Criminal Law News

A new bill that has just been passed by the California Senate would increase prison time for sex offenders and extend parole terms for certain kinds of offenders.  The bill, Chelsea’s Law, will now head to the California Assembly and if it passes, will end up on the desk of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign into law.

Chelsea’s Law is named after 17-year-old Chelsea King, who was raped and murdered while jogging in a suburban San Diego park.  The murderer was John Gardner, a registered sex offender who pleaded guilty to Chelsea’s death.  Chelsea’s Law has several provisions that should alarm California criminal defense lawyers.  For instance, it provides a one strike sentence without parole, and lifetime parole for sex offenders who have committed crimes against children below the age of 14.  The crimes that are included under the provisions of Chelsea’s Law include rape, lewd and lascivious acts on a minor, first-degree burglary that resulted in great bodily injury, and sexual abuse of a child committed during a kidnapping.

Offenders convicted of sex crimes on children below the age of 14 would be given lifetime parole, and placed under GPS supervision with no possibility of discharge.  That’s not all. Under the law, any registered sex offender who commits a felony offense and enters any park where children gather frequently without obtaining written permission of a park official or a parole officer, would be charged with a misdemeanor.  The law also calls for revision of California’s laws governing the treatment and management of mentally disordered sex offenders, to continue detention of such offenders.

The problem that California criminal defense attorneys have with Chelsea’s Law is that it aims to provide a one-stop solution to deal with sex offenders.  Some of the provisions will do nothing more than drive sex offenders to the fringes, instead of giving them access to the treatment and counseling they require.  Besides the cost of maintaining a system like this will be exorbitant.

Anybody who has watched any police show on TV is familiar with the Miranda rights-You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to speak to an attorney.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.  Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you? However, suspects in the future will likely hear a markedly different version of the Miranda rights.  This is the result of a slow chipping away at these rights, to the extent that some current versions leave much room for ambiguity.

This year, the Supreme Court made several revisions to the Miranda warnings.  It is a development that Alabama criminal defense attorneys have watched with growing concern.  During the recently ended Supreme Court session, the court placed several limits on the rights.  The decisions do not change the wording of the Miranda Rights as most Americans know them.  However, the Supreme Court did approve of one version of the Miranda Rights in the state of Florida.

The problem that Alabama criminal defense lawyers have with this version is that the wording does not inform suspects that they have a right to have a lawyer present when they’re being questioned by police.  The Miranda warning that is currently being used in some parts of Florida goes like this – You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions.  If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning.  You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.

Criminal defense lawyers have argued that this version of the warning leaves room for much ambiguity, and does not make it clear to the suspect that he can have a lawyer present during his questioning.  However, the court ruled that this version contains all the information a suspect needs.

There are other changes too.  A suspect’s request for an attorney is now only valid for 14 days after he’s released from police custody.  Two weeks after he is released from custody, police can question a suspect without having to repeat his Miranda rights.

The last change is the strangest of all.   For the first time now, a suspect must inform the police that he or she intends to remain silent.  In other words, your right to remain silent is only valid if you actually inform the police that you intend to remain silent.

The numbers of motorists driving under the influence in California and around the country has dropped significantly over the past five years.  Law enforcement agencies are now targeting a new category of motorists – those driving under the influence of prescription drugs.

Last week, the New York Times ran a report on how the incidences of driving under the influence of medications are increasing around the country.  The NYT article reflects the bias of law enforcement agencies against motorists who might be suffering from the side effects of their medication.  Many of these motorists are not aware of the side effects of the drugs they take.  It’s common for some citizens, like elderly motorists, to be on more than one medication for a variety of illnesses.  These can react with each other, generating side effects that the doctor may not have informed them about.  Besides, prescription drugs can also react with the food you eat, and even a glass of wine, possibly affecting your driving abilities.

Many states around the country, including California, are flexing their muscles to nab more supposed intoxicated offenders.  They are hiring specialized drug detection officers and buying new technologies to detect the presence of medications in drivers.  As more and more numbers of Americans start medications, California criminal defense lawyers are concerned that these people will be charged merely for taking their medication and driving.

If you’re taking any kind of medication, it’s important to know that being prescribed medication, and not being aware of the side effects, is not a defense to a California DUI charge.  Talk with your doctor about the medications you’re taking, and follow all his instructions to the letter.  Avoid combining drugs with alcohol.  Don’t self-medicate yourself, and if you’re on more than one medication, make sure that they don’t contain the same ingredients.  You could be unwittingly overdosing yourself, and it could be not just a health risk, but also an accident risk.

Karen Goldstein has published some very helpful Questions and Answers pertaining to criminal defense.  These questions range from General Law to DUI, Federal Crimes, Domestic Violence and Sex Crimes.  The information is informative and simple.  It is interesting ready whether you have been arrested for a crime or are just interested in the legal process.

Elena Mebtahi has posted an DUI Questionnaire on her website.  The form allows an individual to give all of the details of their arrest so the attorney can review them before a call is initiated.  This allows the attorney to be very efficient and understand each person’s situation before calling.  It also allows an easy first step for a person who may have never hired an attorney before.  The questionnaire guides a person through all of the information a DUI lawyer would need.  The form can be filled out in under 5 minutes and starts the process that a person arrested of DUI should undergo.

California easily has some of the worst prison conditions in the nation. Massive overcrowding is just one of the problems that the state is struggling to cope with, but much like an ostrich with its head in the sand, the state refuses to believe this problem exists. Add to that a growing problem with poor quality prison food that’s low in nutrition, low in taste, and supposedly, high in cost efficiency.

Budget cuts across the state have become a fact of life for many Californians. These cuts have also infiltrated down into the prison system, where the food is getting progressively inedible. Any criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles or inmate rights advocate will tell you that most prison riots are caused because of hungry and aggressive prisoners. A well fed prisoner is less likely to indulge in fights, or incite riots. In 1971, prisoners at New York’s Attica prison rioted in a carnage that resulted in 43 deaths. It was America’s deadliest prison riot, and was linked to the poor quality meals served at the prison.

Since then, prison rights advocates have been able to advocate for more nutritious meals that are a blend of calories and nutrients. Prisons now come with cleaner kitchens, and prisoners with health issues can have low-fat as well as low-sodium meals. However, inmate rights groups allege that budget cuts have led to leaner menus in prisons. There are fewer hot meals being served, and the portions are getting smaller. Also in order to cut down on costs, more and more prisons in California are turning to packaged foods that have a bland taste and minimal nutritional value. Besides, prisons don’t offer diabetic-friendly meals and don’t take into consideration food allergies. County jails have some of the worst food that inmates can be expected to eat.

Unfortunately, we never hear about how budget cuts affect prison inmates. These are not glamorous issues that tug at your heartstrings . That’s why it’s important that Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys continue to bring attention to this prison health and safety issue.

Balls of thick, black, crude oil sludge are headed toward the Louisiana coastline, threatening to endanger the health of local communities and destroy their livelihoods. Not that the Jindal administration is wasting any sleep over it. The Louisiana Legislature is all set to pass a bill that will ban cyberbullying of kids.

The bill would prohibit the use of the Internet or text messaging devices to send an electronic communication that is intended to “coerce, abuse, torment, harass, embarrass or cause any emotional distress to a person under the age of 17”. Under the bill, using the Internet, text messages or any other form of electronic communication methods to ”bully” under 17-year-olds would become a crime.

So under the new law, a young Louisiana girl who sends a text message to her ex-boyfriend calling him unprintable names, would be a criminal. For that matter, anyone who e-mails or sends anyone a similar private message on Facebook, MySpace or any other social networking site or public forums, would all be criminals. Supporters of the bill insist that a measure like this was long overdue. This week, controversy rages in Massachusetts over the suicide of a 16-year-old girl after bullying and harassment by her schoolmates.

You don’t have to be a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer to understand how silly this is. There’s no doubt that risks to sensitive teenage minds from, what they perceive as, bullying online or off-line, are real. However, it’s important that legislators define real risks to teenagers definitively. You can’t lug everything from an annoying, but harmless private text message, to a major rant on a public forum or Facebook, in the same category. You need to define exactly what constitutes a serious risk to a teenager’s mental state of mind, and target those risks only. This law targets so many different categories of non, semi, quasi, and total harassment that it could actually end up creating more problems than solving any.

The trial of an ex-BART police officer accused of shooting and killing an unarmed black man while on duty, is set to begin soon. It’s rare that a police officer goes on trial in a case like this, and all eyes are on the case, not just in California but around the country.

The shooting occurred on New Year’s Day 2009. 28-year-old Johannes Mehserle says he was about to taser the man, Oscar Grant. But instead of pulling out the taser, he pulled out his gun, and shot the victim. The shooting occurred on a Bay Area Rapid Transit station platform. The entire episode was captured on video by several bystanders nearby. The videos made it to the Internet, and sparked off angry protests around the state. The videos are likely to be the focus of attention during the trial. In fact, legal experts believe the biggest witness will be the videos that documented the entire shooting. Since the shooting, Mehserle has resigned from his position as a BART police officer.

Mehserle’s criminal defense attorneys are taking an unusual approach. His lawyers will plead that he did not commit a crime at all. The jury will only have to deliberate on two questions -whether to convict him of first-degree murder, or to acquit him.

It’s a high-profile case even for California, which has had its share of criminal lawsuits hogging the headlines. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys for Mehserle have so much at stake here, they have spent much of the past few months trying to change little things in the filings and papers that could sway jurors either way. For instance, Mehserle’s criminal defense lawyers do not want the victim to be called “the victim,” but want him to be called “Mr. Grant,” instead. They also want Mehserle to be called “Officer  Mehserle.”

Those are shrewd tactics , and while the lawyers may have no trouble with the “Mr. Grant” bit, California criminal defense lawyers know that getting Mehserle to be called “Officer Mehserle” may be a stretch, considering that he resigned from the force more than six months ago.

Any verdict from this case is also likely to affect future litigation arising out of fatal encounters involving police officers.

The Concord Police Department has announced that it will conduct a revenue collection exercise, er, sobriety checkpoint this weekend. The checkpoint will last between 7:30 PM Saturday to 3:30 AM on Sunday. No locations have been made public. Motorists will be stopped at random, and officers will check for signs of intoxication.According to the Concord Police Department, the aim of the checkpoint is to educate drivers about the risks of driving while intoxicated, and to arrest impaired drivers.

You can’t blame California DUI lawyers for being skeptical about these frequent sobriety checkpoints. California DUI checkpoints have become suspect ever since it was revealed that the checkpoints ended up with more numbers of cars seized for driving without a license, than for drunk driving. Many checkpoints have turned into revenue making centers, where police officers arrest people driving under a suspended license or no license at all, and impound the vehicle. Millions of dollars have been generated as thousands of cars have been impounded. The number of actual drunk driving offenders who have been pulled over at these checkpoints, have been too low to even warrant a checkpoint at all.

This isn’t a phenomenon that’s excusive to California, by any measure. In other states around the country, populist measures like sobriety checkpoints and red light camera systems have turned into revenue generation measures for the police departments in these cities. In California’s case, most of these checkpoints are focused around ethnic minority neighborhoods where there more likely to be unlicensed motorists.

The entire exercise of dedicating large numbers of police officers to conduct a sobriety checkpoint, and then ending up with three drunk driving offenders and large numbers of cars belonging to unlicensed drivers, seems like a sham to Los Angeles DUI attorneys. California, in particular, has managed to dedicate massive amounts of funds to such efforts, which do very little to actually tackle the problem of drunk driving in the state. The numbers of sobriety checkpoints in the state are expected to increase in 2010, as anti-DUI programs get flush with funds from state and federal agencies.



This isn’t the kind of thing that California criminal defense lawyers get to see very often.  A Texas convict has received a temporary reprieve in the form of a United States Supreme Court stay of his execution. The stay came just as Hank Skinner was eating his last meal, one hour before the execution was due to take place.

The days and hours leading up to the execution have been dramatic, and full of frenzied efforts by Skinner’s advocates around the country and worldwide. Texas Gov. Rick Perry received more than 8,000 letters of support calling for a stay on the execution.

Those calls of support are based on Skinner’s insistence that more DNA testing could prove his innocence, and exonerate him of the murder of his girlfriend and her two adult sons. That murder took place on New Year’s Eve 1990. The girlfriend Twila Busby and her two sons Elwin Caler and Randy Busby were found dead in the home Busby shared with Skinner. Busby had been bludgeoned to death, while her two sons had been stabbed.

Skinner was in the home when the murders occurred. He has never denied that. He says he was incapacitated by heavy alcohol and codeine use, and does not know what happened. He has always pointed to Busby’s uncle, who has since died, as the real murderer.

DNA testing ultimately convicted Skinner, but the testing was not done on items that Skinner now wants tested.  For over a decade, Skinner has insisted that more DNA testing on untested evidence from the scene – including vaginal swabs from Busby, finger nail clippings, strands of hair, two knives, a dish towel and a jacket found at the scene – could exonerate him.  Prosecutors insist that all evidence found at the scene points to Skinner as the murderer. Gov. Perry has resisted acting on Skinner’s behalf, but the U.S. Supreme Court has now finally acted with a temporary reprieve.

The reprieve comes after hectic efforts by criminal defense lawyers around the country, the Innocence Project, and Change.org. The case quickly went international, with appeals for a stay coming in from France and other European countries.

The Supreme Court will now decide whether to take up Skinner’s appeal, although it isn’t yet certain when that will happen.