Federal Criminal Lawyers to advocate through a serious of constitutional decisions:
• U.S. v Booker (rendered the Sentencing Guidelines “effectively advisory”)
• U.S. v Gall (judges are obliged to consider all relevant factors in sentencing)
• Rita v U.S. (judges are free to disagree with a policy underlying a guideline)
This is a new and challenging period in Federal Sentencing, and to navigate through the Federal Court Sentencing successfully, you must contact Wallin & Klarich to help you or your loved one. With over 30 years of experience as Federal Criminal Lawyers, Wallin & Klarich will assist you in this difficult time. Visit our website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.
.

United States federal agents arrested and charged four men who are allegedly members of an international smuggling ring. According to federal authorities, it is the first time an alleged antiquities smuggling ring has been dismantled within the United States. The men are charged with conspiring to smuggle artifacts and money laundering.

Under federal law its illegal to engage in money laundering. The law porhibits anyone from conducting or attempting to conduct a financial transction that involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity either:

1) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity; or

2) with intent to engage in conduct constituting avoidance of taxes

when that person knows that the transaction is designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law.

Under the law, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the charged person knew the property involved in the transaction represented proceeds from some form, though not necessarily which form, of activity that contitues a felony under State or Fedreal law.

What are the potential punishments if convicted under federal money laundering laws?

If convicted of money laundering under federal law, a person faces a fine up to $500,00 or twice the value of the propertyinvolved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.

If you or a loved one has been arrested, it is imperative you contact our firm. Hiring an experienced criminal defense law firm is the best way to ensure you keep 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 877-466-5245 or go to our website at www.wklaw.com for more information.

One can only hope to never be charged with a Federal crime. But if you are, Federal
crimes carry much harsher sentences than State Court. Why?

1. Federal statutes have harsher and tougher sentencing laws than State statutes on
crimes that can be filed in State or Federal Court.

2. Generally, the maximum punishment for Federal crimes is much higher.

3. Federal prosecutors have much less discretion in negotiating plea bargains.

4. Federal judges have much less discretion in sentencing decisions.

5. Federal judges must follow strict sentencing guidelines procured by the Federal
legislature.

6. Federal crimes carry stringent punishment enhancements for most every crime.

For example, in a possession of child pornography case, where the punishment is severe
to begin with, the ultimate sentence can be increased for many additional reasons that
seem to be an inherent part of the underlying crime. For example:

•

Use of the computer

•

The exact number of images

•

The exact age of the children in the images

•

If the images are sadistic or masochistic

•

Video file vs. a photo image

•

If the images involve sexual exploitation or abuse

•

Relationship of the defendant to the minor

So, it is not as simple as being charged with a crime and being punished it. In Federal
Court, your sentence will be negatively affected by many more factors that may not seem
fair or just.

To navigate through the Federal Court system successfully, you must contact Wallin &
Klarich to help you or your loved one. With over 30 years of experience as Federal Law
Sentencing attorneys, Wallin & Klarich will assist you in this difficult time. Visit our
website at www.wklaw.com or call us at 888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.

.

On May 1, 2010, the country was tense as it was revealed that a SUV filled with explosives was driven into the heart of New York’s Times Square. The act of terrorism could have endangered the lives of hundreds of people. Fortunately, the explosives failed to detonate. 53 hours later, the FBI arrested the suspected perpetrator, Faisal Shahzad, an American citizen from Pakistan, moments before his flight bound for the United Arab Emirates (with the ultimate destination being Pakistan) was set to take off. Charges have yet to be filed because the investigation is still ongoing.

Shahzal arrived in the United States in 1997 under a student visa, where he eventually earned Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees from the University of Bridgeport, located in Bridgeport, Connecticut. He then worked as an accountant and financial analyst for companies around Connecticut. In 2008, he married Huma Asif Mian, an American citizen, and in 2009, he was granted American citizenship. Before the attack, he had undergone financial hardship, with his home going into foreclosure. In July 2009, he and his family moved to Pakistan, where he was believed to have taken part in a terrorist training camp. He returned to the United States in February 2010 and carried out his terror plot two months later.

This was a case of domestic terrorism. Because he is an American citizen, Shahzad will face federal charges under the traditional American court system. With the investigation still underway and Shahzad cooperating with investigators, charges have yet to be filed.

If you or a loved one is accused of a crime, it is important that you call an experienced attorney at Wallin & Klarich immediately. Our attorneys have the skill and expertise to provide you with the best possible defense. The experienced Los Angeles defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience handling all types of cases, including those charged with federal crimes. We know what to look for and we have the knowledge to get to the heart of the matter. Our attorneys can be reached by phone at 1-888-280-6839 or through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

In 1990, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Irving resigned from his San Diego Bench to protest Congress’ decision to pass mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines that removed judges’ discretion to impose sentences. Irving considered his position to be his “dream job,” but found the federal mandatory sentencing guidelines “unconscionable.”

The case behind his decision to resign stemmed from an enormous drug cartel prosecution in which he deemed many of the 98 defendants to be young and only peripherally involved in the conspiracy. However, new federal guidelines would have mandated five-year prison sentences for all of the defendants. Irving did not think the mandatory federal guidelines were a fair way to determine sentencing, especially considering the different circumstances associated with every defendant in each case. His resignation ignited a series of resignations by other judges around the country who had similar concerns.

Continue reading "Former U.S. District Judge Resigned From San Diego Bench to Protest Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Guidelines - How an Experienced Southern California Criminal Defense Firm Can Help You" »

Some members of the local legal community were surprised on Tuesday, December 15, 2009, when a U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney acquitted former Broadcom chief financial officer William J. Ruehle, and dismissed charges of fraud and backdating stock options against former Broadcom CEO Henry T. Nicholas. However, the judge did more than just dismiss the case with prejudice on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct, which is likely to preclude the case from ever being prosecuted again.

The judge also launched an attack on the federal prosecutors handling the case scorning them for intimidating and threatening key witnesses and lacking evidence to prove the allegations of backdating stock options in order to lower the Irvine semiconductor manufacturing giant compensation expenses on its financial statements to shareholders.

Broadcom is an Irvine chipmaker that during 10 years of public trading had grown into the largest technological company in Orange County employing 7,200 people worldwide and posting $4.6 billion in revenue in 2008. The trouble for the company started in 2007, when it announced a $2.2 billion in undisclosed compensation expenses as part of backdated stock option grants.

At the initial phase of criminal proceeding, the prosecution was able to secure the testimony of a former administrative assistant who had told former chief financial officer Ruehle that stock option backdating was an error in judgment. However, the prosecution was allegedly involved in intimidating witnesses and threatening their attorneys with filing criminal charges against witnesses in a failed attempt to shape their testimony ahead of the upcoming trial.

Continue reading "Broadcom Case Dismissed: William J. Ruehle and Henry T. Nicholas Exonerated" »

If your sentence for committing a federal crime contains some type of error, you must challenge the sentence within the time limits set by law, or you risk waiving your rights to contest the sentence altogether. In U.S. v. Aguirre-Ganceda (2010) 2010 DJDAR 890, the defendant filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to review his conviction for error. The United States Supreme Court denied cert, meaning that the Court declined to hear the case, and let the conviction stand. The defendant then filed a petition for rehearing of that denial. While his motion for rehearing was pending, the defendant also filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his prison sentence, believing that his prison sentence contained errors.

The trial court denied the motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the prison sentence because the trial court held that the motion was untimely. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the trial court’s denial. The Court of Appeal held that section 2255 of the United States Code, which applies to the type of motion the defendant filed, sets forth a one-year period of limitation. Additionally, this one year limitation period begins to run when the Supreme Court denies cert (declines to hear the case), making the judgment “final.” Because the defendant and his lawyer incorrectly believed that the limitations period started when the defendant’s petition for rehearing was denied, the defendant forfeited his right to contest his prison sentence.

Continue reading "Compliance with Time Limits is Crucial to Securing Your Rights" »

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), through the help of Congress has assembled a categorized list of drugs known as the schedule list. The list includes almost all of the drugs, and their derivative compounds, that can be found in the legal or illegal market. There are five “schedules” or categories; each with its own definition, limits, and punishment.

• Schedule One: (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.


• Schedule Two: (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.


• Schedule Three: (A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.


• Schedule Four: (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.


• Schedule Five: (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

Continue reading "Why You Need a Skilled Federal Criminal Defense Law Firm at Your Side when Facing a Federal Drug Offense" »