Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

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" »

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" »

A confused burglar was arrested earlier this month when he broke into the wrong house, according to Sugar Scape. The suspicious man tried breaking into the house of Miley Cirus, but was caught in the neighbor's garden, or what he believed to be Miley Cirus' garden.

X17Online reports the confused stalker claimed that "he had a date with Miley." When police weren't convinced; they took him into custody with a $5,000 bail.

Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers know there are many issues in such cases. Proving this man intended to break into Cyrus' house, or that he was stalking her, is a far cry from proving he was standing in a garden on private property somewhere in Southern California.

Yet, as a defendant, you have to take such charges seriously. Our defense lawyers represent clients facing stalking charges in Los Angeles and the surrounding areas, including Wildomar and Riverside County. Stalking charges are becoming more and more common, whether involving celebrities or a relationship gone bad. We reported on our Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog earlier this year about a stalker incident involving hotel heiress Paris Hilton.

Ivanka Trump's was also a victim of stalking. After facing stalking charges and a court-order to stay away from Donald Trump and other residents, the 28-year-old continued to contact Mrs. Trump. He is currently held without bail.

"I should stop bothering her, but I like her," said the young stalker to a detective on a plane ride to New York, according to a court document released Tuesday. The 28-year-old recently legally changed his name to Cloud Starchaser and stated his home address as "a volcano in Hawaii," when he was originally arrested last year on previous stalking charges.

In all seriousness, victims are often falsely accused of stalking. It is important to contact an attorney immediately if you find yourself to be a victim of false accusations.

Continue reading "Miley Cyrus 'Stalker' Arrested on Criminal Charges in Los Angeles" »

Three Los Angeles executives of a toy company face federal money laundering charges after authorities allege they laundered millions of dollars for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers.

A Los Angeles federal defense lawyer will thoroughly review the evidence in this case and help the executives decide upon the best course of action. It is important for those facing federal charges in Los Angeles to consult an attorney experienced in defending clients in federal court, where the laws are very different from those in state court. In this case, officials from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the arrests were made following a two-year investigation.

The federal government claims drug trafficking groups deposited more than $8 million into accounts controlled by the toy manufacturer over a four-year period, always in amounts less than $10,000 to avoid suspicion, according to the Associated Press.

Executives at the toy company are accused of wiring the money to China to purchase stuffed toy animals. The toys were then sent to Columbia to be sold. Money from those sales was then considered clean.

The circumstances of this case also illustrate the dangers executives face when charged with white-collar crime in Los Angeles. The government must prove that all three of these defendant's were involved in the alleged money-laundering operation. Additionally, a Los Angeles defense attorney experienced in handling federal criminal charges may well argue that the executives did nothing illegal. They took money for toys, purchased them in China and had them shipped to the buyer in South America.

How many businesses conduct through background checks on their customers?

Continue reading "Executives facing federal criminal charges need defense attorneys experienced in handling white collar crime" »

The arrest of the alleged serial killer dubbed the Grim Sleeper is making news this week after authorities took him into custody for a string of murders dating back to 1985, the L.A. Times reported.

Arrests involving DNA evidence in California are extremely complex cases and should always be handled by an experienced Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer. Murder charges are the most serious a defendant can face and the passage of time -- 25 years in this case -- can make such cases even more challenging.

This will be far from an open-and-shut case. In many cold cases, a significant amount of evidence has either been lost or compromised. Witnesses die, grow old or move away. Detectives retire. And DNA evidence itself is far from infallible. In fact, the biggest challenge in a case involving DNA is combating the likelihood that a jury will view it as proof positive of a defendant's guilt. A veteran defense lawyer must thoroughly investigate the case and build a solid defense out of the remaining facts and circumstances.

In this case, the defendant is believed to be involved in the deaths of 10 women dating back to 1985. The LAPD relied upon lab testing conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice to make the match. But the test results linked the killing to a young man recently arrested, who was not nearly old enough to be involved in killings dating back 25 years.

That's when authorities began targeting the man's father. After days of surveillance they gathered a napkin, fork and leftover food items after he ate at a local pizza parlor and used them to test for DNA.

Authorities believe the DNA matched evidence from some of the crime scenes and arrested and charged him with 10 counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

While the media carries on as if it's a done deal, a L.A. defense attorney understands the real work has not yet begun. Convicting someone of a murder that happened last week is a complex and challenging process. Convicting someone of 10 murders dating back 25 years will prove all but impossible.

We suspect the District Attorney's office will be forced to deal in this case, either by agreeing to a reduced sentence in exchange for a confession, or by focusing on one or two of the crimes and seeking a conviction using the cases with the strongest available evidence.

The use of a relative's DNA to track a suspect is also a controversial practice. As the New York Times reported, only Colorado and California have laws allowing for so-called "familial search." The use of DNA from convicted criminals to track down relatives who may also have committed a crime is a policy that experts criticize as a threat to civil liberties.

This arrest is the first time the practice has been used to solve a homicide case in the United States. There is no case law in place to govern a judge's decision-making. Any court verdict will be ripe for appeal -- perhaps all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. That alone, could prompt the District Attorney's Office to seek a plea bargain.

The killer was dubbed the Grim Sleeper because of a 14-year hiatus in the killings, which did not occur from 1988 until 2002. Such long breaks are extremely rare unless a defendant is in prison for another crime. There is no evidence in this case that the suspect was ever arrested -- in fact he apparently worked as a police mechanic before retiring.

There are more than 200 murders in L.A. each year -- or more than 5,000 over the 25-year period authorities allege the Grim Reaper killed 10 women and one man. An L.A. defense lawyer may well argue that these killings are unrelated and that no serial killer even exists.

Continue reading "Grim Sleeper case will test limits of DNA evidence in Los Angeles criminal cases" »

Authorities have filed additional criminal charges in Los Angeles against a man investigators liken to fictional secret agent Jason Bourne.

The L.A. Times reports that prosecutors have filed additional counterfeiting and weapons charges in Los Angeles against the man, who spent six weeks on the run after making a dramatic escape from a downtown loft overlooking the Federal Reserve building. In all, the man faces seven new felony counts, including forgery and drug charges, under an amended criminal complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The 34-year-old New Jersey resident had already been charged with possession of an AK-47 assault rifle, manufacture of a short- barrel shotgun and possession of firearms by a felon. He has pleaded not guilty to all 10 felony charges against him. If convicted, he faces up to 15 years in prison.

Authorities likened him to the fictional Jason Bourne after he evaded police by jumping down a fire escape from his downtown L.A. loft. After six weeks on the run, he was arrested without incident on June 3 at his girlfriend's hotel room in Little Tokyo. Investigators, who say the defendant has several different looks, report he was sporting close-cropped hair dyed auburn and fingers covered in glue to avoid leaving fingerprints.

The case began in late April after a neighbor called firefighters to report fumes coming from the penthouse. Police broke down the door in time to see a man escaping through a window carrying a duffel bag. Inside the $3,400 a month loft, police found sophisticated counterfeiting equipment and a collection of weapons, including the AK-47. Investigators also reported finding $15,000 in counterfeit $100 bills, a camera tripod, and a formula for Molotov cocktails written on the wall. A mosaic of the CIA seal was found on the floor.

Police have not determined why the defendant was so close to the Federal Reserve building on Grand Avenue, which the loft overlooked.

Continue reading "Secret agent man facing additional criminal charges in Los Angeles" »

The Mexican government is seeking the extradition of a television producer accused in the death of his wife, CNN reports.

A Los Angeles federal criminal defense attorney should be sought whenever a defendant faces charges in federal court. The rules and laws of federal court are entirely different from those in state court. An attorney with experience in defending clients in federal court will be best able to provide an aggressive defense. Los Angeles defendants facing extradition also have specific rights under the law.

In this case, Mexican Attorney General Francisco Alor said he has a "very concrete" case against former "Survivor" producer Bruce Beresford-Redman, who is wanted for the death of his wife at a Cancun resort. The request must go through the U.S. State Department in Washington and then to the Justice Department, before it would pass to a federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.

Meanwhile, the defendant is living with his children in Los Angeles.

Once the request arrives in L.A., the U.S. Attorney's Office here would ask a federal magistrate to issue an arrest warrant. A defense lawyer could then choose to fight extradition. His attorney has indicated that will happen, claiming Mexican officials have engaged in a rush to judgment in this case. The defendant was briefly detained after his wife's body was found in a sewer at the resort on April 8. His passport was confiscated and he was told not to leave Mexico. However, he returned to Los Angles last month without the knowledge of investigators, CNN reported.

The initial investigation suggested his wife died of strangulation. CNN reported that the wife had cleaned out the family bank account and took the children to Hawaii because she was upset about her husband's extramarital affair. The couple had reportedly been in Cancun in an attempt to repair their marriage.

Continue reading "Mexican officials seek federal extradition of TV producer accused in death of wife at Cancun resort" »

A hacker is facing charges in connection with Los Angeles computer crimes after authorities allege he extorted women and teenagers girls into providing sexually explicit videos, the Associated Press reports.

The digital age has brought an entirely new class of criminal charges to the forefront of criminal defense. Hiring a Los Angeles defense lawyer experienced in handling computer crimes is vital to ensuring a defendant's rights are protected.

In this case, the 31-year-old Santa Ana defendant was arrested at his home by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He faces an extortion charge that carries a maximum federal prison sentence of two years, according to the U.S. attorney's office.

Authorities allege that he extorted women and teenage girls into providing sexually explicit videos by threatening to release their personal data. He made an appearance in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom on Tuesday and was released on a $10,000 unsecured appearance bond. Conditions of his release include home detention and no computer use. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also put a detainer on him and will take him into custody as an illegal alien.

The alleged crime was sophisticated; authorities report that the defendant studied several computer languages, including Java and C++. Some victims have been identified and most are believed to be from the Southern California area. Although victim could be located elsewhere in the world. Authorities allege that the defendant found the victims on peer-to-peer networks in which users share files and communications pathways. He is accused of sending out files disguised as popular songs, but which contained malicious computer code. The code then spread to other computers through instant messaging.

Once he had control of their computers, he searched for sexually explicit images of the women. He also hacked e-mail accounts and posed as boyfriends requesting images. Occasionally, authorities say he was even able to turn on web cams and record explicit images without the user's knowledge. He is then accused of contacting some of the victims and threatening to distribute the videos unless they made more videos for him.

Investigators believe more than 100 computers were infected, involving about 230 people, including at least 44 minors.

Continue reading "Los Angeles computer crime allegedly involves extortion of sexually explicit videos" »

Drunk driving offenses in Los Angeles are in the news this week after a former NFL star was arrested on a DUI charge and a report was released detailing nearly three dozen alcohol-related incidents involving L.A. County sheriff's deputies.

Former NFL running back Corey Dillon has pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor drunk driving charges in Southern California, according to the Associated Press. The former Cincinnati Bengals and New England Patriots star was arrested in northwestern Los Angeles County.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times released a report claiming that 33 alcohol-related incidents have involved sheriff's deputies through May of this year. The allegations include:

-An off-duty sheriff's deputy arrested on suspicion of drunk driving with her children in the car -- She was arrested months later on another DUI charge. And then she was arrested a third time for allegedly negligently shooting her firearm while off-duty and under the influence of alcohol.

-An on-duty officer who allegedly caused a car accident while under the influence of alcohol.

-An off-duty officer who was arrested for allegedly driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level nearly twice the legal limit. She reportedly asked the arresting officer to be let off the hook.

Hiring a Los Angeles DUI defense attorney can have a significant impact on a drunk driving case. An experienced attorney will frequently be able to challenge evidence in your case, including the results of field sobriety tests and breathalyzer examinations. In other instances, the probable cause of a car stop and/or the admissibility of seized evidence may be challenged. When an attorney is successful, charges are often reduced or dismissed.

Fighting a DUI charge is more important than ever before. The tiered nature of penalties faced by DUI defendants means having a charge on your record exposes you to the serious risk of jail time or increased punishment in the event of another offense. Of course, no one plans on being charged with drunk driving once, let alone twice. But defendants face good chances of defending against a first-time DUI offense. While those with a DUI offense on their record face an increased likelihood of being stopped by law enforcement and rearrested for a subsequent offense.

Meanwhile, job loss can result from being convicted of drunk driving, particularly for those who must drive as part of their job, including commercial drivers, law enforcement and even postal employees.

The best defense against a Los Angeles drunk driving charge is a good offense.

Continue reading "Los Angeles DUI charges require aggressive defense" »

A 44-year-old woman is facing murder charges in Los Angeles in connection with the death of an aspiring actress two years ago, the L.A. Times reports.

The woman's 34-year-old roommate was also arrested but the district attorney's office has declined to charge him pending further investigation. Authorities have said little about the woman's connection to the slain model and have not released a potential motive, claiming the investigation is ongoing and more arrests are possible. It also remains unclear how she was connected to the slaying nearly two years after the crime.

But the case illustrates the importance of contacting a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney as early as possible if you believe you are being investigated or could be criminally charged. Few cases are as zealously investigated and prosecuted as murder, even in Los Angeles where hundreds of cases go uncharged each year. Murder charges are possible years or even decades after a crime. While it remains unclear, what, if anything, the roommate had to do with the case, prosecutors and investigators can certainly be counted on to attempt to force those surrounding a case to cooperate. Often authorities may threaten criminal charges are use other tactics to force someone to cooperate.

Consulting an aggressive and experienced defense attorney is the only viable means of protecting your rights. Authorities have one job: To gather evidence of guilt and prosecute those responsible. Your attorney will be the only person able to fight for your rights and ensure that you are protected under the law.

The arrests were made last week in Camarillo and the defendant in the case was scheduled to be arraigned this week in Los Angeles on one county of murder. She faces 25 years to life in prison if convicted.

The crime sent shockwaves through the tony community along Santa Monica Boulevard and Centinela Avenue. The Arizona native had moved to Los Angeles to pursue work as an actress and model. She had appeared in Maxim magazine before her death and was working at a tapas bar in Venice.

Police responded to her condo after her mother called from Tucson to report her daughter was not returning phone calls. Her body showed signs of physical assault.

Santa Monica police report devoting thousands of hours to the investigation, working in concert with local state and federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Continue reading "Los Angeles murder charge filed in death of aspiring actress " »

Dynasty Actor James Farentino has been arrested on a misdemeanor battery charge after authorities claim he attempted to physically remove a man from his home, the Associated Press reported.

The circumstances of this case are unclear. But, from the perspective of a Los Angeles defense lawyer experienced in handling assault and battery charges, Farentino should not be convicted of battery. He has every right to make someone to leave his home and may use force if necessary as an act of self defense.

However, media reports indicate that the man called police and invoked his right to make a citizen's arrest. Unless the 72-year-old Farentino is under some sort of court-ordered guardianship for health and welfare reasons, we find it unlikely that he could be convicted of battery for attempting to force someone to leave his home when the person refused to leave voluntarily. If mental health is an issue, a defense attorney will also take that into account in arguing for a dismissal of this case.

Farentino spent the night and jail and was released on $20,000 bail.

The California assault and battery charge was filed as simple misdemeanor battery. Assault and battery can be either a misdemeanor or felony and is one of the most overused laws on the books. Authorities in L.A. frequently charge someone with battery in order to end a confrontational situation after being called to the scene of an argument. Self-defense is a viable argument against an assault and battery charge.

Under California law, assault and battery can be charged as a felony, and may even count as a strike under California's Three Strikes Law. Sex crimes, assault on a police officer, the use of a deadly weapon and the extent of a victim's injuries may all contribute to an assault or battery charge being elevated to a felony.

Continue reading "Dynasty actor facing L.A. battery charge for attempting to force man from home" »