Two major celebrities were involved in stalking trials, watching Defense Attorneys protect their clients in spite of the surrounding celebrity. Shawn Johnson, an Olympic gold medal winner in gymnastics, testified in a trial where her alleged accuser was on trial. The man is accused of breaking onto a studio lot where she was filming “Dancing With the Stars." The man flew from Florida to Los Angeles carrying an array of weapons in his possession. His Criminal Attorney helped the man plea not guilty by reason of insanity. Ryan Seacrest also had an alleged stalker who was being prosecuted in L.A. Chidi Benjamin Uzomah, Jr. received a maximum sentence, 10 years, for stalking the “American Idol" host. In addition to this crime, Uzomah was on probation at the time for an incident in Orange County, in which he eventually pleaded guilty to three misdemeanors, including assault, battery and carrying a switchblade knife after he attacked one of Seacrest's bodyguards outside an event. Whenever a Criminal Lawyer represents such an individual, it requires skill, knowledge and a track record of success. Any criminal trial in the City of Angels can turn into a circus, and even if it does not it could permanently change the life of whoever is involved. Imagine what life would be like with a 10 year jail sentence. Having a skilled lawyer defending you and protecting your future can be the difference between 10 years in jail and freedom. Our Law Firm spends a great deal of time examining their client's case in order to protect the individual's best interest. Being arrested for, or charged with, stalking and/or kidnapping can lead to serious consequences and can be charged as a felony. In California, being convicted of a felony can lead to a lifetime of problems. It can affect your job situation, prevent you from getting certain jobs, and even land you in jail for years under California's Three Strikes rule. If you or someone you love has been charged with stalking, kidnapping or some other felony, contact Kestenbaum Eisner & Gorin today. We have been helping clients throughout Southern California contest their criminal charges and obtain superior results for years. Our skilled three strikes crimes attorneys have over 50 years of collective court room experience and we are fully prepared to undertake our clients' cases. When we work with our clients and their parents, we do everything possible to make sure that they receive the attention, resources, and dedicated legal counsel that they deserve. Tagged as: california criminal laws
Darren Chaker on June 16, 2010 at 8:11 a.m. wrote: 1. There is Nothing Offensive of Taking a Photograph of a Person in Public or Informing Others of Information Available to The Public. A. Photography is Speech. First and foremost, photography is speech. Areas open to the public are open for photography since they are a public forum. A "public forum" refers to a public place historically associated with free expression. United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176-77 (1983); Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983). B. There's No Expectation of Privacy in Public or What is Exposed to the Public. As relevant here getting out of a car in public is not invasion of privacy. The law most commonly recognized examples of diminished expectation of privacy include streets, sidewalks, and parks. Grace, 461 U.S. at 177; Warren v. Fairfax County, 196 F.3d 186, 191 (4th Cir. 1999) merely taking photographs of a minor is in public not offensive. "Offensive" conduct was defined in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal. 4th 1, 26 (1994) (offensiveness depends on "the degree of intrusion, the context, conduct and circumstances surrounding the intrusion as well as the intruder's motives and objectives, the setting into which he intrudes, and the expectations of those whose privacy is invaded"). Put another way, the law in California is clear - "there can be no privacy with respect to a matter which is already public" and therefore "there is no liability when the defendant merely gives further publicity to information about the plaintiff that is already public." Sipple v. Chronicle Publishing Co., 154 Cal. App. 3d 1040, 1047 (1984). It is not at issue that the photographs were taken in public as it is not an issue Miley decided to expose herself to the public. Simply put, since the photographer took a photograph (free speech) in public (no expectation of privacy) there is nothing wrong with the taking of the photograph. The next question is, does Miley exposing herself while getting out of a car constitute child porn? 2. Does The Momentary Exposure of a Minor's Genetalia in Public Constitute Child Porn? No. Abuse of the child occurs during the sexual acts which are recorded in the production of child pornography. 18 U.S.C. §2256 indicates the image of the minor must include "sexually explicit conduct". Sexually explicit conduct is defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256) as actual or simulated sexual intercourse (including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex), bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. Simply getting out of a car is not sexually explicit---it's getting out of a car. Conclusion: Caveat. Miley exposed herself, which is against the law. If a male exposed himself, women would be running to dial 911, and police would arrest the man for indecent exposure. However, since it's Miley, it's not against the law, just a free show where no ticket is required, and is likely a promotion for her new single "You Can't Tame Me"!