Southern California Defense Blog

The Los Angeles City Counsel’s Public Safety Committee has voted 3-1 to approve the installation of video cameras in Los Angeles Police Department patrol cars. Cameras had been recommended by the Christopher Commission, which investigated the LAPD in the wake of the beating of motorist Rodney King by LAPD officers – a beating captured on videotape by a civilian. The cameras will also satisfy a requirement of the Consent Decree between the City and the federal government entered into in the wake of the scandal involving corrupt anti-gang officers from the Department’s Rampart Division.

The contract still must be approved by the full Los Angeles City Counsel and also by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The one dissenting Committee member cited concerns that IBM, who would be charged with installing the cameras in the patrol cars, would not use Los Angeles based companies, and, therefore, that Los Angeles would not be re-investing in its own economy.

The cameras could be activated manually by officers, or automatically by certain “triggers” such as when the officer activates the patrol car’s lights or siren, or when airbags are deployed, or when the car’s shotgun is removed. The LAPD’s long term goal is to install such cameras in all of its police cars, at an estimated cost of roughly $34million.

At Wallin & Klarich, we approach every case with the belief that the person we're defending could easily be one of our own family members. We've seen firsthand how stressful California criminal charge matters can be for our clients and their loved ones. We are committed to being available to our clients at all times -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. If you or someone you love is facing criminal charges in Southern California, you should call Wallin & Klarich today for a free evaluation of your case. Call 1-888-749-0034 or fill out our online consultation form to get in contact with a legal professional today. We will be there when you call.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

That’s the message that a recent press release from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office sends. The press release involves the recent conviction of Ross Stanley Berton, age 61. Mr. Berton pleaded guilty to 15 counts of grand theft, two counts of offering false evidence, one count of forgery and one count of identity theft. Fifteen counts were dismissed as part of the plea agreement, the District Attorney stated.

The LA Superior Court judge who took the plea sentenced Mr. Berton to 12 years state prison. Berton, who pleaded to at least one count for each of the 16 victims, also was ordered to pay restitution totaling $346,826. He has been in custody since his arrest on January 4, 2008.

Continue reading "BE SURE YOUR LAWYER IS IN FACT A LAWYER" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

Many of us are still trying to adapt to the new dates for changing our clocks from Pacific Standard Time to Pacific Daylight Time and back, and figuring out how to get the time on our VCRs and cellular telephones to change consistent with the new rules established by the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 – the federal legislation that changed the dates when we change our clocks.

It might seem that, for those who like to go out to restaurants and bars and imbibe, about the only thing that might be good about the twice a year ritual of changing the clocks is when the clocks are changed from Daylight Time to Standard Time (i.e., when we “Fall Back” one hour in Autumn), and here’s why.

Under California law, no bar or restaurant may sell any alcoholic beverage between the hours of 2:00AM and 6:00AM, meaning that alcoholic beverage service is closed down at 2:00AM at bars and restaurants throughout the state, and may not commence again until 6:00AM. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 25631.) The law specifically declares that anyone who sells alcoholic beverages, “between the hours of 2 o'clock a.m. and 6 o'clock a.m. of the same day, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” (Id.)

Coincidentally, when we “Fall Back” one hour in Autumn, that time change officially occurs at 2:00AM, meaning that, officially, on the date when clocks go from Daylight Saving Time to Standard time, the time goes from 1:59AM Daylight Saving Time to 1:00AM Standard Time, thereby giving us not only an extra hour of sleep, but also an extra hour of drinking at our favorite watering hole, right?

Continue reading "CA LEGISLATURE: TIME CHANGE HAS NO IMPACT ON CLOSING TIME, MAYBE?!?!?" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

A March 17, 2008 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court declares that results of breath tests given to DUI suspects on devices manufactured by Alcotest are sufficiently reliable to be admitted in New Jersey DUI prosecutions.

20 people who had been arrested for DUI in New Jersey collectively filed a lawsuit challenging the use of the breath tests in their cases. Specifically, the defendants argued that the manner in which the calculations were made by the device caused the devices to overestimate the breath alcohol concentration in some drivers.

The Court, after hearing four months of testimony, declared that, in the vast majority of cases, the device underestimated the person’s breath alcohol level. The Court specifically found that, although the device actually overestimated the breath alcohol level in some individuals, that was not sufficient to justify any modification of the device or discontinued use of the device.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

When a person is in custody very often they feel it is "safe" to share their thoughts to other inmates. In some cases inmates may call a lawyer on the phone to ask for legal advice. In other cases an inmate who has retained a law firm may decide to discuss the facts of their case with their lawyer over a jail house phone. Based upon recent decisions of the California court of appeals you are putting your case and your freedom in great jeopardy if you use the jail house phone to speak to anyone about your case.

In addition if you speak to an inmate who is in a jail cell with you it is critical you realize that that inmate may wish to receive leniency on their case in exchange for revealing what they claim you stated to them to the prosecution. The best possible advice is to only speak to anyone who is in custody about any of the facts related to your case. In fact in some cases it can be dangerous to your safety to discuss the charges you are facing with other inmates.

Continue reading "WHAT YOU SAY CAN COME BACK TO HAUNT YOU" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

While this headline might seem so intuitive as to border on the humorous, a recent case in Los Angeles reveals that there is some benefit in conveying this message.

According to CNN.com, the case involves two elderly women who are alleged to have hatched a scheme to befriend transient men, take out hefty insurance policies on their lives, and then drug them and, while the men were drugged, to run the men over and kill them – making the accidents look like hit and run accidents involving homeless men. Then, allegedly, the women, beneficiaries under the policies of insurance, could collect the benefits.

During the trial of the two women, the prosecutor in the case played a tape recording allegedly made of the women when they were in custody together. In the recording, one woman allegedly blames the other for the pair’s downfall, stating that “it’s all your fault” and that “you can’t have that many insurers. You were greedy. That’s the problem.”

Accordingly, remember, if you or a loved one are accused of a crime, it’s best to remember these words of advice: Never open your mouth – unless you are in a dentist’s chair.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

Imagine doing your time in prison, thinking you are going to be released on a certain date, and then that day comes and goes and you are still in prison. This cannot happen, right? Well, believe it or not, it is happening in California!

A recent study found that as many as 33,000 state inmates served longer sentences than they should have. Meanwhile, another smaller study found that of the 679 inmates randomly selected, 354 of them were on track to overstay their prison sentence a combined 104 years! So, why is this happening? It is happening because these inmates are not being credited with the appropriate amount of time to be deducted from their prison sentence, as a result of working in the prisons or for good behavior (commonly referred to as “good time/work time”).

Most inmates are entitled to have their prison sentences reduced by 50% under normal circumstances for “good time/work time”(although there are several different exceptions for why this would not be the case; for example crimes punished under the “three-strikes law”, etc.) However, as indicated by these recent studies, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) does not seem to care to follow the law!

If you feel that a loved is serving more time in prison than they should be, call Wallin and Klarich immediately! Wallin and Klarich has been in the business of helping people with their criminal matters in their time of need for over 30 years. A qualified criminal defense attorney from the firm will be able to evaluate their case immediately to see if the CDCR is following the law!

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

In criminal proceedings, a person charged with a crime has a right to a speedy trial. For those charged with California misdemeanors, that means you have a right to a speedy trial within 45 days, if you are not in jail, or 30 days if you are in custody. In felony matters, this means you have the right to a speedy trial within 60 days. Now in many cases, your attorney will need this much time, if not more, to gather evidence, discuss your case thoroughly with the prosecution and be sure they can provide you with the best possible defense.

In some instances, this may require that you agree to continue your case and “waive” your right to a speedy trial within 60 days. Each case is different and some situations may warrant a refusal to waive time, and exercise your rights to a speedy trial.

A violation of your right to a speedy trial, without your permission could result in serious consequences for the prosecution, and a huge benefit for the person charged with a crime, including dismissal of all charges.

Continue reading "To waive, or not to waive time, that is the question! " »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

A law signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger requires, after July 1, 2008, that all people applying for a driver’s license, or renewal of a driver’s license, sign a declaration with the following language: “I am hereby advised that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, impairs the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Therefore, it is extremely dangerous to human life to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both. If I drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or both, and as a result, a person is killed, I can be charged with murder.” (Veh. Code, § 13385, subd. (a).)

So what’s the big deal, you ask? Well, under the law, a person who causes the death of another because of criminal negligence (i.e., a person who does an act that is very dangerous to human life, but does not realize how dangerous it is) is generally considered to be less blameworthy than a person who causes the death of another because of reckless conduct (i.e., a person who knows an act is dangerous to human life and, in spite of that knowledge, the person does the act anyway). That is often the difference between murder, with its possible 15 to life sentence, and manslaughter, with its much shorter potential sentence.

Continue reading "THE DEATH OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

With the recent "law and order" attitude that seems to prevail in our society it is fueling our state legislators to continue to pass laws increase prison sentences for those convicted of crimes. A direct result of this hysteria is to bring our jail system to the brink of disaster.

At the present time the Los Angeles County Jail is so overcrowded that if you have the misfortune of finding yourself a guest it is a real possibility you will be forced to sleep on a cold concrete floor without a mattress. Our states prison population continues to rise and currently is at a prison population that is 580 percent higher than twenty years ago. There is no end in sight.

The "soft on crime" vies that are promoted on many radio and television talk shows only increases the stampede to put more people in prison. The result could not be worse economically for a California economy that finds itself drowning in debt. At present the California penal system costs our taxpayers over TEN BILLION dollars a year. Yet what are we doing to try to "solve the problem"? It seems like very little.

Continue reading "WHAT IS WRONG WITH OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

At least if there is a person under age 18 in the vehicle. Effective January 1, 2008, it is unlawful in California for any person in a motor vehicle (whether a driver or passenger) to have in his or her possession, a lighted pipe, cigar, or cigarette, if there is a minor in the vehicle. The law applies whether the vehicle is moving or is at rest. Any person caught violating this law may be punished by fine not to exceed $100. Law enforcement officers are not permitted to stop a motor vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether a person is in violation of this law. California is actually the third state to ban smoking in cars where minors are present, however, it is the first state to apply the law to all minors under age 18. In 2006, Arkansas and Louisiana both passed similar laws, however, the Arkansas law applies to children up to age 6, and the Louisiana law applies only to children up to age 13. A 2005 survey found that Californians vastly supported such a law, including 90% of smokers. The legislature recognized that current law, Health and Safety Code section 104495, prohibits smoking within 25 feet of a playground or tot lot sandbox area, and that the new legislation would further protect minors from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

When you or a loved one are facing a criminal charge you are in a vulnerable position. There are many people who will take advantage of that vulnerability. There are even those who will pretend to be a lawyer and make promises that they could never keep in order to get your trust and more importantly for them, your money.

A recent case reported in the Los Angeles Daily Journal is a good example of that.

One elderly woman in Los Angeles paid a man who told her that he was an experienced criminal lawyer $22,000. She was promised that in return for this payment of $22,000 he would see to it that her husband who was doing a sentence of 25 years to life for a murder would be released from prison. The "masquerading lawyer" went so far as to tell her that her husband would be released from prison on an exact date and she could pick him up at the train station on that date. The women went to the train station excited to see her husband exit the train and run into her arms. Of course her husband was not on the train. He was in prison and remains in prison.

Continue reading "BE CAREFUL WHO YOU HIRE AS YOUR LAWYER - HE MAY NOT BE A LAWYER AT ALL" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

In an attempt to make life just a little harder for tabloid publications and scandal sheets, the legislature has enacted a law that makes it a misdemeanor crime for a peace officer, court employee, or attorney employed by a public agency, to “[d]isclose[] for financial gain, information obtained in the course of a criminal investigation, the disclosure of which is prohibited by law” or who “[s]olicits, for financial gain, the exchange of information obtained in the course of a criminal investigation, the disclosure of which is prohibited by law.”

Any person who violates this new law is guilty of a misdemeanor crime and is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000.00. In addition to any fine imposed, any person convicted of violating this law shall forfeit any monetary gain to the State of California. (Pen. Code, § 146g.)

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

A recent incident involving pop singer Brittany Spears brought to the public’s attention section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code – the statutory procedure for involuntarily committing an individual to a mental health facility.

Under the law, if a certain designated professional, such as a law enforcement officer, or mental health professional, believes that a person is, as a result of a mental disorder, either, a danger to him or herself, a danger to other people, or suffering from a “grave disability” the person can be transported to a hospital for an evaluation. If the mental health professional at the hospital agrees with the law enforcement officer or other mental health professional, the hospital will involuntarily hold the person for up to 72 hours. If, during or at the end of the 72 hours, the hospital determines that the person is no longer a danger to him or herself or others and/or is no longer “gravely disabled”, then the person is to be released from the hospital.

However, if the hospital determines that the person is still a danger to him or herself or others and/or is no longer “gravely disabled,” then the person can be held for a longer period of time. Generally, in this situation, the hospital can hold the person for an additional fourteen days, however, if this happens, the patient is entitled to a “certification hearing” within four days to determine if the hospital has good cause to keep the patient in the hospital. The certification hearing is held before a hearing officer, who is generally a judge, court commissioner or referee, and, at the end of the hearing, the hearing officer can either order the patient be released, or, alternatively, can order the patient confined for the additional fourteen days.

Continue reading "INVOLUNTARY PSYCHIATRIC HOLDS IN CALIFORNIA" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

Effective July 1, 2008, minors (i.e., persons under age 18) in California will not be permitted to use any cellular telephone or other “mobile service device” such as a laptop computer, or text messaging device while driving a motor vehicle. Under the law, a minor may not use a cellular telephone while driving, even if the telephone is equipped with a “hands-free” device. Violation of the law is an infraction punishable by a fine of $20 as a first offense and $50 for subsequent violations. The law provides that an officer may not stop a motor vehicle solely to determine whether the driver is in violation of this law. The law also contains an exception for certain commercial vehicles, and, additionally, a minor may use a cellular telephone in an emergency, such as to contact law enforcement or a health care provider.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

At least that will be the law in California starting July 1, 2008. From that date, it will be illegal for anyone to drive a motor vehicle and use a cellular telephone unless the phone is equipped with a hands-free device, and the hands-free device is used by the driver. Anyone caught violating this law is subject to a fine of $20 for a first offense and, on a second and subsequent offense, $50. The statute contains several exceptions, such as, for example, if the driver is making a call for an emergency purpose, such as to a law enforcement agency, or health care provider, and where the driver is operating certain types of commercial vehicles. Interestingly enough, the law does not apply to vehicles operated on private property, and, also interesting is that the law does not address use of electronic devices other than cellular telephones, such as, for instance, text messaging, laptop computers, and the like.

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

Do you assume that a cop must be telling the truth or must be abiding by all of the laws just because they are a cop? This is certainly not the case! Time and time again we see cops who do not follow the laws that they took an oath to uphold and in turn violate the constitutional rights that every single American has! They do it for a variety of reasons including: to get a conviction, because they are corrupt, etc. Nonetheless, for whatever reason that cops do not follow the law, it does not make it right!

A recent example of cops breaking the law would be the notorious Rampart division of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). The corruption scandal involving the Rampart division as well as recent misconduct by other LAPD officers has resulted in a recent mandate by the Los Angles Police Commission. The mandate requires hundreds of narcotic and anti-gang officers to disclose detailed information about their personal finances.

Another recent example is the scandal involving former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona, who is set to begin trial in Federal Court shortly on a slew of corruption charges. Moreover, there is the scandal involving actor Mel Gibson’s recent DUI arrest, in which Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputies allegedly gave him preferential treatment. The list goes on and on.

Continue reading "Cops Aren't Always Right " »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

Ask John Jerome White. He might have a somewhat different view on the matter.

According to a recent press release from the Georgia Innocence Project, Mr. White was convicted of brutally raping an elderly woman in Georgia in 1980 when he was just 20 years of age. Mr. White was sentenced to life in prison. In 1990, ten years after his conviction, Mr. White was paroled, however, being released from prison as a convicted sex offender threw Mr. White into a downward spiral, and his parole was eventually revoked, and he was sent back to state prison to serve his full life sentence.

Apparently the strongest evidence against Mr. White at his trial was hairs recovered from the crime scene. The hairs were compared by authorities using “microscopic analysis,” which was the best technology available in 1980. “Microscopic analysis” showed that the hairs at the crime scene belonged to Mr. White, thereby sealing his fate – or so it would seem.

Thanks to the hard work of the Georgia Innocence Project, the hairs were re-tested by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation using modern DNA technology. The re-test showed conclusively that the hairs do NOT belong to Mr. White, but they apparently belonged to another man, who is currently under investigation by law enforcement for this crime.

Continue reading "THINK "SCIENTIFIC" EVIDENCE IS ROCK SOLID AND UNIMPEACHABLE? " »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark:

We all love our friends and family. We all want to protect them from the possibility of going to jail. However, if you lie to the police in an attempt to protect your loved ones you could be facing a jail sentence.

A good example of this is the recent case of a loving 74 year old grandfather who had lent his car to his 23 year old grandson for a night out with his friends. The grandson drove the car drunk and caused an accident which resulted in the death of two people. The grandson was on probation for a prior drunk driving offense and was driving without a valid driver’s license.

The grandfather had no prior criminal record. He also knew that if the police determined that his grandson was the driver the punishment for his grandson would be many years in prison. The grandfather had no prior record. He decided he would tell the police that he was the driver of the car. The grandfather had not been drinking and he assumed that he would likely receive probation for the offense. While this was a loving decision on the part of the grandfather it resulted in serious criminal consequences for both grandfather and grandson.

Continue reading "IF YOU LIE TO THE POLICE FOR A LOVED ONE, YOU CAN END UP IN JAIL" »

Posted by Wallin & Klarich | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Law & Information

Bookmark: