Los Angeles County Criminal Lawyer Blog

While television legal shows often depict a criminal trial as having one critical moment where jurors gasp in horror and the whole case falls apart for one side, the "smoking gun" rarely exists.

Therefore, it's necessary for a Ventura criminal defense attorney to be prepared for anything that can come his or her way, including anticipating what tactics the prosecution may attempt to use in trying to secure a conviction against the client.

This is even more critical when you're talking about murder in Ventura. These charges can take away a person's freedom for life. In extreme cases, it means a person can face the death penalty if he or she is convicted. Therefore, it is critical that all aspects of the case be properly investigated and all evidence be scrutinized.

A recent court case out of Georgia -- State v. Kelly -- shows that every aspect of a case must take priority. Not only must the evidence be looked at carefully to determine if it shows doubt the defendant is guilty, but witness credibility may also be an issue.

Beyond that, picking a jury is often one of the most important aspects of a case because if biased people are allowed on the jury, that runs in the face of the defendant having a fair trial. The persuasiveness of a Type A personality on a jury can lead to a conviction even if there isn't evidence proving guilt.

And what instructions a jury hears before they deliberate are decided on by the lawyers, in large part. But the judge may say something to jurors that is inappropriate and could hurt the defendant's chances of a fair trial. An experienced Ventura criminal defense lawyer will be prepared for such things and be able to act quickly.

In the Kelly case, the defendant was convicted of felony murder and four other charges in connection with a 2003 killing. He was sentenced to life plus terms of 15 and five years, according to court documents.

During a motion for a new trial, a judge found that the court didn't adequately instruct the jury about the dangerousness of the charge that could be used to support the felony murder conviction. In California, a person can be charged with felony murder if prosecutors believe he or she killed someone while committing another felony, such as a robbery, sex crime or battery. In this case, the felony charge used to support the felony murder charge was theft by receiving stolen property.

While a judge granted the defendant's motion for a new trial, the Georgia Supreme Court recently reversed that decision. Justices found that while the judge did properly conduct a review of the jury instruction that wasn't objected to by either side, the judge shouldn't have granted a new trial. The state's high court ruled that while error, it wasn't enough to give a new trial.

Continue reading "State v. Kelly is Reminder That Trial Preparation By Ventura Defense Lawyer is Key" »

The recent case of United States of America vs. Carl Roy Burleson shows why an experienced lawyer must be used in any criminal case.

Leaving your case to an attorney without the necessary court experience can be detrimental, and the Burleson case shows why. An aggressive Valencia criminal defense lawyer can provide solid advice to clients who have been thrust into the criminal justice system.

Whether facing drug charges in Valencia or murder charges in Ventura, a motion to suppress can hold police officers accountable for their misuse of power and allow a defendant to go free on charges that are unwarranted.

In the Burleson case, he and two others were walking down the middle of a Roswell, New Mexico, street one early morning, holding a dog that didn't have a leash. Because they were walking in the street, a police officer pulled them over and started talking with them.

As it was revealed in a pretrial hearing, the officer said there had been a rash of property crimes in the area, including a shooting, and several pet thefts had been reported recently as well. Plus, the three had violated city ordinances by walking in the middle of the street.

After talking with the three, the officer was satisfied the dog wasn't stolen -- they were afraid the dog would run off since they didn't have a leash -- and the officer didn't intend to ticket them for walking in the middle of the street.

But the situation took a bad turn after that.

After the officer, who admitted he wasn't going to make any arrests or issue any citations, spoke with the three, he asked for their identification to run a warrants check through dispatchers.

Though they were no longer suspected of a crime, the officer asked for their identification anyway. After running a check, dispatchers said Burleson had a warrant issued for his arrest. So, as the officer began handcuffing him, he told the officer he had two guns and some ammunition on him.

The officer found the two guns and ammunition and booked the man into custody. He was later charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Before trial, his attorney convinced a judge to suppress the gun and ammunition because, as the officer stated, he no longer considered them suspects in a crime and there was no good reason for him to run a warrants check.

But the prosecution appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently overturned the ruling and sent the case back for further consideration. In its ruling, the appeals court stated that based on officer-safety concerns, the officer had the right to run a warrants check since there had been violence in that area recently.

It's unclear whether Burleson will be appealing the appeals court's decision.

Valencia criminal defense lawyers understand that a well-written and presented motion to suppress can mean the difference between a case won and a case lost. The defendant has the right to have a fair trial, and that includes making sure evidence that wasn't properly obtained stays out.

Continue reading "U.S. vs. Burleson Highlights Importance of Motion to Suppress in Valencia Criminal Cases" »

A recent study conducted by the American Judicature Society suggests that photo lineups aren't accurate ways to identify suspects, ABC News reports.

This study comes at the same time that New Jersey court officials are changing the way they are treating eyewitnesses and creating pretrial hearings to determine whether they are being unduly influenced by police officers into pointing out the suspect officers want to arrest.

These are interesting issues to bring up because Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers have been noting for years that eyewitnesses, by and large, aren't credible or accurate in pointing out and describing the alleged actions of defendants facing criminal charges.

Whether accused of a sex offense in Pasadena or a theft charge in Encino, eyewitness testimony can be very persuasive to a jury. Yet, recent findings dispute the accuracy of a witness' testimony.

In New Jersey, the state's Supreme Court recently created new rules to make it easier for defendants to challenge unreliable witnesses in criminal cases. The judges ruled that whenever a defendant brings up questions about the witnesses' reliability, a hearing must be held.

During the hearing, a judge must consider a range of issues that could have affected the witness' situation. That includes whether a police officer might have influenced what the the person said, the lighting, how far away the person was from the suspect, whether the witness was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time, or other factors.

While the rules will apply only to New Jersey cases, The New York Times speculates that the New Jersey ruling could spread to other states as the Supreme Court is known for being a trendsetter for criminal rulings.

This would be good news for Los Angeles criminal defendants, especially in light of the study reported by ABC News. The station reports on the case of Giovanni Ramirez, the man first accused of being involved in the opening day beating of a San Francisco Giants fan at Dodger Stadium.

He was initially considered a suspect after a witness picked him out of a lineup and he was charged with a probation violation. But through the diligent work by his Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, Ramirez was never charged with beating the man after it was proven he wasn't involved.

But the man's name was dragged through the mud as media worldwide printed his name and photo as being involved by a faulty witness. Even though charges were never filed and the system worked, the man suffered greatly.

Let's hope California's justices are watching New Jersey and seeing the continual problems with eyewitness and police lineups that are causing problems in our justice system. A solution would enable defendants to get fair trials instead of fearing that inaccurate witnesses be allowed to influence jurors into guilty verdicts.

Continue reading "Eyewitness Identification Key to State's Case, Though It's Coming Under Fire" »

A man dubbed the "Tri-Cities Bandit" was recently arrested after he allegedly robbed as many as 10 banks in recent months, the Glendale News-Press reports.

Bank robbery in Pasadena and throughout Southern California is a serious crime and is typically prosecuted in federal court rather than in a state-run criminal court because banks are backed by federal money. Therefore, the government will throw lots of resources at a bank robbery case and the defendant they decide to charge.

That's why hiring an experienced Pasadena Criminal Defense Lawyer in order to fight the charges is critical. In the federal system, penalties are usually steeper than in Los Angeles Superior Court, for instance. And bank robberies are investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations.

According to the news report, the 39-year-old man, along with a 42-year-old man identified as his getaway driver were recently arrested after robbing a bank in Westlake Village. Authorities believe he is responsible for 10 bank robberies throughout Southern California.

After leaving a bank recently, a Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy stopped a vehicle that matched the description of a vehicle that had left a bank that was robbed. After stopping the vehicle, the deputy arrested the two men.

ABC News reports that he never used a weapon during any of the robberies. The story provides a list of the banks that were recently robbed that these suspects are allegedly connected to:

• June 13, Citibank, Burbank
• July 19, Wells Fargo, Pasadena
• July 20, Wells Fargo, Glendale
• Aug. 11, EastWest, Tarzana
• Aug. 12, Grandpoint, Brentwood
• Aug. 15, OneWest, Chino Hills
• Aug. 16, Bank of America, Los Angeles
• Aug. 17, Bank of the West, Pasadena
• Aug. 17, US Bank, La Verne

Charges of theft in Los Angeles can range from simple shoplifting to using a weapon to rob a person at gunpoint. And, therefore, the possible penalties range from a few months in jail to years in prison.

There are many factors that go into a prosecution for robbery. The chief issue is identification. Misidentification of a suspect is the easiest way for a defendant to get out of the charges. In this case, probable cause for the car stop should also be questioned.

There are also times when officers unlawfully stop a vehicle or conduct an illegal search. Challenging the legality of a search can result in suppressed evidence and even a reduction or dismissal of the charges.

Continue reading ""Tri-Cities Bandit" Faces Burglary in Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank" »

A 21-year-old man whose speeding and alcohol consumption caused an accident that killed a passenger was recently sent to prison for four years, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports.

This tragedy, and others like it show why hiring a Pasadena DUI Defense Attorney is critical for those charged with DUI-related accidents. After a crash, things happen quickly. The driver is usually in pain, just realizing what happened, having witnesses run up asking them if they're hurt and then they hear sirens in the distance. Before they know it, they're being handcuffed and taken to a jail cell or interrogation room.

Being charged with DUI in Los Angeles can be terrifying. When a serious or fatal accident occurs, it's just that much worse. Many times, a driver fails to realize he can face criminal charges in connection with serious or fatal injuries suffered by passengers in his vehicle.

According to the news article, the man admitted he drove under the influence of alcohol and caused a crash that killed a 21-year-old woman who had recently come to the United States from China with aspirations of learning English and pursuing a dancing career.

The crash happened in San Diego, but the man is from Los Angeles County. The wreck happened on March 14 in a 2011 Toyota Camry on southbound Route 163 near Interstate 5. His blood-alcohol level was 0.10, just above the state's 0.08 legal limit for drivers. The female passenger died from blunt force head trauma.

A 23-year-old passenger had a bump on his head and the driver complained of pain in his head and neck. The man pleaded guilty to felony DUI alleging great bodily injury in July and was sentenced to four years and four months in prison. The judge was lenient on the defendant because he has no criminal history.

Under California law, a person can be sentenced to years or decades in prison if convicted of felony DUI if a person is injured or killed or if major damage occurs. After stacking charges against a defendant, prosecutors will sometimes attempt to get a defendant to enter a guilty plea to less-serious charges. Overcharging is a common tactic by the state.

But all cases require the diligent defense of an experienced DUI defense attorney in Ventura, Santa Clarita or elsewhere in Southern California. That means challenging the evidence the state plans to lean on for a conviction, including the witnesses and police observations.

In some cases, it's possible to disprove that the defendant was at fault in the accident. Perhaps faulty traffic signals, another driver or outside factors played a part in the wreck even though the driver had been drinking. As the Los Angeles County Criminal Lawyer Blog has reported before, breathalyzers in Los Angeles have been proven faulty through manufacturing defects and human error and those results can be challenged as well.

An arrest for DUI isn't the end of the world. But it is a very serious criminal charge -- whether filed as a misdemeanor or felony. It's a challenge to fight for justice and ensure that the defendant's rights are upheld in accordance with the law. And that challenge should be entrusted to an attorney who dedicates a significant portion of his practice to drunk driving defense in the Los Angeles area.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Man Gets 4 Years in Prison for Fatal DUI Wreck" »

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over much of the West Coast of the United States including Los Angeles County has ruled that strip-searches of incoming jail inmates are constitutional and necessary to prevent the smuggling of drugs and other forbidden items into lockup facilities.

This decision comes on the heels of a 2008 Ninth Circuit decision that such searches are so intrusive and dehumanizing that they violate a person's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure unless there is good cause to believe that someone is in possession of contraband.

The ruling is the result of a class-action lawsuit brought by nine antiwar protester against San Francisco arising out of their arrests at a 2002 demonstration.

Judge Sandra S. Ikuta attempted to justified the ruling by stating that the strip-search policy was "reasonable under the Fourth Amendment" as such searches resulted in hundreds of instances where money, drugs, and weapons were seized and that such items can jeopardize the safety of jail staff as well as other inmates.

Judge Sidney R. Thomas was joined by three other judges on the panel in his dissenting opinion. In his opinion Thomas stated that one of the plaintiffs had been arrested at a peaceful protest, slammed to a concrete floor during booking, stripped and subjected to a body-cavity search, then left naked in a cell for eleven hours. She was subsequently strip-searched a second time and then released without charges.

Thomas had ruled in 2008 that without probable cause such searches cannot be upheld as "the intrusiveness of body-cavity searches cannot be overstated."

While one's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure may be somewhat diminished in a lockup facility, in an automobile, or even in a school setting, under most circumstances, one cannot be detained or searched without ...

Continue reading "Strip-Searches of Incoming Jail Inmates Ruled Constitutional by Ninth Circuit" »

After pleading to one felony count of grand theft and one felony count of possession of methamphetamine, former three year veteran of the Glendora Police Department, Timothy Radogna, 34 received a 180 day jail sentence handed down by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Craig Richman. He also received three years of felony probation, and was ordered to take part in a 24 month drug rehab program and pay $500 in restitution to the Glendora Police Department, according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office.

Under California Health and Safety Code Section 11377, Possession of Methamphetamine, the law provides for up to three years in state prison. This charge is what is known as a wobbler, meaning that it can be charged as felony or a misdemeanor. As a misdemeanor charge, it carries up to one year in county jail. In some instances, a defendant in California may be eligible for alternative sentencing when faced with this charge. Such sentencing known as either the Proposition 36 program or the PC-1000 program requires the defendant to undergo drug treatment and drug education for a proscribed period of time. If the defendant successfully completes the program, the drug charge is ultimately dismissed. In this case, Radogna would not be eligible for most forms of alternative sentencing because he is charged with the non-drug related charge of Grand Theft along with Possession of Methamphetamine.

Under California Penal Code Section 487, Grand Theft, the law provides for up to three years in state prison. This charge is a felony. Grand Theft is theft of property or services, the value of which exceeds $400.

Continue reading "Plea Entered by Former Glendora Police Officer in Methamphetamine Possession, Grand Theft Case" »