Los Angeles County Criminal Lawyer Blog

Pasadena criminal defense lawyers recently heard about a case out of Maryland that shows how critical it is for an experienced lawyer to be working on cases involving a charge of homicide.

Pasadena murder charges are the most serious in our criminal justice system. Murder charges in California can lead to life in prison or even the death penalty. On the other side, a person's life has been lost and the state will be leading an aggressive approach to seek out tough penalties.

And sometimes they're too aggressive. Other times, judges make mistakes that lead to problems with the case. The latter appears to be the case in State v. Allen, a murder case out of Maryland.

According to court documents, the defendant, Jeffrey Allen, had not one, not two, but possibly a third trial in connection with a murder charge from nearly a decade ago. In this case, Allen was at his friend John Butler's house. He asked for a ride home, but Butler refused. Allen got Butler's car keys and said he would drive himself home, which led to a fight.

In the fight, Allen stabbed Butler several times and drove off in the car. After crashing it, he was arrested by police and indicted on charges of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder with a deadly weapon and other less-serious charges.

At trial, he was found guilty of first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, armed robbery and less-serious charges. But on appeal, his lawyers argued that by the judge telling jurors that they could find him guilty of felony murder whether he formed the intent to rob before or after the murder, it violated Allen's rights. The appeals court said that an "afterthought" of robbery wasn't strong enough to reach the standard of felony murder.

He was granted a new trial and during that trial, there was another error by a judge. Having already been convicted of second-degree murder and armed robbery and on trial for only the felony murder charge, the judge told jurors about the previous robbery conviction, which essentially set the table for the state to prove felony murder. The judge not only told prospective jurors during jury selection, but then again during jury instructions.

In this situation, a state prosecutor, as well as the defense attorney, objected to the judge telling jurors about the previous convictions. They reasoned that the jury would wonder why it was judging a crime that seemingly had already been decided.

An appeals court again granted a new trial for felony murder, though it's unclear whether that has been scheduled or if the state will pursue the case again. At any rate, it's apparent that mistakes do happen and a skilled attorney will be able to help avoid in-trial mistakes by catching problems before they hit the jury's eyes or ears.

Continue reading "State v. Allen Shows That Sound Pasadena Murder Defense Lawyer is Key" »

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" »