It is a widely known fact that the conflict between drug laws in California has created a bit of a headache from time to time on certain L.A. criminal defense matters. The challenge is that there is more than one conflict, one between the state of California and the federal government, another between different parts of California. The law in California allows for medical marijuana; however a recent matter in Los Angeles federal court has heightened the conflict.
A man, Charlie Lynch is charged with distributing over $2 million dollars worth of Marijuana since 2006, some of which to teenagers not yet old enough to drink alcohol. Lynch's defense attorneys would like to present evidence that their client was dispensing doctor-prescribed medical marijuana to sick people in accordance with state law and with the blessing of elected officials in Morro Bay. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that federal drug laws trump those of the state and that the reasons why the drug is distributed are irrelevant. Another wrinkle is that a Federal Drug Administration official may have given the okay for Lynch to distribute Marijuana.
This particular case is being tried by a jury, and this has created some confusion as to the marijuana laws and how they should be approached. While being quested, one juror, an engineer, said he had trouble reconciling how it could be legal to sell marijuana under state law and prohibited by federal law.
"It just doesn't make sense to me," he said. The man was excused from the panel.
Other potential jurors were dismissed after revealing strong feelings on the issue.
"I don't think I'd be a fair juror because I tend to side with the state law," said a young woman from Torrance who told lawyers she had one friend with chronic back pain and another with stomach cancer who had used the drug medicinally.
This lack of clarity has led, and will most likely continue to lead, to quite different decisions in different courts and different locations in California. This means that there will be a race to charge a person, and/or try them, in specific courts in the state. Having an experienced and knowledgeable criminal attorney in marijuana defense and other drug matters may make all the difference.
Tagged as: drug crimes defense
Under California criminal law and procedure, an accused who is tried as an adult is typically 18 years old or older.
Individuals under 18 typically receive far more lenient treatment in juvenile court and/or a stay in juvenile hall if they are convicted. They usually do not face the risk of county jail, or prison.
However, a severely violent crime, or habitual criminal activity may persuade a judge to try a minor as an adult, which for certain crimes could lead to life in prison. This proceeding is called a "Fitness hearing."
In Oxnard, one such case involving a violent crime, which also qualified as a hate crime, may proceed in that direction. A judge has ruled that a 14-year-old who allegedly killed a classmate who was openly gay can be tried as an adult, and if convicted this individual could receive a life sentence. The alleged killer shot they openly gay student in the head, after which the boy was pronounced brain dead and had his organs donated.
A violent crime such as this is often the kind of case a judge will consider trying a minor as an adult for, in part because there may have been some pre-meditation on the boy's part. The violence coupled with the "hate crime" aspect also puts public pressure to bring about an acceptable solution.
The Los Angeles Daily News reports that hate crimes are up 28%, and a judge/jury aware of that rise may want to punish violent offenders as a message to others. Certain violent gang activity may also cause a judge to charge a minor as an adult.
Alternatively, the DA's Office can also utilize a legislated court procedure which allows it to file directly on a juvenile in adult court, without seeking to first file a Fitness Motion in juvenile. This is referred to as a "Direct Filing." With this new California law in place, a judge's discretion is completely bypassed, and the DA's Office become the arbitrer of whether a juvenile goes to adult court. Accordingly, a juvenile faces the possibility of being housed in state prison if convicted in adult court.
Tagged as: jury trial defense, juvenile law
A bill proposed in February of this year in the California State Assembly, AB 2417, would supposedly strengthen victims' rights by paying out more money for witnesses accounts in certain circumstances, provide leeway in "hear-say" rulings and increase prison time for certain offenses.
Amongst other provisions, this bill was proposed in order to:
- appropriate $10,000,000 annually, adjusted for inflation as specified, from the General Fund to the Safe Neighborhoods Compliance Enforcement Fund.
- expand the definition of "unavailable as a witness" to include a situation in which a declarant is present at a hearing and refuses to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement despite a court order to do so.
- provide that any person who possess methamphetamine, as specified, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years.
While some of the plans in this proposition seem fine, it also seems that the legislature is looking to turn communities against each other, and imprison those convicted of certain crimes for longer periods of time. Many of those in jail currently in California are drug users, not violent offenders or otherwise.
Crime bills often use such terms as "victim's rights" and "safe neighborhoods." However, rarely are the terms "rights of the individual," "guilty until proven innocent" and "constitutional rights" brought up or discussed at all.
If you find yourself accused of committing a crime, contact the attorneys at Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, LLP. The attorneys at Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, LLP are skilled in all manner of criminal defense and can help guide you toward a proper defense.
Tagged as: federal law and defense
Criminal prosecutions in Southern California, for the most serious offenses such as murder, rape, and kidnapping, frequently rely on DNA to identify the suspect. This evidence is often hotly contested by L.A. criminal lawyers in jury trials. Besides the typical problems with collection and proper storage of DNA evidence, a frequently debated jury issue is how rare is the DNA profile obtained from the evidence (i.e. saliva, sperm or blood is recovered from clothing, skin, fingernails or other item and is then compared to suspect's DNA profile). How many people share the profile? While every person's DNA is different, the testing for court is limited to 13 locations on the DNA strand.
In court, the jury considers what are the odds another person has a profile that is similar to the defendant on trial. If the profile is not uncommon, then the defense argument goes that many other possible suspects could have deposited the sample and the results do not definitely prove that the defendant on trial is the guilty party. Of course, the prosecution will often present other evidence to support its DNA case - witness statements, defendant's own statements, lack of an alibi, etc - all that link the defendant on trial to the crime.
But what if the case is just a cold-hit DNA case? In other words, all the prosecution has is the DNA sample, to tie the Defendant to the crime. Is DNA evidence alone sufficient to link a suspect to a murder or rape scene - beyond a reasonable doubt? The following story from a local Southern California newspaper raises serious questions about DNA evidence, that the FBI apparently wanted to keep private.
The story reported that Arizone State crime lab analyst Kathryn Troyer was running tests on Arizona's DNA database when she stumbled across two felons with remarkably similar genetic profiles. The men matched at nine of the 13 locations on chromosomes, or loci, commonly used to distinguish people. The FBI estimated the odds of unrelated people sharing those genetic markers to be as remote as 1 in 113 billion. But the mug shots of the two felons suggested that they were not related: One was black, the other white.In the years after her 2001 discovery, Troyer found dozens of similar matches -- each seeming to defy impossible odds.
As word spread, these findings by a little-known lab worker raised questions about the accuracy of the FBI's DNA statistics and ignited a legal fight over whether the nation's genetic databases ought to be opened to wider scrutiny.
The FBI laboratory, which administers the national DNA database system, tried to stop distribution of Troyer's results and began an aggressive behind-the-scenes campaign to block similar searches elsewhere, even those ordered by courts, a Times investigation found.
At stake is the credibility of the compelling odds often cited in DNA cases, which can suggest an all but certain link between a suspect and a crime scene.
When DNA from such clues as blood or skin cells matches a suspect's genetic profile, it can seal his fate with a jury, even in the absence of other evidence. As questions arise about the reliability of ballistic, bite-mark and even fingerprint analysis, genetic evidence has emerged as the forensic gold standard, often portrayed in courtrooms as unassailable.
But DNA "matches" are not always what they appear to be. Although a person's genetic makeup is unique, his genetic profile -- just a tiny sliver of the full genome -- may not be. Siblings often share genetic markers at several locations, and even unrelated people can share some by coincidence.
No one knows precisely how rare DNA profiles are. The odds presented in court are the FBI's best estimates.
The Arizona search was, in effect, the first test of those estimates in a large state database, and the results were surprising, even to some experts.
Defense attorneys seized on the Arizona discoveries as evidence that genetic profiles match more often than the official statistics imply -- and are far from unique, as the FBI has sometimes suggested.
Lawyers seek searches
Now, lawyers around the country are asking for searches of their own state databases.
Several scientists and legal experts as well want to test the accuracy of official statistics using the nearly 6 million profiles in CODIS, the national system that includes most state and local databases.
"DNA is terrific and nobody doubts it, but because it is so powerful, any chinks in its armor ought to be made as salient and clear as possible so jurors will not be overwhelmed by the seeming certainty of it," said David Faigman, a professor at UC Hastings College of the Law, who specializes in scientific evidence.
FBI officials argue that, under their interpretation of federal law, use of CODIS is limited to criminal justice agencies. In their view, defense attorneys are allowed access to information about their specific cases, not the databases in general.
Bureau officials say critics have exaggerated or misunderstood the implications of Troyer's discoveries.
Indeed, experts generally agree that most -- but not all -- of the Arizona matches were to be expected statistically because of the unusual way Troyer searched for them.
In a typical criminal case, investigators look for matches to a specific profile. But the Arizona search looked for any matches among all the thousands of profiles in the database, greatly increasing the odds of finding them.
As a result, Thomas Callaghan, head of the FBI's CODIS unit, has dismissed Troyer's findings as "misleading" and "meaningless."
He urged authorities in several states to object to Arizona-style searches, advising them to tell courts that the probes could violate the privacy of convicted offenders, tie up crucial databases and even lead the FBI to expel offending states from CODIS -- a penalty that could cripple states' ability to solve crimes.
In one case, Callaghan advised state officials to raise the risk of expulsion with a judge, then told the officials that expulsion was unlikely to happen, according to a record of the conversation filed in court.
In an interview with The Times, Callaghan denied any effort to mislead the court.
The FBI's arguments have persuaded courts in California and other states to block the searches. But in at least two states, judges overruled the objections.
The resulting searches found nearly 1,000 morepairs that matched at nine or more loci.
"I can appreciate why the FBI is worried about this," said David Kaye, an expert on science and the law at Arizona State University and former member of a national committee that studied forensic DNA.
But "people's lives do ride on this evidence," he said. "It has got to be explained."
Concerned about errors
From her first discovery in 2001, Troyer and her colleagues in the Arizona Department of Public Safety's Phoenix DNA lab were intrigued.
At the time, many states looked at only nine or fewer loci when searching for suspects. (States now commonly attempt to compare 13 loci, though often fewer are available from old or contaminated crime scene evidence.)
Based on Troyer's results, she and her colleagues believed that a nine-locus match could point investigators to the wrong person.
"We felt it was interesting and just wanted people to understand it could happen," said Troyer, who initially declined to be interviewed, then cautiously discussed her findings by telephone, with her bosses on the line.
"If you're going to search at nine loci, you need to be aware of what it means," said Todd Griffith, director of the Phoenix lab. "It's not necessarily absolutely the guy."
Troyer made a simple poster for a national conference of DNA analysts. It showed photos of the white man and the younger black man next to their remarkably similar genetic profiles.
Some who saw the poster said they had seen similar matches in their own labs.
But Bruce Budowle, an FBI scientist who specializes in forensic DNA, told colleagues of Troyer that such coincidental matches were to be expected.
Three years later, Bicka Barlow, a San Francisco defense attorney, came across a description of Troyer's poster on the Internet.
Its implications became clear as she prepared to defend a client accused of a 20-year-old rape and murder.
A database search had found a nine-locus match between his DNA profile and semen found in the victim's body. Based on FBI estimates, the prosecutor said the odds of a coincidental match were as remote as 1 in 108 trillion.
Recalling the Arizona discovery, Barlow wondered if there might be similar coincidental matches in California's database -- the world's third-largest, with 360,000 DNA profiles at the time. The attorney called Troyer in Phoenix to learn more.
Troyer seemed eager to talk about her discovery, which still had her puzzled, Barlow recalled. The analyst told Barlow she had searched the growing Arizona database since the conference and found more pairs of profiles matching at nine and even 10 loci.
Encouraged, Barlow subpoenaed a new search of the Arizona database. Among about 65,000 felons, there were 122 pairs that matched at nine of 13 loci. Twenty pairs matched at 10 loci. One matched at 11 and one at 12, though both later proved to belong to relatives.
Barlow was stunned. At the time, such matches were almost unheard of.
That same year, Fred Bieber, a Harvard professor and expert in forensic DNA, testified in an unrelated criminal case that just once had he seen a pair of profiles matching at nine of 13 markers, and they belonged to brothers. He had heard of a 10-locus match between two men, but it was the result of incest -- a man whose father was also his older brother.
Indeed, since 2000, the FBI has treated certain rare DNA profiles as essentially unique -- attributable to a single individual "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty."
Other crime labs have adopted the policy, and some no longer tell jurors there is even a possibility of a coincidental match.
Soon after Barlow received the results, Callaghan, the head of the FBI's DNA database unit, reprimanded Troyer's lab in Phoenix, saying it should have sought the permission of the FBI before complying with the court's order in the San Francisco case.
Asked later whether Callaghan had threatened her lab, Troyer said in court, "I wouldn't say it's been threatened, but we have been reminded."
Dwight Adams, director of the FBI lab at the time, faxed Griffith, Troyer's boss, a letter saying the Arizona state lab was "under review" for releasing the search results.
"While we understand that the Arizona Department of Public Safety, acting in good faith, complied with a proper judicial court order in the release of the nine-loci search of your offender DNA records, this release of DNA data was not authorized," Adams wrote, asking Arizona to take "appropriate corrective action."
Arizona officials obtained a court order to prevent Barlow from sharing the results with anyone else.
But it was too late. After a judge found the Arizona results to be irrelevant in Barlow's case, the defense attorney e-mailed them to a network of her colleagues and DNA experts around the country.
Soon, defense lawyers in other states were seeking what came to be known as "Arizona searches."
For years, DNA's strength in the courtroom has been the brute power of its numbers. It's hard to argue with odds like 1 in 100 billion.
Troyer's discovery threatened to turn the tables on prosecutors. At first blush, the Arizona matches appeared to contradict those statistics and the popular notion that DNA profiles, like DNA, were essentially unique.
Law enforcement experts scrambled to explain.
Three months after the court-ordered search in Arizona, Steven Myers, a senior DNA analyst at the California Department of Justice, gave a presentation to the Assn. of California Crime Lab Analysts. It was titled "Don't Panic" -- a hint at the alarm Troyer's discovery had set off.
Many of the Arizona matches were predictable, Myers said, given the type of search Troyer had conducted.
In a database search for a criminal case, a crime scene sample would have been compared to every profile in the database -- about 65,000 comparisons. But Troyer compared all 65,000 profiles in Arizona's database to each other, resulting in about 2 billion comparisons. Each comparison made it more likely she would find a match.
When this "database effect" was considered, about 100 of the 144 matches Troyer had found were to be expected statistically, Myers found.
Troyer's search also looked for matches at any of 13 genetic locations, while in a real criminal case the analyst would look for a particular profile -- making a match far less likely.
Further, any nonmatching markers would immediately rule out a suspect. In the case of the black and white men who matched at nine loci, the four loci that differed -- if available from crime scene evidence -- would have ensured that the wrong man was not implicated.
The presence of relatives in the database could also account for some of Troyer's findings, the FBI and other experts say. Whether that's the case would require cumbersome research because the databases don't contain identifying information, they say.
Some scientists are not satisfied by any of these explanations. They wonder whether Troyer's findings signal flaws in the complex assumptions that underlie the FBI's rarity estimates.
Behind the estimates
In the 1990s, FBI scientists estimated the rarity of each genetic marker by extrapolating from sample populations of a few hundred people from various ethnic or racial groups. The estimates for each marker are multiplied across all 13 loci to come up with a rarity estimate for the entire profile.
These estimates make assumptions about how populations mate and whether genetic markers are independent of each other. They also don't account for relatives.
Bruce Weir, a statistician at the University of Washington who has studied the issue, said these assumptions should be tested empirically in the national database system.
"Instead of saying we predict there will be a match, let's open it up and look," Weir said.
Some experts predict that given the rapid growth of CODIS, such a search would produce one or more examples of unrelated people who are identical at all 13 loci.
Such a discovery was once unimaginable.
In January 2006, not long after Barlow distributed the results of the court-ordered search in Arizona, the FBI sent out a nationwide alert to crime labs warning of similar defense requests.
Soon after, the bureau's arguments against the searches were being made in courtrooms around the country.
In California, Michael Chamberlain, a state Department of Justice official, persuaded judges that such a search could have "dire consequences" -- violating the privacy of convicted offenders, shutting down the database for days and risking the state's expulsion from the FBI's national DNA system. All this for a search whose results would be irrelevant and misleading to jurors, Chamberlain argued.
When similar arguments were made in an Arizona case, the judge ruled that the search would be "nothing more than an interesting deep sea fishing expedition."
But in Illinois and Maryland, courts ordered the searches to proceed, despite opposition from the FBI and state officials at every turn.
In July 2006, after Chicago-area defense attorneys sought a database search on behalf of a murder suspect, the FBI's Callaghan held a telephone conference with Illinois crime lab officials.
The topic was "how to fight this," according to lab officials' summary of the conversation, which later became part of the court record.
Callaghan suggested they tell the judge that Illinois could be disconnected from the national database system, the summary shows. Callaghan then told the lab officials that "it would in fact be unlikely that IL would be disconnected," according to the summary.
In an interview, Callaghan disputed he said that.
"I didn't say it was unlikely to happen," he said. "I was asked specifically, what's the likelihood here? I said, I don't know, but it takes a lot for a state to be cut off from the national database."
A week later, the judge ordered the search. Lawyers for the lab then took the matter to the Illinois Supreme Court, arguing in part that Illinois could lose its access to the federal DNA database. The high court refused to block the search.
The result: 903 pairs of profiles matching at nine or more loci in a database of about 220,000.
State officials obtained a court order to prevent distribution of the results. The Times obtained them from a scientist who works closely with the FBI.
A 'unilateral decision'
A similar fight occurred in a death penalty case in Maryland during the summer and fall of 2006.
The prosecutor saw a DNA match between a baseball cap dropped at the crime scene and the suspect as so definitive that he didn't plan to tell the jury about the chance of a coincidental match, records show.
Seeking to cast doubt on the evidence, the defense persuaded the judge to order an "Arizona search" of the Maryland database. The state did not comply.
After the defense filed a contempt-of-court motion, Michelle Groves, the state's DNA administrator, argued in court and in an affidavit that, based on conversations with Callaghan at the FBI, she believed the request was burdensome and possibly illegal.
According to Groves, Callaghan had told her that complying with the court order could lead Maryland to be disconnected from CODIS -- a result Groves' lawyer said would be "catastrophic."
Groves' affidavit was edited by FBI officials and the technology contractor that designed CODIS, court records show. Before submitting the affidavit, Groves wrote the group an e-mail saying, "Let's see if this will work," court records show.
It didn't. After the judge, Steven Platt, rejected her arguments, Groves returned to court, saying the search was too risky. FBI officials had now warned her that it could corrupt the entire state database, something they would not help fix, she told the court.
Platt reaffirmed his earlier order, decrying Callaghan's "unilateral" decision to block the search.
"The court will not accept the notion that the extent of a person's due process rights hinges solely on whether some employee of the FBI chooses to authorize the use of the [database] software," Platt wrote.
The search went ahead in January 2007. The system did not go down, nor was Maryland expelled from the national database system.
In a database of fewer than 30,000 profiles, 32 pairs matched at nine or more loci. Three of those pairs were "perfect" matches, identical at 13 out of 13 loci.
Experts say they most likely are duplicates or belong to identical twins or brothers. It's also possible that one of the matches is between unrelated people -- defying odds as remote as 1 in 1 quadrillion.
Maryland officials never did the research to find out.
Tagged as: jury trial defense, motion to dismiss unlawful police search
Organized crime and gang activity are situations that police, the media and politicians often pay great attention to, and this leads to laws that can be extremely harsh for those accused of belonging to a gang. Many reports have surfaced of late about feet washing up on shore in the Pacific Northwest and Canada. The feet are alleged to be involved in some sort of gang activity or organized crime. Some authorities believe people who got on the "wrong side" of certain people had their feet cut off, and may have been killed.
In Los Angeles, gang activity is said to be increasing in volume. Authorities are targeting those individuals thought, or accused of, being involved with gang activity.
Gang crimes are quite varied, everything from graffiti to murder. Gangs are also often involved in drug activity in the communities they inhabit.
The penalties for belonging to, or being affiliated with, a gang come from both state and Federal authorities. The United States Senate passed the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007, which attempted to prosecute gang activity by defining new federal criminal offenses and boosting federal criminal penalties for gang crimes. While some criticize the law as vague and that it infringes upon local law enforcement, Congress is attempting to curb gang violence through more strict laws.
Attorneys defending those implicated in gang related crimes must have the kind of knowledge and experience that will allow them to understand the laws, the law enforcement philosophy and the nature of the justice system. The attorneys at Kestenbaum Eisner & Gorin LLP have decades of experience and have a track record of successfully defending clients from a variety of criminal charges.
Tagged as: california criminal laws, gang allegations
A Driving Under the Influence conviction most likely bring with it some form of probation, whether or not jail time is involved. Probation usually gives a certain length of time in which the convicted must stay clear of similar convictions. For example, Khloe Kardashian, featured on E! Entertainment Television's "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" reality show and daughter of Los Angeles attorney Robert Kardashian, had to report to jail for violating her probation in relation to a prior DUI conviction.
A judge earlier this month sentenced the 24-year-old to up to 30 days in jail after she admitted violating her probation by failing to enroll in an alcohol education class and clean up roadside trash.
Jail overcrowding forced officials to release her early, just as they have with inmates, including other well-known personalities such as Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan.
For those individuals not blessed with celebrity, the laws can be fierce for those with multiple DUI offenses. A second offense will lead to a license suspension of up to 2 years, 96 hours to 1 year in county jail, a third offense can equal license suspension of up to 3 years, 4 months to 1 year in county jail, a fourth offense is license suspension of up to 4 years, 6 months to 3 years in county jail or state prison. All offenses may also include probation, alcohol classes or counseling, and fines of up to $1,000.
The Los Angeles DUI attorneys at Kestenbaum Eisner & Gorin LLP are experienced with DUI charges, the science behind blood alcohol content and the complex legal system surrounding DUI charges.
Tagged as: counterfeit goods pc 350, violent crimes defense
Internet downloading of child pornography has been a hot-button law enforcement issue in the past year. Los Angeles criminal lawyers are seeing more and more arrests, through the cooperation of local L.A. police department and federal agents.
Criminal defense attorneys should be aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently upheld a strict new federal laws that makes it a crime to send messages over the computer that offer or seek child pornography, even when no such pornography exists.
The 7-2 ruling gives prosecutors a powerful weapon to go after those who talk about child pornography online. It also appears to take away a defense for those who say the material they were discussing involves computer images, not depictions of real children engaged in sex.
These type of charges are very serious, carrying substantial prison time. Typical defense inquiries in these cases include 1)who actually downloaded the pornography and 2)who possessed the photos or video at the time of the police arrest.
Tagged as: child pornography pc 311_11
A parole search is often used by police officers to justify a warrantless search of a car or home - when they know a subject is on parole. The search does not justify searching someone who is with the parolee, without separate legal justifications. Los Angeles criminal lawyers can file a Motion to Suppress Evidence, pursuant to Penal Code Section 1538.5, to argue to the judge that the stop of a car and/or the search of a house were unconstitutional. A successful motion typically means that the criminal case will be dismissed.
Here is an example of a recent case were the parole search was deemed to be unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal.
A police officer conducting a parole search of a vehicle driven by a male parolee lacked authority to search the distinctly female purse he found on the floorboard of the seat from which the car
Tagged as: probation and sentencing laws
In 1994, California enacted the infamous Three Strikes Laws which handed down mandatory and extended periods of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. Since that time, prison populations have increased 25%, showing they have not been any real deterrent to crime.
Under the Three Strikes Laws, the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, previous strikes for home burglary), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years). It's almost as if the state uses prior convictions to imprison people they no longer want to prosecute or deal with, regardless of circumstances.
California also counts as strikes offenses in any of the other 49 states, as well as Federal crimes. Results of the Three Strikes Laws are incredibly unfortunate, both for the convicted and the tax payer. As of 2007, the California prison system, which is designed to hold 83,000, holds 170,000 inmates.
Throughout the years, various media outlets have investigated the gross negligence in the California prison system, as well as the affects the Three Strikes Laws have had on individuals and communities. California citizens have even attempted to pass laws adjusting the Three Strikes rules, however the propositions have failed in 2004 and 2000.
The attorneys at Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, LLP are experienced with Three Strikes Laws, their consequences, and how to manage the system and situation that defendants find themselves in.
Tagged as: three strikes laws
Pro Se representation, or representing yourself in court/acting as your own legal counsel, is highly controversial, to say the least. In most cases that receive media attention, a violent criminal with a questionable mental state defends himself/herself. However, the practice isn't that uncommon, and it happens much more often on a small scale. Foregoing the use of an attorney in a criminal or civil procedure may seem like a cost-effective idea, but the question remains - is it a wise choice to a defend a criminal case in Southern California courtrooms?
In the case of actor Dylan McDermott, he's chosen to represent himself during a divorce proceeding. The challenge for Mr. McDermott is, can he afford to make mistakes and lose ground on the settlement?
In a recent decision, WILLIAM M. HALLEY v. STATE OF MONTANA, in The Supreme Court of the State of Montana, a defendant claimed that he was denied his legal rights, in part due to interference of his attempted pro se representation. He claimed the attorneys that were appointed to him gave him ineffective counsel. He was found guilty in the case for which he defended himself, and was given a 40 year suspended sentence. So, in the end he greatly annoyed the attorneys in the case, the judge and filed several motions concering portions of the law he did not have a good understanding of, which all led to being found guilty.
There are many "apparent" reasons to defend yourself, cost, intelligence, seeming know how, but in the end a skilled and experienced attorney can not only take the burden off of your shoulders, but can navigate the legal waters in a way you can't. Whether it's a DUI matter, drug charge or some other felony or misdemeanor offense, an experienced criminal defense attorney may save you thousands of dollars in fines, years in jail and a damaged criminal record.
The ins and outs of the law, the ability to negotiate and plea bargain, and the experience of being able to defend against a knowledgeable prosecutor is invaluable. Hiring a plumber makes sense if a pipe bursts and hiring an attorney makes sense if the police arrest you.
Tagged as: federal law and defense
Eisner Gorin LLP has been recognized as one of the best U.S. law firms, based on the experience, professionalism, and ethics of its criminal defense lawyers and attorneys. We aggressively defend clients in all Southern California courtrooms on state and federal charges, including DUI, DMV, misdemeanor, felony, juvenile cases, in the following communities and courthouses.