Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A recent case out of Washington State decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- Ocampo v. Vail -- granted a murder defendant's appeal because his trial judge allowed detectives to testify about what witnesses who didn't testify told them.

The 2003 case, while long ago, shows why hiring the right Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyers is critical. Everyone makes mistakes and judges aren't immune. That's why the criminal justice system has built-in checks and balances like defense attorneys and appeals courts all the way to the United States Supreme Court. California murder cases require the most scrutiny because while someone has lost their life, another's liberty is at stake.

This case is based on a 2003 homicide in Tacoma, Washington. According to the opinion rendered by the regional appeals court, which also governs California, a man was shot in the head sitting in his car outside a pool hall. According to testimony at trial, members of a Hispanic gang frequented the area, but the issue at trial was whether the defendant was at the pool hall; he insisted he wasn't.

Witnesses testified that Ocampo, the accused shooter, and other men planned on stealing a car that was parked outside the pool hall. When a co-defendant asked the victim for bus money, the victim started to drive off; that's when Ocampo fatally shot him, the court's decision states.

But the issue of his appeal comes to witness testimony at trial. According to the court decision, one of the men was reluctant to provide information to police, fearing gang retaliation. Another witness who had previously talked with police returned with his family to Mexico and wasn't available at trial.

That witness was allegedly in a van that transported the defendant to the pool hall that night and while he didn't personally testify, a detective was allowed to tell a jury that his statements helped them eliminate other potential suspects. But the biggest issues is that the witness, according to detectives, identified Ocampo as being present. And all defendants have a right to confront their witnesses with cross-examination. Because the witness was not available, prosecutors were unfairly able to introduce testimony for which the defendant had no avenue to contest.

According to the federal appellate court, the Washington Court of Appeals erred in allowing the testimony, which "bolstered the state's weak case against Ocampo" and "flatly contradicted Ocampo's alibi defense." The court granted his appeal unless the state decides to re-try the defendant without that portion of testimony entering his trial.

In other words, he could very well be set free.

It's obvious that appellate issues can be complex, which is why hiring an aggressive and experienced criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles is important. Often, appeals take years to complete and extensive research and work must go into preparing them. Ultimately, it is dedication and knowledge of law that California Criminal Appeals Lawyers use to preserve defendant's rights in the criminal justice system.