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.

A California man who posed as a firefighter and kidnapped and raped a 17-year-old girl has been convicted.  A jury convicted 33-year-old Daniel Alfredo Flores of six counts of rape, and other counts of first-degree burglary, kidnapping and sodomy.

The incident occurred in October 2005, when Flores pretended to be a firefighter and kidnapped the 17-year-old girl from her home.  He put her into the trunk of his car, and drove it to an abandoned garage.  There, according to prosecutors, he raped and sodomized her over the next few hours.  The victim was later found on the side of the road.

According to Flores, the sex was consensual.  He met the girl at a restaurant, and then picked her up from her place.  He says that the next day, the girl became upset because she had not returned home the previous night.  Prosecutors however, had a question – in that case, why did he leave the girl nude, bound and blindfolded by the side of the road with duct tape over her eyes?  Witnesses had found her in that state.  Flores’ reply was that he wanted to humiliate her.

Jurors did not believe that, especially after the victim testified that he climbed into her bedroom window, and told her that he was a firefighter and she would have to make her way out of the building.  According to her testimony, once they were out of the house, and before she could cry for help, he forced her into the car.

Flores is awaiting sentencing on June 3rd, and is likely to be sentenced to life in prison.

Pasadena criminal defense lawyers understand convictions of a sex crime in California can have long-term and serious repercussions.  In fact, sex crimes belong to those categories of crimes where an individual may find that the punishment does not end even when he’s out of prison.  Not only is a person convicted of a sex crime looking at a hefty prison sentence, but he is also looking at mandatory registration in a federal sex offender registry.  Besides, he must also sign up to be monitored under Megan’s Law.

Sexting or the transmission of nude or sexually explicit images between teenagers and minors via cell phones, has posed several questions to Van Nuys child pornography defense lawyers and legal experts about the best way to handle this problem.  However, even as states like California grapple with these offenses, a new genre of crime is growing – sextortion, or blackmailing the people in those nude images.

Police departments around the country and in California have been reporting an increase in such blackmail.  Often, the victim and the extortionist are known to each other, and were possibly involved in a romantic relationship earlier.  When the relationship ends, the victim may find that the aggrieved party uses his or her nude images on the cell phone as a form of blackmail.

Typically, the blackmailer may demand that the victim rekindle the relationship, or have sex with the extortionist.  Most teenagers, who share nude images of themselves with their boyfriends or girlfriends, wouldn’t want these images to be brought to the attention of their parents.  Even adults wouldn’t want these images to be posted on the Internet.  Therefore, the person who is in possession of the nude images is in a position of power, and this power can been misused via blackmail.  The extortionist often threatens the victim that he will show the images to the victim’s parents, friends, and school authorities or post them on the Internet.

As far as both sexting and extortion are concerned, Van Nuys child pornography defense attorneys believe that it’s important for parents to have a serious conversation with their children about the risks from such behavior.  Sexting in California can be covered under the state’s child pornography laws, which can end in prosecution if the person is caught with nude images on the phone.  A person convicted of child pornography in California may be ordered to register in a sex offender registry.

Most teenagers who are exchanging nude images of themselves, or receiving pornographic images on their cell phones, are unaware they could be convicted under California child pornography laws.

Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers are concerned about a proposed new law that will go before the Orange County Board of Supervisors next month would prevent registered sex offenders from entering parks and playgrounds.  Violators could face misdemeanor charges.  If the ordinance is approved, it would add to the restrictions that sex offenders in Orange County currently face in terms of where they can live after they have been included in the sex offender registry.

The ordinance has been proposed by Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and supervisor Shawn Nelson.  Under the proposed law, registered sex offenders would be prevented from entering parks and playgrounds.  Violators could be looking at up to six months in prison and/or a $500 fine.

Orange County has close to 60,000 acres of parkland, including nature preserves, wilderness parks, and historic sites.  However, prosecutors would have to prove that the park is one where children gather, for them to enforce the law banning sex offenders from entering the premises.  If it can be determined that the park is one where children frequently visit, a sex offender could be prevented from entering the park without getting written permission from the Parks and Harbor director.

Registered sex offenders would be prevented from visiting parks, harbors and beaches maintained, operated, owned or leased by the County.  These could include the Carbon Canyon Regional Park, Craig National Park, Arroyo Trabuco Park, Mile Square Regional Park and even the Orange County zoo.

The law would complement provisions of Megan’s Law, which was enacted in California in 2006, and requires sex offenders who are released from prison to notify local law enforcement about where they are living after release from prison.  It will also complement provisions of Jessica’s Law, that prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet from a school or park or any place where children gather.

A judge in Los Angeles has ruled that the provisions of a California law that restricts how close sex offenders can live from parks or schools is unconstitutional. Superior Court Judge Peter Espinosa made the ruling after a petition by four registered sex offenders, who argued that the law, called Jessica’s Law, is unconstitutional.

Jessica’s Law, which was passed in 2006, imposes strict residency restrictions on where registered sex offenders can live after their release from prison. For instance, these offenders cannot live within 2,000 feet from a school, whether public or private. They also cannot live near a park or any other place where children gather.

San Diego criminal defense attorneys have found that the law imposes unbearable restrictions on persons who find that they’re not eligible for accommodation in a congested city. For instance, in a city like San Francisco, many schools and parks are located near the busy residential areas, which makes it hard for registered sex offenders to find accommodation anywhere.

Jessica’s Law may have had the best of intentions, but has created an undesirable situation where registered sex offenders who are released from prison, must either continue to stay in prison, or live on the streets. Neither of these two options contributes to their rehabilitation after their release from prison. What it amounts to is a continual long-term punishment for a sex offender who has already done his time in prison.

The Los Angeles Police Department has also raised concerns about the increasing number of homeless, transient registered sex offenders in Los Angeles. According to estimates, in 2007, there were 30 homeless registered sex offenders on the street of Los Angeles. By September of 2010, those numbers had ballooned to 259.