Southern California Defense Blog

So you spend three years and pay over $100,000 in tuition to get through law school. You put your life on hold attending classes and studying for finals. Then, you go into hibernation for over 2 months studying for the bar exam. They make you wait for nearly four long and painful months to see your results.

Finally, you find out you passed the bar exam. You celebrate. You get drunk. You throw a party. You are so happy.

BUT HOLD ON. Maybe you should put down the champagne and wait until you actually land a job as a lawyer.

The reality is that more than half of new law school graduates are unemployed

The Los Angeles Daily Journal reported on April 2, 2013 that less than half of all law students who graduated from California law schools from the class of 2012 had full-time jobs as lawyers by the end of 2012. That means that more than 50% of all of the law school graduates who had gone through three and a half years of “hell” are still looking for a job. Many will find jobs in fields unrelated to law. That may not be such a bad thing. Maybe some of these new lawyers will end up being CEO’s of some great startup company.

It is a common misconception that going to law school and becoming a lawyer will easily lead to a job with a six figure salary and upper-middle class lifestyle right after law school. However, that is not the case. Although some law students are able to find jobs that pay high salaries right out of law school, these jobs are few and far between. Only a select number of top students attending top law schools will be able to land these high-paying jobs. The reality for most law school graduates is that they will have to fight among a large pool of qualified candidates for the few remaining legal jobs that do not guarantee a high salary.

Massive amounts of student loans

In addition to the bleak job market, many graduates must worry about a large amount of debt that they took out to finance their legal education. The average debt that a law student takes out to finance their law school expenses is over $90,000. In fact, it is common for many law school graduates to take out over $200,000 in student loans.

Most students do not think about repaying their student loans before they decide to go to law school. With this massive amount of debt and a job market where even the best candidates are having difficulty finding a full-time job as a lawyer, students should think twice before they decide to go to law school.

The bottom line is that you should not fool yourself into believing that becoming a lawyer guarantees you much of anything, other than the ability to put up a diploma…even if the diploma goes up in your apartment.

Yesterday a 20 year old young man by the name of Robert came into my office. He was brought to our country by his parents when he was 2. His parents struggled to find work and somehow their young boy was able to eat 1 or 2 meals a day. He worked hard at school and graduated from high school with a 4.2 GPA. All he wants to do is go to college and become a lawyer.

...The problem is our country chooses to treat him as some sort of criminal. He cannot receive a scholarship since he is not here "legally". In the state of California, he cannot obtain a drivers license in order to purchase or drive a car. He walks miles a day to 3 different jobs (where he can find someone to let him work) so he can try to save up enough money to pay the rising tuition at a junior college. Daily he worries that he will be stopped and "found out" and be sent back to a country that he does not know.

How can Americans call themselves "caring people" when we allow this to happen. What crime did this young man commit? His parents cared enough about their 3 sons to risk their lives to get to California so their children could have a better life. Should his parents be imprisoned for wanting the best they could find for their sons.

It impossible for me to understand how any person who cares about human beings would not want to do everything in his or her power to help this young man and thousands like him obtain a college education and be productive members of our society.

How can anyone support a presidential candidate, such as Mr. Romney who has clearly stated that he wants to send this 20 year old boy back to a country where he has no connection, no family, nothing, after he has been in our country doing all he can to survive for 20 years? Does this sound like a position that a compassionate man would take!!??

The overall answer to our current immigration problem is a difficult one. However, as Americans we should never forget that we are a compassionate people who care about others.
During WWII a boatload of Jewish children and mothers were able to escape a concentration camp and asked for our country to accept them when they approached Florida. Our country sent them back to die in the concentration camp. We cannot forget these type of acts and try to learn from them.

Please do everything you can to support the DREAM ACT, which would permit young men and women like Robert to no longer live in the shadows, to get a college education, and to live the dream that all Americans would want for their children.

About 90% of all criminal cases in the U.S. are settled by plea bargain. Given the number of cases being heard in courts these days it would be difficult to imagine our legal system bearing the burden of full jury trials in every case. But is justice really served when a prosecutor and defendant enter into such an agreement? Are courts allowing financial and logistical difficulties to dictate how the system operates?

There is, indeed, a great deal of controversy regarding plea bargains. One judge in a small Alaska county disallowed them completely. Many in other countries can’t understand them, especially when their own justice system does not include plea bargains as an option to trial. The United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act of 1998 criticizes its use, arguing that rewards, threats, and potential coercion undermine the foundation of justice.

A further argument against plea bargains is that they don’t so much reflect true justice as act as an expedient way to clear court dockets. Plea agreements between defendants and prosecutors, as such, amount to a sort of barter – give up your constitutional rights, and I will go easy on you, so to speak.

However, such arguments are viewed as cynical to many who work with defendants and prosecutors on a daily basis. Clearly there is a benefit to be reaped by both under such an agreement. Absent coercion, a defendant has the right to reject an offer. He may, however, see it as his best option. Similarly, it is difficult to imagine that a prosecutor would make an offer when he has a clear avenue to conviction. Indeed, often plea bargains are made when the prosecution knows that a conviction may be problematic if the case is taken to trial.

Justice can become muddled, however, if a defendant is not aware of his rights. He may not be aware from the outset that the prosecution carries the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, without the assistance of a criminal defense attorney he may not be aware that a plea agreement entails surrendering his legal right to a jury trial.

Whether plea bargains ultimately sustain our justice system or work to diminish it is an argument that will continue. However, it is clear that they serve a purpose that can help both defendants and prosecutors, as well as relieve courts of what would otherwise be a formidable burden indeed.

Whether a plea bargain being offered to you in your specific case is in your best interest depends upon many factors. Once you accept a plea bargain you will likely never be able to withdraw it. It is critical that you seek a “second opinion” from an experienced criminal defense law firm like Wallin & Klarich to help you determine whether you should accept the plea bargain or go to trial.

If you are facing criminal charges, it is essential that your rights are protected. Securing the services of a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney is essential for this purpose. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of experience in criminal defense. Call us today at 1-888-749-0034.

The California State Bar Disciplinary Panel recently upheld a judge’s recommendation to suspend former Santa Clara County prosecutor Benjamin Field from the State Bar for four years. Field appealed to the State Bar Review Department’s finding that he had withheld exculpatory evidence and committed other misconduct in four cases he had prosecuted.

He was accused of violating court orders and directives, performing incompetently, failing to obey the law, withholding evidence, misleading a judge, and committing “multiple acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption.”

Field appealed the decision in hopes of receiving a lenient decision. Instead, he received a suspension from the bar for four years and five years of probation. The decision was made to “protect the public and the courts” and “preserve public confidence in the legal profession and to maintain high professional standards for attorneys.”

The first accusation of misconduct against Field was made in 1995. In a sexual assault case involving a minor, Field obtained a dental examination of the defendant, disobeying a court order that resulted in the judge suppressing the evidence taken from it. On two occasions in 2003, Field intentionally withheld a witness statement that was favorable to the defense in a habeas corpus proceeding involving a sexual assault case, and he intentionally withheld a defendant’s statement favorable to co-defendants in a murder case. In both cases that year, Field was found to have committed a discovery violation. In the latter murder case, one of the charges against the defendants was dismissed due to Field’s misconduct. And in 2005, Field made an improper closing argument in a sexually violent predator case that was deemed “deceptive and reprehensible” by the court presiding over the case. As a result, the appellate court reversed the judgment committing the defendant as a sexually violent predator.

Continue reading "District Attorney Violates the Law by Violating the Legal Rights of Defendants - How an Experienced Southern California Defense Attorney Can Help Ensure Your Rights" »

It was recently reported that nine youths have been charged in relation to the suicide of a 15-year-old girl in Massachusetts. Phoebe Prince, who had recently moved to South Hadley, Massachusetts from Ireland, hung herself after being raped and bullied by classmates since the start of the school year in September 2009. Prince committed suicide on January 14th. Initially thought to be a case of cyber bullying, it is believed Prince was bullied on and off the campus of her high school in the presence of teachers and fellow students.

Six teenagers, four girls and two boys, face charges of statutory rape, assault, violation of civil rights resulting in injury, criminal harassment, disturbance of a school assembly, and stalking. Three younger girls are facing delinquency charges. Three of the nine teenagers, who are 17-years-old or older, will be tried as adults.

Complicating matters, the parents of two of the teenagers have spoken to the media, insisting on the innocence of their children, stating the school bullying was nothing more than the exchanging of “a couple words.” It is recommended that the accused retain an attorney immediately after charges are filed and have any statements made through the attorney.

All of the charges the teenagers are facing are very serious. Statutory rape, assault, harassment, creating a disturbance, and stalking carry serious consequences in California. Out of all the charges, California statutory rape is the most serious. California "statutory rape," defined under Penal Code Section 261.5, takes place when any person engages in sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 18 (commonly referred to as unlawful sex with a minor). Statutory rape can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. As a misdemeanor, statutory rape can result in up to a year in jail with fines and probation. As a felony, it can result in four years in state prison with fines and probation.

Continue reading "Nine Charged after Bullying of Teenage Student Phoebe Prince Ends in Suicide" »

It was recently reported that a Pasadena couple was charged with torture and murder in the child death of their 2-year-old son, who was found dead in the family home. Maria Pelaez, 30, and Gabriel Diaz, 33, reportedly admitted to police that they taped the limbs of 2-year-old Rene Torres to restrain and punish him. Torres died from asphyxiation. It is alleged the toddler’s death was due to his mouth being taped shut.

Pelaez is arguing that Diaz was responsible for her son’s death, as she was not aware of what Diaz did to her son the night he died. Pelaez maintains she was nothing but a loving, doting mother and it would be absolutely, completely out of character to harm her child.

Murder in California is defined in California Penal Code Section 187. Murder is committed when someone commits an act that caused the death of another person with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a state of mind. It requires knowledge that through an action or omission, the result will be someone’s death. Malice can be expressed or implied. It is expressed when someone shows a deliberate intention to kill someone. It can be implied when there is no considerable provocation or when the circumstances show an abandoned or malignant heart. A conviction for murder can result in life in prison.

Continue reading "Pasadena Couple Suspected in Murder and Torture in Infant Death Of 2-Year-Old Son - California Penal Code Section 187 and Section 206" »

Recently, a federal case against an Orange County politician was dealt a blow when a portion of the prosecutors’ audio evidence was found to be missing.

The case arose out of the 2006 general election for California’s 47th House of Representatives district to represent Santa Ana between incumbent Loretta Sanchez and challenger Tan Duc Nguyen. During the campaign, a letter apparently from Nguyen went out to 14,000 residents in the district with Latino names. The letter, written in Spanish, warned the residents that if they were immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, voting in the election would result in their imprisonment and deportation.

The U.S. Department of Justice formally charged Nguyen with obstruction of justice for not being truthful in his interview with investigators about the matter. However, the U.S. District Judge presiding over the case questioned why Nguyen wasn’t charged with actually sending out the letter himself.

Most damning, there was a 40 minute gap in the two-hour audio interview with Nguyen about the letter. After the first 15 minutes, the tape recorder apparently stopped working, but no one noticed until 40 minutes later, when a new one was brought in. The judge pointed out that during his days as a deputy district attorney, it was standard procedure to have two recorders tape interviews simultaneously.

Continue reading "How an Experienced Southern California Criminal Defense Attorney Can Find Errors and Flaws in Prosecutors Case" »

Many in the legal community was stunned 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. In citing grounds for dismissal, the judge listed prosecutorial misconduct and lack of evidence as two primary reasons for his decision.

This case is noteworthy because the judge’s decision to dismiss the case in its entirety rather than let it proceed to the jury on the prosecutorial misconduct ground is a very rare exercise of judicial authority. This ruling is especially surprising to some as it came in a high profile case where the federal government had been collecting evidence of alleged backdating of the Broadcom’s stock options for almost two years.

If the dismissal stands, the government will be precluded from ever raising the same allegations again because Judge Carney has dismissed the case already presented to the jury, and Broadcom chief financial officer William J. Ruehle would claim double jeopardy if the prosecution sought to brings the charges again.

To support his dismissal with prejudice, the judge cited intimidation of witnesses by prosecution and threatening witnesses with additional charges in an effort to shape their testimony. The conduct was particular egregious because those witnesses received grants of immunity and were represented by counsel. The U.S Attorney’s office denied making any threats. However, the judge determined otherwise, and forced the leading prosecutor on this case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Stolper, to sign a non-prosecution agreement with one of the intimidated witnesses. From that point on, other attorneys renewed their prosecutorial misconduct motions. This decision has left a mark on the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s Office’s reputation and credibility.

Continue reading "Federal Judge in the Broadcom Case Cites Prosecutorial Misconduct as One of the Grounds for Dismissing Criminal Charges" »

In December of 2009, the Riverside County District Attorney’s office will be celebrating as it opens the most expensive building ever constructed in the Inland Empire. The approximate $128 million price-tag demonstrates that the DA in Riverside County has tremendous political power. At a time when courts are closing for furlough days, the third Wednesday of every month, in an effort to save precious dollars, the beautiful new building featuring copious amounts of marble can be seen as an extension of the political power and ego that the current District Attorney clearly possesses.

The California Taxpayers’ Association is a non-partisan, non-profit organization founded in 1926 to protect taxpayers from unnecessary taxes and to promote government efficiency. Their website, Cal-Tax.org, which highlights recent examples of Government waste, fraud, and mismanagement, referred to the opening of the new DA’s office as a “good-news, bad-news” story. The good news being that when the Riverside County District Attorney's Office moves to its new headquarters, offices will be equipped with used furniture rather than brand new desks, chairs, etc. Buying used furniture will save approximately $5.1 million, the county reported. District Attorney Rod Pacheco had advocated saving even more by simply moving the office furniture from the existing offices, but county facilities managers decided that the old furniture is in such bad condition it could break, and the time frame for the installation of furniture is very tight.

Continue reading "Grand Opening of New Riverside District Attorney Building Highlights the DA's Political Power" »

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" »

It was recently reported that two San Bernardino officials have been charged with over a dozen felony counts, including bribery and misappropriation of public funds. Former Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus and former Assistant County Assessor Jim Erwin are accused of accepting $100,000 apiece from land development company Colonies Partners to settle a lawsuit the company filed against the city for $102 million. The lawsuit was filed because the city allegedly failed to make payments for flood control improvements for a development project near Upland.

Postmus is charged with five felony counts, including conspiracy to commit a crime, conflict of interest, misappropriation of public funds, and two counts of accepting a bribe. Erwin is charged with nine felony counts including bribery, misappropriation of public funds, forgery, and two counts each of corrupt influencing and extortion to obtain an official act. Both are awaiting trial on other corruption charges.

Continue reading "Two Elected San Bernardino County Officials Charged with Bribery and Why You Need an Experienced Southern California Defense Attorney to Represent You - California Penal Code Section 641" »

Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at the Brennan Legacy Award Dinner. At the event, which is named in honor of United States Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Attorney General Holder addressed some issues which have scary implications for those with a pending criminal case. Due to the current economic environment, Public Defender’s offices throughout the country are facing record caseloads. This issue is creating a detrimental situation in which those individuals who are assigned a public defender are receiving little to no attention on their cases.

In one state, it was reported that one county public defenders office was assigned more than 10,000 cases in 2008 and they were handled by only six lawyers. This means lawyers could spend an average of just under an hour per case. High caseloads leave even those lawyers with the best of intentions little time to investigate, file appropriate motions, and do the basic things lawyer must do for their clients. Unfortunately, this scenario is now playing itself out in California as well. County public defender offices throughout the state are being buried with cases. It is not complicated. Would you want a doctor doing surgery on you if he had 25 other surgeries that day? Of course not. This is the reason so many people accused of crimes are doing all that they can to retain the services of experienced private criminal defense law firms to help them when they are facing criminal charges.

Continue reading "High Public Defender Caseloads Could Lead to Nightmare Results if You Are Accused of a Crime" »

A man was recently arrested on suspicion of committing several burglary offenses. He is suspected of being the “Back Room Bandit” who is believed to have burglarized at least 19 different businesses since September in San Diego County. San Diego News 10 reported on Jones’ arrest in San Ysidro. No one was hurt in any of the alleged crimes of the “Back Room Bandit” (as he has been called). This “Bandit” would order employees of the businesses to the back room of the stores and demand cash using a gun. The man will be arraigned in early November and will be facing multiple charges including second degree burglary.

Second degree burglary is more commonly called Commercial Burglary. Second degree burglary does not take place in a residence but rather at a business. The charge can either be filed as a misdemeanor or felony depending upon the value of the items taken. Generally if the item is worth less than $400.00, the crime is a misdemeanor. If it is worth over $400.00, the charge is a felony. Each of these charges can result in jail time so it is important to contact an experienced San Diego criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Continue reading "Are You Facing Second Degree Burglary Charges?" »

Recently it was reported that two men were shot in a North Hollywood synagogue parking lot by an unknown assailant. Immediately after the shooting, there was great concern that these shootings were the result of a “hate crime” or possibly an act of terrorism. The Los Angeles Police Department’s counter Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau has stated, however, that there is no reason to believe that the shootings were in fact hate crimes or terror related. For this reason, the anti-terror squad will not be conducting the investigation.

The identity of the shooter remains unknown, although his image was captured by a surveillance camera. Detectives are now looking into the possibility that the shooting was related to a business or personal dispute. Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, who also arrived at the shooting site, stated that the shooting was only a random act of violence and cautioned against further speculation regarding the incident.

Continue reading "The Los Angeles Police Department Maintains that Synagogue Shooting Not a Hate Crime" »

Babatunsin Olukunle has been arrested for setting a fire in the Angeles National Forest near where the Station Fire originated. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Lieutenant Liam Gallagher stated they are now also investigating into whether Olukenle has any connections to the Station Fire that was started 6 days later.

Olukunle was seen by two Forest Service Officers setting a smaller fire six miles from where the Station Fire was started, however, he escaped while they worked to extinguish the blaze. There had also been reports that Olukunle had been known to roam that area in the months prior to the Station Fire. Olukunle, who is a Nigerian national, has pleaded not guilty to the felony charge of setting a fire on U.S. Forest Service Land.

Continue reading "Los Angeles County Sheriff Announces a Possible Suspect in Station Fire Arson Case" »

2010 has brought a host of new laws regarding criminal defendants that are currently serving time in jail. The new law allows for 1/2 time credit while in a jail in California. While not all defendants will benefit from this law (persons convicted of violent crimes or certain sex crimes), a far majority do.

The old law gave a qualifing inmate who served 4 days in jail an additional 2 days for a total of 6 days credit. The new law effective 1-25-10 in dealing with 4049 of the California Penal Code will give the inmate 4 days credit for every 4 days served for a total of 8 days credit.

Continue reading "New Law Cuts Jail Time You Must Do if Sentenced to County Jail" »

When your past interferes with your future, you might need an experienced San Diego criminal defense lawyer to assist you in cleaning up your record. Because a criminal record is a public record any one can view, several people can see your case file and view what happened in your criminal case. However, if an attorney assisted you through the process of obtaining an expungement under California Penal Code Section 1203.4, then they could provide some relief for you and your family.

An expungement is the process whereby the court will dismiss the conviction against you. First, you can withdraw your plea of guilty, or the judge can set aside a guilty verdict. Next, you will enter a plea of not guilty. Finally, the court can dismiss the case against you.

Sounds Great! However, the case can still be found by anyone looking at your file, as it does not erase or wipe away the conviction. Any conviction you received will still remain on your record and this process does not absolve your criminal conduct.

Continue reading "Have a Criminal Past and Looking for a Job?" »

On December 29, 2009, CNN reported that Charlie Sheen’s Wife, Brooke Mueller, has accused Mr. Sheen of threatening to have her killed. CNN reports that Mueller alleges Sheen said, "I have ex-police I can hire who know how to get the job done, and they won't leave any trace," as he held her down with a knife.

Sheen was arrested on Christmas Day and is being charged with assault, menacing with a deadly weapon and criminal mischief. He posted $8,500 bond and was released.

To be convicted of assault under California Penal Code section 240, the prosecuting agency must prove (1) that you "willfully" acted in a way that would likely result in physical contact with another, (2) that you were aware that your "act" would likely result in that physical contact, and (3) that when you "willfully acted" you had the ability to follow through with the act that would cause that contact. It is important to note that "physical contact" means any touch, no matter how slight, if the touch is done in an angry, harmful or even offensive manner.

Continue reading "Charlie Sheen is Accused of Assault: What this Means and How an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Can Help Him Avoid Jail" »

The Los Angeles Collective Association and the Green Oasis dispensary, which is made up of medical marijuana collectives, has filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles’ moratorium that seeks to control the sale of medical marijuana. They argue that the moratorium is too vague and its extension into mid-March is in violation of state law.

Robert A. Kahn, an attorney representing the Los Angeles Collective Association and Green Oasis’ attorney , believes that the City Council’s failure to properly extend the ban and its extension past the state limit of 24 months make the moratorium legally unenforceable. The City Council’s Planning Committee has been working on an ordinance that would replace the moratorium; however, it is still months from completion. Nonetheless, the Los Angeles attorney’s office, the district attorney’s office and the Los Angeles Police Department have all emphasize that selling medical marijuana over the counter is illegal under California state law.

Continue reading "Lawsuit Filed in Attempt to Overturn City Council Decision to Limit Medical Marijuana Dispensaries" »

‘Tis the Season. Police will conduct another holiday sobriety checkpoint starting at 8 p.m. on Saturday December, 26 until 3 a.m. Sunday December 27, at a major, unannounced thoroughfare.
Motorists passing through the checkpoint will also receive safe driving literature donated by Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

The local checkpoint is one of 300 DUI checkpoints planned by law enforcement agencies throughout the state as part of an 18-day "Holiday DUI Crackdown Campaign" funded by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

OTS spokesmen said 11,773 people died across the nation in 2008 highway crashes involving a driver or motorcycle rider with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher. In California, 1,029 died on state and local roads driving with a .08 blood alcohol level or higher, with another 28,457 injured in alcohol-involved collisions.

Continue reading "Anaheim DUI Sobriety Checkpoint" »