Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

In what has been an ongoing situation that has perplexed Los Angeles police detectives, an arrest has yet to be made in the case of the body parts discovered near the Hollywood sign, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers look at cases like this and see a myriad of problems. It's certainly possible that detectives will get tips that lead them to a Los Angeles murder suspect, but given the circumstances of the case, it may be tough.

According to the newspaper, people walking their dogs found a severed head in the park near the park near the Hollywood sign. When police arrived and used specially trained police cadaver dogs, they found two hands and two feet nearby.

The residents found the head after their dogs started playing with a plastic bag. That's when they made the gruesome discovery. Police in recent days have executed search warrants in connection with the case, but it's unclear if they have any suspects.

The newspaper reports that authorities are working under the assumption that the victim was killed within one or two days of when the head was discovered. The first step will be for detectives to try to identify the person through fingerprints on the hands.

Previous news articles have suggested police believe animals could have gotten to the other body parts, which would make finding them or coming up with useful evidence from them difficult. This is yet another roadblock for the investigation.

The evidence in this case may be so poorly preserved that finding the true killer could be next to impossible. Police may get lucky, but by now, it's been several days since the head was discovered. As time goes by, the likelihood that if police do come up with a suspect they can connect to the crimes is getting weaker. Proving where the killing happened, what weapon was used, where the weapon is now, whether there is any DNA that hasn't been compromised and other facts is going to be tough.

The newspaper recently reported that police were able to identify the victim as a 66-year-old man who went missing eight days before his head was found. The man's partner reported him missing January 9 after the man failed to return home.

Friends and family said the man left their apartment Dec. 26 but continued to stay in touch until January 4. The man's boyfriend said that he became concerned after not hearing from him, so he reported him missing January 9. The man is a former airline employee who often walked his dog in the hills.

It appears from the Times article that police are honing in on people the man knew. One neighbor said that three weeks ago there was commotion in the apartment, with yelling and screaming and furniture being moved. Detectives asked the neighbor when the garbage was taken out.

But if a suspect is fingered, it's likely that an experienced Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer will attack all of these points and more. When murder is the charge, everything changes. If the person faces the death penalty, even more preparation must be put into the case in order to ensure justice is done.

Continue reading "Los Angeles Police Still Have No Arrests In Severed Head Murder Case" »

The homeless community has been terrorized in recent weeks as four have been killed in violent attacks that police say were linked to one man, a former Marine, the Associated Press is reporting.

Proving a charge of murder in Los Angeles requires the most stringent evidence, not simply circumstances to put a person in prison for the rest of their life. Unfortunately, the state sometimes brings murder charges against a person without strong evidence.

That's where an experienced Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer comes into play. Without a strong attorney by their side, a defendant facing murder charges can encounter an uphill battle.

But weak evidence invites reasonable doubt to creep in. The standard of proof in any criminal case in California is proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Jurors are instructed that if they feel there is doubt that the defendant committed the crime, they must acquit him or her of the charges.

What the state sometimes attempts to do in these cases is prove a case solely with circumstantial evidence, such as the defendant not having an alibi or having a motive to commit the crime. But often, they lack physical evidence, such as a weapon that matches the murder weapon, fingerprints at the scene or DNA left behind that implicates the person.

This is a double-edged sword for defendants. On the one hand, they are being charged with a serious crime without relevant evidence. On the other hand, if they go to trial with weak evidence against them, they may have an improved chance of getting a not guilty verdict.

In this case, the Associated Press reports, a 23-year-old who served as a Marine in Iraq has been charged with stabbing to death four homeless men he allegedly stalked after seeing a news article about them. The man allegedly chose the victims after an article featured police warning homeless men to be careful. At least three of the victims were stabbed more than 40 times.

The district attorney in Orange County is now working to decide whether or not to seek the death penalty against the man. Prosecutors say they have no reason to believe the man is mentally ill. His father is homeless.

Police say the killings started in December and the man was arrested after witnesses chased him down after a homeless man was killed outside an Anaheim fast food restaurant. Police say the homeless man had filed a police report stating that someone was following him, but police said they were working through hundreds of reports and leads and hadn't gotten to that one yet.

The man's father told the Associated Press that his son visited him recently and showed him pictures of the victims, warning him of the dangers of living on the streets. Police also said they twice talked to the man in motorist checkpoints set up by police to gain information about the killings, but that he wasn't suspicious to them.

Continue reading "Former Marine Accused of Los Angeles Homeless Serial Killing" »

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 Los Angeles Times article reports that the California Supreme Court has overturned the death penalty for two men convicted of murder.

This shows that the skills of an experienced Los Angeles criminal defense attorney have two benefits -- possible acquittal at trial, and preparing the way for possible appeal if there's a conviction.

Murder is the most explosive charge on the books. It must be taken seriously because not only has one person died, but another person's liberty is at stake and possibly his life as well. In California, a person convicted of first-degree murder can be executed by the state.

Murder in Los Angeles must be treated differently than other crimes. That means judges must watch what they say in front of jurors, prosecutors must ensure that a defendant's rights are upheld and a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer must do much preparation to get ready for trial.

If a person is to be charged with first-degree murder, the state must have proof beyond all reasonable doubt that these charges are legitimate. A person simply cannot be convicted of this charge if there is doubt. There is too much on the line. Simply said, death is different.

According to the Times piece, the California Supreme Court broke its streak of upholding 50 straight death sentences when it overturned the conviction of an alleged gang leader in Los Angeles and his alleged accomplice in two killings that have left them on death row for the last 15 years.

The court unanimously ruled that the two men who were convicted in 1997 didn't get a fair trial when a judge removed a juror who seemed to be critical of the state's case. The ruling stated that the judge had a lack of evidence to remove the juror.

The state alleges the purported leader led a gang that was responsible for 60 South Los Angeles killings. He was convicted of ordering his co-defendant to kill two rival gang members. He faced other killings, but another jury deadlocked on whether he was guilty.

Justices wrote that the juror who was removed was deliberating properly and was relying on their experience and not biased against the state in evaluating witnesses that the state presented. Jurors are allowed to judge the credibility of witnesses, justices wrote.

Prosecutors haven't said whether they will retry the men, but did indicate they will wait to read the ruling first. Attorneys for the men said they were pleased with the high court's decision, but frustrated it took so long, with one calling the decision a "foregone conclusion."

This case shows that a defense attorney at trial can make objections and keep them in the record so that lawyers and judges in the future may be able to see that errors were made. Not only will a good lawyer fight on behalf of the defendant now, but help prepare their appeal in the future, if needed.

Continue reading "Aggressive Los Angeles Murder Defense Can Set Table For Future Appeals" »

A recent court case out of Illinois highlights the great lengths to which law enforcement will go in order to arrest a person for murder. An incident likes this could happen to anyone, including those charged with murder in Los Angeles and elsewhere.

The case of Aleman v. Village of Hanover Park is a cautionary tale for defendants who may be charged with a crime.

Our Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers understand that police are under pressure to make arrests, especially in violent cases such as murder. They work overnight, get little sleep, review scads of documents, talk with witnesses, and look for clues as to who may be responsible.

They get calls from the media, from their bosses, from political leaders, from the victim's family and others who are looking for quick answers. We understand the pressure, but investigators must follow the rules and apply ethical judgment when doing their job.

In the Illinois case, Aleman ran a daycare from his home, which included caring for his own five children. In September 2005, after about five months in business, an incident happened that changed his life.

One day, a mother dropped off her 11-month-old son, who was lethargic and feverish. Shortly after dropping the boy off, he began grasping for air and collapsed. The man called for an ambulance and performed CPR, but was only able to get some fluid out of the boy's mouth.

Police asked him and his wife to come to the police station, which he did. After 45 minutes in an interrogation room without seeing anyone, he asked if he could come back in an hour and he was told no because he was under arrest. Five hours later, two officers entered the room.

They told him he had the most information and they wanted to speak with him. He asked to speak with his lawyer, which they allowed, but in the meantime, drafted a waiver of rights form for him to sign. His lawyers smartly told him not to speak to officers, but during their conversation, one of them got on the phone and talked with the lawyer.

They allowed him to make several other calls, though he didn't want to talk to them, they continued pressuring him. Eventually, he called his lawyer again and relayed to police his attorney said it was fine for him to talk to police. He then gave a four-hour statement, during which he made an admission to possibly shaking the boy.

He was charged with aggravated battery of a child, which was later upgraded to murder when the boy died. But, as prosecutors discovered, police went out of their way to finger this man when there was no evidence.

One of the main investigators had been in contact with the boy's mother and knew she had a violent past with a criminal history and had threatened the boy, was known to have hit him and wanted him dead. Yet, the officer tried to hide that from other detectives.

After a medical examiner found the boy couldn't have died from blows by the man that day, the detective told her he had information to believe the boy was acting normally and was healthy on the day in question and she changed her opinion. Once she found out she was lied to, she changed it back.

Charges were later dropped by prosecutors, though the mother was never charged. The man is now suing the police department and officers for their mistreatment.

Continue reading "Aleman v. Village of Hanover Park Shows Sloppy Police Work Leads to Unjust Murder Charges" »

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" »

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 the Georgia case of State v. Green, the state Supreme Court ruled that a man who should not have faced murder charges should go free because he was acting in self-defense.

Fighting murder charges in Los Angeles is a big responsibility for any criminal defense lawyer. It takes a high degree of dedication and unique experience. Our Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers have represented many defendants charged with murder and other high-profile crimes.

In many of those cases, a theory of self-defense was presented because that is one of the most solid ways a suspect can have his or her charges dropped. While poking holes in the state's case is one way that must be explored, a person defending himself or herself in is at the top of the list as well.

Many states have adopted "Stand Your Ground" and "castle doctrine" laws that allow homeowners and people who are out in public a right to use force -- even deadly force -- if they are in fear. While prosecutors have said these laws allow people free will to murder, we see it differently.

This allows people to defend themselves so they aren't victimized by others. Many people carry a weapon at all times -- many legally, but some illegally. If a person uses a gun or knife in an effort to commit an armed robbery or bursts into a person's home, they have the right to defend themselves.

In State v. Green, Green defended himself and ended up having to face a murder charge as a result. According to court documents, Green was in the kitchen of a house where he rented a room from a husband and wife. He was preparing dinner with a butcher knife, talking with the wife, when the woman's husband became enraged and told him he wanted him out of the house and was going to refund his rent.

Not trusting that the man was only going to retrieve money from another room, he held onto the knife just ion case. When the man returned, he grabbed Green's wrists and head-butted him. In the process, the knife cut through the man's leg and hit his femoral artery, causing extensive bleeding.

The man bled to death and Green was later indicted on charges of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault and possession of a knife during a felony. His attorney filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, which was granted by the trial court, which found that he acted in self-defense after the other man head-butted him.

The state, after having little evidence to charge him in the first place, appealed the decision. But the state Supreme Court put prosecutors in their place by denying their appeal and upholding the trial court's decision.

As far as murder cases go, this appears to be a no-brainer and a case where the defendant shouldn't have been charged in the first place. And as Green has testified, he wasn't trying to stab the man.

There was little evidence to support criminal charges in this case, but it's a good thing the appeals process held up in this situation. Otherwise, Georgia might have had another innocent man on death row.

Continue reading "State v. Green Shows Why Aggressive Murder Defense Can Lead to Dropped Charges" »

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" »

New Jersey's Supreme Court recently ruled that witnesses who have questionable stories must be extensively questioned, and a judge may give jurors additional instructions during trial, The New York Times reports.

Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys hope California officials are listening. We have seen many defendants hauled into court, had the media spotlight thrust upon them and had charges ultimately dismissed -- often without a notice in the newspaper or on TV years later -- because of poor witness identification.

Whether it's a charge of murder in Los Angeles or a drug case with less than credible witnesses, defendants historically have had their lives turned upside down because sometimes the state relies on weak witnesses to get them convictions.

This goes for co-defendants as well. Prosecutors will often make a "deal with the devil" by giving co-defendants who face similar charges short prison sentences or lenient probation terms in order to convince them to testify against their co-defendant.

These "witnesses" are put on public display and must say what the state wants to hear. If they vary, even a little, and if the co-defendant doesn't get convicted, they can end up having their plea agreements shredded and go on trial just like the rest of them. You better believe they are willing to say what the state wants them to hear.

The changes in New Jersey courts likely apply more in situations where witnesses in a shooting, for instance, tell police they saw the person who committed the crime. But then after being shown police lineups or giving statements, their story waivers. Once they take a deposition -- where defense attorneys and prosecutors ask pointed questions after reviewing the evidence -- that's when the cracks start to show and the testimony crumbles.

Yet, the aggressive prosecutor uses them anyway. But now in New Jersey, defendants can ask for a pretrial hearing if there is evidence that the witness's credibility is at stake. Additionally, during the hearing a judge can examine whether the person is telling the truth or has enough knowledge to be useful.

There are many factors to consider and questions to ask during the hearing to determine whether the witness is credible. Were police an influence in what the person said during the investigation? What time of day did the incident occur, and how far away from the suspect was the "witness?" There can also be discussion about whether the witness was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Even if a witness is cleared to testify before a jury, the judge can talk to jurors at any time to tell them how witnesses could misidentify a suspect and explain the factors that can lead to wrong identification.

This is a victory in New Jersey for defendants. We hope it becomes a reality in California as well. The New York Times speculates that while it applies only to New Jersey cases, the court there has previously been a trend-setter and influential to other states' laws.

We agree with New Jersey justices that there is a "troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications" that have led to many overturned convictions, perhaps the leading reason. This is an easily fixable situation. Judges must be empowered, and defendants as well, to hold the state accountable for their actions in using weak witnesses.

Continue reading "Witness Problems May Lead to Changes in Los Angeles Criminal Court" »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Los Angeles Times recently reported that police have arrested a man in Ohio and charged him with a 1978 homicide.

Some people consider Murder charges in Los Angeles some of the most cut-and-dried cases. If police make an arrest, people tend to trust them and believe the person is guilty. Luckily, that's not how our criminal justice system works. An arrest means very little and prosecutors must be held to the standard of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

And that's where a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney comes into play in order to protect the rights of the accused.

In this case, the 62-year-old man was arrested in Delaware, Ohio recently. A Los Angeles warrant issued for his arrest was served and he was taken into custody, the newspaper reports. The man is expected to face a judge in Ohio to determine whether he will be extradited to Los Angeles.

According to the Times, the man is now unemployed, but is a former carnival worker. He is suspected in the April 10, 1978 killing of a 52-year-old man who was a comptroller for a company in Santa Monica. A friend discovered the victim stabbed to death inside his home, but the case went cold, despite a $5,000 reward.

The defendant, who is originally from Virginia, has been living in Ohio since the mid 1990s and worked for carnivals in several states. The cold case was re-investigated in 2010 and police say scientific testing connected the defendant to the case.

Detectives say documentation shows the defendant had been in Los Angeles in 1969; and they believe evidence showed he had been in the victim's house at the time of the slaying. The report doesn't state the specific evidence detectives will rely on for proof of the crime.

Cold cases, especially those involving murders from years or decades ago, can be some of the toughest for law enforcement to prove. In many of these cases, witnesses forget key details of what they saw or as time passes, they change their story about what they saw and the seemingly less important facts fade away. Or, witnesses simply die or move away and are unavailable to law enforcement.

Because DNA is a relatively new form of evidence for police and detectives, it is sometimes applied to older cases, as it apparently was in this case, in an effort to solve crimes. But while some consider DNA fool-proof, it isn't.

Unlike TV dramas about murder, DNA results don't come back after 30 minutes in a computer saying it's a 100 percent match to the suspect. It's much more complicated and can be defended by improper testing or transport of evidence and even the results themselves come back in a format that can sometimes be interpreted as not linking the suspect to the crime.

Just like anyone else, the police do make mistakes. So do prosecutors. But only an experienced and diligent Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney can point out these mistakes and use them to ensure a fair trial for the defendant.

Continue reading "Former Carnival Worker Charged with 1978 Los Angeles Murder" »

The alleged "Grim Sleeper," a 57-year-old man from South Los Angeles, will face the death penalty if convicted of killing 10 women and possibly eight others, stemming back to the early 1980s, the Los Angeles Times reports.

It goes without saying that murder is the most serious charge that a person can face in our criminal justice system. Murder in Los Angeles can send a person to prison for decades or life or, in the worst-case scenario, can result in the death penalty. That's why hiring a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney with years of experience handling murder cases is necessary.

In this case, the man was arrested last July and is charged with killing 10 women and attempted murder in the case of a woman who allegedly survived his attack. This spring, investigators said he may have killed an additional eight women, including three whose photos and identification cards were found in a refrigerator in the man's garage.

The man's alleged victims range in age from 15 to 35. He got the name from the media because of what appeared to be a period of inactivity separating the killings -- 13 years. Police were skeptical of the long break and now believe he was involved in two of the other eight killings that happened during the 13-year period.

According to the article, no physical evidence implicates Franklin related to the eight women. Investigators allegedly found photographs of other women throughout his house, which he shared with his wife, who refused to speak to police. But police also found photos of other women in the refrigerator.

He was a garbage collector for the Los Angeles Department of Sanitation during the years the first seven killings occurred from 1985 to 1988. The other three happened between 2002 and 2007, the Times reports.

While the case has generated media attention and buzz in the community because of the media-designated name for the suspect, it appears police have little evidence other than pictures of and identification cards of victims in a refrigerator inside his house. In cases like this, police and prosecutors must be very sure of the evidence before bringing charges and certainly before seeking the death penalty.

While the media often doesn't have the whole story, it appears at this juncture that the evidence against the man is circumstantial at best. It would be wise for any defendant, but especially one facing a murder charge, not to speak with police. They are able to lie, say they have evidence they don't actually have and otherwise trick defendants into confessing, which is the detective's only goal.

Immediately consulting with an experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney should be the suspect's first step, as to ensure all rights are protected throughout the process. Don't simply waive your rights for the police. They aren't your friends when you're a suspect. Planning a defense starts on Day One and lasts throughout the case. Fight aggressively and make sure to hold the state accountable and force them to prove all charges beyond all reasonable doubt.

Continue reading "'Grim Sleeper' Facing Death Penalty in Alleged Serial Murder Case" »