Southern California Defense Blog

Manslaughter in San Bernardino
The California Penal Code section 192 defines manslaughter as the crime of killing another human being without premeditation and without prior planning. There are three different types of manslaughter cases that you can be convicted of: voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and vehicular manslaughter. Your Wallin & Klarich San Bernardino criminal lawyer will advise you as to the elements of the particular charge you are accused of.

Defenses to Manslaughter in San Bernardino
Depending on what type of manslaughter you are charged with and the circumstances of your particular case, the defenses your San Bernardino attorney from Wallin & Klarich may include any of the following:

1. Self defense or defense of others
California’s self-defense laws permit an individual to kill another human being if he or she reasonably believes that ending the individual’s life is necessary in order to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or to another person. In order to use the defense successfully, your San Bernardino involuntary manslaughter lawyer must be able to prove that you believed that immediate harm was necessary to avoid danger and that you did not use more force than was necessary to defend yourself or to defend another.

2. Imperfect Self-Defense
If your use of force or belief in impending danger was not reasonable, your San Bernardino manslaughter attorney can present an imperfect variation of self-defense, similar to the one discussed above.

3. Insanity
In order to use the insanity defense, your San Bernardino attorney must prove either of the following: (1) You did not know the difference between right and wrong, OR (2) You did not understand the nature of you actions.

4. Accident
If you killed another person by accident, and were (1) acting lawfully, AND (2) had no intention to do harm to another person, then can be a complete defense to a manslaughter charge.

5. Insufficient evidence
If your San Bernardino involuntary manslaughter lawyer can prove that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that you caused the victim’s death or whether you acted negligently, then you will not be convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

In addition to the defenses above, your San Bernardino attorney can protect you from criminal liability by making use of the following defenses specifically for voluntary manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter charges.

Defenses to Voluntary Manslaughter in San Bernardino
1. You were within your own home
2. You were lawfully trying to arrest someone
3. You were trying to stop a riot or otherwise preserve the peace

Defenses to Vehicular Manslaughter in San Bernardino
1. Your actions were not negligent
2. Your actions were not the cause of death
3. You did not drive the vehicle

Finding a Manslaughter Defense Attorney in San Bernardino
The first and most critical step you must take is to obtain a team of San Bernardino manslaughter defense lawyers who have experience in manslaughter cases. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience in defending clients against involuntary, voluntary or vehicular manslaughter charges.

To schedule a consultation with a manslaughter defense lawyer at Wallin & Klarich, please call (888) 280-6839. We will help you get through this.

California Voluntary Manslaughter Sentence

Voluntary Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being upon a sudden heat of passion or quarrel. Under California Penal Code 192 a, the accused does not have to have intentionally killed the victim to be convicted under this section.

While the punishment for voluntary manslaughter is less than for murder, it is still severe and will negatively affect your life.

You could face up to three, six, or eleven years in state prison if convicted of this offense. Because the punishment is harsh, it is important you have an attorney who you can rely on to vigorously protect your interests.

Strike Offense

You need to know your legal rights. In California, voluntary manslaughter is considered a strike offense. Strike offenses are the most serious crimes in California.

Contact Wallin & Klarich and speak with one of our experienced criminal defense lawyers. For over thirty years, Wallin & Klarich has obtained successful outcomes for clients accused of voluntary manslaughter.

We understand that this is a difficult and emotional time for you and your family. You need an attorney who will help reduce the amount of stress in your life.

Voluntary Manslaughter Probation

Depending on the facts of your case, your attorney from Wallin & Klarich may be able to convince the judge to place you on probation instead of imposing a jail sentence.

If the court grants you probation you may be ordered to serve up to one year in county jail as a condition of probation. If a one year sentence is imposed you will do 50% of that sentence of 6 months of actual custody time. When you are released you will be placed on a period of formal probation and will be assigned a probation officer.

Your probation officer will monitor your activities to make sure you are complying with the terms of your probation. If you violate or fail to comply with any of the terms of your probation, the judge can send you to prison.

Who to Call About Voluntary Manslaughter

We know that court proceedings are confusing and complicated. That’s why your attorney from Wallin & Klarich will always be there to answer any questions you may have. Call us today at 888-280-6839 to speak to one of our very skilled Wallin & Klarich voluntary manslaughter attorneys. We will help you get through this process.

In what could become a landmark case that could reshape the criminal court system across the country, the cyber-bullying case of Dahrun Ravi has begun jury selection. Ravi is facing 10 years in prison for various charges, including invasion of privacy and bias intimidation. But if the court of public opinion had their druthers, he’d be on trial for manslaughter.

The victim of Ravi’s alleged crimes was Tyler Clementi, a gay student at Rutgers University who was Ravi’s roommate in the dorms and committed suicide. This case has been highly publicized for the past two years since Clementi took his life by jumping off of the George Washington bridge.

Prosecutors allege that Clementi killed himself after discovering that Ravi had captured a romantic encounter between himself and another man on webcam. While Ravi has already been cleared of any responsibility in the death of Clementi, prosecutors are trying to paint Ravi as a hateful homophobe who intentionally tried to intimidate and bully his roommate by recording a private moment.

Most experts agree that the prosecution has its work cut out for them. Both Clementi and Ravi had several exchanges with each other and with friends acknowledging their differences, but being overall indifferent to the other’s lifestyle choices.

Ravi’s criminal defense lawyer also plans on introducing an apology text from Ravi to Clementi expressing remorse for violating Clementi’s privacy by spying on his encounter via webcam the morning after the incident occurred. Furthermore, Clementi even texted Ravi, asking if he could use the room for a few hours for a second rendezvous with the same man he was caught on camera with. Ravi’s three word reply to that text: “Yeah, no problem.”

Evidence, especially the exchanges between Ravi and Clementi seem to suggest that while they might not have been perfect roommates, there was little to no animosity or hatred between the two prior to Clementi’s suicide.

Which calls into question exactly where the line is drawn in a court of law when it comes to cyber-bullying? At what point does a juvenile prank become a malicious act of intimidation? What Ravi did was morally and ethically wrong. But was it a crime?

Should Ravi be found guilty it would give criminal defense attorneys very little leeway when trying to defend a client accused of cyber-bullying. While bullying in general has been a hot button topic – deservedly so – it appears as though the court of public opinion focused on the wrong target without really understanding the facts first.