Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

It is fairly common during a Los Angeles criminal appeal that defendants will attempt to prove their Los Angeles criminal defense attorney was ineffective and that impacted their trial.

In most cases, that isn't a fair argument, but one that criminal defense attorneys expect, especially in Los Angeles murder cases, where the stakes are so high. In one recent case out of Wyoming, a defendant was able to show that his criminal defense attorney didn't properly represent him, getting a new trial.

Murder is the most serious charge on the books in this country, and is the only that can be punished by the death penalty in California. Therefore, the defendant's lawyer should ensure they use all things possible in defense of the suspect. But even still, some lawyers make mistakes. Sometimes, those mistakes are seen as minor and of no consequence to the defendant. Others are so big they require a new trial.

In Ken v. State, a man was given a new trial after a big mistake by his lawyer. In 2009, Varo Ken was charged with attempted first-degree murder and aggravated assault.

Court records state that a woman, her fiance and son were in the parking lot of an apartment complex when a man got out of a car parked next to them and fired a gun at them before fleeing the scene. They pulled into a parking spot next to the suspect and words were exchanged and the woman's fiance made a derogatory comment toward the suspect. They told police the man fired four shots at them and then got back into his car and drove off.

About 40 minutes later in a bordering state, a trooper pulled over a vehicle matching the description of the vehicle at the scene and took the driver and his passenger into custody. A handgun was found inside the car.

The passenger said the two were inside the car when a truck pulled next to them. She said her boyfriend got out of the car because he thought the man from the truck was yelling at him. She said she didn't hear any of the argument or any gunshots because she had earphones in. She said she didn't see a gun until Ken got back into the car.

Ken gave a statement to police, too. He said he heard the man yell and thought he was yelling at him. He admitted to firing a shot into the air and then pointing the gun at the man before shooting off to the right. He said he then pointed the gun at the man and fired again before leaving. Police said they found two bullet casings and holes at the scene.

On the second day of trial, the man's criminal defense attorney found out through the prosecution that the woman's fiance -- the man who was shot -- had pleaded guilty to battery a year earlier in a case where he picked a fight in a bar. When defense received the report, the man had already testified. The attorney argued that this new evidence was relevant to the self-defense theory and the judge said there should be a hearing.

The state made its case and rested and the defense did the same. After moving for a judgment of acquittal, which was denied, the judge asked the defense attorney if he wished to rest without re-calling the fiance to bring in the battery conviction evidence. The defense lawyer said it was "too late" to investigate the incident. The judge told each side that he intended to allow the defense to re-call the man, but the defense rested anyway. The jury convicted Ken and he was sentenced to life in prison for attempted first-degree murder as well as six years for aggravated assault.

On appeal, Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that the defense attorney made mistakes when dropping the issue of the victim's prior battery conviction, especially after the judge allowed an opportunity to re-call that witness and bring in the evidence. As a result, Ken was awarded a new trial.

Continue reading "Ken v. State Shows Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney, Appeals Lawyer Critical" »

A recent criminal case out of New York shows us that criminal appeals can play an integral role in determining the outcome for a defendant.

What some people don't realize is that a Los Angeles criminal appeal is available not only for the defendant, but also for the state. Prosecutors can appeal favorable rulings for defendants just like defendants can appeal rulings that help the state's case.

Our Los Angeles criminal appeals lawyers believe that even a well-argued case before a trial judge can turn rocky on appeal, so employing a well-versed criminal appeals lawyer may end up being as necessary or more necessary than hiring a defense attorney.

Take, for example, the case of United States v. Steppello out of New York. In this case, the man faced drug charges and in the course of the case, his lawyers brought up a motion to suppress cocaine seized from him during a warrant-less arrest as well as evidence from his residence. They also were successful in suppressing his statement after arguing there was no probable cause to support the arrest.

It was a big victory for the defendant and his lawyers because without this evidence, the prosecution wouldn't have much of a way to prove the case. These were critical pieces of evidence that would now be kept out of trial. The prosecutors even appealed the decision, arguing that the judge shouldn't have suppressed the evidence in the first place.

But the government appealed these decisions and on appeal, a panel of judges agreed with the state and reversed the lower court's decision. It then became a major blow to the defendant, who probably felt pretty good that he had gotten such a favorable ruling earlier on.

This is why an experienced Los Angeles criminal appeals lawyer is so important. As a defendant, you can never let your guard down. The prosecution has many resources and will use all of them in pursuit of a conviction. The more high-profile of a case, the more they will do to try to score a prison sentence for the defendant.

On appeal, prosecutors were able to convince a panel of judges that the lower court judge was wrong when ruling that police didn't have probable cause to make the arrest and they ruled that the cocaine and statements made during his arrest shouldn't have been suppressed.

Based on that ruling, the court also overturned the lower court's order that evidence seized from the man's residence should also be admitted, amounting to a clean sweep for the prosecution. Everything that was suppressed was put back into play and not only that, but the appeals court transferred the case to a different judge, noting that the same judge ignored rulings made by the appeals court in a different, but similar, case.

A defendant must always keep the pressure on and never assume they have won until the final appeal has been raised. There are always going to be opportunities for the prosecution to try to change the opinion of a judge. That's why hiring an experienced Los Angeles criminal appeals lawyer is vital to a suspect's case.

Continue reading "United States v. Steppello Shows Appeals Critical, Including Los Angeles Criminal Appeals" »

An experienced Los Angeles criminal defense appeals lawyer is critical to ensure that a defendant's rights are upheld.

This is no more evident than in a recent case out of Maryland called State v. Allen. In this case, a man was tried for murder in different trials and there were errors both times that required new juries and new trials.

A criminal appeal in Los Angeles is a right that all defendants have. While the appeal may be different based on the circumstance, for instance a plea versus a guilty verdict at trial, there are still avenues for a case to be heard by a different court.

The bottom line is that everyone makes mistakes. Despite their best efforts, people in the court system can easily say something, do something or attempt something that is against the rules. And that's why there are other sets of eyes looking at the case to ensure that everything was done correctly.

In this case, little was done correctly -- several times.

The case started when Jeffrey Allen was at the home of his friend, John Butler. Allen asked for Butler to drive him home, but he refused. Allen then grabbed Butler's keys and jingled them in front of Butler and insisted he would drive himself home. The two started fighting and Allen ended up stabbing Butler to death. He took the car and later crashed it, which led to his arrest.

Authorities charged him with first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, robbery with a deadly weapon and other offenses. At trial, he was found guilty of first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, robbery with a deadly weapon and the lesser related counts.

On appeal, the man argued that the judge's jury instructions, which stated that the jury could find him guilty whether or not his intent to rob was determined before or after the murder. For a conviction of felony murder, in Maryland as in California and many other states, the state must prove the person committed a murder while committing one of a list of felonies, typically including robbery, burglary, a sex crime, kidnapping or others.

An appeals court ruled that an "afterthought" robbery can't be strong enough to convict someone of felony murder and, therefore, put a person at risk for the death penalty. They granted a new trial on that charge only.

Despite already having the second-degree murder and other charges conviction, prosecutors went back to trial on a charge of first-degree murder. In this trial, the judge started off on shaky ground when he told jurors that the defendant had already been convicted of second-degree murder and robbery.

Despite objection by his defense lawyers, the judge told jurors during the instructions that the defendant had already been convicted of robbery. An appeals court ruled that by telling jurors that, the judge had already essentially proven a vital part of the case -- that the defendant had been convicted of robbery. If the state showed that Allen had killed Butler, they had the felony murder charge in the bag.

The appeals court awarded the man another new trial on the felony murder charge, though hopefully prosecutors will stop wasting taxpayer dollars and settle for the convictions they already have.

As you can see, being able to spot key problems in trials that have already taken place takes a lot of time and effort. There are scores of pages to read over and issues to look at and present to an appeals court. But it is worthwhile to make sure the defendant was treated fairly and to see that justice is done.

Continue reading "State v. Allen Shows Importance of Los Angeles Appeals Attorney" »

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" »

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." »

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" »

American Amanda Knox has been cleared by an Italian jury nearly four years after being found guilty of murdering her British roommate based on faulty evidence, CNN reports.

While some might say this is simply a foreign country's criminal justice system fraught with problems and corruption, others might also say there have been more than a few similar injustices in American courts over the years. That is why an appeal in Los Angeles is one of the most important parts of our justice system.

Without the appeals process, mistakes cannot be rectified and innocent men and women get locked up with the key thrown away. This simply cannot happen. Much like Knox, defendants throughout Los Angeles have had their charges overturned and have been freed once an experienced Los Angeles appeals attorney gets on the case and points out the illegalities of the person's trial.

Sometimes that includes pointing out mistakes a judge makes, or something the prosecutor said to the jury that could cause bias. It might even be an issue with a trial attorney who missed something crucial in the case en route to a defendant's rights being violated. And sometimes, as was the case with Knox, pointing out weak evidence that doesn't satisfy proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the result of a job well done by a good appeals lawyer.

Knox's case goes back to 2007 when British exchange student Meredith Kercher was found dead after being sexually assaulted and having her throat slashed. Knox and her boyfriend/co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito were both convicted two years ago by a different jury. They were sentenced to 25 years in prison.

On appeal, lawyers aggressively attacked the evidence Italian prosecutors used to secure the convictions in 2009. A third person, a drifter, was convicted separately of being involved in the killing. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison.

The DNA evidence key to the botched conviction was tied to a knife found in the house, as well as a bra clasp. The knife was proven to not have been similar to the knife used to kill the woman. Plus, it was obvious that anyone living in the house would have shared a knife.

Crime scene authorities trampled on the house, mishandled evidence, waited for days before gathering key pieces of evidence, and otherwise contaminated the" proof" used by prosecutors. The DNA evidence they did have was inconclusive at best.

All this goes to show that prosecutors and police officers will go to great lengths to prove they have solved the crime, even if the evidence isn't there. That's why an experienced Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer must come in to hold the state accountable for its actions.

Sometimes people make mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes are intentional and committed by overzealous officials. The common person can be trampled on, but that person requires an experienced Los Angeles criminal appeals lawyer to lift him or her up and fight by their side in the pursuit of justice.

Continue reading "Amanda Knox Learns Appeals System is Critical, as it is in Los Angeles Murder 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 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" »

The Associated Press recently reported that convicted murderer Phil Spector's appeal before the California Supreme Court has been denied.

The Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog reported in May how an appeals court also rejected his efforts to have the case re-heard. The latest blow came from the state's highest court.

Appeals in Los Angeles are a critical part of the criminal justice system in California because they are an avenue for the innocent to get justice. Appeals also act as a check and balance of the system. Hiring an experienced Los Angeles Criminal Appeals Attorney to handle these matters is important. Don't simply serve time unjustly without the aid of an attorney who has spent decades handling these matters.

According to the article, Spector's attorneys argued that his judge prejudiced the trial by allowing state prosecutors to use pictures of him in closing arguments as if he were a witness in the case.

They also accused the judge of allowing jurors to watch a tape of him explaining testimony by a witness about forensic evidence at a hearing that was conducted outside of the jury's presence. Attorneys argued that by allowing jurors to watch the video and see pictures, the judge became a witness and no longer a neutral figure in the case.

In May, the 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld his conviction in an 81-page decision. A panel of judges rejected a number of claims the attorneys made, including that the victim committed suicide.

Spector was convicted in 2009 of killing actress Lana Clarkson by shooting her to death at his Alhambra mansion in 2003. He was sentenced to 19 years to life after being convicted of second-degree murder in California. His second trial ended in a conviction, while the first jury was hung.

In California, an appeal isn't just for people who are truly innocent -- every case can be, and should be, appealed. That's because while the person may have committed the crime, trial errors, either by the judge, state, witnesses or even defense attorneys can be grounds for a new trial.

The appeals process is complex, but it is designed to right the wrongs made during the trial. That's what appellate court judges are typically the most experienced and have ruled over a variety of issues. The decisions they make typically lead to setting the standards for all similar cases.

In California, the appeals process starts when a notice of appeal is filed in the court where the conviction or ruling is made. California's criminal appeal process is complex and requires extensive research and preparation, which means it can take a year or more to complete.

In Spector's case, he has been convicted for more than two years and the process still hasn't ended. Defendants and their families must be patient because many thousands of cases are appealed and take time to get through the slow-moving criminal justice system.

Continue reading "California Supreme Court Denies Phil Spector Appeal" »

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena recently heard argument that trial lawyers should be barred from dismissing potential jurors based on their sexual orientation, the Los Angeles Times reports.

The Los Angeles appeal was based on an assault conviction of a Nigerian-born gay inmate at the federal lockup in Los Angeles. This discrimination issue and others was brought up on appeal after the man was convicted. The case brings up an interesting legal issue and shows the importance of a diligent Los Angeles Appellate Attorney, whose job it is to review all aspects of a case to determine where a defendant's rights were trampled by a judge, prosecutor or even trial attorney.

In this case, the man's attorneys argued before the appeals court that a prosecutor's decision to strike a lesbian from the jury may be unconstitutional. The attorneys argued gays and lesbians should be added to the class of citizens considered vulnerable to discrimination and given better protection of rights.

The man's criminal case was based on the defense that he gave a man a hug, a salutary gesture in his African home, and that the homophobic man overreacted, lunging away and falling. The government argued to the appeals court that the prosecutor's reason for removing the lesbian juror was that she told the court she had close Nigerian friends.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling decades ago bans removing jurors based on their race and attorneys who want a minority removed from a case must give a race-neutral reason that a judge must OK. Later court rulings have added gender and religion to protected categories. It may be at least a month before the appeals court makes its decision.

This case and others like it highlight the importance of a good criminal appeals attorney. In this particular case, no one knows whether having a lesbian juror would have helped a gay defendant, but the fact that she was dismissed could be a problem.

The best case scenario for this defendant is his conviction is overturned and he may get a new trial, requiring prosecutors to prove the case all over again. While the court may not give him a new trial, the judges panel may decide that people can't be dismissed solely because of their sexual orientation, like gender, religion and race.

Appeals are needed to make change and it's another form of accountability in our criminal justice system. Reviewing all that happens during a trial can reveal some mistakes that must be corrected and sometimes that means a defendant getting a new trial. Sometimes, that can mean the conviction is overturned and the charges are dropped altogether. But it's not a simple process and it takes time and effort.

In California, an appeal starts when a notice of appeal is filed. And it must be filed within 60 days. While some people believe appeals are only for the wrongly convicted, every case is available to appeal. The point is to determine if a defendant's rights were violated by a judge, prosecutor or even the improper work of a defense attorney.

Continue reading "In Los Angeles Appeal, Attorneys Argue Jurors Can't Be Dismissed For Being Gay" »

The Associated Press recently reported that an appeals court refused to consider an appeal by music producer Phil Spector, saying there was overwhelming evidence of his guilt.

Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog recently commented on the case, noting that a defendant's first appeal is the most critical. And a criminal appeal in Los Angeles requires the skilled work of Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyers.

In the brief, two-page order, the Second District Court of Appeal blamed Spector's lawyers for not sufficiently briefing the point, saying they have no obligation to consider it, The Associated Press reports. Spector, a rock music producer, was convicted in 2009 of killing actress Lana Clarkson at his mansion in 2003. His first trial ended in a mistrial and he was convicted by his second jury. He is serving a 19-year prison sentenced and is currently housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran.

In May, the same court affirmed Spector's conviction in an 81-page decision, rejecting a number of claims. But the current claim was that the trial judge shouldn't have allowed the prosecution to use photos of him during closing arguments as if he was a witness. The judge also let the state show a video of the judge explaining testimony by a witness about forensic evidence at a hearing outside the jury's presence. Spector's attorneys have said they plan to appeal to the California Supreme Court.

A defendant's first appeal is critical because it addresses errors made by the trial judge, wrong use of the law, whether certain evidence should have been introduced and shown to the jury and if statements made to jurors violated the defendant's rights.

Under California law, the process of an appeal starts when a notice of appeal is filed in the court where the conviction or ruling is made. California's criminal appeal process is a unique and complex area of law and takes extensive research and preparation, which means it can take a year or more to complete. An inexperienced attorney may miss some errors and therefore cost the defendant justice. In California, you must appeal a conviction within 60 days.

The purpose of a criminal appeal is to right the wrongs that happened at or before trial. Appeals can also attack whether the sentence imposed by the judge is legal. It allows defendants a second chance at justice.

While many people may think that appeals are only useful to people who have been wrongly convicted because they are innocent, every case can be appealed. Judges may say things in front of the jury that are so damaging to a defendant, he or she should get a new trial. Overzealous prosecutors may break the law in trying so hard to secure a conviction that they unfairly prejudice the defendant and violate rights in the process.

Every defendant has a right to a fair trial and when that doesn't happen, the complex appeals process kicks into gear. It can take extensive time to complete an appeal, but the process is necessary to ensure the criminal justice system works correctly.

Continue reading "Another Phil Spector Appeal Denied; Los Angeles Criminal Appeals Lawyers Needed for Complex Area of Law " »

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.

Continue reading "Ocampo V. Vail Shows Why Los Angeles Appeals Attorney So Crucial" »