Southern California Defense Blog

If you have been previously convicted of a “registerable” offense (an offense listed in Penal Code section 290) in California, then you must register as a sex offender. Additionally, even if the offense you committed is not listed in Penal Code section 290, the judge can still require you to register as a sex offender if the judge determines that the offense you committed was sexually motivated. Once you are required to register as a sex offender, you must do so for life. If you fail to register as required by law, you will be charged in a separate felony case with failing to register as a sex offender in California.

Failure to register as a sex offender is a serious crime. California’s sex offender registration laws are very complex and failure to follow them could lead to a new felony case. But, in order to be convicted of failure to register as a sex offender, the prosecution must show that you had “actual knowledge” of the duty to register. There are many ways prosecutors can show that you had “actual knowledge” of the duty to register. It is thus critical to hire a criminal defense attorney with experience handling these cases. Your attorney can aggressively fight the charges and show that your failure to register was not illegal because you did not have actual knowledge of the registration requirement.

Continue reading "Sex Offender Laws Require "Actual Knowledge" of Registration Requirement - California Penal Code Section 290" »

In the recent case of People v. Santos Dominguez (2010) 2010 WL 60237 (hereafter Dominguez), the California Court of Appeal held that the amount of force required for false imprisonment of an unresisting infant or child is the amount of physical force required to take and carry the child away a substantial distance for an illegal purpose or with an illegal intent. The court also clarified what constitutes “violence, menace, fraud or deceit” for felony false imprisonment.

In Dominguez, the defendant lived in the same apartment building as two female girls, ages four and six. The defendant did not know the two girls and was not related to either of them. According to the prosecution, the defendant repeatedly hugged the two girls, twice asked the six-year-old where her mother was, and told the six-year-old he wanted to take her to a restaurant. The defendant physically carried the four-year-old outside of the apartment building while the six-year-old followed. When the defendant came upon another man in the building, the defendant stopped and put the four-year-old down.

The defendant claimed he never saw the two girls before the incident and denied picking up or touching the four-year-old. The defendant said that he was merely trying to stop the girls from leaving the apartment building gate to play, wanting them to stay inside. The defendant denied asking the girls if they wanted to go to a restaurant.

Continue reading "California Court of Appeal Clarifies "Force" Requirement of False Imprisonment - PC Section 236-237" »

The California Supreme Court seems likely to allow wide latitude for prosecutors to use DNA evidence to extend the statute of limitations in crimes such as rape. The statute of limitations is the amount of time a prosecutor has to file charges against the alleged defendant. If the prosecutor does not file charges in time, then the defendant cannot later be prosecuted for that crime.

In November, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case where a man was arrested for rape based upon a no-name “John Doe” warrant. Prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for a “John Doe” 4 days prior to the running of the six year statute of limitations. Six weeks later, Paul Eugene Robinson was arrested for rape after state computers matched his DNA to the no-name warrant.

Typically, an arrest warrant names the specific person that is to be arrested. However, prosecutors are beginning to use “John Doe” warrants as a way to get around the statute of limitations. When a sex crime is committed, the police collect DNA evidence from the scene of the crime. When the DNA evidence is processed, a unique genetic code corresponding to that particular DNA evidence is obtained. If a person has never been arrested, the state is unlikely to have their DNA in the state database. In these instances, a certain amount of time is required to match a person to that genetic code. Therefore, in order to prevent the statue of limitations from running, prosecutors will issue an arrest warrant for “John Doe,” rather then a specific person, since the person has yet to be identified.

A “John Doe” warrant gives prosecutors the freedom to file charges against the true defendant even after the statutory period has passed. If you have been charged with a sex crime involving DNA evidence and arrested on a no-name “John Doe” warrant, please contact our experienced criminal defense attorneys. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years of criminal defense experience in handling similar cases involving DNA evidence and no name warrants. Our attorneys can provide clarity to something as complicated and scientific as DNA evidence. Call 1-877-230-1528 today to speak to one of Wallin & Klarich’s aggressive and experienced Southern California sex crime defense attorneys. Please visit us at www.wklaw.com.

The Los Angeles district attorney has announced that if Switzerland does extradite filmmaker Roman Polanski, the criminal case from which he fled 31 years ago will be reopened. Polanski was originally indicted by the grand jury on six felonies that included rape against a 13 year old, but these charges were later dismissed after he accepted a deal to plead guilty to unlawful intercourse with a minor.

Legal experts however, believe that Polanski does have options to have the case dismissed should he be returned to Los Angeles. One option is asking that the charges be dropped because of alleged judicial misconduct by Judge Laurence Rittenband for retracting Polanski’s original sentence and adding another punishment. Another option is to withdraw his original guilty plea, which opens the possibility of a new trial with the original six felony charges. While this many seem risky, experienced Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys predict Polanski could benefit from this because the victim is unlikely to cooperate.

Continue reading "Polanski Has Options to Have Case Dismissed" »

Police obtained a warrant to search the property of a defendant thought to be a drug dealer. While in the house executing the search warrant, police officers decided to also search the defendant’s computer and discovered child pornography. As a result of the search of the computer, the homeowner was charged with unlawful possession of child pornography. Although the search warrant did not specifically authorize a search of any computers, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence found on the computer.

A motion to suppress evidence is used when evidence is obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights. If the motion is granted, the evidence is not allowed to be used at trial. In this case, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion, ruling that although the warrant never authorized the search of a computer, there was no violation of the defendant’s rights, and the evidence could be used against him. The court said that since the judge who issued the search warrant testified that he intended to include the search of computers, the search was proper.

The Court of Appeal in California disagreed and ruled that the search of the defendant’s computer violated his Constitutional rights. The court ordered that all evidence obtained from the computer was inadmissible at trial.

Continue reading "California Court Rules that Search of a Computer Not Specifically Mentioned in Search Warrant, Violated Defendant's Rights " »

On Friday, September 18, 2009 a Hofstra University Student returns to school to after being falsely accused of rape. Authorities dropped charges and freed four men, one of which was a Hofstra student, hours after their accuser told law enforcement that she had made up the sexual assault.

The accuser initially said that she had been forcibly tied up and sexually assaulted in a dormitory bathroom. However, after authorities told her that part of the incident was recorded on a cell phone video, the woman admitted the encounters with each of the men were consensual.

The falsely accused suffered from extreme public scrutiny. Their pictures were flashed across the news and they were treated like animals. This is just one case where the alleged victim admits to making up the accusations. It makes one wonder, how many people are serving time for something they did not do?

Continue reading "Hofstra University Student Falsely Accused of Rape Return to School" »

In People v. Earle, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion for separate trials. 172 Cal.App.4th 372 (2009). The defendant was charged with one count of misdemeanor indecent exposure and another count of felony assault in California. These counts occurred on different days, in different locations and with different victims.

The defendant conceded that evidence against him for the indecent exposure count was strong but was forced to go to trial because he did not commit the felony assault he was charged with.

The court reversed the conviction for the assault count because the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for separate trials and permitted the prosecution to place the strongly incriminating evidence of the misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure before the same jury deciding the much more difficult felony assault charge. The jurors’ exposure to evidence resulted in gross unfairness and thus the court reversed the conviction.

Continue reading "Conviction for Assault is Reversed Where the Judge Denied Defense Counsel's Motion for Separate Trials" »

Have you been convicted of a Felony in California, or been convicted of a Felony or Misdemeanor sex offense that requires you to register as a sex offender? If so, you may not have to carry the weight of your past on your shoulders anymore. With a Certificate of Rehabilitation, you can move on with your life.

A Certificate of Rehabilitation is a court order declaring that a person convicted of a Felony is now rehabilitated. Generally, if you were convicted of a Felony, and you still reside in California, you can hire a skilled criminal California defense attorney to assist you in filing a petition for a Certificate of Rehabilitation, provided that you the meet requirements of demonstrated rehabilitation, which are required by law.

If you were convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor sex offense, which requires you to register as a sex offender, and that felony or misdemeanor sex offense was dismissed under Penal Code section 1203.4; and, you are no longer in custody, or on parole, or probation, and you have not been incarcerated since your release, and you are not on probation for any other offense, and you have continuously resided in California for 5 years, you are eligible for a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

If you were convicted of a felony after May 13, 1943, and you were sentenced to state prison and you were discharged from custody or released on parole, and you have continuously resided in California for 5 years, you are eligible for a Certificate of Rehabilitation.

Continue reading "Am I Eligible for a Certificate of Rehabilitation?" »

An Experienced Criminal Defense Firm Will Do Everything Possible in Order to Prevent their Client from Having to Register as a Sex Offender

Antioch, a small community outside of San Francisco, has recently been making national headlines for being the home of over 100 sex offenders. Most specifically, it was the home of sex offender Phillip Garrido, who is accused of holding Jaycee Lee Dugard against her will for the past 18 years. Dugard’s horrifying story has put the spotlight on the community of Antioch, which has become a haven for sex offenders.

According to the latimes.com report, at least four sex offenders were registered within walking distance of one neighbor, including the man who perpetrated the sinister crime towards Dugard. An unidentified Antioch resident and neighbor of Garrido’s acknowledged that they were aware that their San Francisco suburb had become a safe haven for registered sex offenders due to both a lack of policing in the area and low cost of living expenses.

The woman said, “We’re mostly an older bunch, and we don’t pay that much attention. This is Boonieville. Honey, I collect knives. I wouldn’t mind doing them harm.”

Investigators are continuing to scour the home and property where the abducted girl was held for 18 years, and now claim that Garrido is considered a person of interest in other open cases where women working as prostitutes were found dead near his workplace.

Continue reading "Community is a Haven for Sex Offenders" »

An Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Will Take All Steps Necessary to Neutralize Any Prejudice a Criminal Defendant Faces in the Press While Diligently Defending Against Serious Charges

A report filed by Elizabeth Espinosa for KTLA.com details the incredible story of a 29-year-old girl who was recently found after being kidnapped and held captive for 18 years. The girl was abducted nearly two decades earlier from a school bus stop in South Lake Tahoe, the crime being witnessed by her step-father. All this time, the girl was thought to be dead by both her parents and loved ones.

Authorities say that the 29-year-old women walked into a police station in Concord and told investigators that she was the girl who had been kidnapped 18 years earlier.

As investigators continue to explore the facts surrounding this case, they continue to uncover more unbelievable facts. According to a USA Today report, the kidnapped girl was kept in a shed in an Antioch backyard and bore 2 children by the suspect. The girl was kept isolated from the world and forced to live in a shed, tents and outbuildings.

Continue reading "Kidnapped Girl Found 18 Years after Being Abducted" »

An Experienced Sex Crime Defense Attorney can Quietly Move This Case Through the Criminal System

A Goleta Man who lured women to his home under the guise of a job posting to clean his home was arrested on suspicion of exposing himself, according to an article on the LATIMES.COM. The 59 year old Santa Barbara man, who was free on bail, was awaiting arraignment on 3 charges of indecent exposure in California.

The man posted ads on craigslist.com looking for a caregiver to help with household duties several days a week. In one instance, when a women arrived at his residence for their interview the man explained that her job duties would involve assisting the man in taking a shower. The Goleta man then dis-robed and allegedly began to masturbate in front of the job applicant.

The report suggests that similar instances occurred with 2 other women who answered similar ads.

Indecent exposure convictions, like all sex crime convictions can alter an individual’s life permanently. Not only will one face imprisonment, but they will also have to endure the stigma that comes along with being convicted of a sex crime. Background checks will reveal an indecent exposure conviction to potential employers, and the convicted will have to register as a sex offender in California.

Continue reading "Goleta Man Arrested in Craigslist Lure" »

An Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Can Effectively Guide a Person through the Severe Charges They Face and Provide a Persuasive Defense

A KTLA.COM news report has detailed the story of an Orange County mom who ran a high end prostitution ring. The mother of two pleaded guilty to money laundering and transporting a person from Orange County to New York City for purposes of prostitution. The guilty plea followed a previous not-guilty plea that was entered in a Santa Ana court in May.

According to reports, the ring employed as many as 71 escorts, who catered to a high-profile list of clientele. Client’s reportedly paid up to $50,000 for one night with the escorts, this after paying a $1,500 initiation fee.

The video news reports alleges that the Orange County Madame has struck a deal with prosecutors, possibly turning over the identities of her clientele, a who’s who of Hollywood stars, professional athletes, and perhaps even politicians. Court prosecutors recommended Braun be sentenced to a fine of $30,000, 6 months of home confinement and five years probation.

Continue reading "OC Mom Admits Running High End Prostitution Ring" »

Tips from a Criminal Defense Attorney

It’s a question that you may ask yourself after hearing about men being arrested for having sexual relationships with underage girls that they met online.

In one case, a man in his 50s portrayed himself as being in his early 20s, met a 14 year old girl online and began having an online relationship with her. The girl would perform live sex acts on video for him and he later had sex with the girl. In another case, a man in his 40s met a 16 year old girl online and began an online relationship with her, and eventually set up a meeting to have sex with her. However, when he showed up for the meeting, he was greeted by an undercover cop and later learned that the undercover cop had posed as the 16 year old girl.

With networking websites such as Myspace, Facebook, Craigslist, and the latest Twitter, cases such as the two mentioned above, are becoming more and more common.

The best advice is of course to be sure you know exactly who you’re speaking to online. However, if you find yourself in a situation such as the two mentioned above, or any other situation that involves an underage girl or boy, you can be charged with a sex crime and if convicted, be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life. And your photo will be posted on the Megan’s Law website which will allow anyone looking on that website to know your exact whereabouts and to also know the exact sex crimes you were convicted of.

Continue reading "Do I Really Know Who I am Talking to Online? " »

As the law offices of Wallin & Klarich work alongside attorney Robert C. Kasenow, II in defending the rights of our client accused of alleged sexual offenses, we have filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court seeking evaluation of a lower court order. Exculpatory evidence through subpoena or any other court process has previously been denied via the federal Stored Electronic Communications Act.

Through our investigation and the nature of the two complainants’ contrary statements to law enforcement regarding the alleged assaults and stating that they did not know each other during the initial investigation, they are “friends” on Facebook and both have Myspace accounts. We believe there is a “connection” between the two complaints and that the information we are seeking from the complainants’ social networking site accounts will demonstrate that the two discussed their respective stories before speaking with law enforcement.

At Wallin & Klarich, it is our position as California criminal defense attorneys that, as is the instance with any other kind of business records, such as medical records, school records, telephone records, or accounting records, the defense should have the ability to require Mysapce and Facebook to release, under seal, to the Court, any exchanges the complainants may have made between one another. How can a case proceed without a confidential “in camera” review by the Court to assess the social networking site account content to determine whether they contain relevant or exculpatory evidence?

Continue reading "Facebook and Myspace Disclosure of Evidence that Holds a Defendant’s Innocence" »

Jeffrey MacKanin, a California Department of Justice special agent supervisor who oversaw a Federal and State task force investigating child exploitation crimes, posed on line as a 13-year-old runaway girl named “Hope.” On December 7, 2004 Arthur Crabtree, an attorney who sometimes acted as a “Pro Tem Judge” and was once a city of Glendale Police Officer, contacted “Hope” online. A series of contacts ensued between Crabtree and “Hope” over an approximate six-week period which included various sexual references, that he bought “Hope” a bikini, and that they would take a bubble-bath together. Crabtree ultimately sent “Hope” a bus ticket and arranged for the two to meet at a Los Angeles Greyhound station. Crabtree was arrested by the FBI at the Greyhound station after a special agent observed him approaching at least three different female teenagers. Crabtree was charged and eventually convicted in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County for, among other things, felony attempted lewd act upon a child under 14 stemming from his actions toward “Hope.”Crabtree appealed his conviction.

The essence of Crabtree’s argument on appeal of the attempted lewd act conviction was that his acts amounted to only preparation for committing a lewd act on “Hope” and his acts were insufficient to prove he attempted to commit a lewd act. Crabtree argued that the facts clearly showed that he had not reached the stage where the preparation had ended and the crime had begun, so as to make the attempt complete. Crabtree did not contest the fact that he drove to the bus station where he intended to meet “Hope” and that law enforcement found, among other things, condoms, Viagra, a bikini, and bubble bath in his trunk. However, he did argue that he was obviously not going to have sex with “Hope” in a bus depot but would have taken her to a hotel, and there were no hotel reservations made or any other evidence to support that his actions had moved form preparation to commit the crime to an attempt to commit a crime.

Continue reading "Attempted Lewd Act Conviction Did Not Require Police to Wait Until Defendant Actually Enter a Hotel Room With a Minor" »

Criminal Defense Attorney Precluded from Asking Alleged Victim about Prior Statements about Sexual Matters

On June 16, 2009 the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals issued a critical ruling that anyone who is facing child molestation charges must be familiar with if they are going to be able to properly defend themselves from these serious charges.

The court in Holley vs. Yarborough ruled that the accused’s criminal defense attorney should have been allowed to question the alleged victim as to statements that the alleged victim had made to other people in regard to “sexual matter,” and of her accusing other people of making sexual advances toward her.

The defense attorney argued that this evidence could indicate that the alleged victim had a tendency to fabricate sexual abuse allegations. In addition the accused’s lawyer argued that this information could explain to the jury that the alleged victim had knowledge about sexual matters from sources other than her alleged conduct with the defendant.

However, the trial judge denied his request. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to prison. The defendant appealed to the California Court of Appeals and his appeal was rejected. He then attempted to have the California Supreme Court reverse his conviction. They declined. This meant the accused had to turn to the federal courts for possible relief. This was a very wise decision. The Federal Court of Appeals agreed with his legal position and has reversed his conviction entitling him to a new trial. At the new trial attained due to the California appeal, he will be able to introduce this critical evidence which likely will result in a different jury verdict.

Continue reading "Federal Court of Appeals Reverses Child Molest Conviction " »

The Office of the Attorney General has a page on its website that allows those individuals who may be listed on the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) to check their ‘list status.’ The page was added to the site to adhere to California Penal Code section 11170, which in pertinent part, explains that:

(f) (1) Any person may determine if he or she is listed in the Child Abuse Central Index by making a request in writing to the Department of Justice.

There are two ways that an individual can check to see if they are listed on the CACI. The first involves filling out a form called the: California Department of Justice Child Abuse Central Index Self Inquiry Request form. Once completed, this form is mailed to the Department of Justice.

The second way an individual can find out if they are on the CACI is to send a brief notarized letter asking if their name is in the Child Abuse Central Index (CACI). The letter must include:

• All the names they have used


• Date of birth


• Identifying Numbers


• Current Address


• Previous California Residences

Continue reading "Child Abuse Central Index – Self Inquiry" »

Federal Court of Appeals Reverses Child Molest Conviction when Criminal Defense Attorney Precluded from Asking Alleged Victim about Prior Statements about Sexual Matters

On June 16, 2009 the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals issued a critical ruling that anyone who is facing child molestation charges must be familiar with whether they are able to properly defend themselves from these serious charges.

The court in Holley vs. Yarborough ruled that the accused’s criminal defense attorney should have been allowed to question the alleged victim as to statements that the alleged victim had made to other people in regard to “sexual matter” and accusing other people of making sexual advances toward her.

The defense attorney argued that this evidence could indicate that the alleged victim had a tendency to fabricate sexual abuse allegations. In addition, the accused’s lawyer argued that this information could explain to the jury that the alleged victim had knowledge about sexual matters from sources other than her alleged conduct with the defendant.

However, the trial judge denied his request. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to prison. The defendant appealed to the California Court of Appeals and his appeal was rejected. He then attempted to have the California Supreme Court reverse his conviction. They declined. This meant the accused had to turn to the federal courts for possible relief. This was a very wise decision. The federal court of appeals agreed with his legal position and has reversed his conviction entitling him to a new trial. At the new trial he will be able to introduce this critical evidence which likely will result in a different jury verdict.

Continue reading "Sex Crime Conviction Reversed in Federal Court of Appeals" »

Recently a 60 year old patient has accused Dr. Horace Newhard, a family doctor who has been a medical doctor since 1973, of sexual assault in California. The patient alleges that during a medical exam of her vaginal area that the doctor "thrust something into her" and then she felt the doctor touch her breasts. The doctor alleges that any touching that took place was entirely for medical purposes without sexual intent.

The Medical Board of California stated when interviewed that the doctors medical license is still active but at this time he is required to have a "third party" present when examining female patients.

When you are accused of a sexual offense, often the "touching" of the alleged victim is not contested. However, the "intention" of the defendant at the time of the touching is critical to the defense. The prosecution must prove that the accused touched the alleged victim with the specific intent" to sexually arouse himself or the alleged victim or both.

At Wallin and Klarich we have been helping people accused of sex crimes for almost 30 years. If you or a loved one finds themselves accused of a sex offense it would be a very wise decision to seek out the professional advise of an experienced California criminal defense lawyer from Wallin and Klarich at 888-220-6839 or go to wklaw.com for more information on how we can help you.

In the case of People v. Waldie, harmless error was established where the prosecutor was allowed to comment on the defendant’s failure to return numerous calls by police prior to arrest. A jury had convicted defendant Waldie of sex crimes that amounted to two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct against a child under the age of 14 years. On appeal, defendant claimed the court erred by permitting comment on defendant’s pre-arrest silence and his lack of cooperation with the investigation.

In Waldie, the lead detective testified that defendant never participated in a police interview, even after repeated phone calls, before he was arrested. The court overruled the defense counsel’s objection to the detective’s testimony on the grounds of hearsay. The court instructed the jury that defendant’s statement promising he would call back tended to show consciousness of guilt. (CALJIC No. 2.03.)

In closing argument, the prosecutor commented that defendant did not cooperate with the police investigation. On criminal appeal, defendant argued that his rights of due process and protection against self-incrimination were violated by the foregoing. Defendant urged this court to follow the majority view that the prosecution may not use evidence of defendant’s pre-arrest silence as evidence of guilt in the case in chief.

Court concluded it was error under the Fifth Amendment to allow evidence and argument about defendant’s pre-arrest silence, but the error was deemed harmless.

Knowing your rights is tantamount to protecting your freedom. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination often arises in the context of pre-arrest silence or statements. Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years of experience protecting individuals’ constitutional rights. Wallin & Klarich is centrally located in Orange County, California, with offices throughout Southern California. The firm boasts an AV rating from Martin Dale Hubble, the highest rating any law practice can obtain. Contact a skilled California criminal defense attorney at Wallin & Klarich for a free consultation by calling 1-888-280-6839. Also, visit us online at www.wklaw.com to learn more about your case and what can be done.