Criminal Defense

Have you ever imagined that your email account can be viewed without your permission? What about your phone records? Do you think that the government must obtain a warrant before seeking to search those records? Well, you are wrong. Under the current version of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) that is supposed to protect the privacy of our electronic communications and personal information, only a subpoena may be required. The purpose of this law is to protect us from unreasonable governmental or third party intrusions. This regulation deals with a broad range of issues related to storing electronic information regarding internet search history, e-mail, online purchase records, digital information stored online, and even mobile phone GPS data.

However, under the current ECPA standard, a warrant is only required for the first 180 days when an email you have received remains unopened in your mail box. If you open an email, or a 180-day period is over, the government is only required to subpoena those records without seeking a search warrant. In fact, in many cases the government does not need even to resort to subpoenaing your records in order to track down your online whereabouts. For example, there is a search platform developed by a legal service provider Westlaw that is specifically designed to assist government agencies and law enforcement authorities in searching your social networking. It is called “CLEAR.” It allows the government to search your social networking websites, blogs and chat rooms for specific text and photo information that can be related to you without giving you any advance notice, let alone issuing a subpoena or warrant. So next time you log into your Face Book or My Space account be careful what you type in and what images you post online. You must know that this information may be search by law enforcement authorities at any time they suspect you are involved in criminal activity.

Wallin & Klarich has over 30 years of criminal defense experience and knows how to identify and successfully litigate issues related to our clients’ reasonable expectation of privacy. Call (888) 749-0034 to speak to one of Wallin & Klarich’s aggressive and experienced criminal defense attorneys in California today. Please visit us at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

On July 20, 2010, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a “Beds for Feds” deal with the federal government to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees to be held in two county jails.

Orange County agreed to rent a total of 838 beds at Theo Lacy Jail in Orange and James A. Musick detention facility in Irvine. The deal will bring over $30 million a year to Orange County for the next five years and will ease the $65 million shortfall projected for the Sheriff’s Department budget next year. Orange County agreed to renovate both jails, at a cost of around $6 million, to accommodate the new detainees.

The City of Orange expressed concern for the deal, especially considering Theo Lacy Jail’s close proximity to the Block, a popular shopping center. However, according to Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, 91% of the detainees are eventually deported and the remainder are transferred to federal facilities. Thus, Hutchens stated that no detainees will be released at the respective jails in Orange and Irvine.

If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, you will need an experienced Orange County criminal defense attorney who will advise you of the possible consequences of a guilty plea or conviction. At Wallin & Klarich, we have helped people accused of crimes for over 30 years. Feel free to contact us at (888) 280-6839 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (888) 280-6839      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (888) 280-6839      end_of_the_skype_highlighting or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

This is a warning given by law enforcement to a criminal suspect in police custody, or custodial situation, prior to being questioned by the officers. A custodial situation is one where a person’s freedom of movement is restrained and a reasonable person would not feel free to leave the situation. Some times officers will indicate to the suspect that he is not under arrest and he or she is free to go. However, they frequently follow that statement with we would like to ask you some questions.

Any questioning that happens where the suspect is free to leave could be considered voluntary and therefore admissible in court. After an arrest or when the suspect is in custody, the police must read the Miranda rights to the suspect before any questioning can be used in court. A voluntary statement may also be used in court, and the police aren’t required to give the warnings, as long as the officers do not elicit any incriminating responses through the questioning.

There are many times, that the most incriminating evidence to a crime is the defendant’s statement. So in most instances, it would be preferable to the attorney who subsequently represents you, that the suspect not say anything to the officers other than what is required, namely your name, date of birth and address and if you are on probation or parole.

A good thing to keep in mind, is that generally a persons invocation of their rights including the right to remain silent cannot be used against them in court. So the prosecutor cannot say in court, “If the defendant did not do the crime, why didn’t he say so?” It is usually always better to speak to an Southern California defense attorney first prior to speaking with an officer who is investigating you for a crime.

If you or a loved one is facing a any criminal charges, contact the criminal defense attorneys at Wallin and Klarich. We at Wallin and Klarich have many years of experience successfully defending people charged with all types of crimes. We will work to aggressively defend you by investigating all aspects of your case. We will work to ensure that your rights are protected and that you clearly understand the legal process. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can be reached by phone at 1-877-230-1529 or through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

According to TMZ, Mel Gibson’s taped comments may have indicated that he punched his ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva. Grigorieva recorded a telephone conversation where Mel Gibson allegedly made certain inflammatory comments. Gibson is allegedly heard telling Grigorieva that “You need a (expletive) bat to the side of the head.” Grigorieva then says, “You were hitting a woman with a child in her hands. You! What kind of a man is that, hitting a woman when she’s holding a child in her hands? Breaking her teeth, twice, in the face. What kind of man is that?” Mel Gibson then replies by saying, “You know what, you (expletive) deserved it.”

If it is proven that the audio recording is true and that Mel Gibson is the person being recorded, the prosecution may use the recording as evidence to charge Mel Gibson with domestic violence. The manner in which the conversation was being recorded may also indicate that Grigorieva was attempting to set Gibson up. Grigorieva previously filed a complaint against Gibson for domestic violence. The case was being investigated before the tapes were released.

Normally, it is a crime in California to record a phone conversation without the consent of both parties. See California Penal Code Section 632.5. This crime is considered to be a “wobbler.” This means that the prosecution has discretion to charge the crime as a felony or a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor conviction is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and imprisonment in county jail for up to one year. A felony conviction is punishable by the same fine and imprisonment in state prison for up to three years. However, there is an exception to this rule if the recording is made by one party for the purpose of obtaining evidence relating to a domestic violence case. See California Penal Code Section 633.5. The recording becomes admissible in a criminal prosecution for domestic violence. It seems that the prosecution will be closely examining the tape recordings and determine whether they will file charges against Gibson.

If your or a loved one is facing a charge of domestic violence, it is important that you speak with an experienced domestic violence attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California domestic violence attorneys have over 30 years of experience in defending the criminally accused. If you are in a similar situation and had your phone conversation recorded, our attorneys are highly knowledgeable in the domestic violence laws and can inform you on whether a tape recording was lawfully recorded and admissible as evidence. We will look at every fact of your case in detail to provide you with the best possible defense and to get you the best possible result. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

On July 13, 2010, Colton Harris-Moore, the so-called “Barefoot Bandit”,
plead guilty to illegally landing a plane in the Bahamas. He was
sentenced to three months in jail and a $300 fine, and is facing
deportation or extradition to the United States for numerous thefts and
burglaries in multiple states.

Harris-Moore arrived in the Bahamas by allegedly stealing an airplane in
Indiana and piloting it the islands. He is wanted in Washington State
on previous charges of stealing an airplane. He received his nickname
because he allegedly committed many of his crimes while barefoot.

Under California Penal Code sections 459 and 460, any person who enters
into an inhabited dwelling with the intent to commit larceny or any
felony is guilty of first degree burglary. First degree burglary is
punishable by two, four, or six years in state prison. (California
Penal Code section 461(a).)

Under California Penal Code sections 459 and 460, any person entering an
automobile or aircraft with intent to commit larceny or any felony is
guilty of second degree burglary. For a person to be guilty of second
degree burglary of an automobile, the doors must be locked. Second
degree burglary is punishable by a year in prison, or 16 months, 2
years, or 3 years in state prison. (California Penal Code section
461(b).)

Under Penal Code section 487(d)(1), a person is guilty of grand theft
when she steals an automobile or aircraft. Grand theft is punishable by
up to a year in jail, or 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison.
Depending on the value of the automobile or aircraft, the person may be
subject to an even longer sentence. (California Penal Code section
12022.6.)

If you or someone you know has been accused of a theft or burglary, you
will need an experienced Southern California criminal attorney who will
vigorously defend you. At Wallin & Klarich, we have over 30 years
experience defending a variety of criminal matters, including thefts and
burglaries. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at our website
at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

According to ABC News, Lindsay Lohan is looking for a new lawyer after being sentenced to 90 days in jail for violating the terms of her probation. At Wallin & Klarich, we know that Lohan is not the only one looking for an attorney. Hiring the most experienced law firm immediately after you have been arrested is probably the most important decision you will make in your entire case. Your decision should be based upon many important factors.

Listed below is a list of 10 tips on how to hire the right law firm when you are facing a criminal charge. The final decision as to whom you should hire to help you or your loved one is who you believe has:

1. The experience to handle your type of case
2. The experience to handle your case in the exact courthouse where your case is pending
3. Many criminal defense attorneys working together as a team on your case
4. A law firm that was there to answer your phone call when you first called for help
5. A law firm that allows you to communicate with them via email on a regular basis
6. A law firm that wants you to tell them about your defenses and your personal history so they can be ready to defend you
7. A law firm with an “AV RATING” by Martindale Hubbell and a “superb rating” by AVVO.COM
8. A law firm that provides you with “testimonials” from prior clients who were very happy with the services they received
9. A law firm that will be honest with you and tell you the truth about your case so there are no surprises
10. A law firm that will charge you a reasonable fee considering all of the facts of your case

If you or a loved one is facing a criminal charge, it is important that you hire the right attorney to defend your case and keep you out of jail. At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling all types of criminal cases. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

In People v. Datt, the Sixth District of the California Court of Appeal held that appellant trial counsel’s failure to present an expert witness in a trial where an uncorroborated identification is at issue did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

On September 30, 2007, at 2:00 or 2:30 a.m., Santa Clara County Sheriff Ramon Marquez testified that he observed a “suspicious” looking Honda Civic with two people who appeared to be Hispanic inside. Marquez testified that he checked the registration, determined that it had expired, and attempted to initiate a traffic stop. Marquez testified that the vehicle sped off, but the driver eventually abandoned the vehicle and fled on foot.

As the driver exited his vehicle, Marquez testified that the driver was about 20 feet away and had about 3.5 seconds to look directly at him. Marquez stated that driver was an adult male, around six feet tall, slender, and wearing dark pants and a black “windbreaker-type” jacket. According to Marquez, the driver had a ponytail and a “very distinctive look.” Marquez also testified that the driver’s skin was darker than he originally thought.

As other police units arrived to assist in the search for the driver, Marquez testified that he described the driver as black, six feet to six feet three inches tall, wearing dark clothing. Marquez testified that he did not mention the ponytail in his description to the search units.

Police found the driver, appellant Yogeshwar Yogi Datt, 30 minutes after the search began. Marquez testified that he was wearing dark pants and a black jacket, but was only five foot ten inches tall. Marquez also testified that Datt appeared to be Middle Eastern or Indian, not African-American.

Datt’s trial counsel rested without presenting evidence. During closing argument, Datt’s trial counsel attempted to discredit Marquez’ identification of Datt by emphasizing the dark early morning hour, the stress of a high-speed chase, the distance between Marquez and Datt when Datt abandoned his vehicle, and the discrepancies between Marquez’ initial descriptions of Datt and his actual appearance.

On appeal, Datt claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to call an expert witness to testify to the possible inaccuracy of Marquez’ identification.

The court of appeal affirmed, holding that it was not necessary to call an expert identification witness for every uncorroborated witness identification. The court found that the jury instruction set forth multiple relevant factors to guide the jury in determining whether an identification was credible, and defendant’s trial counsel made specific reference to these factors.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel. Ineffective assistance of counsel occurs when the defense attorney’s representation is deficient, meaning that the representation fell below the reasonable standard expected of attorneys. The law presumes that an attorney’s representation is not deficient, so this is a high standard for the defendant to overcome. Furthermore, the deficiency must have prejudiced the defendant, meaning that if representation had not been deficient, the outcome of the case would have been different.

If you or someone you know is facing a criminal trial, you need an attorney who will explore every possible defense. If you or someone you know has already gone through trial, then you will need a competent appeals attorney who will review the trial record and identify any errors made by trial counsel or the court. We have over 30 years experience in all aspects of criminal trial, and we will zealously represent you at trial and on appeal. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

As recently reported by CNN, twenty-six leaders of the American Outlaws Association, a motorcycle gang, have been arrested and one has been killed in a shootout during a nationwide roundup. A federal grand jury in Virginia indicted the members on multiple criminal charges. The 12-count indictment includes attempted murder, kidnapping, conspiracy, robbery, extortion, assault, witness intimidation, drug dealing, illegal gambling, and weapons violations.

More than 50 Outlaws were targeted in the raids which spanned seven states. Arrests were made in Wisconsin, Maine, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Virginia.

According to the Justice Department, the Outlaws have in excess of 1,700 members who belong to 176 chapters in the U.S. and 12 foreign countries. They are engaged in the production, transportation, and distribution of illegal drugs (i.e., marijuana, methamphetamines, and cocaine) as well as violent activity. The Outlaws members have been reported to attack rival gangs in order to gain territory.

Consequences for gang-related activities will be severe and unforgiving. If you or a loved one faces criminal charges, contact one of our Southern California Criminal Defense Attorneys for a free evaluation. With over 30 years of experience, the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have successfully defended thousands of clients from criminal charges. Call us at (888) 280-6839 or contact us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

In a Dutch newspaper article published on June 21, 2010, Joran van der Sloot claims Peruvian police “tricked” him into confessing to the murder of Stephany Flores Ramirez.

Previously, van der Sloot had been suspected of murdering American teen Natalee Holloway, though he was never formally charged.

In a jail interview, van der Sloot told journalists that he was in a “blind panic” when he signed his confession documents and did not know what he was signing. He also claimed that if he confessed, Peruvian police had promised him that he would be transferred to the Netherlands.

In the United States, under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, coerced confessions cannot be used against a defendant. If an accused challenges the legality of a confession, the court must determine whether the confession was in fact “legally” coerced.

A relevant factor in determining whether a confession was coerced is the physical, mental, and emotional state of the defendant at the time of the confession. The Court has held that confessions obtained through prolonged interrogation or torture are coerced.

Instead of overt physical violence, police officers are trained to use psychological tricks during criminal interrogation to pressure suspects to confess. These interrogation techniques include manipulating the environment (using bright lights and placing suspects in a starkly furnished room), the “good cop/bad copy” dynamic, exaggerating the evidence against the suspect, or lying to the suspect by saying that another person has already implicated him. Though the Court has recognized that police psychologically pressure suspects to give false confessions, that pressure is only one factor in determining whether a confession was coerced.

Once a confession is given, it is difficult for prosecutors or juries to disregard: they reason that only a guilty person would admit to a crime. Thus, never speak to law enforcement prior to retaining legal counsel to guide you. It can truly make the difference between winning and losing your case.

If you or a loved one have confessed to a crime because of police coercion, you will need experienced criminal attorneys who know the law and will vigorously defend you. At Wallin & Klarich, we have over 30 years experience in all aspects of criminal law, including exposing false and coerced confessions. We will find experts who will testify to the psychological tricks police use to pressure you to make a false or coerced confession. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

It was recently reported in the OC Register that Freddy Pacheco, suspected of armed robbery of a Chevron gas station in Lake Forest last week, was arrested for a second robbery attempt of a mobile vendor in Laguna Hills on Saturday night. Pacheco was booked on suspicion of armed robbery in both Laguna Hills and Lake Forest, and was taken to Orange County Jail on the $250,000 warrant issued for the Lake Forest robbery. From the gas station’s videotape surveillance and other forensic evidence, authorities believe it was Pacheco who entered the Chevron gas station and pulled a semi-automatic handgun from his front pocket and threatened the clerk to either give Pacheco the money or Pacheco would kill him. The clerk handed over the money and called the police after the suspect fled.

Under California Penal Code (CPC) Section 211, robbery is defined as the “felonious taking” of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. “Felonious taking” is defined as the illegal taking away of something. Robbery is classified as a felony and is a serious offense. Under the Penal Code, robbery is broken down into two degrees. First degree includes such actions as robbery of a mode of public transportation (bus, taxi, etc), any passenger on such a hired vehicle, an inhabited dwelling, an ATM transaction, or an inhabited portion of a building. All other robberies are in the second degree. The punishment for first degree robbery can be up to nine years in a state prison. The punishment for second degree robbery can be up to five years.

Felony robbery is a strike under California’s Three Strikes law. See California Penal Code Section 667, 1192.7(c)(19). If this offense is your third strike, you will face 25 years in state prison.

For more information on this crime, visit our site at ww.wklaw.com and read our robbery section.

Robbery charges, in whatever degree, is a serious offense. It is therefore necessary to retain out experienced legal representation immediately. The criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been handling robbery cases for more than 20 years. Out Southern California attorneys will do a thorough investigation of all the facts and raise all possible defenses on your behalf. Facing possible imprisonment in state prison is a terrifying ordeal, and we will be here for you throughout this experience. Call Wallin & Klarich today at (888) 280-6839 and visit us on out website at www.wklaw.com to speak with one of our attorneys regarding your matter. We will be there when you call.