December 31, 2009

CALIFORNIA WILL WASTE $8 MILLION THIS YEAR BEEFING UP SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS: THIS SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE ATTORNEY THINKS THIS IS A TOTAL WASTE OF VALUABLE RESOURCES

California traffic safety officials will pump $8 million this coming year into an aggressive drunken driving program with a controversial focus: sobriety checkpoints, according to the Sacramento Bee.

Armed with federal grants, police in 150 California cities are launching what the state's Office of Traffic Safety chief says may be the most extensive checkpoint program in the country in 2010, increasing by nearly 50 percent the number of checkpoint operations statewide.

In doing so, police will be ratcheting up efforts on one of the most oft-debated tactics in the anti-drunken driving arsenal.

Commonly seen as traps for unsuspecting drivers leaving bars and restaurants, checkpoints in reality typically result in few drunken driving arrests, data show. (That's, in part, because police agencies rarely announce when and where the checkpoints will take place, defeating the deterrent value of the checkpoints).

That's by design, police say. Law enforcement agencies put out alerts to TV, radio and newspapers before they set up a checkpoint so that word hits the street before the orange cones do. (IN San Diego, for example, they will announce a checkpoint maybe 1 hour prior to setting it up, which rarely "gets" the news to the people it is intended for.)

And, they say, they don't mind that some restaurant managers now send text message warnings to each other when they hear a checkpoint has been set up in their area.

Police and traffic safety officials say they view sobriety checkpoints as a high-profile public relations campaign.

"It's not about the number of arrests. It's about the deterrent effect," state traffic safety chief Chris Murphy said in launching what his office calls "The Year of the Checkpoint."

Murphy said safety efforts are helping. Road deaths overall have dropped in California the last three years, including alcohol-involved crashes.

Still, about a quarter of road deaths in California are alcohol-related, data show. Alcohol-involved crashes killed 1,029 and injured 28,457 in the state in 2008.

The sight alone of a checkpoint is memorable, keeping some drivers from becoming complacent about the risks of drinking and driving, Murphy said.

Police cruisers, roof bars flashing, light up the night. A funnel of orange cones leads cars toward a row of officers waving flashlights.

Typically, police allow drivers a place to turn to avoid a checkpoint. But, police warn, agencies have "chase" cars ready to follow those drivers if they appear to be driving poorly.

"It is not running and gunning and taking a whole bunch of people to jail, but it's worthwhile," said Officer Jason Browning of the Folsom Police Department.

Sobriety checkpoints are arguably better at cornering people who drive without a license than people driving drunk.

Sacramento city police reported that of the 800 vehicles stopped last week at a South Natomas checkpoint, only two were cited for drunken driving but 32 were caught driving without a valid license.

The checkpoints draw heat nationally from the American Beverage Institute, a restaurant trade group that argues they are ineffective, and calls them a form of harassment that "threatens our customers and the cultural dining experience."

Police should focus instead on going after the worst drunken drivers, those with multiple offenses, institute officials said.

Police agencies counter that checkpoints aren't their sole focus. California agencies say they routinely conduct "saturation patrols," where officers from several agencies join in a given area to search out and arrest drunken drivers.

Many of those efforts also are funded by federal grants through the state traffic safety office.

A spokesman for that office said the agency does not have a tally of how much is spent on that type of drunken driving enforcement but that nearly $50 million in funds overall will be funneled to local governments and health agencies this coming year to combat drunken driving and its causes.

Sacramento-area restaurant owners and managers express mixed feelings about checkpoints.

At Ink, a midtown Sacramento restaurant, co-owner Alicia Cortez said she and other restaurant managers text each other when they hear of a nearby checkpoint, and she alerts her bartenders, who encourage patrons to find a designated driver or take a cab.

Nevertheless, she said, she supports checkpoints.

"It's tough because (alcohol sales) is a huge part of our business and our revenue, but health and safety of patrons and their friends and family is number one," she said.

At Bistro 33 in Davis, general manager Jason Prater said news of a nearby checkpoint sends a "buzz" through the restaurant's bar.

He said he senses it causes some customers to drink less. Some customers stick around longer and have coffee. Others, forewarned, take other streets home. Many, he said, walk home.

The relatively small number of arrests at checkpoints may make the state's $8 million focus next year seem like a gamble. The city of Sacramento, in particular, has a lot at stake.

A new analysis from the state Office of Traffic Safety shows Sacramento rates highest among the state's 13 largest cities in drunken driving injury crashes.

City officials say they are hoping the federal grant money for sobriety checkpoints will help them dig out of that hole.

State officials defend the increased funding for checkpoints by pointing to a 2002 report, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and overseen by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In that report, a task force of health officials reviewed all notable studies and gave sobriety checkpoints a strong endorsement as an effective tool for reducing alcohol-related road injuries.

But "there is no panacea, no magic bullet," said task force chair Jonathan Fielding, head of public health for Los Angeles County.

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA WILL WASTE $8 MILLION THIS YEAR BEEFING UP SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS: THIS SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE ATTORNEY THINKS THIS IS A TOTAL WASTE OF VALUABLE RESOURCES" »

December 29, 2009

SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL SUSPECTS RELEASED FROM JAIL BECAUSE OF FALSE TOXICOLOGY RESULTS

Some ten criminally charged suspects were released from the San Diego jail when it was learned that their tests re sults were fraudulent. Pacific Toxicology, who owns a contract with San Diego to do drug testing for law enfocement, is on the brink of disaster.

This disaster falls right on the heels of the BioTox scandal that was uncovered last spring. Click HERE for BioTox story.

History repeats itself pretty regularly here in San Diego in San Diego with crime lab debacles. Several years ago I learned that in the early 1990's, Judge Michael Smyth, then a prosecutor with the City Attorney of San Diego, knew of and hid the fact that San Diego Sheriff's Crime Lab Analyst Belen Hebreo was testifying falsely in DUI cases for years. Click HERE for story.

So, back to the most recent scandal....

San Diego Union Tribune reports the criminal drug cases against as many as 1,000 people may have been tainted by false-positive narcotics tests from a Los Angeles-area lab, and defense lawyers in San Diego County have been told by prosecutors that their clients may be jailed due to faulty tests.

Ten people were released from jail in Vista on Wednesday because of questions about the lab work at Pacific Toxicology, in Chatsworth, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

The vast majority of the cases involve misdemeanor charges of being under the influence of narcotics. Prosecutors are not sure how many cases, if any, might be overturned or otherwise altered because of the problems at the laboratory.

Officials in the District Attorney’s Office said the overwhelming majority of the cases probably involve drug testing for misdemeanors other than drunken driving. An employee who answered the phone at Pacific Toxicology in the San Fernando Valley told the Union-Tribune that no one there was able to comment.

A message left for the president of the company was not returned. Pacific Toxicology has a contract with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department to test blood and urine samples.

Most of the municipal police departments in San Diego County also use the firm, with the exception of the city of San Diego itself, the Union-Tribune reported.

The lab initially came under scrutiny in October when the District Attorney’s Office notified defense lawyers in an e-mail that tests results from “a small number” of tests conducted in June and July had potential problems.

Deputy District Attorney Damon Mosler told the Union-Tribune the cases in question span from May until this month. He said sheriff’s officials no longer trusted results from the lab after a test result surfaced in one case in October.

“It was false-positive test, and it caused them to just lose confidence in the lab,” Mosler told the Union-Tribune.

A false positive indicates the presence of drugs when none are there. The Union-Tribune reported that a request for comment from the Sheriff’s Department Friday afternoon was not returned, and it was not possible to determine who much the county paid for its work.

Mosler told the Union-Tribune that many of the cases are probably closed now, with defendants probably pleading guilty and getting some sort of drug counseling.

He said prosecutors would not automatically move to dismiss any case that the lab worked on, and would retesting evidence in cases where that is warranted.

Drug convictions can carry ramifications outside the courtroom, affecting jobs, government benefits and other matters, the Union-Tribune reported.

Tags: Pacific Toxicology, San Diego criminal drug cases tainted, san diego district attorney, San Diego false positive drug tests, SDNN

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL SUSPECTS RELEASED FROM JAIL BECAUSE OF FALSE TOXICOLOGY RESULTS" »

December 23, 2009

CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL LAWYER MARY PREVOST: RESTITUTION FOR THE COSTS OF INVESTIGATION

RESTITUTION FOR THE COSTS OF INVESTIGATION

There are some good cases on why courts can't order restitution for the costs of investigation or prosecution. (Baker, 39 Cal.App.3d 550; Torres, 59 Cal.App.4th 1.)

This California Court of Appeal throws this settled area into confusion, claiming that as part of the court's power to devise probationary conditions, the costs here of determining whether the trash involved hazardous waste and cleaning up that waste could be ordered paid as a condition of probation.

The California Court of Appeal claims to distinguish Baker and Torres, saying that in those cases, the order was for potentially unlimited costs and here it was limited to a specific amount. Huh?

People v. Tarris; 2009 DJ DAR 17767; DJ, 12/23/09; C/A 4th, Div. 2

December 22, 2009

CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL LAW: THE DEFENSE OF BEING TOO DEPRESSED TO REMEMBER TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER?

THE DEFENSE OF BEING TOO DEPRESSED TO REMEMBER TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER

The charge here was failure to register as a sex offender, under California penal Code sec. 290. The defense tried to present evidence from a psychologist that the defendant was depressed, and that's why he didn't register. The court refused to permit that evidence. The California Court of appeal affirms ruling that depression or psychological disability is not a defense to the duty to register, so long as the defendant has knowledge of that duty.

People v. Bejarano; 2009 DJ DAR 17699; DJ, 12/22/09; C/A 4th, Div. 2

December 22, 2009

ROMAN POLANSKI AND THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE

ROMAN POLANSKI AND THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE

The defense moved to dismiss, based on serious allegations of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The trial judge refused to hear the motion, relying on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine (catchy name, huh?). That doctrine essentially says that an appeal may be
dismissed if the defendant is a fugitive. The California Court of Appeal says that this
doctrine permits denial of appellate relief but does not mandate it.

Here, the California Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's discretion to refuse to consider
the motion to dismiss, then writes a coda saying that the parties should investigate the misconduct claims and resolve them.

Polanski v. Superior Court; 2009 DJ DAR 17703; DJ, 12/22/09; C/A
2nd, Div. 7

December 21, 2009

SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL LAWYER MARY PREVOST: ATTEMPTING TO EXHIBIT HARMFUL MATTER TO AN APPARENT 13-YEAR-OLD

ATTEMPTING TO EXHIBIT HARMFUL MATTER TO AN APPARENT 13-YEAR OLD

In Hofsheier (37 Cal.4th 1185), the California Supreme Courtstruck down the
mandatory sex registration requirement for PC 288a, consensual oral copulation with a minor (16 in that case) as violative of equal protection, because consensual sex with that same minor (Penal Code sec. 261.5) doesn't mandate Penal Code 290 sex registration. The crime here is attempting to exhibit harmful matter to a minor by the Internet, Penal Code 664/288.2(b).

The police detective here posed as a 13-year old girl. The California Court of Appeal says that mandatory Penal Code 290 sex registration for this crime doesn't violate
equal protection, because the target of the crime was assumed to be a 13-year old, not a 16-year old, such as in Hofsheier.

People v. Kennedy; 2009 DJ DAR 17637; DJ, 12/21/09; C/A 6th

December 21, 2009

GANT AND SEARCHES OF RECENT OCCUPANTS OF CARS

This year's best search case from the US Supremes was Gant (129 S.Ct. 1710), where the court ruled that a vehicle search incident to arrest isn't lawful after an arrestee has been secured and can't access the interior of the vehicle. Under Gant, the search here was clearly illegal. But the majority says that Gant changed the law, so the officer acted in good faith in searching, precluding suppression.

Read the excellent dissent for why this is just wrong. On a second point, remember McGaughran (25 Cal.3d 577), in which the California Supremes said that a lawful detention can become illegally prolonged? The California Court of Appeals claims that Prop. 8 and McKay (27 Cal.4th 601) wipe McGaughran out. They claim that so long as the police stop the defendant for a violation of the Vehicle Code, a detention is legal, no matter how prolonged.

They simply don't mention US v. Sharpe (470 US 675) and US v. Place (462 US 696), which are to the contrary. The reasoning here would permit an indefinite detention on a traffic infraction. This, my friends, is what an Outrage Of The Week
looks like.

People v. Branner; 2009 DJ DAR 17583; DJ, 12/21/09; C/A 3rd

Continue reading "GANT AND SEARCHES OF RECENT OCCUPANTS OF CARS" »

December 18, 2009

STATUTE BANNING POSSESSION OF BODY ARMOR BY EX-CONS IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS

(Law Offices of Mary Prevost)

STATUTE BANNING POSSESSION OF BODY ARMOR BY EX-CONS IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS

It's a felony to possess body armor if you have previously been convicted of a violent felony. (PC 12370.) The defense here argues that 12370 is void for vagueness, because it fails to provide fair notice of which body vests qualify as the body armor banned by 12370.

Over a spirited dissent, the majority here agrees that 12370 is void. There's an extensive discussion of the rules governing notice that possession of something is a crime and why 12370 fails to give any kind of reasonable notice.

People v. Saleem; 2009 DJ DAR 17535; DJ, 12/18/09; C/A 2nd, Div. 3

Continue reading "STATUTE BANNING POSSESSION OF BODY ARMOR BY EX-CONS IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS" »

December 17, 2009

DUI DEFENSE: COLORADO CRIME LAB GENERATES FALSE DUI READINGS

12/15/2009

Colorado: Crime Lab Generates False DUI Readings

Crime lab in Colorado Springs, Colorado inflated the blood alcohol scores in 82 alleged drunk driving cases.

At least eighty-two motorists in Colorado Springs, Colorado may have been falsely accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) based on unreliable blood test results. After double-checking its own work, the city's Metro Crime Lab on Friday admitted that out of 1000 tests conducted since January, no fewer than eighty-two results were inflated above the driver's true blood alcohol content. More incorrect readings could be discovered as re-testing continues.

"All of these samples are being re-analyzed by a senior forensic chemist and the Metro Crime Lab is issuing amended lab reports with the corrected results to the involved criminal justice entities," a city press release explained. "The Metro Crime Lab has initiated a formal corrective action plan, and continues to investigate the root cause and full scope of the problem. To date, the lab has a method for identifying affected cases, and has already implemented new policies and procedures to prevent the problem occurring in the future."

The Colorado Bureau of Investigations is performing its own independent investigation of the lab to identify the source of the erroneous readings. Agilent Technologies, manufacturer of the blood testing machines, insisted its equipment was working properly. The city prosecutor's office and Colorado Department of Revenue are looking to see whether the amended test results will affect any drivers convicted of DUI. If so, driver's licenses could be reinstated, criminal charges dropped and fines refunded.

"These agencies are fully supportive that corrective actions are being implemented," the release explained.

The city claims that the errors were uncovered during a routine quality assurance check and that none of the lab's other services have been affected. California DUI attorney Lawrence Taylor believes the errors are inherent in DUI cases that rely so heavily on readouts from fallible machines.

"Yes, tests do lie... more often than the public is aware," Taylor explained. "The only thing unique in this story is that the inaccuracies were discovered -- and published."

Taylor cited as one example that improperly preserved blood can ferment and create alcohol where none existed before.

Continue reading "DUI DEFENSE: COLORADO CRIME LAB GENERATES FALSE DUI READINGS" »

December 16, 2009

SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL ATTORNEY MARY PREVOST: FELONY EVADING, SIREN AND LIGHTS

FELONY EVADING, SIREN AND LIGHTS

The defendant was driving 90 mph on his motorcycle. Oops. The officer activated his emergency lights and siren and pursued. The defendant got away. Then, the officer turned off the lights and siren (so he didn't panic motorists), then saw the defendant again. The officer didn't turn on his lights and siren to avoid alerting the defendant The defendant made an unsafe turn onto the highway. The defendant was convicted of felony evading, California Vehicle Code sec. 2800.2.

The defense argues that the unsafe turn wasn't during the pursuit and wasn't during a period when the lights and siren were on (as required by 2800.1). The California Court of Appeal affirms. There was only one pursuit, and the officer doesn't have to leave the siren and lights on continuously to trigger a violation of 2800.2.

People v. Copass; 2009 DJ DAR 17446; DJ, 12/16/09; C/A 2nd, Div. 6

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL ATTORNEY MARY PREVOST: FELONY EVADING, SIREN AND LIGHTS" »

December 15, 2009

LAW OFFICES OF MARY PREVOST: FAILURE TO COMBINE TRIALS ON GUILT AND ASSET FORFEITURE

FAILURE TO COMBINE TRIALS ON GUILT AND ASSET FORFEITURE

The forfeiture statutes are almost always confusing. When the seized property is valued at less than $25,000, a prerequisite to forfeiture is a conviction. Here, the defendant had a trial and lost.

The DA then initiated forfeiture proceedings for cash seized from the defendant, under H&S 11470. The California Court of Appeal construes H&S 11488.4 to require that the trial on the forfeiture occur before the same judge or jury as the trial on guilt, and precludes any forfeiture proceedings in light of the failure to have that happen here. The question is whether this rule applies where we plead, as opposed to going to trial. Not clear.


People v. $10,153.38; 2009 DJ DAR 17424; DJ, 12/15/09; C/A 2nd, Div. 3

December 14, 2009

LAW OFFICES OF MARY PREVOST: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN ATTORNEY FAILS TO ADVICE ON IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES?

I'm not quite sure why this case is published. California Penal Code sec. 016.5 requires the court to advise a def. of potential immigration consequences of a plea. The 1016.5 advisement was given here. The California Court of Appeal rules that the def. can't get relief under 1016.5 when 1016.5 was complied with. They also rely on the recent Kim case (45 Cal.4th 1078) to reject other challenges by this defendant to his plea.

People v. Limon; 2009 DJ DAR 17333; DJ, 12/14/09; C/A 5th

December 1, 2009

NO LICENSE PLATES BUT MAYBE A PERMIT? SUPPRESSION MOTION DENIED!

This case is insanity at its worst. ere, the oficer saw the defendant driving a car with no license plates. He stopped the car and determined that the defendat was DUI, leading to a search and finding a firearm and methamphetamine. The officer was asked if he saw a temporary permit in the rear window; the officer did NOT say that there was no permit; he said he didn't remember.

Here's the incredible fact: the AG CONCEDED! We win, right? Wrong. The California Court of Appeal says that the officer saw that the car didn't have plates. They say that there was no evidence that the officer SAW a temporary permit, and they reject the contention that the officer had to make a reasonable effort to determine whether there was a permit. This is just wrong.

Remember Butler (202 Cal.App.3d 602), the case saying the police can't stop a car to determine whether tinted windows in the car are illegally tinted; they have to have PC to think that the windows were illegally tinted in order to make the stop. The California Court of Appeal says that there was no evidence that the defendant was displaying a permit, or that the ofr. saw it, so the suspicion raised by the absence of plates was not dispelled. This is totally
wrong, totally contrary to Hernandez (45 Cal.4th 294) and Butler, wrongly places the burden on the defense, and misses the point: the police need PC in order to stop in the first place!

But by far the best part of this case is that the AG conceded, so the California Court of Appeal has to make snarky comments about the contentions of ... the AG! They call their position
"facile." They complain that the AG cites no authority. You know, all the kind of language we typically see used to slam us. Sweet! And yet an outrage.

People v. Dotson; 2009 DJ DAR 16738; DJ, 12/1/09; C/A 3rd

December 1, 2009

MARICOPA COP WILL VIOLATE COURT ORDER REQUIRING HIM TO APOLOGIZE FOR STEALING DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S DOCUMENT

Well, this just takes the cake. Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio has ordered deputy Adam Stoddard to defy a valid court order that he hold a press conference and apologize for pilfering through a defense attorney's file, stealing a confidential document, and copying it.

He was responding to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe, who ordered the county detention officer to apologize for a bizarre incident in which he was caught on a courtroom security video sneaking a confidential document from a defense attorney’s file.

Donahoe ordered officer Adam Stoddard to hold a press conference before Dec. 1 to apologize to the attorney or else face jail time.

“Superior Court judges do not order my officers to hold press conferences,” Arpaio said in a news release. “I decide who holds press conferences and when they are held.”

Apparently the Sheriff feels he is above the law in conspiring to have his deputy violate a valid court order.
,
An attorney for the sheriff, Tom Liddy, went even further, saying it’s unlikely Stoddard will go to jail for refusing to apologize. “Folks should not hold their breaths,” he said.

But the sheriff’s office, which runs the county jails, doesn’t plan to defy the order outright. Liddy said the agency will challenge it in a higher court.

The attorney said the order violates Stoddard’s rights to free speech.

It is defies logic that the Sheriff's attorney's defense to the deputy's clearly unlawful action is that he was exercising his right to "free speech." If all criminal defendants who stole could hide behind the First Amendment as a defense, it would turn the justice system on its head.

The judge “cannot order somebody to lie,” Liddy said. “Of course he’s not sorry for doing his job…It’s absurd on his face.” Apparently, stealing privileged documents from a criminal defense attorney's files is part of the job description in Maricopa County. God save us all.

Liddy also said it violates Stoddard’s right to due process because he did not have a trial in front of a jury. “It’s the most bizarre thing that I’ve seen in my 14 years (of practicing law),” he said.

The whole uproar goes back to Oct. 19, when Stoddard was caught on a courtroom videotape taking a document from the file of public defender Joanne Cuccia.

The attorney was speaking before Superior Court Judge Lisa Flores during a sentencing of her client, Antonio Lozano, for assaulting a fellow inmate. Cuccia had her back turned to Stoddard when he walked up to the defense table, began reading a document and then pulled it from her file to have a copy made.

In the weeks since then, Donahoe, the county’s highest-ranking criminal judge, has ordered the sheriff’s office to explain why Stoddard believed he had the right to do that. After all, the files an attorney keeps are supposed to be protected by the attorney-client privilege, a near-sacred right in the legal community.

Stoddard told the judge he happened to glance down at the table when he saw four words – “going to,” “steal” and “money” – all grouped in the same sentence at the bottom of the document.

Because the defendant was a member of the Mexican Mafia, Stoddard said he thought Lozano might be passing coded messages to other gang members through his attorney.

But Donahoe rejected that story on Tuesday, saying in his order there’s no way “a reasonable detention officer” would read the document and think a crime was taking place. That's right. Only an "unreasonable" detention officer would engage is what is clearly unlawful activity.

Donahoe said Stoddard’s actions amounted to “misbehavior and harassment” of the defense attorney.

An attorney now representing Cuccia said she was “very pleased with the judge’s ruling.”

“My client was delighted that she was finally able to have someone, most importantly this judge, hold that she did nothing wrong,” said Craig Mehrens, a veteran Phoenix lawyer who has taken up Cuccia’s cause.

In more than 40 years practicing law, Mehrens said he has never heard of a judge forcing somebody to hold a news conference to apologize.

“But there’s a lot of things I haven’t heard of,” Mehrens said. “I’ve certainly heard of judges being very innovative on their rulings and do some things that some people might find out of the ordinary.”

Mehrens said he’s not surprised that Arpaio is fighting the order. Still, he said he found some of the sheriff’s rhetoric “just beyond the pale.”

As for Liddy’s contention that the order violates the detention officer’s right to due process, Mehrens said the sheriff’s attorney is going to have a tough time with that one. The judge cited case law that shows he has the right to throw an officer of the court in jail on a civil contempt charge without having to go through a jury.

Mehrens also pointed out that Stoddard and the sheriff’s office had three days worth of hearings in recent weeks to defend their actions. Yet they called no witnesses in their defense and mounted little explanation as to why Stoddard took the confidential document.

“What more due process does Mr. Liddy expect Mr. Stoddard to have?” Mehrens said.

Amid all the back-and-forth, the original sentencing of Lozano, the Mexican Mafia member, has been put on a holding pattern. It had been scheduled for a do-over on Wednesday, but earlier this week, the original judge pushed it back to Dec. 14.

Still, it’s uncertain whether the sentencing will even happen. Lozano’s new attorney, Maria Schaffer, said last week she plans to ask for the charges against him to be dropped in light of everything that’s happened. She declined to comment Wednesday about Donahoe’s ruling.