Prosecutors in Cowlitz County in Washington are struggling to provide answers about the quality of their prosecution, after a 23-year-old woman recanted the rape allegations that she had made against her father 10 years ago.  Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys find it extremely unfortunate that the prosecutors involved continue to defend their actions in this case.

In March 2001, Cassandra Kennedy informed her doctor that she had been abused by her father, Thomas Kennedy.   He was prosecuted, and found guilty by a jury.  He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

He was released earlier this year, after his daughter recanted those claims and admitted that she had lied. .  The daughter, who is now 23 years of age, says that she was overcome with guilt at what she had done, and chose to come clean.

The charges against Thomas Kennedy have been dismissed.  However, prosecutors in Cowlitz County, where the case was prosecuted, said that they can find nothing wrong in the way that they prosecuted the case.  They don’t believe that there was anything that they could have done to prevent this gross miscarriage of justice.

The Cowlitz County prosecutor insists that she will not prosecute Cassandra Kennedy for her lies.  According to her, prosecuting Cassandra would discourage other sex abuse victims from coming forward.  The prosecutor also does not believe that this shocking incident is an indictment of the system.

A man was imprisoned for 10 years for a crime that he did not commit.  Kennedy is 43 years old today, and lost 10 of the best years of his life.  He lived for 10 years with the stigma of a child sex abuser, a label that he did not deserve.  In spite of this, prosecutors don’t seem to believe that there are any lessons to be learned from this tragedy.

A former Los Angeles teacher, who shot into the media spotlight earlier this year after he left his wife and children and moved in with his 18-year-old student, has now been arrested on charges of child sexual abuse.

James Hooker was arrested at his home on charges of oral copulation of a minor.  He has pleaded not guilty, and his bail has been set at $50,000.

Hooker became a household name earlier this year, when he appeared on the Dr. Phil Show, with one of his students, an 18-year-old girl.  The two were living together.  The relationship allegedly began when Powers was a 14-year-old girl, but was platonic until she turned 18.  Hooker claimed that there was no physical relationship until the girl Jordan Powers turned 18 years of age.

That claim is denied by Powers‘mother, who claims that she has text messages to prove that there was a physical relationship between Hooker and Powers even when she was a minor. An investigation into that case is on going.

Hooker has now been arrested for an alleged incident of sex abuse which occurred a few years ago.  The victim is a 17-year-old girl.  The abuse allegedly occurred in 1998, when the girl was studying at a school different from the one where Hooker taught.  There is no information about how Hooker met the girl, but the two struck up a friendship.  Police began an investigation into this case, after Hooker admitted he had moved in Powers.

Hooker’s relationship with Powers has already provided the basis for a proposed new piece of legislation that would prohibit any romantic relationship between a student and teacher, even those that involve an adult student.  California criminal defense attorneys are studying the bill that would allow school employees to be stripped of their retirement benefits, including pension and healthcare if they violate the law.

Seal Beach has decided to join the long and growing list of California cities that have banned persons convicted of sex offenses from entry into public parks and other spaces.  Last week, the Seal Beach City Council give initial approval to a rule that would ban sex offenders from Seal Beach parks, piers, beaches, jetties, as well as parking lots in these areas.

The rule will be taken up again at the next meeting, and if it is approved then, Seal Beach will join a long list of California cities that have implemented similar laws.  California criminal defense lawyershave been dismayed to see a number of cities including Huntington Beach, La Habra, Los Alamitos, Laguna Hills, Irvine, Mission Viejo, Westminster, Yorba Linda, and Rancho Santa Margarita implementing similar bans.

According to estimates, there are currently about 10 registered sex offenders in Seal Beach.  Seven of these live in a retired community.  Under the new law, any person who is a federal sex offender registry is banned from entering recreational areas where children gather.  Any violation would constitute a misdemeanor, and the first conviction would be punishable with a maximum of 6 months in jail, or a fine of up to $500.

This trend of forcing sex offenders out of public areas began with Fullerton in Orange County which became the first city in the county to ban persons convicted of sex crimes from entering within 300 feet of day care centers, schools parks, and other places where children gather.  Different cities have different versions of the law.  For instance, Irvine bans only those persons who have been convicted of abusing minors.

However, no matter what the scope or extent of the ban, it only discriminates against persons who have already served out their sentences, and want to reintegrate into society.  Further, such blatant discrimination against persons convicted of sex crimes only alienates these people, and increases recidivism rates.

If a new bill that had just been introduced by a California lawmaker is successful, persons convicted of sex crimes in California could soon be required to possess a state-issued identification card or driver’s license at all times.

The bill has been introduced by Assemblyman Paul Cook, Republican-Beaumont.  According to him, the bill would allow law enforcement officers who are looking for a person convicted of a sex offense, to immediately crosscheck the person’s identification.  Assembly Bill 1695 would target persons convicted of sex offenses that involve violent sexual attacks or sexual assault of minors.

This is not the first time that Assemblyman Cook has introduced a bill aimed at increasing restrictions on persons convicted of sex crimes.  In the 2011 California legislative session, he had introduced a bill that would have required sex offenders to possess some kind of identification or driver’s license with a scan-able strip.  The strip would contain their registration status in code form, and this could be used by law enforcement officers to determine the person’s status as a sex offender immediately.

However, that bill failed in the Assembly Committee on Transportation after many lawmakers deemed the proposal too expensive to pass.  The new bill is also expected to go before the same committee.

San Diego criminal defense lawyers find no reason why persons convicted of certain offenses need to be subjected to additional restrictions.  The current requirement, which demands that persons convicted of sex offenses enroll in a federal registry that is accessible to the public, has been found to be sufficiently effective for monitoring people convicted of a sex crime.

Former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno died of lung cancer last week.  San Diego criminal defense lawyers believe that his absence will affect legal proceedings against 2 college officials who have been charged in the sex abuse scandal at the college.

Paterno had been expected to testify at the trials of 2 Penn State officials, who have been charged in the child sex scandal involving former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.  Sandusky faces multiple charges of child sexual abuse, involving allegations that he molested young boys who were part of a foundation he operated.

The 2 Penn State officials, Tim Curley, who was the former athletic director at Penn State and Gary Schultz, senior vice president for finance and business, had been charged with failure to report to authorities when they became aware of the sexual abuse of children by Jerry Sandusky.

In January, in a testimony before a grand jury, Paterno said that he informed both Curley and Schultz that a former graduate assistant Mike McQueary had told him that he witnessed an incident of sexual assault involving Jerry Sandusky and a young boy in a shower at a Penn State facility.  The incident allegedly occurred in 2002.  McQueary also testified that he had informed both Curley and Schultz about the sexual assault.

Schultz has since retired, while Curley is on administrative leave.  With Paterno’s death, the case against Curley and Schultz has lost some weight.  Now, much of the case will depend on the testimony by McQueary.  The grand jury testimony by Paterno is not likely to be admissible because he was not cross-examined at the time.  Lawyers for Curley and Shultz now no longer have an opportunity to question Paterno’s credibility because he’s deceased.

A 7-year-old boy in Boston faces suspension from school and a possible transfer to another school after school district officials began an investigation into charges of sexual harassment against him.  The charges stem from a scuffle with another boy, in which the 7-year-old allegedly kicked the other boy in the testicles.

According to Tara Lynch, her 7-year-old son Mark Curran had a fight with another boy on the school bus on November 22nd.  During that altercation, she says that the other boy tried to choke her son, and her son reacted by hitting the other boy in the groin.  The school has classified the case as sexual harassment, and school officials have begun an investigation into the boy’s behavior.  According to school officials, any kind of inappropriate touching between students would fall under the category of sexual harassment.  Once the investigation is complete, the school says that it will make a decision about who is to be punished.

Lynch has already received a letter from the school principal informing her that her son has been accused of violating the harassment codes of the school, and endangering the physical safety of other students.  He’s likely to be either transferred to another school or suspended.

No one is denying that sexual harassment and sexual assault does take place in schools.  However, to criminalize a youthful scuffle between 2 boys seems extreme.  It’s hard to imagine that a groin punch contained any sexual connotations for a 7-year-old.  This incident also remindsCalifornia criminal defense lawyers of a bizarre case out of New Jersey last year in which two 14-year-old boys were labeled sex offenders, after a schoolyard fight, in which they pulled down their shorts and sat bare-bottomed on the face of a classmate.  A judge deemed that the boys’ behavior was meant to sexually insult the other boy, and therefore, they deserved to be labeled sex offenders.

A Los Angeles public defender has lost his bid to receive a certificate of rehabilitation, which would allow him to stop registering as a sex offender.  An appellate panel has sided with an Orange County judge who had ruled that Chance Xcalibur Oberstein could not free himself from the registration requirement.

In 1998, Oberstein was convicted of sex crimes involving a child, after he had sexual contact with a fifteen-year-old girl.  At the time, he was working for the Los Angeles Public Defender’s Office.  The sexual contact occurred in 1996, and in 1998, he was convicted of a number of charges of sodomy, unlawful sexual intercourse and oral copulation.  He received a one-year jail sentence, and was placed on probation.

As a result, he was forced to resign from the State Bar.  In 2001, he was given early termination of probation and, in 2003, he succeeded in getting his convictions reduced to misdemeanors.  In 2008, the California Bar reinstated him as a lawyer.  But the requirement to register in a federal sex offender registry remained.

In 2010, Oberstein petitioned for a certificate of rehabilitation, which would free him from the registration requirements.  He argued that his legal practice had suffered because of the lack of a rehabilitation certificate, and that since he had not been convicted of any crime since the 1996 conviction, he did not pose a threat to society.

However, Orange County Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals rejected the petition.  According to the judge, the crime is not that old, and he did not see any reason to grant the certificate of rehabilitation, because this  would free Oberstein from having to register as a sex offender.

Oberstein appealed the judge’s decision, but a panel of three justices has also ruled that the judge’s decision was the right one.  However, the panel did offer one reprieve for Oberstein.  Judge Goethals had extended the rehabilitation period for two years, but the panel has held that the judge did not have the right to do so, because Oberstein had not broken any laws since the 1996 conviction

A certificate of rehabilitation is a court document that states that you have been rehabilitated after a criminal conviction.  It is meant to erase your criminal record, and can clear the way for future employment options, and better prospects.  A Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer can help determine whether you are eligible for a certificate of rehabilitation.

Even some Republican lawmakers are finding it hard to muster support for a new bill aimed supposedly at limiting child pornography.  Many lawmakers believe,  that the bill titled very grandly the Protecting Children from Internet Pornography Act, would do nothing at all to protect children, while opening a Pandora’s Box of privacy issues.

The bill has been introduced by Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, and would require Internet service providers to maintain records of the Internet protocol addresses of their customers for eighteen months.  According to the sponsors of the bill, this would make it easier for law enforcement officers to crack down on people who download child porn.  The National Sheriff’s Association believes that if Internet service providers would retain these IP addresses, it would allow law enforcement to easily locate users who are downloading child porn.

However, even some Republicans have been unsparing in their criticism of the bill.  As is evident to California criminal defense lawyers, the bill would fail to address the serious problem that it means to target, and would instead have a devastating impact on the privacy rights of people who use the Internet for legitimate reasons.  For instance, the bill would allow law enforcement officers to access the IP addresses of people even in cases that have nothing to do with child pornography.  The scope for privacy violations here boggles the mind.

There are likely to be other obstacles to the passing of the bill.  Internet service providers may not take kindly to any legislation that does not take into consideration the heavy expenses involved in maintaining customer records for eighteen months.  There’s nothing in the bill to suggest any tangible child protection benefits from this bill that would actually justify those expenses.  Further, there are the legal hassles involved in determining the government’s legitimacy in ordering Internet service providers to maintain IP addresses for as long as the bill requires them to do.

It isn’t every day that Los Angeles child pornography defense attorneys find a high school unwittingly publish what legally constitutes child pornography.   An innocuous yearbook has pushed a California high school into a child pornography/sex crime scandal that has garnered nationwide attention.  Charges of sexual abuse of a child are now likely to be filed.

It all began with the publication of the annual yearbook of Big Bear High School, when it was discovered that a photo of 17-year-old boy and a 15-year-old female school student in a compromising position had been included in the yearbook.  The couple was in the background of a picture of a school dance that had been included in the yearbook.  The picture seems to depict the boy with his hands inside the clothing of the female student.  Under California law, schools are required to report such incidents to law enforcement.  School authorities brought the picture to the notice of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office.

Investigations are ongoing, but the sheriff’s office has concluded that the penetration of a minor occurred .  The boy is likely to have felony or misdemeanor charges filed against him soon, although it is up to the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office to decide whether charges should be filed.

Additionally, there are questions of child pornography that may arise here.  Authorities have already demanded the return of all the copies of the yearbook, so that the picture can removed.  Anybody who still has copies of the yearbook in his or her possession could be facing charges of possession of child pornography.  Already, some students at the school have been complaining about the threatening nature of the messages from the school.  In fact, according to many of the students, they hardly noticed the picture, until they received intimidating messages from the school asking them to return the books.

The fact that there has been an increase in the number of teenagers being charged under child pornography laws for sending or receiving nude images of other teenagers on their cell phone, has not gone unnoticed by Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys.  However, what has also increased are instances of so-called sextortion – or blackmailing the owners of those images.

Statistics indicate that sextortion is on the increase in the U.S.  This new form of blackmail involves people using nude images of others that were taken on cell phones, and using these to blackmail people.  Teenagers who take nude images of themselves are always going to be at risk of sextortion, because they don’t want their teachers, school principal or parents to see these.  That provides the person who has taken the pictures enough incentive to blackmail.

Such instances of sextortion are often seen among teenagers, when one party has been photographed in the nude.  When the relationship goes sour, it’s not uncommon to find the boyfriend/girlfriend using those same images as a blackmail tactic.  The person may blackmail the victim either for sex, or to get the person back into the relationship.

Most blackmail tactics involve threats that the person will show the images to the victim’s parents, school authorities and teachers.  Other times, the extortionist may threaten to post these images on a social networking website or message board, for the whole world to see.

This kind of sextortion occurred recently in Southern California, where a man hacked into the computers of more than 200 girls, and stole nude new images for extortion.  This is one case where parents need to be more proactive about discussing with their children the undesirable consequences of sending nude pictures via cell phone.  Not only could this place the person at risk, but the teenager could also be charged under California’s child pornography laws.