The fact of the case are as follows. Goodman ran a stop sign and smashed into the car of Scott Patrick Wilson, killing him. Goodman failed to call 911 and fled the scene on foot. When the police finally caught up with him, his blood alcohol content was more than twice the legal limit.

Goodman’s criminal trial is on March 6th, and he faces as many as 30 years in prison. It’s the civil trial, set for later in March, where things get weird.

Goodman had set up a trust fund for his two children, and it was determined that the funds in that trust account weren’t subject to punitive damages the Wilson family could collect in their civil trial. His children can’t collect on their trust funds until they reach the age of 35. Following the ruling, Goodman adopted his 42 year old girlfriend, making her an immediate beneficiary of the trust account and giving Goodman access to 1/3 of the funds, which as of now, can’t be touched by the Wilson family.

The courts must decide of the adoption is a “sham” before moving forward with the civil case to determine just how much of Goodman’s assets should be available for punitive damages to the Wilson family.

The suit also claims that the victim, not Belniak, caused the accident by abruptly changing lanes. Belniak is suing for medical bills, pain and suffering, and “loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life”.
Belniak’s attorney, who remember is also his sister, claims that the buildup to the criminal trial was an exercise in character assassination and her brother had no choice by to accept blame and a plea offer because he wouldn’t have received a fair trial.

Belniak was sentenced to 12 years in prison, in 2007 for his role in the accident.

The families of the victims in the suit have also filed a civil suit against Belniak.

Belniak’s recollection of the events falls into question, as six corroborating eye witnesses report that McWilliams was stopped at a stoplight when Belniak rear-ended them at speeds exceeding 70 MPH. An event data recorder in McWilliams’ car also indicates that his vehicle wasn’t moving at the time of impact.

It’s hard to grasp why Belniak and his sister would file a countersuit in this instance, as all the evidence seems to support Belniaks guilty conviction, and by filing suit, he’s more likely to aggravate jurors rather than win any sympathy.

This is a case we definitely have our eyes on and will update as new details emerge.

Lee was arrested on a warrant after an alleged incident with a homeless man back in June of 2011. The incident took place on a freeway off-ramp. The homeless man was apparently panhandling, and following a verbal exchange, Lee and his passenger allegedly got out of the car, chased down the homeless man and beat him with a tire iron.

Details of the exchange and the alleged assault aren’t available, but if convicted, Lee faces some very serious consequences. The punishment for aggravated assault could be as many as four years in state prison and a strike on Lee’s record should he be found guilty. It all really depends on the severity of the injuries suffered by the homeless man, as well as the circumstances of the verbal exchange that ultimately led to the attack.

As extreme as this scenario seems, we here at Wallin and Klarich see cases similar to this all the time. A heated verbal exchange between two people can very quickly escalate to violence. And when that happens, a person typically has two choices; hire a good criminal defense attorney or prepare to do some time as a guest of the state.

Today, police in Colton, CA are under attack in another death involving a suspect being tasered multiple times. The incident happened over the weekend when police responded to a potential domestic violence call. According to both witnesses and police, the man involved was intoxicated and combative with police officers. Due to the man’s size, it reportedly took 3 officers to subdue and handcuff the man. At some point during the scuffle, the man experienced an undisclosed medical emergency. Paramedics were called to the scene and the man was transported to a local hospital, where he was later pronounced dead.

An investigation is currently being conducted by the San Bernardino Sherriff’s Department, and should the responding officers be found to have used excessive force, it will raise serious questions about the use of supposed “non-lethal” weapons in the attempt to restrain a suspect.

This also isn’t the first time in the past 12 months that the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department has investigated the death of a suspect after the use of a taser. In May, a 43-year-old man was tasered following a routine traffic stop and subsequently died.

When is the use of a taser a deadly weapon in the hands of the police? Are there better and safer ways to restrain a citizen who may have taken drugs or drank too much short of using force that could reasonably lead to their death? What are your thoughts on this very serious issue?

In total, it is estimated that the marijuana seized in the raid has a street value of over $200,000.

Five people were arrested at multiple locations, ranging in age from 46 to 24. The group faces charges ranging from possession of marijuana for sale (California Health and Safety Code 11359) to suspicion of transportation and sale of marijuana (California Health and Safety Code Section 11360).

The individuals arrested on possession of marijuana for sale charges could face up to 3 years in county jail if convicted. For the two individuals accused of selling marijuana, they face as many as 7 years in state prison.

How long these individuals may have been in business and whether or not this operation may be part of a larger organization is yet to be known, and could be why local police officials have been unwilling to release many details regarding the case. As first reported by the Orange County Register, the initial raid only included search warrants for the residential addresses, and it wasn’t until evidence was collected at one of the residences that authorities obtained a search warrant for the commercial building. That could be an indication that today’s raid was just a small part of a larger operation.

Unfortunately, courts are becoming more lenient in terms of enforcement of this state mandated 15-minute observation period. Some courts have ruled that the 15-minute observation period is satisfied merely by an officer being present. It is unrealistic to assume that merely being present ensures that the DUI suspect has not burped or hiccupped. This is yet another reason you must be represented by an aggressive Orange County DUI defense attorney. An attorney will ensure your rights are protected by scrutinizing the conduct of the police. Police are required to follow certain DUI arrest procedures. Failure to do so may lead to a dismissal of DUI charges against you.

Be sure that your rights are adequately protected if you are ever facing DUI charges in Orange County. The best way to do this is to hire a knowledgeable DUI defense attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have been in practice for over 30 years and can help you ensure the protection of your rights. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.

The Court of Appeal rejected Mr. Khodayari’s arguments that Mr. Mashburn’s representation had resulted in the violations. The Court of Appeal argued that a former criminal defendant who sues his attorney for legal malpractice, must show actual innocence of the underlying criminal charges and must obtain postconviction relief in the form of a final disposition of the underlying charges in the criminal case. Although this was a probation violation proceeding, the requirement of actual innocence still applied to Mr. Khodayari’s claims of malpractice. Therefore, Mr. Khodayari had to show actual innocence of his probation violations and postviolation exoneration.

This is important because most individuals who are charged with a crime are usually overwhelmed with choosing the right attorney. As you can see, it is very important to choose the best attorney to represent you and avoid any possible problems. Often times, bad attorneys can produce unwanted results and cause the client to suffer additional punishments and/or fines. As such, it is to your benefit to hire a firm with significant criminal defense experience.

If you are charged with a crime, it is imperative that you hire an experienced criminal defense law firm to represent you in court. For over 30 years, our attorneys have been helping clients in all sorts of criminal matters. Please call us at (888) 280-6839 or visit our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

This year was no different. Shoppers at Wal-Mart in Porter Ranch, CA were hoping to cash in on Black Friday savings as they packed the retail store Thanksgiving night. What many shoppers received instead was a face full of pepper spray after a fellow shopper allegedly sprayed the crowd. According to law enforcement, a women turned herself into police after the incident received nationwide news coverage.

According to authorities, about twenty people suffered minor injuries following the incident. The suspect was released by law enforcement pending further investigation of the event. At this time, it is unknown what, if any charges the women will face.

In California, battery is codified under penal code section 242. It defines battery as “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” A battery crime can be either charged as a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the circumstances. If charged as a misdemeanor, the person faces up to six months in county jail, a two-thousand dollar fine, and probation.

If you or a loved one has been arrested, it is imperative you contact our firm. Hiring an experienced criminal defense law firm is the best way to ensure you keep your freedom. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have been helping people for over 30 years.

Please feel free to contact Wallin & Klarich to discuss your case. You can reach us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at 877-466-5245 or go to our website at wklaw.com for more information.

From the date the record was filed, the appellant has a specified period of time within which to file an appellant’s opening brief, depending on the type of case. A “brief” is a written argument that a qualified criminal appellate attorney prepare. It details the issues raised by the appellant, including challenges to superior court rulings or findings, and refers to applicable statutes (laws) and previous case decisions to support their position. The respondent is then given an opportunity to file a brief in response and then the appellant may file a reply brief.

Once the briefs have been filed the case is randomly assigned to a panel of justices. An oral argument is scheduled and the justices review the briefs and a memorandum that have been prepared concerning the appeal. Oral argument gives the justices the opportunity to ask the attorney concerning the issues raised.

After the panel of justices has heard oral argument, a member of the panel prepares and files an opinion, which is a written statement of the court’s decision.

Decisions of the Courts of Appeal are subject to discretionary review by the California Supreme Court as well as to review in the United States Supreme Court for decisions based on the U.S. Constitution and federal Statutes.

When you are facing a criminal charge, it would be a very smart decision to contact a skilled California criminal appeals lawyer from Wallin and Klarich at 1-888-280-6839. We have been helping people for over thirty years when they are accused of a crime or find themselves convicted of a crime. We will be there when you call or you can visit us 24/7 at wklaw.com.

The problem is, what medical marijuana laws actual do depends on whom you ask. There is great disagreement on almost all areas of the law governing marijuana. Many argue that the root of the problem stems from state lawmaker’s failure to provide clear guidance.

With blurry direction from the Legislature, municipalities are forced to pass a broad range of regulations. In more liberal jurisdictions, like San Francisco, officials took a permissive stance by issuing permits to marijuana businesses. However, more conservative areas, especially smaller cities in Southern California, have tried to ban the marijuana shops entirely.

In 2008, then-state Attorney General issued guidelines meant to clarify the law. That attempt was unsuccessful. The laws did little more than change the law’s wording -recommending that groups cultivating or distributing marijuana organize as “cooperatives” or “collectives.” However, “collectives” were an entirely new concept and not clearly defined. This is a theme throughout California’s medical marijuana laws, a lack of clarity.

If you are facing marijuana charges, it is very important that you seek the expertise of a skilled drug defense attorney who can help you avoid conviction. At Wallin & Klarich, our Southern California Attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling drug possession cases and will work hard to present the best defense for you. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklaw.com. We will be there for you when you call.