January 26, 2010

CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE: U.S. SUPREME COURT REVERSES VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT ON MELENDEZ-TYPE CONFRONTATION CASE

BRISCOE V. VIRGINIA
Decided: 1/25/10
No. 07-11191
Full Text: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/07-11191.pdf

CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
(Signed certificates prepared by forensic analysts
are testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause)

The United States Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision vacating the
judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia and remanding the case for
further proceedings consistent with its recent opinion in Melendez-Diaz v.
Massachusetts.

Briscoe was arrested for possession of cocaine. At trial, he objected to the admission of analysis certificates used to prove that the substance he possessed was cocaine. Briscoe claimed the right to confront the forensic analysts that produced the certificates. Procedural safeguards in Virginia allow defendants to call forensic analysts as witnesses. Briscoe argued
that the safeguard did not adequately satisfy his right to confront the witnesses against him as guaranteed in the Confrontation Clause. The Supreme Court of Virginia held that it did not need to determine whether the certificates were testimonial under Crawford. Testimonial statements
subject to the Confrontation Clause will not be admissible in court unless the person who made the statement testifies in court and is subject to cross examination, or if the defense had a prior opportunity to cross examine the witness.

The Court vacated the Virginia Supreme Court decision and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with Melendez-Diaz, in which the Court held that affidavits such as forensic analysis certificates are testimonial statements under Crawford. The Confrontation Clause requires the opportunity for cross examination regarding these statements.

January 22, 2010

TEXAS JUDGES CLOSES COURTROOM EARLY TO AVOID FILING BY DEATH ROW INMATE: OFF WITH HER HEAD!

A Texas judge who closed her courtroom early to avoid a last minute appeal by a death row inmate faces five counts of judicial misconduct. Click HERE for the full story.

January 13, 2010

FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ISSUES NEW MEMORANDUM ON PROSECUTORIAL DISCOVERY

Well, it's about time the United States Department of Justice stepped and authored a new memorandum for federal prosecutors to follow regarding discovery issues. But this begs the question: Why haven't prosecutors followed been following the law (and their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution), automatically?

Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden issued three Memorandum to DOJ prosecutors presumably intended to remedy some of the setbacks and debacles the Department suffered last year as a result of serious discovery violations in federal felony prosecutions.

The subject of one of the Memos is “Guidance for Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery.” The second Memo reference is “Issuance of Guidance and Summary of Actions Taken in Response to the Report of the Department of Justice Criminal Discovery and Case Management Working Group.” Finally, a separate Memo is address to all DOJ litigating components and all U.S. Attorneys.

Taking the "Memo to the U.S. Attorneys and DOJ Components" first, Odgen summarizes that he had convened a working group to address DOJ policies and practices regarding criminal discovery issues. Odgen references that he is sending to all DOJ trial attorneys and AUSAs a memo containing Guidance For Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery that prosecutors should follow to ensure that discovery obligations are met in all future cases. Interestingly, Odgen directs that each U.S. Attorney’s Office develop a discovery policy consistent with the law and local rules and practices. That policy must be in place by March 31, 2010.

Again, again again, why must Ogden issue a memorandum containing guidance for federal prosecutors regarding criminal discovery? I mean, it's the law. FOLLOW IT. Clearly this is an issue of prosoecutors not following the rules of ethics. They know the law. I mean, really....

The “Guidance For Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery” Memo sets out detailed steps prosecutors are to follow regarding discovery. The six page Memo first advises that the prosecutors must determine who is a member of the “Prosecution Team” for the purpose of determining what documents must be reviewed for disclosure.

The Guidance Memo then directs that the discovery review should cover the following: 1) the investigative agency’s files, 2) Confidential Informant/Witness/Source files, 3) Evidence and Information Gathered During the Investigation, 4) Documents or Evidence Gathered by Civil Attorneys and/or Regulatory Agencies in Parallel Civil Investigations, 5) Substantive Case Related Communications, 6) Potential Giglio Information Relating to Law Enforcement Witnesses, 7) Potential Giglio Information Relating to Non-Law Enforcement Witnesses and Fed.R.Evid. 806 Declarants, 8) Information Obtained in Witness Interviews, a) Witness Statement Variations and the Duty to Disclose, b) Trial Preparation Meetings With Witnesses and c) Agent Notes.

The Guidance Memo then directs that although prosecutors may delegate the process of review to others, they “should not delegate the disclosure determination itself.”

The Guidance Memo reminds prosecutors that discovery within DOJ is covered by the U.S. Attorney’s Manual Section 9-5.001, which is broader than what the law requires and that if a prosecutor chooses to follow that broader course, “defense counsel should be reminded that the prosecutor is electing to produce discovery beyond what is required . . .” The Memo then addresses the scope, timing and form of discovery disclosures, but cautions that, “[p]rosecutors should never describe the discovery being provided as ‘open file.’”

Finally, the Guidance Memo counsels that the prosecutor should make a good record regarding the disclosures.

The “Issuance of Guidance and Summary of Actions Taken in Response to the Report of the Department of Justice Criminal Discovery and Case Management Working Group” Memo reminds prosecutors of the words of Justice Sutherland that it is the prosecutor’s duty is “that justice shall be done.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). This Memo informs prosecutors of the establishment of the Guidance Memo set out above and that each U.S. Attorney’s Office shall have a “discovery coordinator.” In addition, DOJ has:

• Created an online directory of resources pertaining to discovery issues that will be available to all prosecutors at their desktop;
• Produced a Handbook on Discovery and Case Management similar to the Grand Jury Manual so that prosecutors will have a one-stop resource that addresses various topics relating to discovery obligations;
• Implemented a training curriculum and a mandatory training program for paralegals and law enforcement agents;
• Revitalized the Computer Forensics Working Group to address the problem of properly cataloguing electronically stored information recovered as part of federal investigations;
• Created a pilot case management project to fully explore the available case management software and possible new practices to better catalogue law enforcement investigative files and to ensure that all the information is transmitted in the most useful way to federal prosecutors.

Continue reading "FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ISSUES NEW MEMORANDUM ON PROSECUTORIAL DISCOVERY " »

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 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

HOW TO AVOID A DUI ARREST AND CONVICTION THIS HOLIDAY SEASON

I write and re-write this article every season and every year. But time and time again I see friends and people I know who have read it coming to me because they got arrested in San Diego, Orange County, Imperial County, Riverside, San Bernardino or Los Angeles for a DUI.

Okay, think about it... How smart is it to drive a two-ton killing machine through the streets with, say, a .16 blood alcohol level? Not very. In fact, it is abundantly stupid and inherently dangerous for you and everyone in your vicinity. How about.... How smart is it to take a cab instead of driving? How about, since it's the holiday season and we all know we are going to imbibe, just planning to take a cab from the start? Yes, now we are getting smarter.

Yes, think about it. A GOOD DUI attorney will charge you about $5,000 pre-trial to work up your case. Yes, people, there are defenses to high blood alcohol DUI's. I just got an offer of a wet reckless on a .17 blood alcohol case. I got another "wet" offer on a .17 blood alcohol level case where the client had an accident. I recently sued San Diego's top DUI cop in federal court and won $10,000 in settlement from the City because the cop falsified the basis for his stop.

That's not to say that your case can be won. Many can, many can't. It depends on how competent your lawyer is, how the cop did the investigation, if the machines used were properly calibrated, and what you said at the time of the investigation, amongst other things.

Remember, anyone with a law license from the State of California can take your money and represent you on a DUI. That doesn't mean that they know what they are doing. Would you request advice from a podiatrist if you had cancer? Of course not.

I am the first attorney in San Diego to be voted into the National College for DUI Defense at Harvard by a unanimous vote of the Board of Regents. I see attorneys take cases, take money, and plead the cases right out without doing any work. One such attorney ranks high on the search engines and never, never, never goes to court. Instead, he sends some appearance attorney to go to court and plead out 20 cases per day. He keeps all the money, does little to no work, but has a great marketing director. Don't be fooled.

Now, if you haven't read it before, read it now. And if you have read it before, read it again. This article is chock full of info on what to do if you get stopped for a DUI and arrested.

It's starting now. Police agencies all over San Diego are setting up roadblocks, and putting officers on overtime, to make as many DUI arrests as possible. Hopefully, the tips below will come in handy for you over this Thanksgiving holiday.

florida-traffic-school-3v.jpg

1. If you drive in San Diego during Thanksgiving, and you plan on having a cocktail or two, make sure you know where your license, registration and proof of insurance are. San Diego DUI officers historically write in their San Diego DUI reports (putting only facts that harm you in them) that the suspect "fumbled for his wallet" and couldn't find his registration. They use this to try to show you were impaired. Be prepared.

2. When you get signaled by the San Diego DUI officer to pull over for a DUI assessment, do so immediately and safely. Roll down your window and put your hands on the steering wheel.

3. If a San Diego DUI officer asks you if you know why you are being pulled over, remember you don't have to answer. What a dumb question! He knows why he is pulling you over. He is pulling you over to assess you for drunk driving, and he's using the fact that you might have committed some minor vehicle code violations as an excuse. Don't make any admissions to him. So, you can just ask him, "why?"

4. The next question the San Diego DUI officer is likely to ask is, "Have you had anything to drink tonight." Remember your rights? You are not required to speak to officers. I know, I know, you think, "But if I don't talk to the officer, he will be mad." Let him be. You are not at a social gathering; he is not invited to your next birthday party. So don't worry about how he feels. He is collecting evidence against you. Don't give him any. It is best to say, "Officer, I appreciate what you do for a living, but I don't wish to answer any of your questions." You do NOT have to answer. The less from you he gets, the better for you in the long run. He is gathering evidence. But, you say, maybe he will let me go if he knows I'm being honest with him. NO. Most people who are pulled over and have alcohol on their breath get arrested. It's just a fact of life. Don't give him anything to put in that report that he can use against you later.

5. He may then say, "I'd like you to complete a series of tests for me." Again, let him know that you do not wish to participate in any tests. You are not required to comply. San Diego DUI officers try to give a series of field tests to determine if you are impaired. I have NEVER known any officer to do these as per the standardized protocol. I hold a certification authorized by the United Stated Department of Transportation to administer these tests, and was required to pass a practical and written test to get that certification given by a nationally re-known sergeant with the Idaho State Police. Cops learn how to do these, and then promptly forget them, making up their own "tests." Do not do them. Do NOT let the officer collect more false "evidence" against you. Just reiterate that you do not wish to perform and tests. It's your right.

6. The San Diego DUI investigation officer may then tell you he wants you to take an in field breath, hand held, breath test. Do not take this "test." It is unreliable, and regularly exhibits blood alcohol numbers higher than what you really are. The cop really, really wants you to do this now, because you have made no statements, and you have refused his field "tests." He wants this badly. He NEEDS some evidence. Do not do it. You are NOT required to blow into the little hand held machine.

7. The officer will most likely arrest you, cuff and take you downtown. You will be required to take a breath or blood test. You must choose to take one of these tests, or he will take what is called a "forced blood test" and your driver's license will be suspended for a full year.

A few pointers: If you are still absorbing alcohol, the breath test will read high. It is also an INDIRECT measurement of blood alcohol level. If you take blood, you won't get a result for at least a week. Also, SDPD and Sheriff's don't use the proper amount of sodium fluoride and potassium oxalate in the blood tubes, so you can attack those results later. Personally, I wouldn't let anyone hired by the city or county to draw my blood, after learning all I know about the incompetence of the people drawing the blood, and the lack of sanitations protocol in place. Why risk infection? (See, article on frightening practices in the San Diego crime lab).

If you are arrested, you will be released within 12 hours on your promise to appear. You will received a pink piece of paper called a "DS-367." This document tells you that you, or your lawyer, must call the Department of Motor Vehicle within ten days of the arrest to secure a hearing to determine whether or not the DMV will take your license. Do not miss this deadline or you will be suspended automatically.

So, be careful. Don't drink and drive if you can help it. Drive safely. Don't talk to cops. Be polite, but do not let them gather inculpatory evidence against you. And when you get home call this San Diego DUI Defense lawyer.

Continue reading "HOW TO AVOID A DUI ARREST AND CONVICTION THIS HOLIDAY SEASON" »

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.

November 18, 2009

COP SENTENCED FOR STEALING PART OF DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S FILE; SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT SUPPORTS HIS CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

A Maricopa County Sheriff's detention officer was found in contempt of court Wednesday for his decision to remove a document from a defense attorney's file during a sentencing hearing last month. [To see the full contempt opinion, click Download file]


[This begs the question: why isn't this cop being charged with a crime for stealing a defense attorney's property? This is absolutely outrageous when defense attorneys must bring colleagues to watch their belongings because the cops might steal from them]

The officer was ordered by a judge to hold a press conference to apologize for his actions - an order that Sheriff Joe Arpaio immediately said would be defied.

“My officer was doing his job and I will not stand by and allow him to be thrown to the wolves by the courts because they feel pressure from the media on this situation,” Arpaio said in a press release. He further said, "I decide who holds press conferences and when they are held regarding this Sheriff’s Office.”

Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe ruled that Officer Adam Stoddard acted in contempt when he pulled two pieces of hand-written paper out of attorney Joanne Cuccia's file on Oct. 19 during a sentencing hearing for Antonio Lozano.

Stoddard testified earlier this month that he saw four words - "going to" "steal" and "money" - in a document sticking out of Cuccia's file that led him to believe Lozano posed some sort of security threat.

The "totality of circumstances" taking place in the court room that day, including the presence of Lozano's associates and Stoddard's belief that Lozano had some history with the Mexican Mafia, all informed his decision, the detention officer testified.

Donahoe disagreed, finding that the presence of those four words on the document didn't pose any immediate security threat and that in removing the privileged communication from Cuccia's file, Stoddard acted unreasonably.

"Even giving DO Stoddard the benefit of the doubt that he had a right to scan the entire paragraph which was in plain sight after seeing the "key words" to determine if Defendant presented an immediate security risk, nothing in that paragraph justified DO Stoddard's continued conduct of removing the document from counsel's file and having the document copied," Donahoe wrote.

Donahoe found that another deputy working in court that day, Francisco Campillo, who made a copy of the documents Stoddard seized, did not act in contempt.

During a hearing last week, Donahoe wrestled with an appropriate punishment for Stoddard if he were to be found in contempt. Cuccia had expressed concerns about the damage to her professional reputation, particularly after Sheriff Joe Arpaio, in a written statement, seemed to excuse Stoddard's actions by linking Cuccia with two attorneys were recently sentenced for or arrested on suspicion of smuggling contraband to inmates.

By Tuesday, Donahoe had determined that Stoddard should hold a news conference outside the Central Court Building by Nov. 30 and offer Cuccia "a sincere verbal and written apology for invading her defense file and for the damage that his conduct may have caused to her professional reputation."

If Stoddard refuses, or Cuccia is not satisfied with the apology, Donahoe ordered Stoddard to report to jail on Dec. 1.

The case became national news after surveillance footage emerged that shows Stoddard move behind Lozano and take a few steps forward before looking down at the defense attorney's table. The footage shows Stoddard pulling out a document sticking out of a file. Stoddard then calls over a Campillo to make copies.

Lozano, 26, was appearing before Judge Lisa Flores to receive his sentence for an aggravated assault he had pleaded guilty to in September, though Stoddard's decision to remove the document calls that into question, too: a public defender said she was going to file a motion to dismiss the case and ask for a change of venue.

November 11, 2009

CALIFORNIA DUI CONVICTION CAN PREVENT ENTRY INTO CANADA

You have just had a really long year and you are dying to go to Whistler (in Canada) for a long-deserved ski vacation. Think again if you have a DUI conviction, a domestic violence conviction, or any type of conviction (misdemeanor or felony) that is indictable under Canadian law.

You WILL be stopped at the border, and you WILL be humiliated.

Read along to figure out what can be done in your case......

canada.gif


CANADA

Clients seeking to travel to Canada with criminal convictions from the U.S. (or any other country, for that matter) require unique advice. Living in a state next to Canada means that we must be aware that many of our clients are likely to seek entry into Canada, and be extremely disappointed if they are turned back at the border. Because so many of our clients take entry into Canada for granted, it is important to consider several issues relating to entry to Canada. These include who can enter Canada, who can be excluded from Canada, how to overcome exclusion from Canada, and whether a client who is ineligible for rehabilitation can nonetheless seek entry.

A. Who Can Enter Canada.
Most people assume, without question, that just about anyone can enter Canada. This is not true. The Canadian Customs and Immigration Officers have ultimate authority to permit and deny anyone entry to Canada. No one has an automatic right to enter Canada. However, most people if they have no criminal record are allowed entry. What if you have a criminal conviction?

B. Who Can’t Enter Canada.
To begin, in Canada a DUI is a felony and therefore an excludable offense under the Immigration Act. A DUI is an indictable offense in Canada that may be punished by imprisonment for up to a five year term. Anyone with a conviction in the U.S. that is treated as a felony or indictable offense in Canada is excludable from Canada, but even if the offense is not a felony or indictable offense in Canada, Customs and Immigration Officers have ultimate authority to permit and deny entry to Canada.

Almost all convictions (including DUI, DWI, reckless driving, negligent driving, misdemeanor drug possession, all felonies, domestic violence (assault IV), shoplifting, theft, etc) can make a person inadmissible to Canada, regardless of when they occurred. For this reason, it is not recommended that persons with past convictions attempt to enter Canada without first obtaining necessary documents. It is always the final decision of officers at ports of entry to decide whether a person should be allowed into Canada.

The reason for this exclusion is contained in Canadian law. The Canadian Immigration Act, in § 19; states:

(2) No immigrant and, except as provided in subsection (3), no visitor shall be granted admission if the immigrant or visitor is a member of any of the following classes:
(a) persons who have been convicted in Canada of an indictable offence, or of an offence for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment or for which the offender is punishable on summary conviction, that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than ten years, other than an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act;
(a.1) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe
(i) have been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence that may be punishable by way of indictment under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than ten years, or
(ii) have committed outside Canada an act or omission that constitutes an offence under the laws of the place where the act or omission occurred and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence that may be punishable by way of indictment under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than ten years, except persons who have satisfied the Minister that they have rehabilitated themselves and that at least five years have elapsed since the expiration of any sentence imposed for the offence or since the commission of the act or omission, as the case may be;

Later, in § 3 of the Immigration Act, there is a provision that permits discretionary entry:

A senior immigration officer or an adjudicator, as the case may be, may grant entry to any person who is a member of an inadmissible class described in subsection (2) subject to such terms and conditions as the officer or adjudicator deems appropriate and for a period not exceeding thirty days, where, in the opinion of the officer or adjudicator, the purpose for which entry is sought justifies admission.

Again, the Canadian Consulate emphasizes that this entry is discretionary, and in the post 9/11 aftermath, officers are more typically exercising their discretion to deny entry than to grant entry. Even if a Canadian Minister (I'm not sure which minister) has approved a client's entry, the border person can still reject the person.

Finally, there is a permit process that requires prior application and may permit an otherwise excludable person to enter Canada. Information on the permit is on the consulate general’s web-site, permits a visit of up to 30 days, and as I understand it, once it is approved, may be re-approved when application is made within a 3 year period. Permit information is at: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/menu-en.asp?act=v&mid=12&cat=180&did=397. This process is discussed in the next section.

C. Overcoming Exclusion from Canada.

There are several ways individuals can overcome criminal inadmissibility, but the short answer you must give your client is that there is no short and easy way to do it. These include:

1 Deemed rehabilitation at a Canadian port of entry;
2 Streamlined rehabilitation at a Canadian port of entry;
3 Approval of rehabilitation through a Canadian Consulate in the United States; and
4 A Temporary Resident Permit through a Canadian Consulate in the United States

1. Deemed Rehabilitation.

Persons are eligible to apply for deemed rehabilitation at a port of entry if the following are true:
1 There was only one conviction in total;
2 At least ten years have elapsed since all of the sentences for the conviction were completed (payment of all fees, jail time completed, restitution paid, etc);
3 The conviction would not be considered serious criminality in Canada (most felony convictions in the United States are equivalent to serious criminality in Canada); and
4 The conviction did not involve any serious property damage, physical harm to any person, or any type of weapon.

2. Streamlined Rehabilitation.

Persons are eligible to apply for streamlined rehabilitation at a port of entry if the following are true:
1 There were two or less convictions in total;
2 At least five years have elapsed since all of the sentences for the conviction(s) were completed (payment of all fees, jail time completed, restitution paid, etc);
3 The convictions would not be considered serious criminality in Canada (most felony convictions in the United States are equivalent to serious criminality in Canada); and
4 The convictions did not involve any serious property damage, physical harm to any person, or any type of weapon.

3. Deemed & Streamlined Rehabilitation Applications.

Deemed rehabilitation and streamlined rehabilitation applications are processed at Canadian ports of entry. Submitting an application for rehabilitation does not guarantee that the request will be approved. Should your client wish to apply for either, the client must bring the following documents to a port of entry during regular business hours (Monday - Friday between 8am and 5pm):
1 A United States passport or birth certificate (with photo identification);
2 A copy of court documents for each conviction, and proof that all sentences were completed;
3 A recent FBI identification record;
4 Recent police certificates from the state where the conviction(s) occurred, and from any state where a person has lived for six (6) months or longer in the last 10 years; and
5 A fee is involved for the streamlined rehabilitation process, equivalent to $200 Canadian. There is no fee for deemed rehabilitation.

4. Approval of Rehabilitation.

If more than 5 years have elapsed since all sentences related to the conviction(s) were completed, but a person is not eligible for rehabilitation at a port of entry (because of the nature or number of convictions), a person may apply for approval of rehabilitation through a Canadian Consulate in the United States. The same documents required for port of entry rehabilitation identified above are also required for rehabilitation through a Canadian Consulate, plus a completed Application for Criminal Rehabilitation (Citizenship & Immigration Canada Form IMM 1444. Five Canadian Consulates in the U.S. process criminal applications - Buffalo, NW, New York, NY, Detroit, MI, Los Angeles, CA, and Seattle, WA. Again, the decision to approve rehabilitation is discretionary, so there is no certainty in obtaining admission to Canada. In the situation where a person is ineligible for rehabilitation because of the nature or number of convictions, employment of competent Canadian immigration counsel may facilitate approval of the application.

5. Temporary Resident Permit.

If a person is not eligible for deemed, streamlined, or approved rehabilitation, the only option remaining (short of a pardon or executive action) is to apply for a temporary resident permit. This is a process where a person requests special permission to enter or remain in Canada.

A person seeking a temporary resident permit submits the documents required for deemed or streamlined rehabilitation as well as a completed Application for Criminal Rehabilitation, except that the applicant does not check the box in § A(1) indicating Application for Approval of Rehabilitation, but instead checks the box in § A (2) indicating For Information Only.

As poignantly noted on the Citizenship & Immigration Canada website, the Customs and Immigration officer will review the Application form, look at the nature of the offenses, the number of offenses, when the offences happened, and the applicants current situation, and then the officer will:

At Canadian visa offices outside of Canada:
• advise that they do not recommend that you travel to Canada; or,
• advise that you could apply for special permission (temporary resident’s permit) to enter Canada*.
At Ports of Entry (airport, marine or land)
(Contact your nearest Canadian visa office before traveling into Canada.)
• advise that you will not be allowed to enter Canada and ask you to return immediately to your country of departure;
• take enforcement action (arrest, detention and/or removal); or,
• advise that you could apply for special permission (temporary resident’s permit) to enter Canada.
In Canada
• ask that you leave Canada voluntarily;
• take enforcement action (arrest, detention, and/or removal from Canada); or
• advise that you could apply for special permission (temporary resident’s permit) to remain in Canada.
The safest course of conduct is to make application for, and obtain approval of, a Temporary Resident Permit at a Canadian consulate in the U.S. prior to attempting entry to Canada. The website indicates that Approval of Rehabilitation and Temporary Resident Permits take a minimum of six (6) months to process in the Seattle office; information indicated the time in Seattle is much closer to one year. Clients seeking quicker decisions should direct their applications to the Canadian Consulates in Detroit and Buffalo.

Failure to timely seek a Temporary Resident Permit can result in disastrous consequences. A client who failed to seek a Temporary Resident Permit was stopped at Customs and Immigrations in Toronto, detained, and returned to Denver the next morning on the next flight home. He was also unable to close a multi-million dollar sale, and lost his job as a vice-president in the cellular phone industry. Another client who failed to seek a Temporary Resident Permit was stopped, questioned, and permitted to enter Canada for business, but was counseled she would not always be so lucky.

Once a Temporary Resident Permit is granted, it must be updated every 6 months to 1 year. It is not permanent. There are significant non-refundable processing fees associated with Temporary Resident Permits, and not surprisingly, higher fees correspond to cases involving more serious criminality.

6. Processing Problems.
The most frequent problem is inadequate or incomplete documentation. Although court documents may be difficult to obtain, Canada typically requires them for review. Proof of sentences being completed is critical, which could be anything from a letter received stating that a person’s civil rights have been restored or a letter from a probation officer stating that all sentences were completed successfully, to proof of the final payment of a fine showing a zero balance. If court documents and/or proof of completed sentences have been destroyed by the court, Canada requires a letter from the court which clearly indicates that files are no longer available. Canada also needs to see original FBI certificates and state police certificates issued within the year, and requests all required materials be submitted in one package. While the minimum processing time for these applications is six (6) months, many cases take longer to process.

D. Resources.

The web link http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/applications/rehabil.html has information about the rehabilitation process.

Temporary residence permit information is contained in the consulate general’s web-site: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/menu-en.asp?act=v&mid=12&cat=180&did=397.

The consolidated statutes and regulations page for Canada is: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/.

A more specific link to the immigration statutes is at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2/index.html.

The specific portion of the Immigration Act that bars entry is at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2/60195.html.

The web link http://www.canadianembassy.org/immigration/inadmissible-en.asp explains generally inadmissibility.

The web address for Nexus, which facilitates and speeds multiple border crossings, is: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel/nexus/menu-e.html.

E. Deported from Canada?A visitor to Canada faces possible deportation upon conviction for impaired driving (DUI), violating Canada’s .08 per se limit, or refusing a breath sample. A person in Canada as a visitor who is convicted of a drinking and driving offence may not be able to renew his or her visitor status, and upon conviction, such a person becomes inadmissible to Canada and can be deported. To overcome this inadmissibility, a pardon is required.

F. General Summary and Practice Tip.
Basically, if convictions are over 10 years old, entry is permitted after a criminal background check. If convictions are between 5 and 10 years old, entry is permitted on payment of a $200 fine/fee and a criminal background check. If conviction is less than 5 years old, you are going to have to jump through a bunch of hoops, and even then, probably won’t get in unless there are exceptional cricumstances.

If there is any possibility a client will one day have to enter Canada, the client would be prudent to secure certified true copies of all court records relating to the conviction and sentence, including proof of fine payment, and a transcript of the evidence underlying the conviction.

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA DUI CONVICTION CAN PREVENT ENTRY INTO CANADA" »

October 30, 2009

PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT THROWS OUT 6500 JUVENILE CASES BECAUSE OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION

COURT THROWS OUT 6500 JUVENILE CASES BECAUSE OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION

The PA Supreme Court just threw out 6500 juvenile delinquency cases after
two judges were indicted for taking more than $2.6 million in kickbacks from
private detention facilities to lock the kids up.

The juvenile judges had a plea deal for 7 years in prison which was rejected
by the federal judge as too lenient.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/pa-supreme-court-throws-thousands-juvenile-delinquency-cases/Story?id=8952028&page=2

To see the full story, click HERE.

October 29, 2009

SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE: PACIFIC TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY RESULTS CALLED INTO QUESTION

San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie M. Dumanis office said Monday in a news release that officials were sending a letter out to San Diego-based defense attorneys "apprising them of concerns from a toxicology lab about incorrect test results connected to some criminal cases, primarily misdemeanor cases." So far, no effort has been made to contact defense attorney's outside the county, according to a DA spokesman.

Of course, it's also possible that some people were wrongly convicted.

It's not known how many cases or affected -- or which, for that matter -- but a representative for the DA's office did say most of the cases involve DUI charges. What is known is that there are potential problems with toxicology test samples and test results from June and July of this year.

"When we are told of potential problems like this, we alert the defense bar and work quickly to determine the potential scope and any impact it may have on cases," said Dumanis said in a statement. "Just as we have done in the past, we will investigate thoroughly and share the findings with the appropriate parties as soon as possible."

The DA's office said the lab involved is PacTox (Pacific Toxicology Services), which is based in Chatsworth, Calif., near Los Angeles.

Many questions remain unanswered about the situation, and they apparently will remain that way for now.

"The district attorney’s office will have no further public comment until the results of the investigation are complete," the news release concluded.

Earlier this year, the DA had to deal with a similar situation involving a lab tech from Riverside County who officials said admitted falsifying reports while working for a Colorado lab.

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE: PACIFIC TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY RESULTS CALLED INTO QUESTION" »

October 23, 2009

SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE: SECRET TAPES MADE BY COP REVEALED TO DEFENSE

Secret tapes shared with defense lawyers
By Michael Burge
Union-Tribune Staff Writer
2:00 a.m. October 23, 2009

OCEANSIDE — The District Attorney's Office is sharing with defense attorneys secret recordings of suspects' police interviews so they can weigh whether their clients' cases were compromised.

District Attorney spokesman Paul Levikow said yesterday that prosecutors have identified 37 cases in which Oceanside police Officer Damon Smith recorded interviews with suspects but didn't disclose their existence to prosecutors or defense lawyers.

Levikow said the recordings were made between April 2003 and May 2006, and between November 2008 and May 2009, when they came to light.

“The recordings have been or are being made available to the defense attorneys in those cases,” Levikow said. “They can decide how they can proceed.” He said it was unclear why there was a three-year gap between the recordings.

Bill Trainor, an assistant supervisor for the county Public Defender in North County, said he hadn't heard the tapes were being shared. “Neither (North County branch Supervisor) Larry Beyersdorf nor myself have been notified in either an official or unofficial capacity,” Trainor said. “I'm disquieted by this information.”

Trainor said he recently spoke with Summer Stephan, operations chief for the District Attorney's North County branch, “and she said there's an investigation in the downtown DA's office” into Smith's activities.”

Levikow said he had no comment on whether such an investigation was under way.
Other defense attorneys contacted said they had not yet heard from the district attorney whether cases of theirs were affected.

A spokesman for Oceanside police declined to say whether Smith was disciplined. Sgt. Kelan Poorman said such information is prevented from disclosure by the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights.

October 21, 2009

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO HEAR "ONE SWERVE" ANONYMOUS TIPSTER DUI CASE

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Samuel Alito lobbied hard to gain enough colleagues to vote to hear a DUI case out of Virginia where the cop pulled over a driver based solely on the tip from an anonymous tipster that he saw the driver "swerve once." The cop, however, saw no bad driving himself.

That's not a good enough case to make a majority of the U.S. Supremes take it on. In fact, it is a major win for the Constitution. That a cop should be able to suspend the Fourth Amendment rights of a citizen based on an anonymous tipster is ludicrous. So implied the remainder of the justices that declined Alito's push to hear this ridiculous case.

CLick HERE for the news story on the case.

October 12, 2009

San Diego DUI Defense: San Diego Saved from First Time Ignition Interlock Requirements in DUI cases.

San Diego Dui Offenders will be spared the requirement of installing Ignotion Interlock Devices in their cars if they are convicted of a first offense.

Governor Swartzenegger signed a bill requiring first time offenders in Sacramento, Alameda, Tuare and Los Angeles counties to install ignition interlock devices.

What is so strange about this bill is that it omits the majority of counties, including San Diego, Orange, Riverside, etc...

We can expect a substantial equal protection challenge from criminal defense attorneys in the counties where this requirement takes effect in January.

For more, see: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_13539936

September 28, 2009

CIVIL RIGHTS: SHOULD PROSECUTORS WHO MANUFACTURE EVIDENCE BE HELD LIABLE?

A prosecutor manufacturers evidence in order to win a conviction. After the convicted serves 25 years in prison, exculpatory evidence pointing to another perpetrator surfaces. The convicted is released. Should he be able to sue the prosecutor who concocted the false evidence used to convict him?

Believe it or not, it's still an open question. In November, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Pottawattamie v. McGhee in order to resolve it. The facts of the case aren't in dispute.

In 1978, a retired Iowa police captain was killed by a shotgun blast while working as a private security guard. Prosecutors Joseph Hrvol and David Richter then worked with local police to manufacture evidence against the two chief suspects, Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee, Jr. The two men were convicted of the murder in separate trials, and each was sentenced to life without parole.

To read the article in Reason online, click HERE.

September 23, 2009

IMPERIAL COUNTY PROSECUTOR ARRAIGNED ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGES

A local Imperial County newspaper has learned that veteran drug prosecutor Jon Willis will be arraigned on domestic violence charges for allegedly hitting his wife with a beer can.

http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2009/09/23/local_news/news02.txt

September 23, 2009

JUDGE ORDERS CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY NOT TO SPEAK IN DEATH PENALTY TRIAL

Man on trial for his life in Berkeley
By Robert Behre, The Post and Courier, September 22, 2009

MONCKS CORNER -- As opening arguments began Monday in the death penalty trial of Colin Broughton, defense attorney Bill McGuire said he agreed with much of what the prosecution has asserted in court….

If the jury convicts Broughton, 25, of murdering his aunt, Shirley Mae Birch, a second phase of the trial will begin, and jurors will decide if Broughton should serve a sentence of life in prison or be put to death.

Any death sentence would be appealed, and recent behind-the-scenes maneuvering in the case has raised the question of whether this death sentence would hold up.

Before the trial began, a judge told one of Broughton's three attorneys, Charleston County public defender Beattie Butler, that he may not speak in court unless a judge questions him….

Rauch Wise, a Greenwood lawyer on the board of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the order banning Butler from speaking could be fertile ground for an appeal, particularly because the order didn't come in response to any disruptive behavior by Butler in the case.

"I just think it goes against American tradition to tell a defendant that you can't be heard by competent counsel who is there to defend you in the courtroom," Wise said. "It just simply makes no sense."…

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/sep/22/man-on-trial-for-his-life-in-berkeley/


September 14, 2009

EX-MAIMI DEA CHIEF INDICTED IN ALLEN STANFORD SCANDAL

Ex-Miami DEA chief indicted in Allen Stanford scandal
By MICHAEL SALLAH AND ROB BARRY

The former chief of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Miami office who led the agency's cases against infamous Panama strongman Manuel Noriega and Medellín cartel kingpin Fabio Ochoa was indicted by a federal grand jury Thursday for ordering the shredding of records belonging to disgraced banker Allen Stanford.
Tom Raffanello, who left the DEA five years ago to become Stanford's local security chief, was charged with ordering workers to destroy thousands of documents just days after government agents shut down the banking empire in a massive fraud case.

Prosecutors say the records -- including secret background reports on employees and potential investors -- were hauled away from the company's security bunker in Fort Lauderdale after a federal judge ordered that no company paperwork be destroyed.

September 14, 2009

SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE: WILL COPS BE ABLE TO TAKE YOUR BLOOD AT THE SIDE OF THE ROAD?

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — When Officer Darryll Dowell of the Nampa Police Department is on patrol, he will pull up at a stoplight and start casing the vehicle next to him. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver’s arms, searching for a plump, bouncy vein.

“I was looking at people’s arms and hands, thinking, ‘I could draw from that,’ ” Officer Dowell said.

The thought stems from training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months in drawing blood from people suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The aim of the federal program is to determine if drawing blood by law-enforcement officers can be an effective tool against drunken drivers and aid in their prosecution.

If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage law-enforcement officers nationwide to undergo similar training.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1966 that the police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunken-driving suspect without a warrant, as long as they were based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, and they were done after an arrest and carried out in a medically approved manner.

The practice of law-enforcement officers drawing blood, first done in Arizona in 1995, has raised concerns, though, about safety and the credibility of the evidence.

“I would imagine that a lot of people would be wary of having their blood drawn by an officer on the hood of their police vehicle,” said Steve Oberman, chairman of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ committee on driving while intoxicated….

For more on this story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/us/14blood.html?_r=1&ref=us

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE: WILL COPS BE ABLE TO TAKE YOUR BLOOD AT THE SIDE OF THE ROAD?" »

July 30, 2009

San Dieego Dui Defense: San Diego County is Not one of the Counties that will Initiate a First Offender Ingition Interlock Device

The California Senate Public Safety Committee has cleared a bill which would require four counties to require first time DUI offenders to install Ignotion Interlock devices after conviction. The counties are Sacramento, Los Angeles, Alameda and Tulare.

Note: There is a clear equal protection issue here. Additionally, the bill requires outside funding to take effect. We suspect a big attack on this by defense counsel.

http://http://www.prlog.org/10276694-california-ignition-interlock-bill-ab-91-clears-senate-public-safety-committee.html

July 10, 2009

SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE: PARTITION RATIO DEFENSE LIVES! AT LEAST ON A CHARGE OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE

A breath test measuring alcohol involves a conversion from breath to blood; that conversion is the partition ratio. The machine testing the breath is set with a standard, which is supposedly the human average: 2100 to 1.

But it turns out that partition ratios vary among people.

In Bransford (8 Cal.4th 885), the Cal. Supremes held that any evidence of variation was irrelevant to a charge of driving at or above .08, thereby barring the defense from presenting any evidence of variations in partition ratios.

But what about the (a) count? The Cal. Supremes hold, "If the defendant in a section 23152(a) case offers competent evidence showing that the use of a 2,100-to-1 conversion ratio may have yielded an inaccurate representation of his blood-alcohol level, introduction of this evidence is permissible."

So you CAN defend a DUI charge with a partition ratio defense; you just can't defend a .08 charge.

People v. McNeal; 2009 DJ DAR 10127; DJ, 7/10/09; Cal. Supremes

July 3, 2009

CALIFORNIA DUI: SAN BERNARDINO ANNOUNCES JULY 4 CRACKDOWN ON DRUNK DRIVERS

San Bernardino County Announces July 4th Crackdown On Drunk Drivers

County Statistics Showing Holiday Period is a Deadly One on U.S. Roads

Victorville: Avoid the 25 DUI Campaign Task Force today announced its deputies will be out in full force during the Fourth of July holiday period, cracking down on impaired drivers with an aggressive Drunk Driving, Over the Limit, Under Arrest enforcement blitz.

At least two DUI /Driver’s License checkpoints will be conducted in the High Desert over the weekend in addition to extra deputies for saturation patrol.

5-26-2006_DUI_CkPoint.jpg


Continue reading "CALIFORNIA DUI: SAN BERNARDINO ANNOUNCES JULY 4 CRACKDOWN ON DRUNK DRIVERS" »

July 1, 2009

HOW TO AVOID A DUI ARREST THIS JULY 4TH WEEKEND

It's starting now. Police agencies all over San Diego are setting up roadblocks, and putting officers on overtime, to make as many DUI arrests as possible. Hopefully, the tips below will come in handy for you over this Fourth of July holiday.

1. If you drive in San Diego during the Fourth of July holiday, and you plan on having a cocktail or two, make sure you know where your license, registration and proof of insurance are. San Diego DUI officers historically write in their San Diego DUI reports (putting only facts that harm you in them) that the suspect "fumbled for his wallet" and couldn't find his registration. They use this to try to show you were impaired. Be prepared.

2. When you get signaled by the San Diego DUI officer to pull over for a DUI assessment, do so immediately and safely. Roll down your window and put your hands on the steering wheel.

3. If a San Diego DUI officer asks you if you know why you are being pulled over, remember you don't have to answer. What a dumb question! He knows why he is pulling you over. He is pulling you over to assess you for drunk driving, and he's using the fact that you might have committed some minor vehicle code violations as an excuse. Don't make any admissions to him. So, you can just ask him, "why?"

4. The next question the San Diego DUI officer is likely to ask is, "Have you had anything to drink tonight." Remember your rights? You are not required to speak to officers. I know, I know, you think, "But if I don't talk to the officer, he will be mad." Let him be. You are not at a social gathering; he is not invited to your next birthday party. So don't worry about how he feels. He is collecting evidence against you. Don't give him any. It is best to say, "Officer, I appreciate what you do for a living, but I don't wish to answer any of your questions." You do NOT have to answer. The less from you he gets, the better for you in the long run. He is gathering evidence. But, you say, maybe he will let me go if he knows I'm being honest with him. NO. Most people who are pulled over and have alcohol on their breath get arrested. It's just a fact of life. Don't give him anything to put in that report that he can use against you later.

5. He may then say, "I'd like you to complete a series of tests for me." Again, let him know that you do not wish to participate in any tests. You are not required to comply. San Diego DUI officers try to give a series of field tests to determine if you are impaired. I have NEVER known any officer to do these as per the standardized protocol. I hold a certification authorized by the United Stated Department of Transportation to administer these tests, and was required to pass a practical and written test to get that certification given by a nationally re-known sergeant with the Idaho State Police. Cops learn how to do these, and then promptly forget them, making up their own "tests." Do not do them. Do NOT let the officer collect more false "evidence" against you. Just reiterate that you do not wish to perform and tests. It's your right.

6. The San Diego DUI investigation officer may then tell you he wants you to take an in field breath, hand held, breath test. Do not take this "test." It is unreliable, and regularly exhibits blood alcohol numbers higher than what you really are. The cop really, really wants you to do this now, because you have made no statements, and you have refused his field "tests." He wants this badly. He NEEDS some evidence. Do not do it. You are NOT required to blow into the little hand held machine.

7. The officer will most likely arrest you, cuff and take you downtown. You will be required to take a breath or blood test. You must choose to take one of these tests, or he will take what is called a "forced blood test" and your driver's license will be suspended for a full year.

A few pointers: If you are still absorbing alcohol, the breath test will read high. It is also an INDIRECT measurement of blood alcohol level. If you take blood, you won't get a result for at least a week. Also, SDPD and Sheriff's don't use the proper amount of sodium fluoride and potassium oxalate in the blood tubes, so you can attack those results later. Personally, I wouldn't let anyone hired by the city or county to draw my blood, after learning all I know about the incompetence of the people drawing the blood, and the lack of sanitations protocol in place. Why risk infection? (See, article on frightening practices in the San Diego crime lab).

If you are arrested, you will be released within 12 hours on your promise to appear. You will received a pink piece of paper called a "DS-367." This document tells you that you, or your lawyer, must call the Department of Motor Vehicle within ten days of the arrest to secure a hearing to determine whether or not the DMV will take your license. Do not miss this deadline or you will be suspended automatically.

So, be careful. Don't drink and drive if you can help it. Drive safely. Don't talk to cops. Be polite, but do not let them gather inculpatory evidence against you. And when you get home call this San Diego DUI Defense lawyer.

Continue reading "HOW TO AVOID A DUI ARREST THIS JULY 4TH WEEKEND" »

June 29, 2009

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REQUIRES LAB ANALYSTS TO TESTIFY IN CRIMINAL CASES-A MAJOR VICTORY FOR THE DEFENSE

Supreme Confrontation: Impact of the Court’s lab report decision
Defenders hail ruling, prosecutors say drug offenders will go free
By Kimberly Atkins and David E. Frank
Staff writers
Published: June 26, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruling requiring criminal lab report analysts to be available at trial for cross-examination was hailed by defense attorneys who say it will help protect against wrongful convictions.

But prosecutors say that the decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts will tax their already strapped resources, and ultimately lead to more cases against alleged drug offenders being dropped altogether.

“Because of this ruling and the practical consequences of requiring chemists to testify in all of these trials, there are going to be cases called in courtrooms that end up getting dismissed, and that’s frustrating,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who argued the case and urged the Court to allow the reports to be admitted on their own.

Instead, in a 5-4 ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that forensic reports, commonly used in the prosecution of drug and other offenses, are subject to the Confrontation Clause, meaning that the technicians who prepare them must be available at trial to be cross-examined by the defense.

Scalia wrote that such reports fall within the “core class of testimonial statements” that are subject to the Confrontation Clause under the Court’s rulings in the 2004 case Crawford v. Washington and the 2006 case Davis v. Washington.

“In short, under our decision in Crawford the analysts’ affidavits were testimonial statements, and the analysts were ‘witnesses’ for purposes of the Sixth Amendment,” Scalia wrote. “Absent a showing that the analysts were unavailable to testify at trial and that [the defendant] had a prior opportunity to cross-examine them, [the defendant] was entitled to ‘be confronted with’ the analysts at trial.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy penned a strong dissent joined by three other justices in the closely-split ruling.

Kennedy said that the majority ignored nearly a century of criminal jurisprudence where such reports were allowed in most of the nation’s courts as a matter of course.

“This rule has been established for at least 90 years,” Kennedy wrote. “It extends across at least 35 states and six federal courts of appeals. Yet the court undoes it based on two recent opinions that say nothing about forensic analysts.”

Good news for defendants
Defense attorneys said the right to cross-examine lab report analysts is crucial, and noted that the opinion itself states that “serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used at criminal trials” and that cross-examination will “weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well.”

“The Supreme Court rejected the notion that forensic science is always neutral and based on solid science,” said Peter Neufeld, co-director of the Innocence Project in New York.

“The Court said our criminal justice system can’t rely blindly on forensic analysts’ reports because they may distort results to favor the prosecution.”

Defense attorney groups and Scalia noted that the need to protect against inaccurate forensic reports was supported by a report earlier this year from the National Academy of Sciences, which said that most crime labs are administered by law enforcement agencies. The academy has also asked Congress to create a new agency to set and enforce uniform standards for forensic analysts to follow in preparing reports for court.

Jeffrey T. Green, a partner in Sidley Austin’s Washington office, who wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the ruling will not bring the parade of horribles prosecutors claim.

“At the end of the day, we will have a better system of justice and rules” because of Melendez-Diaz, said Green.

He also said that the rules for admitting evidence are no different in other kinds of cases. “In traffic cases, the prosecutor can’t just introduce [evidence] of the police radar,” Green said. “The officer who made the stop has to show up.”

However, Coakley said that the low numbers of crime lab technicians and tight budgets make drug prosecutions a very different matter.

“These chemists who work in the labs and produce the certificates are overburdened as it is,” she said. “Now as a result of this ruling [they] are going to have to take time out of their day to travel around the state and sit around for hours or days in individual courthouses waiting to see if the case gets called. That’s simply not practical."

BLOGGER'S NOTE: Prosecutors actually made the argument here that to require lab analysts to testify - so that people accused of crimes by the government actually get a fair chance to test the evidence - would be too much of a burdenon the labs and prosecutors. Boo hoo. Follow the rules, boys. If you want to prosecute, you'd better be able to provide the evidence for a thorough cross examination. Well done, Supremes.

Continue reading "UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REQUIRES LAB ANALYSTS TO TESTIFY IN CRIMINAL CASES-A MAJOR VICTORY FOR THE DEFENSE" »

June 24, 2009

JURY DELIBERATES IN CASE WHERE LABORATORY WITHHELD EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE

A Texas jury is presently deliberating how much money to give an innocent man who spent 17 year in jail because the crime lab withheld evidence that excluded him as the perpetrator.

See http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6494429.html

June 22, 2009

TOP IPHONE APPLICATIONS FOR BUSY LAWYERS

Click HERE if you would like to see the top IPhone applications for busy lawyers.
iphone.jpg

June 18, 2009

SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE: 8 ARRESTED AT ESCONDIDO DUI CHECKPOINT

Eight people were arrested on suspicion of drunken driving and a large number of people cited for driver's license violations at a checkpoint that ended early today on Valley Parkway, police said.
More than 2,100 vehicles entered the checkpoint area, of which nearly 1,500 were screened, during the operation that ran from 6 p.m. Saturday to 12:15 a.m. today, Sgt. Dana Ray of the Escondido Police Department said.

Five drivers made U-turns and drove down the wrong side of the street to avoid the checkpoint. All four who were caught were found to be unlicensed, Ray said.

Officers impounded 66 cars, including 53 for driver's being unlicensed, according to Ray.

The sergeant said nine others were driving on suspended licenses.

Ray said three people were arrested for misdemeanors and seven cited for having open containers of alcohol in their vehicles.

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE: 8 ARRESTED AT ESCONDIDO DUI CHECKPOINT" »

June 9, 2009

SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY MARY PREVOST TO SPEAK TO CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE

2009 DUI Seminar - Rules of the Road XII
Westin Mission Hills Resort Hotel
Rancho Mirage, CA
Saturday, September 26, 2009

REGISTRATION OPENING SOON!!

Featuring:

Opening Remarks & Legislative Update
Vincent John Tucci, Robert Wilson, and Ignacio Hernandez

Case Law Update in DUI Cases
Albert Menaster

Opening Statements in Criminal Cases
Steven L. Harmon

Rising BAC and Back Extrapolation
Ronald Jackson

Discovery in DUI Cases
Mary Frances Provost

20 DUI Myths in 45 Minutes
Bruce Kapsack

Voir Dire & Psychodrama in DUI Cases
Marjorie Russell

DON’T MISS
CACJ’s 5th Annual Texas Hold’ em Poker Tournament
Immediately Following the Seminar


Continue reading "SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY MARY PREVOST TO SPEAK TO CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE" »

June 4, 2009

SAN DIEGO MAN SUES RAMONA SHERIFF's DEPUTIES FOR BRUTAL ASSAULT AND BATTERY

A guy walks into a bar in Ramona...By Greg Moran
June 4, 2009, 6:19 p.m.

...and after a few minutes, a dozen different kinds of cross-eyed ugly breaks out. Allegedly.

That's the gist of a rather hair-raising complaint filed in federal court this week by Allen Baker of Ramona and James Playford. They sued the county, the sheriff's department and five deputies for using excessive force, assault and civil rights violations all stemming from an incident at Molly Malone's bar last July. Baker said he had seen deputies at the bar several times a week, fraternizing with women and sometimes handcuffing them and placing them in the back of the squad car. For fun. Apparently. Photos were taken and one of the young women even posted it on her MySpace page, according to the complaint, and captioned it "Bong loads in a cop car."

Well, Baker approached two members of the local constabulary, deputies Colby Hodge and Jeffrey Guthrie, and asked if they were there to pick up girls. They told him to shut up or he would be arrested, which triggered a First Amendment defense kind of response from Baker ("Plaintiff Baker asked Hodge and Guthrie if freedom of speech is illegal" the suit dryly recounts.) Baker says he was put under arrest, there in the bar, and then the suit contends things went from bad to very much worse very quickly.
The suit says he was hit with flashlights, tasered, kicked, beaten and put in a choke hold until he was unconscious. At one point he contends he lost control of his bowels. Taken to jail he was charged with resisting arrest and being drunk in public. But at a preliminary hearing last September Judge Louis Hanoian dismissed one of the resisting charges and reduced a similar charge to a misdemeanor. Eventually Baker pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor of disturbing the peace.


The incident got pretty good play on local television, partly because of the photos. A video of some of the incident is posted on YouTube. The person who took the video, Playford, contends in the suit that when he showed up at court for a hearing in Baker's case he was harassed by other deputies and was so intimidated he said he would not testify for Baker. The suit alleges a conspiracy among the deputies and faults the county for not investigating the matter.

It's not a pretty picture described by attorney Mary Prevost in the lawsuit, but these police misconduct cases are no walk in the park. There's a way to go here, but there is also lots of intriguing material. We're working on setting up a link to the suit, and are awaiting the response from the county.

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO MAN SUES RAMONA SHERIFF's DEPUTIES FOR BRUTAL ASSAULT AND BATTERY" »

June 4, 2009

SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER MARY PREVOST NAMED TOP ATTORNEY BY SAN DIEGO MAGAZINE

The premiere issue of "Our City San Diego" has chosen San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer Mary Frances Prevost as it's #1 choice for those seeking legal representation in the criminal arena in San Diego.

Click HERE to see the link, and view how "Our City San Diego" chose San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer Mary Frances Prevost as it's top attorney for San Diego criminal defense.

prevost.photo.jpg


June 3, 2009

SAN DIEGO COP & PROSECUTOR COMMIT MISCONDCUT

Well, it's another day of misconduct in San Diego.

In December, I filed a federal Civil Rights case against a cop who has had to pay out hefty judgments in the past. Right after I filed a police misconduct motion in a criminal trial, the prosecutor filed a resisting arrest charge against my client just days before the statute of limitations was about to run.

What did they charge? They charged resisting arrest. Problem is, my client is a paraplegic and couldn't resist arrest anayway. It was pure, unadulterated retaliation.

So, what's new? Some woman who wants to divorce her husband gets a bunch of PI's to tail him. Then an SDPD sergeant called one of San Diego's DUI cops to tail the husband. Cop stops husband, and he seems to be fine. He blows a .10, but he has diabetes (and if you know anything about ketosis or acedosis, you know that these compounds in diabetics register like alcohol on these machines, skewing the results). So no charges are filed.

Oh, now wait a minute! That is, until the man who was hunted by the cops on the taxpayer dollar decided to file a claim against the City and sue. Lo and behold, the City Attorney files a DUI charge against the man who the cops hunted, just days after he sends them notice he is going to sue them!

Here it is. Oh, and City Attorney Jonathan Lapin, a misdemeanor prosecutor who will never be more than a misdemeanor prosecutor, scoffs at the medical testimony.

You might remember me posting that Lapin tried to quash a subpeoan of a former prosecutor who had information about a dirty cop I was investigating.

June 3, 2009

CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE: SAN FRANCISCO MAY PAY 4.5 MILLION TO WRONGFULLY CONVICTED MAN

ITS PAYBACK TIME FOR PROSECUTORS WHO BREAK THE LAW. SAN FRANCISCO CITIZENS WILL PAY FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/03/BATB17VOV1.DTL

Francisco officials have tentatively agreed to pay $4.5 million to a man who spent nearly 14 years in prison before a judge reversed his murder conviction, finding that city authorities had withheld evidence his attorneys said could have cleared him.

The payout to John "J.J." Tennison, 37, would be the largest settlement ever in San Francisco of a lawsuit related to police conduct, records show. It will go first to the Police Commission and then the Board of Supervisors for approval.

Tennison was freed in 2003 after a federal judge overturned his conviction for the August 1989 killing of 18-year-old Roderick "Cooley" Shannon. He had been serving a prison term of 25 years to life.

Another judge freed Tennison's co-defendant, Antoine Goff, who was serving 27 years to life. A Superior Court judge subsequently declared both men "factually innocent." They then sued in federal court, saying the city had violated their civil rights.

The city attorney's office reached a proposed settlement with Tennison last month, court documents show. Goff's suit is still pending and is scheduled to go to trial later this year.

Although the documents do not give the proposed sum in Tennison's settlement, sources familiar with the matter told The Chronicle that it was $4.5 million. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the agreement has not been formally approved.

Elliot Peters, one of Tennison's attorneys, would not discuss the details of any agreement. But he said, "John is going to be compensated for his 14 years in custody - he deserves it."

The city attorney and the lawyer for the two retired police investigators who arrested Tennison when he was 17 have denied that the city or police did anything wrong. Matt Dorsey, spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, declined to comment on any settlement.

Attorneys for Tennison and Goff have long argued that prosecutors and the two police investigators - Earl Sanders, later the chief of police, and Napoleon Hendrix - kept possibly exculpatory evidence from the defense at the time of trial and afterward.

Tennison's team said the evidence included a post-trial confession of another man and the earlier statement by a woman who indicated that the man may have been involved in Shannon's killing.

The courts found that other evidence the defense says San Francisco authorities never provided - including the existence of a $2,500 reward fund in the case - could have helped Tennison's attorneys challenge the credibility of the only eyewitnesses to the shooting, two girls ages 11 and 14.

Jim Quadra, a private attorney retained by the city to represent Hendrix and Sanders, declined to discuss the settlement but stressed that his clients had acted properly.

"They deny vehemently that they did anything wrong," Quadra said.

Judge found case weak

In freeing Tennison, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken concluded not only that authorities had withheld key evidence from the defense, but also that the prosecution's case was weak to begin with.

"No physical evidence was presented at trial tying Tennison to Shannon's shooting," she said. "The prosecution's entire case was dependent upon the testimony of ... two young girls whose eyewitness identifications of Tennison were questionable."

Wilken has served as the judge in Tennison's and Goff's lawsuits as well. In the civil case, she rejected some of the same claims that she had cited in releasing Tennison and left only three issues in dispute.

One was the issue of the existence of the "secret" $2,500 reward fund. Defense attorneys said they could have used its existence to challenge witnesses' credibility.

Quadra said police had given a memo mentioning the reward fund to prosecutor George Butterworth, an assertion disputed by Tennison's attorney. "Butterworth did not know about the secret memo," Peters said.

In any event, Quadra said, no money was paid out.

Late confession

The second issue involved the circumstances surrounding the post-trial, taped confession of Lovinsky Ricard. Butterworth admitted the existence of the tape during a hearing on the motion by Tennison's defense for a new trial in May 1991. He said he had just gotten the tape the day before.

Quadra said former inspectors Sanders and Hendrix had never known about the confession, which Ricard made to another investigator, or about the tape's existence. Tennison's attorneys argued that Sanders and Hendrix had known about the tape for seven months but withheld it from prosecutors.

Ricard ultimately asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions in the civil case.

The third issue concerned the account provided by the woman who had earlier told Sanders and Hendrix that Ricard might have been involved.

Tennison's attorneys said they had not known about the statement by Chante Smith until years after the trial. Butterworth suggested he had not fully understood the account of the interview he got from police, but that he had still given it to the defense.

Wilken ruled that a jury should sort out the dispute.

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE: SAN FRANCISCO MAY PAY 4.5 MILLION TO WRONGFULLY CONVICTED MAN" »

May 20, 2009

SAN DIEGO POLICE OFFICER DAMON SMITH WITHHOLDS EVIDENCE IN CASES

OCEANSIDE — Some convicts could get new trials because an Oceanside police officer withheld some taped interviews in cases dating to 2001, it was reported Tuesday.

Officer Damon Smith, who disclosed that he had some recordings in his locker that were not entered into evidence as part of a domestic violence case in April, apparently failed to turn over some interviews with suspects and witnesses ever since he was hired eight years ago, the North County Times reported.

"We are gathering information so that we may complete a legal analysis of the issues and take appropriate action," Paul Levikow of the District Attorney's Office told the Times.

In criminal proceedings, all evidence must be made available over to both sides.

"These are highly significant tapes to be left out of the criminal justice process – and eight years is mind-boggling," San Diego County Public Defender Steve Carroll said.

Prosecutors are reviewing the tapes and plan to turn them over to their defense attorneys, who could argue for new trials.

The defense attorney in the domestic violence case said that Smith may have kept the tapes as backup in the event that someone filed a complaint against him. The officer, who was a homicide detective for a while, was involved in the investigation of the shooting death of Oceanside police Officer Dan Bessant, but there was no evidence he failed to turn over recordings in that case.

Still, the tapes prompted a delay in sentencing gang member Meki Gaono in Bessant's 2006 slaying. The sentencing, which had been set for this week, was put off until June 4.

Smith was unavailable for comment on Monday. It was unclear what discipline he might face.

April 25, 2009

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS: BILL TARGETS FREQUENT RECORDS REQUESTERS

A bill introduced in California’s legislature would allow state agencies to stop filling the open-records requests of people who have asked for records too many times. But what is too many, and why are they scared?

I have frequently sent CPRA request to the crime labs, police agencies and other departments. Their failure to respond is legend. But it is only because I pursued this avenue, that I was able to uncover hundreds of emails between the San Diego Sheriff's Department and the City Attorneys, and the San Diego police Department and prosecutor talking about how they were going to have to "fix" the "problem" I had uncovered because of their illegal use of non-qualified personnle to draw blood at the jails. Had I not been able to obtain these internal emails using CPRA, the SDSO and SDPD, along with the prosecutors would still be using phlebotomists who matain their medical supplies underneath their kitchen sinks and only wash it when it is visibly blood. Not kidding, folks. Believe me, the prosecutors knew and tried to cover it up.

Or how about the crime lab analyst that was testifying falsely, and the prosecutors knew it. I got those records through the CPRA from the SDSO crime lab. the chief trial lawyer for the city, who never produced that information to anyone, is now a judge. Imagine what would have happened had it been uncovered at the time the woman was testifyin, before this man was rogue prosecutor was given his cush job as a judge?

The bill sets out a process or an agency to seek a court order allowing them to no longer process records requests when the requester has an “improper purpose, which includes, but is not limited to, the harassment of a public agency or its employees.”

The tactic is becoming more common. Recently, Washington passed a law that targets jail or prison inmates who frequently request records. Similarly, Tennessee directed its new Advisory Committee on Open Government to come up with a policy addressing frequent and multiple requesters under the state’s open records law.

Missouri and Maine also saw similar legislative proposals in 2005 that were eventually dropped.

Prior to a Tuesday hearing on the California bill, the California Newspaper Publishers Association sent a letter to the legislature protesting the proposed measure.

“CNPA argues in its letter that while their may be instances of abusive requests and harassing behavior, the problem is not worthy of legislative resolution.,” the group’s Web site said. “In fact, public agencies at every level of government have failed to comply with the law by ignoring requests for records, delaying access, wrongfully denying requests and charging fees in excess of those authorized by law. Every audit performed by Californians Aware, the California First Amendment Coalition, or CNPA member newspapers such as the Contra Costa Times or Stockton Record, has shown abysmal compliance with the law.”

April 25, 2009

IS THE CALIFORNIA DMV RIGGING DMV HEARINGS?

I just received a response to a California Public Records Act request I filed about THREE MONTHS ago....

According to the documents, it seems that San Diego DMV Manager Brian Dawson is unhappy that his hearing officers (aka "HO's" for fun), aren't summarily suspending all people who challenge the DMV evidence in DUI administrative hearings, as he apparently would like to happen. In fact, it looks like there have been just too many "set asides" for his liking.

Of course, we in the criminal defense community know that most of the HO's do, in fact, summarily suspend licenses, even when the weight of the evidence is against the Department. So, the fact that brian Dawson sent a memo out to the HO's that the few who actually did issue what we call "set aside's" were derelict in their duties, is astounding and frightening.

Mr. Dawson sent out a "confidential" email to his HO's telling them he was unhappy with the state of the set asides. That's what just came over my desk.

Is Mr. Dawson trying to "rig" the DMV hearings? I think the answer is a resounding "Yes." In fact, in a subsequent memo to the HO's, he even suggests that the Whistleblower statute might apply to anyone who ID's the person who originally leaked this info to defense attorneys.

dmv.jpg

However, the email is not "confidential." It is subject to disclosure per Gov. Code sec. 6254 et seq., the California Public Records Act. Just because Mr. Dawson puts "confidential" on a memo, doesn't make is legally so. I've gotten thousands of internal emails from the City Attorneys, DA's and crime lab people explaining how they were withholding evidence. In fact, that's how I got this one.

What's been a craw in the side, however, is that in San Diego, alone, we could save possibly $650,000 to $1 million per year if we just did away with the DUI admin per se hearings and let the courts handle it in conjunction with the criminal matters. Times that by all of the DMV offices throughout the state that conduct admin per se hearings, and the state might be able to, say, pay for exterminating rats in school. The DMV, as it relates to aministrative per se hearings in DUI cases, is unnecessary.

I'm looking into whether or not the legal office has taken any action against those rogue DMV HO's who actually reject the Department's evidence and send the driver away with an intact license.......

Maybe I'll write a letter to Arnold and ask him to save us some money.....

April 21, 2009

BIG WIN IN THE SUPREMES: COPS NEED WARRANT TO SEARCH PASSENGER AREAS OF CARS WHEN SUSPECT IS LOCKED UP

WASHINGTON ­ The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police need a warrant to
search the vehicle of someone they have arrested if the person is locked up
in a patrol cruiser and poses no safety threat to officers.

The court's 5-4 decision puts new limits on the ability of police to search
a vehicle immediately after the arrest of a suspect.

Justice John Paul Stevens said in the majority opinion that warrantless
searches still may be conducted if a car's passenger compartment is within
reach of a suspect who has been removed from the vehicle or there is reason
to believe evidence of a crime will be found.

"When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle
will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant," Stevens said.

Justice Samuel Alito , in dissent, complained that the decision upsets
police practice that has developed since the court first authorized
warrantless searches immediately following an arrest.

"There are cases in which it is unclear whether an arrestee could retrieve a
weapon or evidence," Alito said.

Even more confusing, he said, is asking police to determine whether the
vehicle contains evidence of a crime. "What this rule permits in a variety
of situations is entirely unclear," Alito said.

The decision backs an Arizona high court ruling in favor of Rodney Joseph
Gant, who was handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car and under
police supervision when Tucson, Ariz., police officers searched his car.
They found cocaine and drug paraphernalia.

The trial court said the evidence could be used against Gant, but Arizona
appeals courts overturned the convictions because the officers already had
secured the scene and thus faced no threat to their safety or concern about
evidence being preserved.

The state and the Bush administration complained that ruling would impose a
"dangerous and unworkable test" that would complicate the daily lives of law
enforcement officers .

The justices divided in an unusual fashion. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Antonin Scalia, David Souter and Clarence Thomas joined the majority
opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony
Kennedy were in dissent along with Alito.

April 16, 2009

OBAMA RELEASES TORTURE MEMOS

Click HERE for text of torture memos.

April 10, 2009

FEDERAL JUDGE SANCTIONS GOVERNMENT $600,000 FOR SECRETLY TAPING DEFENSE LAWYER

Legal Ethics ABA JOURNAL LAW NEWS DAY
Federal Judge Sanctions US $600K for Secretly Taping Defense Lawyer

Posted Apr 9, 2009, 12:24 pm CDT
By Martha Neil

In a blistering 50-page opinion (PDF) today criticizing the "win-at-any-cost
behavior" of federal prosecutors who secretly taped a defense lawyer, a
federal judge in Florida has awarded more than $600,000 in sanctions against
the government.

The money, which the United States must pay to a South Florida physician it
accused of prescribing pain medication without a proper medical purpose,
will cover more than half of Dr. Ali Shaygan's defense costs, reports the
South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

The 36-year-old doctor, who lives in Miami Beach, was acquitted in March of
141 counts of unlawful prescribing. As a result of his overprescribing, the
government had contended, a West Palm Beach man died of a drug overdose.

The prosecutors who tried the case were Sean Cronin and Andrea Hoffman.
Midway through trial, the defense team learned that attorney David Markus,
one of three lawyers representing Shaygun, had been secretly recorded by
witnesses with approval from the government. The conversations-which the
government says were made to investigate possible witness-tampering-violated
legal ethics rules and U.S. Attorney's Office policy, according to the
newspaper, because they were not disclosed to the defense prior to trial.

Alicia Valle, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, says mistakes
were unintentionally made in the case, and that it has been referred to the
U.S. Department of Justice for further investigation, apparently concerning
the conduct of the prosecution, according to the Sun-Sentinel.

After a two-day hearing after the jury's March 12 not-guilty verdict, U.S.
District Judge Alan Gold awarded $601,795.88 to Shaygun. In his opinion,
which accorded the most criticism to Cronin as lead prosecutor, the judge
castigated the government for pursuing an "unfounded" witness-tampering
probe based on "personal animus against the defense team," the newspaper
writes.

Gold says he also intends to forward his sanctions ruling, which found that
both Cronin and Hoffman acted unethically by not disclosing the recordings,
to attorney discipline boards.

His opinion today follows another blistering blast earlier this week by a
federal judge in Washington, D.C. He appointed a special prosecutor to
investigate possible obstruction of justice by the federal prosecutors who
tried former Sen. Ted Stevens in a corruption case last year and expressed
concern that similar prosecutorial misconduct is occurring elsewhere.

Like the prosecutors in Shaygun's case, the Department of Justice lawyers
who tried Stevens admittedly did not provide exculpatory evidence to the
defense as required before trial.

February 28, 2009

Florida DUI: Cops Will Be Allowed to Draw Blood at the Roadside, a Dangerous Proposition

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Drunken drivers beware: If you drink and drive, especially during the last weekend of February, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and other area law enforcement will be out for blood.

34T9CA9ELBANCAX0VSYKCATQN2W0CAK6CFIYCAB7QE8FCA4CKIISCABI6VLPCAAEGNKYCAGC2W01CAUALET3CAHFYJTSCANQ74NPCATJ62SYCAEKTBVHCAZMDWWXCAPPI1CICAEJLP5UCA87TVACCAT8FPJ2.jpg

PBSO deputies plan to set up driving under the influence checkpoints. If they suspect a driver is under the influence, they'll offer an on-the-spot Breathalyzer. If drivers refuse, deputies will ask to draw blood from their arms.

"I think that's really personal and I think that if you deny a Breathalyzer and you say that you don't want that, I think that's outrageous if they take blood without your consent," driver Courtney Liddle said.

Attorney David Olson said that "would only be lawful if a warrant is issued by a judge."

That's just what deputies plan to do. They'll actually drive to a judge's home for a signature and return to the checkpoint.

Olson said drawing blood from drivers is usually done in extreme cases like homicides and fatal collisions. Olson said he's not sure a judge would actually sign a warrant.

"I admire and respect the sheriff's intention to investigate driving under the influence cases, but I am glad that they apparently are going to go to judges before they independently exercise what they believe would be a valuable tool in conducting these kinds of investigations," Olson said.

The PBSO is trying to emphasize that DUI will not be tolerated. But some drivers feel it's a bit too much.

"I think it's invasive on a personal level," driver Dave Staup said. "If you're going to deny a Breathalyzer, you should definitely be able to deny getting blood taken. It's a highly more invasive thing to do."

If drivers refuse to have their blood drawn, they will be arrested and charged with DUI.

Continue reading "Florida DUI: Cops Will Be Allowed to Draw Blood at the Roadside, a Dangerous Proposition" »

February 16, 2009

CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE: IS THE SUPREME COURT ABOUT TO KILL OFF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE?

Is the Supreme Court About to Kill Off the Exclusionary Rule?
Published: February 15, 2009. Click HERE for New York Times article.

In 1957, the Cleveland police showed up at Dollree Mapp’s home looking for a bombing suspect. Ms. Mapp would not let them in without a search warrant, but they entered anyway. The police did not find the bomber, but they came across a trunk containing “lewd and lascivious” books and pictures.

Ms. Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials, even though the evidence was taken without a warrant. She was tried in state court, like the overwhelming majority of criminal defendants. So it did her no good that federal courts had applied the so-called “exclusionary rule” since 1914 to bar the use of illegally seized evidence.

In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court reversed Ms. Mapp’s conviction and adopted the exclusionary rule as a national standard. The court acknowledged that the rule might let some criminals go free, but it underscored that it was more important to compel the nation’s police forces to obey the law.

The court carved out exceptions over the years, but the basic rule laid down in Mapp has endured for nearly five decades. Now, Chief Justice John Roberts’s conservative majority on the Supreme Court is working to undo the exclusionary rule in a more fundamental way. It’s been a longstanding interest of Mr. Roberts’s. As a young Reagan administration lawyer, he worked on what he described in a memo as a “campaign to amend or abolish” the rule.

[COMMENTARY: Doesn't this warrant his recusal from any case addressing this issue?]

The Mapp decision has had both effects that were predicted when it came down. Some criminals had convictions thrown out, or avoided being charged, because evidence was obtained illegally or found by relying on illegally obtained information. But Mapp also changed the incentives for the police. It gave them less reason to enter a home or tap a phone without a warrant.

The exclusionary rule has always had critics. Long before Mapp, Judge Benjamin Cardozo said it allowed the criminal to go free “because the constable has blundered.” In recent years, it has become Exhibit A for those who argue that defendants get off on technicalities.

In 2006, in Hudson v. Michigan, Chief Justice Roberts assigned the majority opinion to Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote a sweeping assault on the rationale for excluding illegally obtained evidence. Justice Scalia argued that “the increasing professionalism of police forces,” the increased availability of civil rights lawsuits, and other checks on police wrongdoing have sharply reduced the need for such measures.

Last month, the court eroded the rule still further in Herring v. United States. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts declared that evidence need not necessarily be disqualified if it was illegally obtained because of errors in police databases. Isolated mistakes of this sort, he insisted, are not among the exclusionary rule’s “core concerns.”

Justice Ruth Ginsburg, in dissent, was right to point out that in the modern age database errors can lead to many people’s rights being denied. The harm to a citizen who is arrested and searched on the street because a bureaucrat has made a computer error, she noted, is just the sort of invasion the founders worried about when they drafted the Fourth Amendment.

After Hudson and Herring, critics of the exclusionary rule have high hopes that the Roberts court will take the ultimate step of overruling Mapp v. Ohio. That would be a great setback for the rule of law.

Despite Justice Scalia’s claims, police misconduct is rampant. In the last few years, the Atlanta and Oakland police departments have had major scandals over officers’ lying to obtain search warrants. In this same period, of course, the federal government engaged in an illegal domestic wiretapping program, the extent of which is still unknown.

The exclusionary rule does more than simply put a check on police misconduct. It protects the integrity of the judicial system. If courts put people like Ms. Mapp in prison based on the actions of lawless, marauding police officers, respect for the law suffers.

There is no denying that the exclusionary rule allows a small number of criminals to go free because the police have blundered — which is certainly no minor matter. But the more faithfully the rule is applied, the more likely the police are to collect evidence lawfully.

As important as it is to convict criminals, the Supreme Court in Mapp rightly insisted that the Constitution must not be trampled in the process. “Nothing can destroy a government more quickly,” the court noted, “than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.”

February 13, 2009

SANTA CLARA PROSECUTOR FOUND TO HAVE ENGAGED IN EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT WILL GET TO KEEP HIS JOB; ASKS TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR HIS DEFENSE

MERCURY NEWS
Posted: 02/12/2009 06:18:41 PM PST

Despite a state bar finding that prosecutor Ben Field engaged in widespread misconduct (click
HERE for previous article), Santa Clara County District Attorney Dolores Carr said Thursday that she will keep her deputy on the job while he appeals a state bar judge's order that could strip him of his law license for four years.

bad%20prosecutor.jpg

Carr said Thursday that she cannot comment on specifics of the judge's ruling because the case is continuing to unfold, adding only, "I absolutely respect the state bar court's authority to make its judgment in Ben Field's case." But she said that Field has a right to remain a prosecutor as he pursues his legal appeals, and "we'll assess an appropriate place for him in the office."

Click HERE for prior story on how the prosecutor's office is trying to shield this creep.

COMMENTARY: Let me guess. The taxpayers get to keep him on, pay his salary, pay for his defense. I'll bet the DA is even going to promote this goon. Can I sue him, please?

For more recent state bar actions against prosecutors, click HERE.

Continue reading "SANTA CLARA PROSECUTOR FOUND TO HAVE ENGAGED IN EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT WILL GET TO KEEP HIS JOB; ASKS TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR HIS DEFENSE" »

February 13, 2009

STATE BAR OPINION: PROSECUTOR SHOULD BE SUSPENDED FOR FOUR YEARS

MERCURY NEWSPosted: 02/11/2009 11:47:52 AM PST

Suggesting the harshest disciplinary punishment in recent history for a California prosecutor, a state bar judge Wednesday called for Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Ben Field to be stripped of his right to practice law in the state for four years because he "abused his prosecutorial power.''

untitled.bmp

In a scathing 67-page ruling, Judge Pat McElroy described Field as an "overzealous'' prosecutor who violated a host of ethical rules in four criminal cases, ranging from disobeying judges' orders to hiding crucial evidence from defense lawyers that could help their clients. The judge's decision was based on a series of hearings held last year in which bar prosecutors charged Field with a string of misconduct in cases dating back to 1995, and she largely accepted the prosecution's depiction of the case against Field.

McElroy, however, took the extraordinary step of recommending punishment more severe than prosecutors had sought. Bar prosecutors had recommended that Field be suspended from practicing law for three years, ordinarily the stiffest penalty handed down in discipline cases short of disbarring an attorney.

"His overzealousness to convict and punish defendants who had murdered, robbed and raped obstructed his understanding of a prosecutor's special duty to promote justice and seek truth,'' the judge wrote.

Continue reading "STATE BAR OPINION: PROSECUTOR SHOULD BE SUSPENDED FOR FOUR YEARS" »

February 13, 2009

POLICE BEATING OF HOMELESS MAN PROBED

FRESNO, Calif. (Feb. 13) - Fresno's police department has launched an internal affairs investigation into a video-recorded arrest of a homeless man who was beaten by one officer while another restrained him.

The four-minute video, shot by a bystander Monday on a busy street, shows one officer standing over the man in the mud and holding his arms while the other officer delivers at least five punches to his face, some with the homeless man's hands behind his back.

Click HERE for video..

Police Chief Jerry Dyer on Wednesday called the case disturbing, but said until the investigation is complete, it won't be known whether the officers' actions were appropriate.
"It's very disturbing on the surface," Dyer said. "I've watched it several times. There are other pieces that need to be looked at. Although a moment in time is crucial, it's important to look at all aspects of the officers' contact."

The internal affairs investigation should take about 30 days, Dyer said.

The names of the officers are not being released, but Dyer said neither has been cited for previous misconduct. One has served in the department for 10 years, the other for six.
Dyer said the officer who punched Glen Beaty, 52, is now on medical leave with a broken pinky finger that will require surgery. The video shows him briefly shaking out the hand that landed the punches.

The other officer was placed on administrative duty.


February 2, 2009

U.S. SUPREME COURT: MIGHT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE BE ELIMINATED?

I'm scared. I'm very, very scared. While I have always championed personal financial sanctions on police officers who violate the Fourth Amendment rather than exclusion of evidence (seems a stronger deterrent to me), the courts have historically thought otherwise. Now, if a cop violates your Fourth Amendment rights, the evidence he subsequently learns of as a result of the illegal search or seizure is suppressed and cannot beused in court against you.

Will our chief justice, who championed such causes in the past, lead the Supremes to total expungement of Fourth Amendment remedies?

Take a look at the URL below. Maybe so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/washington/31scotus.html?_r=1


January 28, 2009

PUBLIC DEFENDERS HAVE THE TOUGHEST JOBS-READ ON FOR THIS INSULT


Man smears feces on his lawyer, flings it at jury

SAN DIEGO – A San Diego judge has declared a mistrial in a kidnapping and assault case after the defendant smeared excrement on his lawyer's face and threw it at jurors. The judge boosted defendant Weusi McGowan's bail from $250,000 to $1 million after the Monday incident.

Prosecutor Christopher Lawson says McGowan was upset because the judge refused to remove public defender Jeffrey Martin from the case.

McGowan had smuggled a bag of feces into court and spread it on Martin's hair and face before flinging the excrement at jurors. No jurors were hit.

McGowan has pleaded not guilty to kidnapping for robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and other counts in connection with a 2007 home invasion.

January 25, 2009

CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC DEFENDER CHALLENGES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S USE OF ILLEGAL CLIENT RECORDINGS

Public defender challenges DA's use of jail phone conversations
By Malaika Fraley
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 01/25/2009 04:49:29 PM PST

MARTINEZ — Contra Costa County's top public defender says the District Attorney's Office is illegally using conversations recorded at jail pay phones to build criminal cases against defendants.

Public Defender David Coleman will go before a Contra Costa County judge Thursday to argue against prosecutors' use of phone calls in a challenge both sides say could ultimately make its way to higher courts.

Coleman contends that the District Attorney's Office's practice of listening to jail phone calls to gain information in criminal cases violates constitutional rights, state wiretapping laws and attorneys' professional codes of conduct. The district attorney's office says the practice is supported by legal precedent and calls Coleman's case "groundless."

WIRETAPS.jpg

Continue reading "CONTRA COSTA PUBLIC DEFENDER CHALLENGES DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S USE OF ILLEGAL CLIENT RECORDINGS" »

January 23, 2009

SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT STIFLES POLICE BRUTALITY INVESTIGATION

THE SAN DIEGO 6 NEWS AT 10PM
Deputy Complaint: Click HERE for news coverage.

A follow up on an Exclusive San Diego 6 report. Last year, we showed you pictures of sheriff's deputies handcuffing women for fun in a Ramona bar while on duty.

Now, a public defender wants to know if the sheriff's department is above the law.
Photos taken from inside the Ramona bar Molly Malones about 8 months ago show deputies Jesse Allensworth and Colby Hodge handcuffing and slapping girls while on-duty. Deputies are said to be at the bar several nights a week for hours at a time while on-duty.

Part of our story last September included a sheriff's spokesperson who promised they would conduct a thorough, methodical inquiry. Click HERE for that story.

After filing a motion requiring the Sheriff's department to hand over findings of their investigation, the public defender says they were told an investigation was never done.

The executive officer of the Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board said that although the board reports conduct complaints to the county, in the end, it's the sheriff's department who has the option to police itself.

The actions of the Sheriff's Department have been questioned by representatives of the County Board of Supervisors. Click HERE for video.

Commentary: The public should be outraged that Sheriff's Legal Advisors Robert Faigin, who resoundlingly lost a race to become judge recently, and his equally sleazy sidekick, Sanford Toyen, would intentionally and wilfuly delay an investigation into obvious police misconduct and the use and abuse of taxpayer money on deputies that hang out at bars and play with the female clientele rather than patrol the streets. But that's what I've found this due generally does whenever I file a police misconduct motion. They try to hide the ball. Always. Nice to know dirty deputies are protected and the public is not.

Remember, all felonies charges these rogue deputies filed against Allen Baker were dismissed by a San Diego Superior Court judge. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, dismissed.

January 19, 2009

BUSH PARDONS BORDER PATROL AGENTS WHO SHOT MAN-TRIED TO COVER IT UP


http://news.aol.com/article/bush-commutes-border-agents-sentences/286363?icid=200100397x1216877401x1201165847

December 21, 2008

SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE NEWS: HOW TO AVOID A SAN DIEGO DUI THIS CHRISTMAS

SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE ATTORNEY NEWS:

San Diego law enforcement will step up San Diego DUI enforcement over the Christmas season. Expect San Diego DUI checkpoints to pop up all over the county. Expect stepped-up San Diego DUI enforcement from law enforcement.

It's starting now. Memorize these tips. They may come in handy over the holidays.

1. If you drive in San Diego during the Holidays, and you plan on having a cocktail or two, make sure you know where your license, registration and proof of insurance are. San Diego DUI officers historically write in their San Diego DUI reports (putting only facts that harm you in them) that the suspect "fumbled for his wallet" and couldn't find his registration. They use this to try to show you were impaired. Be prepared.

2. When you get signaled by the San Diego DUI officer to pull over by the officer for a DUI assessment, do so immediately and safely. Roll down your window and put your hands on the steering wheel.

3. If a San Diego DUI officer asks you if you know why you are being pulled over, remember you don't have to answer. What a dumb question! He knows why he is pulling you over. He is pulling you over to assess you for drunk driving, and he's using the fact that you might have committed some minor vehicle code violations as an excuse. Don't make any admissions to him. So, you can just ask him, "why?"

4. The next question the San Diego DUI officer is likely to ask is, "Have you had anything to drink tonight." Remember your rights? You are not required to speak to officers. I know, I know, you think, "But if I don't talk to the officer, he will be mad." Let him be. You are not at a social gathering; he is not invited to your New Year's day party. So don't worry about how he feels. He is collecting evidence against you. Don't give him any. It is best to say, "Officer, I appreciate what you do for a living, but I don't wish to answer any of your questions." You do NOT have to answer. The less from you he gets, the better for you in the long run. He is gathering evidence. But, you say, maybe he will let me go if he knows I'm being honest with him. NO. Most people who are pulled over and have alcohol on their breath get arrested. It's just a fact of life. Don't give him anything to put in that report that he can use against you later.

5. He may then say, "I'd like you to complete a series of tests for me." Again, let him know that you do not wish to participate in any tests. You are not required to comply. Officers try to give a series of field tests to determine if you are impaired. I have NEVER known any officer to do these as per the standardized protocol. I hold a certification authorized by the United Stated Department of Transportation to administer these tests, and was required to pass a practical and written test to get that certification given by a nationally re-known sergeant with the Idaho State Police. Cops learn how to do these, and then promptly forget them, making up their own "tests." Do not do them. Do NOT let the officer collect more false "evidence" against you. Just reiterate that you do not wish to perform and tests. It's your right.

6. The San Diego DUI investigation officer may then tell you he wants you to take an in field breath, hand held, breath test. Do not take this "test." It is unreliable, and regularly exhibits blood alcohol numbers higher than what you really are. The cop really, really wants you to do this now, because you have made no statements, and you have refused his field "tests." He wants this badly. He NEEDS some evidence. Do not do it. You are NOT required to blow into the little hand held machine.

7. The officer will most likely arrest you, cuff and take you downtown. You will be required to take a breath or blood test. You must choose to take one of these tests, or he will take what is called a "forced blood test" and your driver's license will be suspended for a full year.

A few pointers: If you are still absorbing alcohol, the breath test will read high. It is also an INDIRECT measurement of blood alcohol level. If you take blood, you won't get a result for at least a week. Also, SDPD and Sheriff's don't use the proper amount of sodium fluoride and potassium oxalate in the blood tubes, so you can attack those results later. Personally, I wouldn't let anyone hired by the city or county to draw my blood, after learning all I know about the incompetence of the people drawing the blood, and the lack of sanitations protocol in place. Why risk infection?

If you are arrested, you will be released within 12 hours on your promise to appear. You will received a pink piece of paper called a "DS-367." This document tells you that you, or your lawyer, must call the Department of Motor Vehicle within ten days of the arrest to secure a hearing to determine whether or not the DMV will take your license. Do not miss this deadline or you will be suspended automatically.

So, be careful. Don't drink and drive if you can help it. Drive safely. Don't talk to cops. Be polite, but do not let them gather inculpatory evidence against you. And when you get home call this San Diego DUI Defense lawyer.

(San Diego DUI Defense, San Diego DWI defense, San Diego drunk driving defense, Chula Vista DUI Defense, Vista DUI Defense, El Cajon DUI Defense, Imperial County DUI Defense, El Centro DUI Defense, Orange County DUI Defense, Riverside DUI Defense, San Bernardino DUI Defense, Los Angeles DUI Defense, San Diego DUI Defense Attorney, San DIego DUI Defense Lawyer, California DUI Defense, Murrieta DUI Defense, Temecula DUI Defense, Riverside DUI Defense, Chula Vista DUI Defense, El Cajon DUI Defense, Vista DUI Defense, Temecula DUI Defense, Brawley DUI Defense, El Centro DUI Defense, San Diego drunk driving defense, San Diego DWi defense, San Diego Bail. Bail in San Diego, San Diego Bail Bonds, California Bail, Bail in California])

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE NEWS: HOW TO AVOID A SAN DIEGO DUI THIS CHRISTMAS" »

October 1, 2008

ORANGE COUNTY POLICE OFFICER CHARGED WITH TORTURE

LA SHERIFF'S DEPUTY CHARGED WITH TORTURE, MAYHEM, AND SODOMY FOR ATTACKING WIFE AND HER FRIEND IN IRVINE APARTMENT LEASING OFFICE

NEWPORT BEACH - A Los Angeles Sheriff's deputy has been charged with torturing and forcibly sexually assaulting his wife and another man after learning that his wife was leaving him. Robert Avery McClain, 34, Irvine, is charged with one felony count of aggravated mayhem, one felony count of torture, one felony count of sodomy by force with great bodily injury, with sentencing enhancements for the personal use of a deadly weapon, great bodily injury to a sexual assault victim, and the use of a deadly weapon during a sexual offense. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. McClain is being held on $1 million bail, and the People will request that he be held without bail at his arraignment at the Harbor Justice Center in Newport Beach.

As the defendant is being medically treated and the arraignment date is to be determined. The Orange County District Attorney's Office will send a media advisory with updated arraignment information when it becomes available.

McClain was a 10-month deputy on probation with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. On Sep. 28, 2008, McClain's 31-year-old wife, Jane Doe, with whom he shares four children, told him that she was leaving him. Jane Doe worked at a leasing office for an apartment complex in Irvine and wanted to leave McClain for one of the residents at the complex, 23-year-old John Doe. McClain is accused of asking Jane Doe to take him to meet John Doe, and the two of them went to John Doe's apartment at approximately 10:00 p.m. After arriving, McClain is accused of leading the victims to the leasing office and into a back kitchenette area. He is accused of starting to argue with Jane Doe and John Doe, and then repeatedly punching and kicking both victims. McClain is accused of taking out a knife and forcing both victims to undress at knife point. McClain also undressed.

While at knife point, McClain is accused of unsuccessfully ordering Jane Doe to orally copulate both him and John Doe. He is accused of giving Jane Doe the knife and instructing her to castrate John Doe. Jane Doe fearfully pretended to follow his instructions. He is accused of using the knife to repeatedly slice John Doe's face.

McClain is accused of leaving John Doe and fleeing the scene, taking Jane Doe with him against her will. After leaving the leasing office, he is accused of forcibly sodomizing Jane Doe, chopping off her hair with the knife, and ultimately driving her back to their Irvine home.

At approximately 5:00 a.m. on Sep. 29, 2008, Jane Doe was able to leave the house with her four children and drive to a nearby hospital. At approximately 7:00 a.m., a cleaning crew discovered John Doe in the leasing office and called 9-1-1. Both victims are expected to survive.

Continue reading "ORANGE COUNTY POLICE OFFICER CHARGED WITH TORTURE" »

September 9, 2008

SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY MARY FRANCES PREVOST WINS VICTORY FOR COACH WRONGFULLY ACCUSED OF SEX CRIMES AGAINST PLAYER

By Matthew Rodriguez
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

5:40 p.m. September 8, 2008

VISTA – A judge dismissed charges Monday against a North County softball coach accused of having unlawful sex with a 17-year-old female player after a jury deadlocked in his trial
Defense attorneys for 37-year-old Christopher Facione, founder of the Next Level Athletics in Encinitas, said Facione felt vindicated by the dismissal.

Click HERE and HERE for recent stories.

“He is so happy to be able to clear his name after this ordeal,” said Mary Frances Prevost, one of his attorneys.

Prevost said the case revolved around the credibility of the player. “We were able to prove that the witness lied repeatedly,” she said.

Authorities alleged Facione had unlawful sex with the teen at his Carlsbad home on two occasions: Oct. 2, 2007, and sometime between Oct. 7 and Oct. 20, 2007.

Defense attorneys argued that the player stopped going to practice and lied to her parents about why by saying that Facione was harassing her, prompting her father to go to police.

“She couldn't stop the snowball from getting bigger and bigger,” Prevost said.

Jurors were split 8 to 4 in favor of acquittal for the alleged Oct. 2 incident, and 11 to 1 in favor of acquittal regarding the second.

“The jury had questions on the believability of the evidence,” said Sean Leslie, also an attorney for Facione. “They feel they didn't meet the burden.”

After jurors came back deadlocked, Judge Joel Pressman dismissed the case.

Facione faced a maximum sentence of three years and eight months in prison if convicted.

Prevost said prosecutors offered to reduce the charges to one misdemeanor count, without jail time, after their first witness, a Carlsbad police detective, took the stand. But Facione refused the offer, Prevost said.

Prevost said Facione is still involved with Next Level Athletics, an Encinitas-based youth sports organization, and will continue to coach, but he had stayed out of the dugout and limited contact with players while the case was pending.

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY MARY FRANCES PREVOST WINS VICTORY FOR COACH WRONGFULLY ACCUSED OF SEX CRIMES AGAINST PLAYER" »

September 8, 2008

CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER NEWS: SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICER ARRESTED FOR INDECENT EXPOSURE

Sacramento police officer arrested in Rocklin
From Niesha Lofing

A Sacramento police officer has posted bail after being arrested in Rocklin this weekend, according to records and police spokesmen.

Jeffrey Wayne McKay, 34, of Rocklin, was arrested by Rocklin police late Saturday on suspicion of indecent exposure, exhibiting a deadly weapon, disorderly conduct and threatening to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury, according to online Placer County Jail information.

McKay was booked into the Auburn jail at 11:40 p.m. Saturday and was being held on $15,000 bail.

He was released on a bail bond.

Information about McKay's arraignment hearing was not available early Monday morning, a Placer County Superior Court clerk said.

McKay has worked as a Sacramento police officer for six years and is assigned to the Metro Division, said Sacramento police spokesman Konrad Von Schoech.

He said an administrative investigation is under way. He declined further comment.

Continue reading "CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER NEWS: SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICER ARRESTED FOR INDECENT EXPOSURE" »

September 6, 2008

RAMONA WOMEN SHPPORTS RAMONA SHERIFFS' ON DUTY ABUSE

Woman Defends Posing with On-Duty Deputies
Contributor: Antonio Castelan
Reported by: Jeff Powers
Last Update: 9/05/2008 12:10 pm

A 21-year old Ramona woman is telling her story about posing with San Diego County Sheriff Deputies. The pictures show woman getting handcuffed, and put in the back seat of a squad car. This all happened while the officers were on-duty at Molly Malone's Tavern.

Jenny Dawson remembers a fun December night at the Ramona bar. She and her cousin approached the sheriffs deputies there.

"They wished me a happy birthday," Dawson tells San Diego 6. "I didn't get harrassed at all. I simply asked them if they could put me in the back of the cop car."

Dawson's cousin, Bobbie Dawson, snapped the photos.

Bobbie Dawson remembers thinking, "Oh yay! Let's take a cute little picture of my cousin with the cops."

Jenny sat in the back of the squad car.

She says, "I thought it would be fun and stuff to say to my friends the next day. 'Yeah, I got put in the cop car on my 21st birthday' just for laughs."

The sheriff's department is doing an internal investigation. They are not saying if the deputies under investigation are still on patrol. There are 6 pictures. All were taken at Molly Malone's bar in Ramona over the past 5 months to a year. And they were taken by Ramona resident Allen Baker. Two deputies are seen in the photos, Jesse Allensworth and Colby Hodge.

The man who took them Allen Baker says, "They were slapping girls in the butt, handcuffing them, putting them in their police cars for fun for their birthday. They were taking photographs of them in their police cars while the were 'fakely' arrested. While they're supposed to be on taxpayer dollars."

Baker says deputies are at this bar while on duty several nights a week for hours at a time. We spoke with the manager of Molly Malone's who confirmed Baker's story. Though he declined an on camera interview, the manager told us several deputies frequent the bar while on duty.

In court at a preliminary hearing Deputy Hodge faced Baker. The two got into a fight outside Molly Malone's several months ago. The DA wanted Baker to face felony charges for the incident, but a judge reduced them to a single misdemeanor.
Baker's public defender says the beating and photos are the tip of the iceberg. She says there is a culture of corruption at the Sheriff's Ramona substation.

Sheriff's Spokesperson Jan Caldwell said, "We need to conduct a thorough and methodical inquiry." Caldwell says the Sheriff's department has already begun an internal investigation. "We take these things very seriously. We will investigate and we will vet it all the way to its logical conclusion."

Continue reading "RAMONA WOMEN SHPPORTS RAMONA SHERIFFS' ON DUTY ABUSE" »

September 3, 2008

SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE NEWS: 19-YEAR OLD GETS YEAR IN JAIL FOR DUI DEATH

By Dana Littlefield
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

8:36 p.m. September 3, 2008

SAN DIEGO – A 19-year-old man convicted of drunken driving and killing a homeless man walking on a Midtown street was ordered Wednesday to serve a year in county jail and placed on five years' probation.

Alec O'Keefe Rowe of Kensington pleaded guilty in July to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and hit-and-run in connection with the Jan. 16 incident.

During an emotional hearing, San Diego Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Fraser determined that probation was appropriate given the defendant's age and other factors. Fraser said that in his 11 years on the bench, he had never given probation in a case with similar charges. But he said Rowe was exceptional given his level of remorse and his commitment to rehabilitation. The judge noted that if Rowe violates the terms of the probation, he will be sent to prison.

“You're getting a break, and whether or not this was the right thing for this court to do will be determined in the next few years,” said Fraser, who noted that Rowe would not be allowed early release from jail.

“If I were you, I'd take advantage of the break you're being given.”

Deputy District Attorney Melissa Vasel had asked the judge to sentence Rowe to six years in prison for killing Darin Albert Victor, 38. She noted that although the courtroom was packed with people who supported Rowe, no one was there to speak on the victim's behalf.

“He's still a person, and he didn't deserve this,” Vasel said in court, adding that she objected to any characterization of the incident as an “accident.”

“Everything that happened that night was a function of Mr. Rowe's choices,” the prosecutor said.

Rowe was arrested a few blocks from India and West Washington streets, where Victor was hit around 11 p.m. Witnesses saw him swerving the car he was driving moments before the crash, the prosecutor said.

Rowe fled but was detained by passers-by. Later, his blood-alcohol level was measured at 0.22 percent, the prosecutor said. The legal limit is 0.08.

Deputy Public Defender Mel Epley said he had seen Rowe “grow and change” since the collision. Epley noted that his client had the support of numerous family members and friends, many of whom packed the courtroom Wednesday.

Before he was handcuffed by sheriff's deputies, Rowe told the judge he was sorry for what he had done and vowed to improve his behavior in the future.

“I'm not gonna waste this opportunity to change my life,” he said.

Continue reading "SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE NEWS: 19-YEAR OLD GETS YEAR IN JAIL FOR DUI DEATH" »

August 29, 2008

SAN DIEGO DUI DEFENSE NEWS: SAN DIEGO DUI COP ARRESTED-IS THERE A COVERUP?

Is There A Cover-Up In Oceanside Cop DUI Case?

08-22-08 at 7:33PM

There's speculation about a possible cover-up in the Oceanside Police Department, after word that an Oceanside police officer was booked on suspicion of DUI after a crash that injured a fellow officer.

Oceanside police Officer Dwight Carwell is on desk duty while his DUI incident is being closely investigated. The 46-year-old's life was turned upside down two and-a-half months ago in Del Mar a mile south of I-5's Via de la Valle exit.

According to investigators, Officer Carwell was driving in the number one lane, northbound I-5 between 55 and 65 miles per hour. In a statement to police, Officer Carwell says he was cut off by an unknown vehicle, which caused him to lose control of his 2006 black Nissan Titan pickup truck.

We're told seconds later, around 2 a.m., Carwell swerved across four lanes and an asphalt shoulder before tumbling down an embankment. He and his passenger were taken to Scripps La Jolla Hospital.

Carwell complained of pain, including pinching in the neck. His passenger also complained of pain and suffered visible scrapes on the top of his head, right arm and right side rib area.

News 8 has learned the officer's wreck was taken to a Carlsbad towing company yard. It was released to Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, who then allowed it to be salvaged 38 days after the accident.

Officer Carwell has been booked on suspicion of felony driving under the influence. In Ca