Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A recent case out of Michigan shows that sloppy police work must be considered when a Los Angeles criminal appeals lawyer is reviewing a case.

Whether cases of robbery or murder, an experienced lawyer will be able to look at all aspects of a case, from the investigation to the arrest to the conviction.

Not all errors in a Los Angeles criminal appeal require a new trial, but collectively they can. And, in rare situations, the mistakes made by defense lawyers, prosecutors or judges can be so severe that charges must be dropped altogether.

Wheeler v. The City of Lansing was a case based around a home invasion robbery investigation headed by a police officer and a sheriff's deputy in 2008. The two had been trying to solve who was responsible when they found a man who was alleged to have knowledge about some of the cases.

He told them that Wheeler, the girlfriend of a suspect, had in her apartment property from several home invasion robberies. The man took the officers to the apartment and pointed to the building number and the unit and pointed out a snow shovel in front that identified the unit. The officer looked up and noted the street name as Mapletree Court.

While the two officers went to a prosecutor to try to obtain a search warrant, another officer doing surveillance on the apartment obtained a key from the manager, who confirmed that Wheeler lived at the unit in question.

A prosecutor typed up the affidavit, but only one of the officers signed the affidavit, even though both provided information. The warrant stated that officers were looking for personal property from 19 home invasions even though the affidavit only described two home invasions that the informant admitted to participating in. Despite the discrepancy, the search warrant was signed.

After the SWAT team busted into the apartment, they came out with cameras, a power cord for a laptop, jewelry, a 19-inch television, a laptop, video game consoles and a bill addressed to Wheeler and one to her boyfriend. The warrant had sought much more property, not including big screen TVs, guns and computers that weren't found.

Wheeler filed a lawsuit against the officers and the police department, alleging that her constitutional rights were violated. She claimed she was subjected to unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, among others. She also claimed that her address is Endicott Court, not Mapletree Court.

Attorneys for the officer who didn't sign the affidavit claimed he should be entitled to "qualified immunity" because he didn't physically seize any items and because he didn't sign the affidavit. He passed the buck to the prosecutor and judge who signed the warrant.

Among other issues discussed in its opinion, the appeals court reversed the decision by the lower court that granted qualified immunity for the officer who provided facts for the search warrant, but didn't sign it.

While this is a civil lawsuit, many of these same facts could have been brought up during the criminal case as well as during an appeal of the criminal charge. At any rate, officers will sometimes get so caught up in the chase of finding a suspect that they mislead judges on affidavits -- intentionally or not -- or fudge facts to get the judge to sign off.

This can lead to charges being dropped if discovered by a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney. If not, an appeals lawyer is there to pick up the pieces and ensure that everything is reviewed properly to ensure a defendant's rights are upheld.

Continue reading "Wheeler v. The City of Lansing Shows That Police Actions Should Be Scrutinized in L.A. Criminal Appeals" »

A recent rape case in a district attorney's office near the San Francisco Bay area blew the cover off of an office atmosphere where crude sexual behavior was rampant. But it also shows that witness credibility in Los Angeles sex crimes cases is key to the prosecution and the defense.

In any sex case, the credibility of the witness is going to be a big factor. In cases where there aren't any eye witnesses other than the alleged victim, it becomes even more critical to the state's case. Any person can make up allegations of a sex crime, but without physical proof -- such as DNA or fingerprints -- that prove a person was in the place the alleged victim says the crime occurred, words matter.

And as Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers have seen, who is saying those words is just as important sometimes as what is said. In this case, a person's credibility has derailed the prosecution of an alleged rape.

According to the Los Angeles Times, a 54-year-old prosecutor in Martinez, outside San Francisco, was charged with rape after a co-worker alleged that he had raped her during their lunch break in a case where they prosecuted a person for molestation.

The two had had a sexual encounter before and she said he was "pretty kinky," but she alleged that when he used ice cubes, an ice pick, handcuffs and a gun that caused bleeding, it was rape. He admitted to having rough sex, but said it was consensual.

A judge dismissed the charges recently because while the grand jury heard the woman's side of the story, they didn't hear facts that could have undermined her credibility. They include the fact that she reported the rape to her bosses and they did nothing for four months and even allowed the two to work together, showing they didn't believe her.

The newspaper reports that the 33-year-old woman was a part-time employee who had done poorly on job evaluations and hadn't been offered a full-time position. Some believe she had a motivation to lie in order to free up a position. Her boss was more concerned about her suing if she wasn't offered a job than believing she was telling the truth. She also didn't want to report the case at first.

As the three-year-old case was ongoing, investigation revealed that the sex crimes unit for the district attorney was called a "sex club" by workers there, who would discuss their sexual adventures over lunch and drinks. Some said they enjoyed prosecuting sex crimes because it gave them ideas for the bedroom. And the workers would have co-ed "slumber parties."

Because of the conflict of interest of someone in the office prosecuting a co-worker, the attorney general's office handled the case. The newspaper reports the office is deciding whether to appeal the ruling or file new charges. They say they will take the wishes of the woman, who has since moved to Florida, into consideration.

Continue reading "Bay Area Rape Case Shows Sex Crimes Prosecutions in Los Angeles Can Be Undermined By Credibility Issues" »

A case out of Rhode Island, In re Frances G. reminds Los Angeles juvenile defense lawyers just how daunting the criminal justice system can be for young people.

In this case, a 12-year-old girl was found to have committed a crime even though police enticed her to give a statement and third-hand testimony was allowed to be used against her at trial.

Juvenile charges in Los Angeles can range from less-serious theft cases to assault and murder. When teenagers and other young people are arrested, they are likely scared and don't know what to do. The best thing a parent can do is get them to an experienced lawyer.

Before making a statement to police, which can be used against him or her, the defendant should speak with a lawyer, who can give them sound legal advice that can help them in the future of the case.

In this case, the 12-year-old traveled in 2009 with her mother to a relative's house to recover some property. When the relative wouldn't answer, the mother and daughter continued knocking and using vulgar language. The relative then heard her daughter scream out "Willa is at your car with a brick."

The woman got out of bed and saw the vehicle driving away and noticed the front windshield of her car had been smashed, and that there were dents and scratches in the side of the vehicle.

Later that day, the girl was with her father when police contacted them and said they wanted to see the young girl. They voluntarily went to the police station and the officer told them he was investigating the incident from earlier in the day. He asked her for a "general breakdown of what transpired" before he gave her Miranda warnings. Miranda warnings are the rights that officers tell suspects that give them the opportunity to remain silent and telling them that anything they do say can be used against them in court.

After they spoke briefly, the officer gave her a printed form of her rights with her father by her side. She then proceeded to admit to damaging the vehicle and said she was completely responsible for it. She was found to be wayward in the Rhode Island juvenile court and was sentenced to one year on probation and 30 hours of community service.

On appeal, her attorneys argued that the relative shouldn't have been able to testify about what her daughter said she saw -- which is considered hearsay evidence. They also argued that the statement Frances gave to police shouldn't have been admitted because the statement violated her Fifth Amendment rights.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court, however, rejected both arguments and upheld the conviction for the girl. They stated that the "excited utterance" was admissible and that because she wasn't under arrest when she walked into the police station and because there was no evidence of coercion or threats, her statement to police should stand.

This shows that juveniles are given no additional leeway than adult criminal suspects in the eyes of the police, prosecution or judges. Therefore, ensuring that their rights are protected and that they have strong legal advice at all stages of the proceeding are necessary.

Continue reading "Juvenile Case Shows Kids Treated Like Adults in Criminal Cases" »

Any person charged with a crime must be aware of the effects that an arrest and conviction can have on his or her life. That can include the obvious penalties of jail or prison time, fines and fees, probation and other sanctions.

But for immigrants in Los Angeles, they have even more at stake -- possibly being deported out of the country that they have come to call home.

As Moncrieffe v. Holder, Jr. shows, a seemingly minor arrest can lead to major penalties by the federal government.

Even an arrest for marijuana possession in Los Angeles can lead authorities to attempt to deport the arrested person, even if he or she is in this country legally. This is why it's even more important for a defendant in this situation to hire an experienced Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer who understands the consequences of a conviction.

In this case, a Georgia man, who had been in the country legally from Jamaica since 1984, was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He later pleaded guilty, which led federal authorities to try to deport him.

The Board of Immigration Appeals found that his plea should be considered a felony under the Controlled Substances Act even though it was a misdemeanor in Georgia. Also, the board found it to be an "aggravated felony" under immigration law. The man appealed, but the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied his petition to review the case.

Moncrieffe, who is a native of Jamaica, but who has been in the United States legally since he was 3 in 1984, pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in Georgia in 2008. He was sentenced to five years probation. Shortly after the plea, federal authorities attempted to remove him from the country, arguing that he was convicted of a "drug trafficking crime" under federal law.

While court documents didn't indicate how much marijuana he was accused of possessing and because the government wasn't able to prove he didn't have more than a small amount, he argued the crime should be considered a federal misdemeanor, not a felony.

The appellate court ruled that if a state statute is divisible, meaning some types of crimes for the specific act can be punished as either misdemeanors or felonies, then it can be considered a felony for purposes of federal immigration law. So, even though there was no evidence he had more than a small amount of marijuana, the court ruled that it should still be considered an aggravated felony.

Appeals courts are split on whether this is a smart way of doing things, the judges even note in their ruling. Courts in New England and parts of the Midwest have ruled that these types of crimes are always felonies, while courts in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have ruled that they should be misdemeanors.

This court ruled that Moncrieffe had the burden to show that his conduct was of a misdemeanor level and therefore they denied his appeal.

Continue reading "Immigration Status at Risk in Criminal Cases, as Shown in Moncrieffe v. Holder, Jr." »

As a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer will tell you, jury selection may be the most important facet of a criminal case. Obviously, the evidence is critical, but who is weighing the evidence also takes on an important role.

The recent case of Lamb v. Alabama shows just how critical not only who is selected for jury is, but also what is said to them and how a judge and prosecutor interact with them.

Whether a case of burglary in Los Angeles or Southern California murder, every defendant deserves and is entitled to a fair trial.

This goes beyond just making sure the prosecutor and judge follow all the rules during the trial and that no unnecessary evidence is admitted or witnesses don't say something that count taint the jury. This also means allowing every juror a right to be able to participate.

Courts have ruled that jurors can't be dismissed because of race alone, but there are many factors that must be considered when picking a jury. Asking them pointed questions that may reveal their feelings about the criminal justice system, the particular charge or their opinions about police all help to ensure a jury is a fair one.

In this case, a man faced four charges -- first-degree rape, first-degree sexual abuse, incest and second-degree sexual assault. When jurors returned after deliberating, the jury foreman announced guilty verdicts on the first three charges, and not-guilty on count four, the second-degree sexual assault charge.

When the jury was polled -- when judges ask each juror if they agree with the verdict that was announced by the foreman -- it appears they agreed. But after the jury had been let go from its service, the judge noticed that the verdict form marked the first-degree sexual abuse charge as "not guilty," which was different than the "guilty" announced in court by the foreman.

The judge located seven of the 12 jurors and had them come back to court to clarify what their verdict meant. After discussion -- with five members not present -- they said they meant the verdict to be not guilty for count four, but guilty for the other three counts. The jury foreman then was instructed to change the verdict form.

On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that this amounted to double jeopardy and couldn't be done. It is surprising that a judge would allow something as critical as a verdict in a major sex case be handled so sloppily. Obviously, there were errors made by the jury, but allowing changes to be made after they've been discharged and with only a portion of them available is not right. Thankfully, it was sorted out.

Not only must a defendant have jurors who are open-minded, but those who are competent and able to look at the facts and decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant with an open mind. Educated jurors are important because they may think rationally rather than based on the hype of a witness.

Continue reading "Lamb v. Alabama Shows Importance of Jurors in Los Angeles Criminal Case" »

Dr. Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson's personal physician, was recently found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after weeks of trial in Los Angeles.

While he awaits his sentencing on the lowest form of homicide in Los Angeles, people are next going to be talking about his Los Angeles criminal appeal.

An appeal in a criminal case is one of the most important aspects of the criminal justice system. While many believe that the trial is a one-stop shop for justice, that is simply incorrect. The purpose of an appeal is to correct the problems that happen at trial. To think that every trial is perfect, that no judge would ever say something potentially devastating to a defendant's case, and that every prosecutor follows the rules with 100 percent accuracy would not be 100 percent correct.

An experienced Los Angeles criminal appeals lawyer will be called on to help Murray through the complex process of criminal appeals once he is sentenced in late November. He faces up to four years in prison.

Murray's jury deliberated about nine hours over two days. The seven-man, five-woman jury believes the 58-year-old cardiologist is guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of the pop star after he was given a powerful surgical anesthetic.

Prosecutors painted Murray as deceptive and incompetent, the Los Angeles Times reports, trying to show jurors he turned aside any medical judgment he had in order to give Jackson a fatal dose of the anesthetic. Experts testified Murray's actions led directly to Jackson's death.

An exam of the body found that Murray had lied about how much of the drug he gave Jackson. In a more than two-hour taped statement to police, he admitted to giving Jackson propofol, saying he did so at Jackson's request.

The defense tried to show that Jackson himself took the drug, a dosage that killed him instantly. His attorneys argued that Jackson was already addicted to a painkiller that didn't allow him to sleep and he took the drug to put him to sleep.

National Public Radio recently reported that the main issue on appeal may the fact that Murray wasn't allowed to introduce the actions of other doctors and physicians who were giving Jackson drugs and medication. It's possible that on appeal, a panel of judges could grant a new trial, saying that if that evidence would have been admitted, jurors may have changed their minds about his guilt.

Now that he has been convicted, the next step is sentencing. Once that has been announced, a notice of appeal will be filed. Murray will need new lawyers because sometimes central on an appeal is the issue of what defense lawyers didn't do correctly for their defendant. All aspects of a trial and pretrial actions must be looked at by a skilled Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer and that includes the judge, jurors, prosecutor and defense attorneys.

Continue reading "Conrad Murray's Los Angeles Appeal in Michael Jackson Case Will Be Interesting" »

In Los Angeles with so many resident celebrities, there are bound to be instances where obsessed fans try to get too close and invade the privacy of stars who are just trying to live as normal a life as possible.

In a recent case, Disney pop star Selena Gomez, 19, had to file for a Los Angeles restraining order against a person who was allegedly stalking her. And in some cases, the alleged stalking turns criminal, as is the case of a man accused of stalking actress Halle Berry, 45, recently. The suspect pleaded not guilty to felony charges.

But restraining orders aren't just for celebrities. In cases of domestic violence in Los Angeles, spouses or significant others may seek a search warrant in order to protect themselves from a person whom they fear.

On the opposite side are the people who have restraining orders filed against them. In Los Angeles, a person can file for a restraining order based solely on his or her word without any defense. A judge can issue a temporary restraining order until a hearing is held to determine if the order should be made permanent. That means that a person can be arrested if they violate a temporary restraining order even if they weren't able to show a judge the order shouldn't be in place. A violation can mean having contact with the person, attempting to harass them or coming to their home, work or school.

A Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer can assist in either situation. Whether a person feels they were victimized and require protection, or a person feels they have been wrongly accused, an attorney can help sort out the problems.

In Gomez's case, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that she obtained a restraining order against a 46-year-old man who she alleges made plans to kill her after a conversation he said he had with God.

The star of Disney's "Wizards of Waverly Place" told the court that the man visited her workplace at least three times. The man has been ordered to stay at least 100 yards away from her, her assistant and her parents.

The Los Angeles Police Department, according to court records, was taking the alleged murder plot seriously based on the man's actions, a mental illness and a history of stalking and criminal threats.

Actress Halle Berry has experienced stalkers as well. According to E! Online, a man accused of breaking into her home has pleaded not guilty to felony burglary and stalking charges. He now has a trial date set for December.

The man was arrested July 11 after Berry's security guards caught him on her Hollywood Hills property three times in three days. Police allege that he broke into her guest house and scaled a wall to spy on her, prompting her to obtain a restraining order. He is banned from coming within 500 yards of her house and her family and he can't contact them. He has been in custody since his arrest.

Continue reading "Selena Gomez, Halle Berry Understand Importance of Los Angeles Restraining Orders" »

On the heels of a previous pill-mill bust in Los Angeles, federal authorities have made 16 more arrests after raiding pharmacies and alleging a large-scale Medicare fraud scheme, The Associated Press reports.

As the Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog reported recently, federal authorities broke up what they are calling a pill-mill operation where 1 million OxyContin pills were sold for $23 to $27 per pill, and people's identities and Medicare beneficiary information were stolen.

Cases of insurance fraud in Los Angeles can be complex to prove if there is an accused large network of co-conspirators. In cases like this, the prosecution must be able to show that every person accused as part of the alleged conspiracy intended to participate in the illegal action -- from the ringleaders on down.

But charges of insurance fraud can carry serious penalties, whether charged in state court or federal court. Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers are prepared to handle charges of fraud and drug crimes in Los Angeles as these pill-mill investigations continue to pop up.

In this case, Manor Medical Imaging Clinic of Glendale is at the center of the dispute. According to a federal complaint, a doctor there wrote prescriptions for anti-psychotic drugs including Seroquel, Abilify and Zyprexa. They were billed to Medicare and Medi-Cal, but authorities allege the drugs didn't go to the beneficiaries. Instead, they were sold on the black market and sent to San Gabriel Valley, where pharmacists repackaged and resold them.

Authorities allege that some Medicare beneficiaries had their identities stolen, which led to them not being able to get the drugs they needed later on. Targeted in the alleged scam were the homeless, veterans, the poor and the elderly. The main pharmacy alleged in the case is Huntington Pharmacy in San Marino. Court documents state the pharmacy had $45,000 in Medi-Cal claims in 2009, but that spiked to $1.5 million in 2010.

According to the news article, those charged with conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud could face up to 30 years in prison, if convicted.

As prescription drug fraud and insurance fraud has become more and more popular, these investigations have increased as well. That means that there will likely be more indictments, more large-scale "busts" and trials of those charged.

Pharmacists, doctors and others in the medical industry are facing a challenge right now as federal investigators look at everything they do. Even a small mistake could lead to very serious charges. And while it may appear to the public that every person charged is guilty, that's simply not the case. A federal complaint can have big words and be written very convincingly, but until the case gets to trial, these defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

To show that each person was responsible for the fraud is a challenge, as is proving that every person was part of a scheme and not simply doing what bosses instructed them to do. And in many of these cases, one co-defendant may not have ever met or spoken with another co-defendant or know who they were.

What may appear as a well-formed scheme from the outside may not be as connected and intertwined as believed by the government. That's why these defendants require a fair trial to sort out all the facts and with the help of an experienced Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer, they can get that.

Continue reading "Feds Make Arrests In Alleged $18 Million Medicare Fraud in Los Angeles" »