Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The recent case of the United States of America v. Carl Roy Burleson brings up critical issues relating to police actions and whether evidence should be held out of a trial as a result of not following policies and protocols.

In this case, Burleson was walking down the street with two others when they were stopped by a Roswell, New Mexico, police officer. The officer made the stop because they were walking in the middle of the street and were carrying a dog that wasn't on a leash.

The officer explained they couldn't walk in the middle of the street and discovered the dog wasn't stolen. But then asked them for their names and sought to run a warrants check on them. Dispatchers told the officer the defendant had an outstanding warrant and after a search, the officer found two handguns and ammunition on the defendant.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence of handguns and ammunition as evidence found during an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Under the Fourth Amendment, Americans enjoy the right to not have to go through unlawful search and seizure. This means the police must have a reason, and in many cases a search warrant signed by a judge, to enter someone's house, car or business looking for evidence.

The man's judge agreed and granted the motion, saying that after talking with the group, the officer had completed the purposes of the stop and detention. He had no lawful basis to conduct a warrants check. The government appealed and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and sent the case back.

According to the officer's testimony, the officer stopped them because he was concerned about recent pet thefts as well as property crimes and a shooting in the area in recent weeks. He said later he didn't intend to cite them for the traffic violation, but wanted to know who they were.

After getting a name and Social Security number, the officer confirmed the warrant and the defendant told him he had two guns on him when he was being handcuffed. The officer found the guns and ammunition after searching the man.

After being indicted on a federal charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the man filed a motion to suppress the evidence. During the hearing, the officer testified he didn't intend to cite them and after they gave him answers to his questions, he was satisfied with their answers. The judge ordered that that should have ended the encounter because the suspects did nothing "to raise additional suspicion of criminal activity by that point."

The higher appeals court found that the district court erred in its decision that the officer "had no objective basis for fearing for his safety." The court ruled that the officer was alone and had stopped three people at midnight in an area that had recently experienced criminal activity, including a shooting.

Based on a prior case out of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the three-judge panel ruled that the officer could have easily faced a "dangerous confrontation," so a warrants check based on officer-safety grounds were legitimate.

It's unclear if the defendant has appealed or plans to appeal the ruling to a higher court. While this hasn't turned out well for the defendant to this point, hope is not lost. There are other courts that may be able to intervene and again rule on the issues.

A motion to suppress evidence is a critical motion to present in Los Angeles criminal cases. Essentially, it alleges that the officers didn't follow procedures and shouldn't have sought to get evidence to use against the defendant. This motion can also apply to statements the defendant makes should officers not explain or adhere to Miranda Warnings protocol as laid out by prior court cases.

Continue reading "United States of America v. Carl Roy Burleson Proves Importance of Motions to Suppress Evidence in Los Angeles Criminal Cases " »

A California murder convict's appeals case shows why not only filing timely appeals documents, but also having a strong Los Angeles criminal appeals lawyer is critical in ensuring a defendant's rights are upheld at every stage of the case.

The criminal appeals process is extremely complex and has many built-in deadlines that must be met in order for a defendant to have his or her case heard by different courts in California. Missing deadlines or filing improper documentation can also lead to a failed criminal appeal in California.

The case of Trigueros v. Adams, the man had been convicted of murder and attempted murder in California.

He was sentenced to multiple consecutive terms of twenty-five years to life and life. In October 2005, he filed his habeas petition with the California Superior Court. A habeas corpus filing, a Latin term for "you may have the body" is commonly filed in appeals and is a legal action in which a person can be released from custody for unlawful detention. In criminal cases, it allows a defendant to bring facts up on appeal that can prove the charges are unfounded and he or she is being held in jail or prison without just cause.

The 2005 filing was 11 months after his conviction became final and more than two years after he first brought up claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The Superior Court ruled that his petition was untimely and the Court of Appeal also denied the appeal.

But he pressed on and presented the issue to the California Supreme Court, which requested an informal briefing, but still denied the petition. A federal district court found that his federal appeal -- filed in July 2007 -- was also untimely, though it was filed less than a month after the previous denial. Then his case was then taken all the way to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena.

A three-judge panel ruled that his petition was timely and sent it back to the federal district court to deal with. The panel of judges wrote that the California Supreme Court's request for an informal briefing from the state should have allowed the court to decide the petition on the merits of it, rather than on the timing of when it was filed.

The judges wrote that the California Supreme Court should have found the petition by Trigueros timely and therefore ruled on the case then rather than denying it and sending it along for another court to hear.

As you can tell, these issues are complex, but an experienced Los Angeles criminal appeals lawyer who has years of handling these types of cases can see the strategies that the state uses and the past cases that can set precedent for judges to use in analyzing the defendant's case. That kind of experience is invaluable in helping a convicted defendant raise important issues that must be addressed at a higher level.

Continue reading "Tigueros v. Adams Shows Importance of Hitting Deadlines in Los Angeles Criminal Appeals" »

A recent strange story out of Los Angeles shows just how far prosecutors will go in order to secure convictions for those involved in drug offenses in Los Angeles.

According to the Los Angeles Times, prosecutors have appealed the decisions by an L.A. County Superior Court Judge who they say was biased against the prosecution in dismissing charges against two people. The defendants were convicted of conspiracy to obtain medications under a false name for the now-deceased former Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith.

This is an extraordinary step by Los Angeles prosecutors who would seek to discredit a judge in order to attempt to cover up their own failures. But it's not all that surprising to Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorneys. High-profile cases sometimes make state prosecutors do weird things, including acting out of the ordinary because they know the spotlight is on them.

This case boiled down to Smith's longtime companion Howard K. Stern and psychiatrist Khristine Eroshevich, who went on trial on charges of seeking to get prescription drugs for Smith by using false names. A jury found them guilty of conspiracy to obtain medications under a false name, but the judge later dismissed all but one misdemeanor conviction.

After sitting through the trial and seeing the facts, the judge found that the convictions weren't supported by the state's evidence, despite the jury's findings. He called the case a "kitchen sink prosecution," meaning prosecutors didn't have much real proof, but rather threw a lot of evidence out in the hopes it would stick in the form of a conviction.

But prosecutors say the judge was influenced by the "celebrity" nature of the case by ruling that celebrities seek privacy from the public in these matters. The state argued that the actions weren't taken out of concern for Smith's privacy, but to avoid being detected by state authorities.

High-profile cases need not involve a celebrity, even in Los Angeles. But the power of the news media carries a lot of weight to prosecutors -- more than they would be willing to admit publicly. Even if they make determinations on each case based on the facts of that individual case, I doubt they would have appealed a judge's decisions in an "Average Joe" prescription drug case.

But for those who end up in the media spotlight, the situation changes. There are countless cases that roll through Los Angeles County Superior Court, but those who find their way before the eyes of an influential journalist can face an even more challenging situation.

A trusted Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer must have experience dealing with the media, who can be used to the defendant's advantage in the right situation. Determining whether to provide quotes and interviews to get the defendant's side out or, if seeking a gag order to shut down all comments from getting out, are both tactics to consider.

These are matters that should be discussed between the defendant and attorney, as a defendant shouldn't comment to the media, jail inmates, or even friends and family without talking with an attorney first.

Continue reading "Anna Nicole Smith Appeal Shows Aggressive Nature of Prosecutors in Los Angeles Drug Cases" »

A recent drug case out of Chicago highlights the need for a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer who has knowledge of the criminal justice system as well as the complex area of appeals.

Appeals in Los Angeles are critical because sometimes they can mean the difference between a defendant's freedom or a long prison sentence. Without properly preserving issues for appeal, even before a defendant has been convicted, the person will be left without options if a jury does find him or her guilty. This applies not only to the trial, but also pre-trial motions and hearings where judges make decisions about witnesses and evidence admitted or denied.

In United States v. Combs, a Chicago man appealed his judge's decision to deny a motion to suppress evidence based on his attorney's negligence.

The case goes back to 2008, when a Drug Enforcement Administration task force investigated the man for allegedly taking large amounts of heroin, cocaine and marijuana from Chicago to Madison and St. Louis.

In 2009, an informant, at the direction of the DEA, called the man to buy cocaine. Surveillance from agents show the man in the parking lot of a St. Louis casino accepting a black bag from a man he met there. An hour later, the informant and the defendant met outside his mother's house in St. Louis and surveillance video show him and the informant meeting.

The informant told agents that when he and the drug dealer would meet it would either be at his house in Madison, Illinois, or at his mother's house in St. Louis. During the recorded meeting outside his mother's house, the man told the informant he had just gotten two kilograms of cocaine in St. Louis. Based on the video surveillance and the informant's information, agents obtained a search warrant and found 650 grams of marijuana, a handgun and ammunition inside his house. He was indicted on a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon.

The issue in the case comes down to the video footage shot by agents. A week before the trial was scheduled to start, the man's public defender asked for a continuance, saying that he had had difficulty viewing the video footage after receiving several DVDs from the prosecution.

After finding versions of the DVD that worked, the attorney said the defendant wanted to file a motion to suppress, alleging there were discrepancies between the video footage and search-warrant affidavit. But the judge denied the motion because the deadline for filing a motion to suppress had long expired. The attorney waited two and a half months to file the motion. He didn't follow proper procedures in order to have the motion heard by the court.

The man ended up entering a guilty plea and was sentenced to 33 months in prison, the high end of the guidelines for his charge. He did so with an unconditional plea and without his attorney reserving issues for appeal. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge, saying that there was no reason to overlook the plea and the fact that it was made without conditions that would allow him to preserve the right to preserve issues later on.

This is a sad situation because it's apparent from the court's writings that this defendant's attorney did a poor job. First off, he waited until just before trial to try to file a lengthy motion that would take a large chunk of time to be heard. Then once he was granted an extension, he didn't follow the procedures to have the motion heard, instead waiting more than two months.

As a result, the defendant has no avenues for appeal and must serve 33 months in prison for this crime that he may have been found not guilty of if his attorney had acted properly. Criminal law is complex, especially when dealing with state and federal charges in two different systems. But that's why hiring an experienced lawyer who has knowledge of not only the criminal system, but also the importance of appeals is critical.

Without leaving the defendant with issues to appeal if they are convicted, they have no avenue to challenge the wrongs that happened before or at trial.

Continue reading "U.S. v. Combs Shows Importance of Los Angeles Attorney With Appeals Knowledge" »

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a fair trial. One way to accomplish this is by keeping unfairly prejudicial evidence away from the jury. But what happens when every potential juror is bombarded with negative media coverage about a defendant before the trial begins?

Conrad Murray's trial for allegedly causing the death of Michael Jackson will start on September 8, 2011. But unlike most other criminal defendants, the details surrounding his case have been intensely covered in the media ever since TMZ.com identified him as "the central target" in the Los Angeles Police Department's investigation of Jackson's death in July, 2009. For two years, potential jurors have been bombarded with mostly unfavorable opinions about Murray. They have been exposed to "experts" in newspapers, radio, television, blogs, Twitter and Facebook (e.g., there are numerous "I Hate Conrad Murray" pages, which among them boast thousands of "Like" votes). But none of this proves he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

This relentless pretrial publicity will make picking an unbiased jury almost impossible. There may be a couple of people in the jury pool who have never heard of Conrad Murray. But it's more likely than not that these people will have avoided pretrial coverage because they are uninformed or possibly even illiterate. A jury of this sort of unbiased jurors would certainly not represent a fair cross-section of the community in which the trial is taking place - a right that is also guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Equally damaging to Murray's defense is the trial judge's refusal to sequester the jury and refusal to keep cameras out of the courtroom. Of course the judge will instruct the jurors to avoid exposure to any information about the case, but that may be impossible -- this could be one of the most-covered trials in history. If Casey Anthony's trial is any indication, there is going to be an intense media campaign against Conrad Murray.

Assuming an unbiased jury can be seated, which seems unlikely, they will have to show superhuman restraint in order for Murray to get a fair trial. And if the jurors are further exposed to tainted evidence during the trial and deliberations, there could be a new trial. That, in fact, might be the best thing for Murray. At least the press may be tired of his story by then.

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that two prisoners serving time for the attempted murder of an Orange County sheriff's sergeant three decades ago can't be tried for the murder now that the victim has died, an appeals court ruled.

While it may seem crazy to think that people already convicted of an attempted murder decades later could face a murder charge, that's exactly what happened to these men. They were already convicted and serving time after the victim was paralyzed following a shooting and then after he died, prosecutors filed new charges to reflect the change in his life status. This case could have a profound impact on Los Angeles criminal appeals and others statewide.

So, while outlandish of prosecutors to try to double dip on the conviction, it's why an experienced Los Angeles Criminal Appeals Lawyer is so important. Fighting for the rights not only of one defendant but also many millions of future defendants is a tough responsibility, but it's 100 percent necessary.

The shooting happened in 1980 as two men were burglarizing cars with a third man. As the sergeant and his partner approached in plainclothes, a confrontation ensued and the deputy was shot twice in the back. His legs had to be amputated and in filing the new charge, prosecutors argued that the bullet wounds let to his death and that there is no statutory limitations on murder, meaning the charges can be filed at any time.

California law now allows the state to seek murder charges no matter how long it takes for the victim to die. But a three-judge panel of the 4ht District Court of Appeal ruled that the law that was applicable in 1980 should apply, not what is currently on the books.

The men already served 17 years each in prison and based on the most recent charges were sitting in the Orange County jail for more than nine months awaiting an appeal on this issue.

Continue reading "Ruling On Orange County Murder Applies to Los Angeles Criminal Appeals" »

A man has been arrested by police after allegedly being involved in the shooting of a Los Angeles Police officer, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The officer is expected to make a full recovery after reportedly being shot during a routine pedestrian stop.

This is bad news for the person accused of the suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon charge in Los Angeles on the officer. Any time a high-profile figure, such as a police officer or sheriff's deputy, is injured in the line of duty, the defendant has an especially difficult time in the justice system.

While the state would never admit they treat cases differently based on the victim and the suspect, they do. If the victim was a young, adorable child, the defendant may face a more serious penalty if the circumstances are similar to an older victim who may have a criminal record themselves. It may not be fair, but it certainly happens.

When an officer is the victim, an experienced and aggressive Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney must be summoned in order to ensure the rights of the accused are upheld. When one of their own is victimized, they tend to pay extra special attention to the case. And so do their bosses, and the media.

For all these reasons, the case deserves extra scrutiny and the state must be held accountable. And with news media reports tainting the jury pool, the case may be more challenging to get a fair trial.

In this case, the officer was shot on a weekday around 3 p.m. as the officer and partner were in an unmarked police cruiser investigating a rash of car burglaries. While they were driving, they stopped to question two men on the side of the road. One of the men allegedly pulled out a handgun and started firing, the newspaper reports.

The injured officer was struck twice in the chest, but was protected by a bulletproof vest. He was also hit in the hand and wrist.

More than 100 officers were summoned and sent to a search area and went door-to-door to find the suspects accused of the crime. They arrested one person and charged him with suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, yet police haven't released why they believe he may be involved or what his alleged involvement was.

Police said they recovered a gun inside the search area that may be the one used in the shooting, but that officials are still testing the weapon for forensic evidence. The newspaper reports 125 serious assaults on city police officers so far this year, a 30 percent spike from the same time period last year.

Think about it: 100 officers were called in to go door-to-door to search for suspects. It takes a lot of straining to recall a time when the police department put that much effort into find a suspect involved in shooting an everyday citizen, let alone killing someone.

This highlights the lengths the state will go to to ensure a person involved a police-related shooting is convicted. And that's just the arrest process. Once the case gets into the court system, the efforts are stepped up as well. Therefore, the defendant must fight the charges with an experienced attorney who will stand by their side.

Continue reading "Man Arrested in Connection With LAPD Officer Who Was Shot" »