The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is considering banning background checks for restaurant employees in a bid to prevent discrimination and reduced recidivism rates.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proposal will ban background criminal screenings on both current restaurant employees as well as job applicants.  The Commission is likely to base its proposal on recommendations made by other groups, including the Department of Justice’s Reentry Council.  The Commission has chosen to address the issue of criminal screenings taking in consideration the need to keep communities safe from crime and recidivism, and the need to help people returning from prison to integrate easily into society.

Any such ban by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would apply to all persons with all kinds of criminal records.  San Diego criminal defense lawyers often find that the inability to gain a decent job after being released from prison only encourages people to return to crime.

There are other reasons to oppose such screenings, besides the specter of discrimination.  San Diego criminal defense lawyers have also been worried about the unreliability and inaccuracy of criminal record databases.  There are far too many companies out there that offer employers instant background checks, and these checks very often contain inaccuracies, that can possibly impede a person’s ability to obtain gainful employment.

The National Retail Federation has already announced its opposition to any such proposal.  The group along with several other groups has already sent a letter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, urging the commission not to enact a ban like this.  The group says that reducing recidivism rates and opening up employment opportunities for persons with criminal records must not be accomplished at the cost of safety in the workplace for restaurant employees.  The group is especially worried about the risk of liability in the case of crimes or violence in the workplace, involving persons with criminal records.

A California man has been sentenced to 70 months in prison after a conviction of insurance fraud.  The sentence was handed down by a federal judge in New Jersey.  The man had been charged with selling fraudulent insurance policies.  In addition to the prison sentence, he will also pay restitution.

The North Hollywood man was convicted in December.  According to the charges against him, he conspired with another insurance agent to sell commercial liability insurance policies.  These policies were issued by a bogus company that was created by the two men, and were sold to commercial establishments, including bar and nightclub owners in several states. The men netted about $700,000 in premiums.

Insurance fraud can cover a vast range of crimes.  An individual may commit insurance fraud if he or she files false claims for benefits.  An insurance company may be guilty of committing insurance fraud if it fails to pay out a policyholder fairly.

Insurance fraud and insurance violations are considered white-collar crimes.  These are crimes that do not involve assault or violence, and often involve financial matters.  The term “white collar crimes” comes from the general belief that these crimes are committed by white-collar workers, like executives, businessmen, entrepreneurs, and professionals.  Apart from insurance fraud, there are other types of white-collar crimes that San Diego criminal defense lawyers may be called upon to defend, including real estate fraud, mortgage fraud, embezzlement, forgery, bribery, extortion, and tax fraud.  Most Internet crimes and computer-related crimes are also white-collar crimes.

In California, a person who is convicted of two or more white-collar crimes, may have a sentence enhancement.  It isn’t unusual for a person to be charged with more than one crime, like fraud and embezzlement, and in such cases, a conviction may come with a sentence enhancement of up to five years.

The outrage over the Casey Anthony verdict earlier this month has not just confined itself to Twitter and the blogosphere. Several states have seen a vast outpouring of public support for legislation that would make it a crime for parents to fail to report missing children. In California, that public support has resulted in several bills that would make such failure a crime.

Anthony failed to report her missing toddler for more than a month after the disappearance.  Two bills aimed at punishing parents who fail to report missing or dead children by filing criminal charges against them, have been introduced in California. The first, AB 1432, has been introduced by Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell, Democrat-Culver City.  Her bill would allow felony criminal charges to be filed against parents who fail to report a missing or dead child below the age of 14 within 24 hours.

Another bill being introduced by three other assembly members would substantially reduce the time frame given to parents to report a missing or dead child. Under this bill, parents who fail to report a missing or dead child within two hours can have felony charges filed against them.

At least 20 states now have similar bills in varying stages of development. Florida was one of the first states where a massive petition calling for such a law led to the drafting of a similar bill. In New York, a proposed bill would make it a felony for parents to fail to report a child’s death or disappearance for more than 72 hours. Oklahoma and West Virginia also have similar proposed versions of the law.

Caylee’s Law is a classic example of a knee-jerk reaction to what was essentially a rare incident. Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys are worried about the vast potential for misuse or abuse of the law.

A northern California couple has admitted to their role in a multimillion dollar mortgage fraud scheme.  29-year-old Garet Griffith Gilliland III and his wife Nicole Magpusao were charged with money-laundering this week.  Magpusao also plead guilty to one count of mail fraud.

According to prosecutors, the couple inflated the prices of dozens of homes in Chico.  The two had been charged in 2008.  They were successfully extradited back to the United States after they fled to Spain.

This week, Gilliland admitted that he and others in the fraud scheme originated about $21 million in fraudulent loans, resulting in at least $4 million in losses to the lenders.  Under the scheme, buyers were recruited to buy homes at exorbitant prices, and documents were falsified.

A number of other people were also part of the fraud.   At least four other people have already entered guilty pleas in the case.  The other persons have their cases still pending, with trials scheduled for September.

Gilliland will be sentenced in October, while his wife will be sentenced in July.  Both of them remain in federal custody.  They may be looking at up to 20 years in prison for mail fraud as well as fines of up to $250,000.  They may also be placed under three years of supervised release.

Mortgage fraud falls under the category of federal white-collar crimes.  Being charged with a federal white-collar crime can be a different ball game from being charged with DUI.  Typically, federal investigative agencies probe white-collar crimes in secrecy, and charges are not made public until the agency has gathered enough evidence.  A conviction for a white-collar crime will not just lead to a criminal record and a prison sentence, but also mar your future career prospects.  If you believe you are being investigated for a white-collar crime, or have been charged with one, consult with an experienced Los Angeles federal crimes lawyer immediately.

San Diego criminal defense lawyers are calling it the biggest identity theft in history, not to mention one of the biggest Internet crimes of all time, but prominent hacker group Anonymous claims to have nothing to do with it.  The group has denied that it was involved in the malicious attack on Sony’s PlayStation Network last month that resulted in the theft of sensitive data belonging to millions of users.

The security breach involved hackers accessing the system, and stealing data from more than 77 million users.  The data includes usernames, passwords, security answers and credit card details.  Users don’t have to pay to have an account on the PlayStation Network, but do have to provide credit card details.  It was these sensitive details that were stolen.

Although the hacker group Anonymous has denied that it was involved in the attack,  Sony claims it had reason to believe that Anonymous was involved in the hacking.  According to the company, during investigations it found a calling card mentioning Anonymous and the hackers apparently planted files named “Anonymous” on one of the servers that was breached.

Anonymous had previously claimed credit for another attack involving the PlayStation 3.  That attack was in response to the company going after hacker George Hotz.  However, Anonymous insists that it doesn’t do credit card theft, and was not involved in the PlayStation Network breach.

Sony has faced questions about the delay in revealing the extent of the damage done by the attack.  The company says that when it first found out that there had been an intrusion, it shut down the service. But, it took a while for the company to investigate the extent of the damage, and understand that millions of users’ sensitive information had been affected.

Sony is also facing questions from a Congressional subcommittee, and attorneys general from more than 20 states who have similar questions for the company.  The company is also being investigated by the FBI’s Cyber Crime Division.

Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys are closely following a case before the U.S. Supreme Court which could have serious implications for juvenile offenders.  The US Supreme Court is considering a case that relates to the manner in which these suspects are interrogated.  The court is deciding how law enforcement officers can determine that a juvenile offender, who is being questioned, is aware that he is in custody.  This seemingly minor point is actually critical to a case, because a juvenile offender, who is being interrogated, needs to be aware that he’s in custody, and must have his Miranda rights read to him.

The case is linked to a seventh-grade boy in North Carolina who was picked up by police in 2005, after he was found near a few homes that had been broken into.  The police visited him at his school, and took him to a room. There, in the presence of an assistant principal and two school employees, the boy was questioned by the police.  Under interrogation, the boy broke down and said that he had stolen from the homes.

He was charged with breaking and entering and larceny.  However, his defense lawyers argued that his admission was not valid because he had not been read his Mirada rights.  A judge denied the defense lawyers motion.

The boy’s lawyer appealed, saying that judges had a duty to weigh a juvenile offender’s age, and determine whether the offender knew he was in custody.  This is necessary to prevent unlawful interrogations from taking place.  The Supreme Court is now deciding how this determination can take place.  The U.S. Justice Department is supporting the state of North Carolina in this matter.

The California Highway Patrol has confirmed that it is looking for a hit-and-run driver who fatally struck a pedestrian in Gold River, California.  The victim, a popular male fashion model had just exited his car and was crossing the street, when he was struck.  The driver fled the scene of the accident.  According to the California Highway Patrol, the hit-and-run driver was driving a Dodge Caravan from the mid-1990s.  The California Highway Patrol is looking for any tips that might lead them to the driver.

Under California law, a driver who was involved in an accident that causes property damage or personal injury to another motorist must stop the vehicle.  The driver must exchange contact information with the owner of the other vehicle, and offer his vehicle registration, and driver’s license.  If the driver of the other vehicle is not at the scene of the accident, then the motorist is required to leave a note that mentions the facts surrounding the case and driver’s information.  The driver should also notify the local police or CHP  of the accident without unnecessary delay.

The motorist must also report the accident to the California Highway Patrol or local police department.  A motorist who fails to stop at the scene of an accident, can be charged under California’s hit-and-run laws.  These steps must be followed even if the other vehicle involved in the accident was unoccupied at the time, or had been parked.  A motorist must provide contact information even if the damage to the other car was very minor, or regardless of who the motorist believes was responsible for the accident.

Failure to do so can have you needing a San Diego hit and run defense attorney very soon. Motorists who fail to provide the required information could be charged with hit-and-run misdemeanor in a minor traffic accident that doesn’t result in severe property damage or personal injury.  In cases where an accident results in injury or death, the person can be charged with felony hit-and-run.

San Diego criminal defense attorneys are extremely familiar with how prosecutor misconduct can destroy an innocent person’s chances of justice. However, a new analysis by USA Today also shows that such misconduct by overzealous federal prosecutors can result in lower sentences for the accused.

The analysis was based on tens of thousands of pages of federal and court documents. The USA Today investigation analyzed 201 cases since 1997 in which federal prosecutors were found to have violated laws or ethics rules. Each of these instances of misconduct was so severe, courts were forced to overturn convictions, or throw out the charges. The prosecutors were rebuked for their actions in many cases.

In fact, the analysis reveals that prosecutorial misconduct often has unintended consequences.  The underlying aim behind prosecutorial misconduct is usually to put the person behind bars, and very often, just the opposite happens.  The analysis found that in 48 of those cases, while the defendants were ultimately convicted, the prosecutors in their cases had botched things so badly, courts had to hand down shorter sentences to the accused than they would have otherwise received.

What’s worse is that according to the USA Today report, it’s hard to know the exact extent of prosecutorial misconduct in the US, because so much of it goes undiscovered.

When there has been prosecutorial misconduct, it’s common to have prosecutors accept a plea deal. Very often, in such cases, since evidence of the prosecutorial misconduct can bring disrepute and humiliation to the prosecutor’s office, prosecutors prefer to get defendants to plead guilty in return for a shorter sentence.

The cleanup of what the media has called a “bomb factory” house in a property that was rented by George Djura Jakubec, has now been completed. The last remnants of the house that included metal ash and debris have now been removed from the property. According to the county authorities, most of the waste has been sent either to a recycling plant or to a waste landfill.

Meanwhile, key criminal defense evidence necessary to defend Jakubec was also destroyed in the fire. County authorities claimed that the materials inside the house were too hazardous to conduct a complete search of the property. Law enforcement personnel refused to go back into the house to retrieve evidence, and the house – along with all the evidence it contained – was destroyed. San Diego criminal defense lawyer, Michael S. Berg, will be soon preparing a motion to dismiss the case, citing this destruction of evidence by authorities.

George Djura Jakubec was arrested on November 18, and was jailed.  Bail was set at $5.1 million. However, the state charges were dismissed after a federal grand jury indictment last week.  Jakubec currently faces eight charges, including bank robbery charges and one attempted bank holdup. He also faces one count of possessing explosive devices, two counts of branding a firearm during a robbery and one count of illegal manufacture of explosives. Jakubec entered a not guilty plea to each of these eight charges.

Those who believe long-term incarceration is the only effective way of dealing with persons convicted of crimes, should read a new Los Angeles Times account of a court program that allows women convicts to turn their lives around.  The report centers on collaborative problem-solving courts, which offer female convicts a chance to rehabilitate themselves by addressing the core issues that contribute to criminalization.

The report specifically focuses on the Second Chance Women’s Reentry Court Program.  The program is for a minimum of six months, but most women who make it here, last for longer.  Many of the women here are addicts, have been abused, or have been forced into crime because of poverty.  These women have been through repeated arrests, and served several prison terms.  What the court program does is allow these women to plead guilty, and enter a treatment facility instead.

In the treatment facility, the women are encouraged to undergo counseling sessions, learn job skills, and have sessions with their children.  The program is a combination of therapy, vocational skills, chores and support group meetings.  It gives the women a chance to meet other women like themselves, which makes it easy to open up about their past.

Not every woman who makes it to a special court program like this will make it safely through to the other side.  There are lapses back into addiction, and some women fail treatment and have to serve out their sentence in prison.  However, the majority of the women are able to turn their lives around after serving out a stint in the facility, going out into the world with new confidence and job skills.

Programs like these desperately need funding.  It’s much cheaper and more effective to have a female convict in a treatment facility, than it is to incarcerate her in prison and place her child in a foster home.  Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers would support funding for more such programs that help lower recidivism rates, and cut down the state’s billion-dollar prison-related expenses every year.