This is happening because it is becoming a well known fact that inmates are not serving the jail sentence imposed by the court.

Los Angeles County Jail is probably the best example of abuses of our legal system. In one case a defendant was sentenced to 2,390 days and was released from custody after serving only 21 days. This is less than 1% of his sentence. This also means that the defendant is not on probation for this offense because he has served his entire sentence.

District Attorneys from around the state have expressed their anger and frustration with the current system. Many other counties are being forced to release inmates prior to them doing 50% of their time.

It will be very interesting to see how things develop on this issue over the next few weeks.

If you are accused of any crime you need to contact Wallin and Klarich to help you decide what are the bst options for you in your case. Call us at 877-466-5245 toll free 24/7. We will be there when you call.

Siskiyou County is located on the border between California and Oregon, and was part of the Gold Rush that prompted settlers to move west in search of fortune. And just as crime was rampant back then, it seems as though these two bandits have gotten away with burglary and grand theft.

The case they broke into was protected by an alarm system, but the system malfunctioned and the alarm never sounded. The thieves knew what they were looking for too. The surveillance video shows the pair ignoring most of the smaller pieces and historical items, focusing rather on the larger pieces of gold.

It wouldn’t be too hard for a thief to case the courthouse and determine what was worth taking and what wasn’t. The gold nugget collection is prominently displayed in the courthouse for tourists and citizens alike to enjoy.

If caught and convicted, the thieves could face as many as 5 years in prison, including enhancement for stealing more than $3 million worth of assets. For the sleepy little town on the Northern California Border, this theft has been the talk of the town, and bringing the criminals to justice is priority number one.

In a shocking development ALL NINE JUSTICES ruled that the police and prosecutors were violating the constitutional rights of persons when they failed to first obtain a search warrant to track a person by use of a GPS device. The justices split on their reasoning but all nine agreed that the police could not legally continue to do this. Some of the justices concluded that it was definitely an invasion of a persons “privacy” rights under the constitution. The majority of the justices concluded that this was a “search” under the Fourth Amendment to our constitution and as a search required the police to obtain a search warrant.

It is very gratifying to know that even with the majority of our current Supreme Court being “conservative” on most criminal law matters, that they were willing to see that secretly putting a GPS device on your vehicle just is not legal under our constitution. One of the justices went so far as to say that putting a GPS device is similar to allowing the police to track every cell phone call you make or to monitor every Google search you do the internet. This justice said that the government cannot do these things as they are in violation of every persons privacy rights.

I hope everyone is as happy about this decision as we are at Wallin and Klarich. The protection of our clients rights is why Wallin and Klarich exists. This new decision will help us in our daily battle with prosecutors to see that justice is done.

We would love to hear your thoughts on this important decision.

In this case the accused was serving many years in prison. After he was convicted it was discovered that the police had failed to turn over critical evidence to the defense. There was only one eye witness who placed the accused at the scene of the robbery. This witness had told the police in the initial reports that he could never identify the robber and all he could say is that it was a “black man”.

Even after this new evidence was discovered all of the state courts turned own the accused appeals including the state supreme court. If the accused had stopped fighting he would be spending many more years in prison. However, he was wise enough to appeal his conviction to the United States Supreme Court. Even the very conservative US Supreme Court realized that this conviction could not stand. By a vote of 8 to 1 they reversed his conviction and granted Mr. Smith a new trial. There is a great chance that at a new trial with all of the evidence presented Mr. Smith will be found not guilty.

Please remember that if you give up on your appellate rights you will lose any chance of receiving a new trial. While this type of result does not occur very often, what is critical to remember is that it DOES HAPPEN and if it is your loved one spending years or decades or life in prison don’t you owe it to that loved one to keep fighting for them?

We are interested in knowing what you think about this injustice and you have to wondering how law enforcement can get away with “hiding the ball” from the defense. We certainly are

The court of appeals in People vs. Clancey threw out a judicial “offer” that had been made by the judge to the defendant. The court of appeal ruled 2 to 1 that judge cannot make offers to defendants. The court said that they cannot make anything more than a “prediction”. For years the court would tell a defendant that if he plead guilty he would receive a set sentence and if after the judge read the probation report the judge did not feel that sentence was sufficient then the defendant could withdraw his plea.

After this decision, this type of “judicial-defendant” agreement is no longer legal.

What this means is that a defendant will have to either accept the District Attorneys offer (which is normally not a very good one) or plead guilty to all the charges and “hope” that the judge gives him a fair sentence based upon the judge’s “prediction” as to what he might do. However, the judge is no longer bound by that “prediction” and that will mean that thousands of defendants will risk very little by going to jury trial. When this occurs the result will be that it will likely be impossible to provide enough courts for all of these jury trials. This will mean the court will have to dismiss some serious felony cases if a defendant is not permitted to have his jury trial within his statutory right to a jury trial, which is within sixty calendar days of his arraignment.

Unless our California legislature takes quick action to change the law to permit judicial offers to be made to defendants all hell is going to break loose in our criminal courts system very soon.

However, over the past ten years the current United States Supreme Court, lead by a conservative majority have slowly but surely weakened our citizens rights under “Miranda” so that they are now considered all but worthless. The burden is now on the accused to make absolutely and 100% clear that they do not want to speak without a lawyer. Making any statements short of those exact words and the police will be allowed to continue to badger you in an attempt to get a confession out of you.

Recently, even though a juvenile who was accused of a crime repeatedly begged to have his mother present before he answered questions, the court of appeals held that did not mean the police had to stop questioning him. In other cases, where the defendant says things such as “I think I need my lawyer” or “Don’t I need to have my lawyer” or “can you get me a lawyer” that has been held NOT BE GOOD ENOUGH to convince the court that what the defendants were saying is that they didn’t want to speak to the cops without a lawyer.

So spread the word to everyone you know. If you are a loved one is arrested, repeat the following sentence when the police come to speak to you over and over:

“I REFUSE TO SPEAK TO YOU WITHOUT MY LAWYER BEING PRESENT”. No matter what the police say to you or how they ask you a question just keep repeating the one sentence above. Then stop talking and do not say another word. IF you follow this advice then you will be protecting yourself and you will make it easier for our criminal defense law firm to work with you to win your case.

We would sure like your comments on this blog and whether you have had an experience with the police where they tried to get you to make statements to them after you had been arrested.

Many years ago Judge Stanford made the mistake of suspending some fines for members of his family on minor traffic offenses. Of course it was an error in judgment to do this. He should have not have been handling cases that came before him where the accused were members of his family. However, we think it is an incredibly harsh punishment to remove Judge Stanford for the bench for these errors in judgment.

Every day our clients commit crimes far more serious than this and we are able to have them placed on probation and they more often than that never see a day in jail. They certainly do not lose their job or career for their commission of a criminal offense. So it is fair for Judge Stanford to lose his “entire career” as a judge over these few errors in judgment. This is a sad situation and we encourage your comments on this situation.

One of our clients was formerly prosecuted for child molestation. The evidence against him was weak but the DA pressed the case to trial. The jurors and the judge heard the evidence and 10 jurors voted not guilty. We then asked the judge to dismiss the case but the DA wanted to have another chance with another jury trial. The judge said no and went on for over ten typed pages as to why the evidence would never get better and the judge threw out the case.

Now two years later the District Attorney has refilled the charges and convinced a judge to set our clients bail at 1.3 million dollars. Today, finally, we were able to show the new judge the transcript from the prior case and the judge had no choice but to throw out of court these old dismissed charges.

You just have to wonder what else will the District Attorneys office try to do to persecute and harass those that have been exonerated by our court system. Thank god that our client was able to locate Wallin and Klarich and have them fight for him until the battle was won. Our client will be released from custody today.

Justice can prevail if you have the right law firm at your side.

Depending upon the surrounding facts and circumstances known to the officer, a lawful stop or police contact may be justified. An officer may extend that stop to a "detention" and perform what is known as a "stop and frisk."

A "stop and frisk" is generally constitutional when an officer has:
(1) A reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior and/or;
(2) A reasonable concern for officer safety.
These elements apply both at the scene of a routine traffic stop and on the street.

An officer will need more than a mere "hunch" of criminal activity or officer safety concerns. The reasonableness of a challenged "stop and frisk" will depend upon a careful analysis and critique of the officer's police report. The court will look for an indication that a "stop and frisk" decision was reasonable and rational under the circumstances.

Be sure that your rights are adequately protected if you are facing criminal accusations. The best way to do this is to hire a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have been in practice for over 30 years and can help you ensure the protection of your rights. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

The standard to be considered and understood is the "free to leave" standard. Whether the suspect was free to leave - therefore making the police encounter consensual and not an arrest. What is difficult to understand is the interplay between a stop, detention, and arrest. Understand that an arrest is more than a stop. It is more than a detention. Further, mere contact, interaction or discussion with the police is not necessarily an arrest.

Also note that the infamous constitutional rights of Miranda do not apply until after you are placed under arrest. This is an important issue to discuss with your attorney, to make sure your attorney's arsenal is full before approaching arguments with the prosecutor and court.

Be sure that your rights are adequately protected if you are facing criminal accusations. The best way to do this is to hire a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have been in practice for over 30 years and can help you ensure the protection of your rights. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

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?

Defendants also benefit from plea bargaining. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a case, it may be in the defendant's best interest to give up certain constitutional rights and plead guilty. Whether to accept a plea bargain is based upon the strength of evidence against the defendant, and the negotiation process between defense counsel, prosecutor, and judge.

Be sure that your rights are adequately protected if you are ever facing criminal charges. The best way to do this is to hire a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have been in practice for over 30 years and can help you ensure the protection of your rights. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

The defense argued that McInerney was actually the victim in the case, subjected to constant bullying from King. According to the defense, King made repeated unwanted sexual advances towards McInerny that drove him over the edge. However the vicious nature of the crime led defense attorneys to accept a plea deal from prosecutors.

The result in this case is that the defendant will now serve 85% of his twenty one year sentence. This will mean that will be over 35 years old when he is released from prison.
In California alleged “hate crimes” against a particular type of person are prosecuted very harshly. If you or a loved one is accused of any serious felony matter you need to have an experienced murder defense attorney fighting for you.

With over 30 years in practice in Southern California, Walling and Klarich extensive experience in handling high profile murder cases and the reputation for tirelessly defending their clients. If you have been accused of murder, your life is literally on the line. Call us today at 1-888-749-0034. We will be there when you call.

In 2006, Prop 83, the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act, also known as "Jessica's Law", was passed. Prop 83 was an effort by the state to strengthen current laws against sex offenders while also adding a new residency restriction against all sex offenders prohibiting them from living within 2000 feet of a school or park used by children. Prior to the passage of the law, only certain classes of high risk sex offenders faced residency restrictions. Prop 83 also included the requirement that high-risk sex offenders submit to lifetime global positioning system (GPS) monitoring.

Some cities are moving towards adopting stricter residency restrictions than those required under Jessica's Law. For example, in San Diego, the city is considering further restricting registered sex offenders from living even greater distances of places children may be present, such as schools, daycares, libraries and amusement parks.

Prop 83 also makes it a felony to possess child pornography. Those charged with possession of child porn face up to one year in county jail or sixteen months, two or three years in state prison, a fine up to $2500 and mandatory registration as a sex offender for life. Before the passage of Prop 83, possession of the material was a misdemeanor under California state law. For those persons previously convicted for possession of child pornography, the penalties increase to up to 6 years in state prison.

Unlike pornography depicting adults in sexually explicit conduct, material with minors does not have to be obscene per se under the law in order to be a violation of California's possession laws. If the images are the product of the sexual abuse of a child, they can be confiscated and the person in possession of them can be charged with felony possession in California. Possession of child pornography in the privacy of your home is not a protected activity under the Federal or California State Constitutions.

If you or a loved one have been arrested on a Child Pornography charge, contact the experienced Southern California criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich. We’ve have been helping criminal defendants for over 30 years. Call us at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at www.wklaw.com.

He and two others are charged with murder plus special circumstances for their roles in the May 21, 2007, slayings of Jayprakash Dhanak, 56, and Karishma Dhanak, 20. The victims were abducted from their home, beaten and stabbed, and their bodies set on fire. Anaheim firefighters found Jayprakash's wife, Leela Dhanak, unconscious on a neighbor's lawn when they responded to a report that the Dhanak home was engulfed in flames. Leela Dhanak had been beaten and her throat slashed, but she survived the attack.

Prosecutors say the two men conspired with Iftekhar Murtaza, 26, of Van Nuys to kidnap and murder his ex-girlfriend's father and sister.

Specifically with regards to Krasnoperov, though he wasn't present for the killings, he is being prosecuted for murder under the legal theory that he was an "aider and abettor" for his alleged role in the planning and the cover-up, prosecutors say.

In the two months after Shayona Dhanak ended her romance with Murtaza, Krasnoperov encouraged, facilitated and joined a conspiracy to help murder the parents of the girl.

Jurors saw transcripts of Internet chat conversations starting within a day of the breakup on March 28, 2007, and continuing for weeks. Krasnoperov made suggestions about how to kill Shayona Dhanak's parents, prosecutors said.

A criminal charge of aiding and abetting or accessory can usually be brought against anyone who helps in the commission of a crime, though legal distinctions vary by state. A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level conspiracy as well.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime through and aiding and abetting theory, you should call the experienced attorneys at Wallin & Klarich immediately. Our attorneys have the skill and expertise to provide you with the best possible defense. The language of the statutes that govern aiding and abetting crimes can be complex and confusing. For this reason, it is important to hire an experienced attorney from Wallin & Klarich. Our attorneys can be reached by phone at 1-888-749-0034 or through our website www.wklaw.com.