Juvenile Crime

Recent news stories have incited an outcry against bullying and its destructive consequences. The events of Colombine High School illustrated the intense psychological damage to the victims of bullying and the tragedy that can ensue when victims react. In the Internet age, the term cyber-bullying has been coined to describe the new ways bullies taunt, harass, and threaten victims through texting, emailing, and using social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace.

The rising public tide against bullying has motivated and emboldened prosecutors to intervene on behalf of public safety and harshly punish those accused of bullying. While bullying is an act that is universally condemned, in almost all cases, a more measured approach than criminal prosecution is appropriate for addressing the problem of bullies.

The case involving Phoebe Prince is an excellent example. Phoebe was an Irish teenager who immigrated to the United States in 2009. In January 2010, news media widely reported her suicide as a result of students bullying her at school and online. Massachusetts District Attorney Elizabeth Schiebel charged six students with crimes related to Phoebe’s bullying, with the most serious charge carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

In a recent investigative piece, Emily Bazelon, a Yale Law professor, provided a more nuanced picture of the events leading to Phoebe’s suicide. According witness interviews, three of the students charged did not even contact Phoebe at any time the week before her death. And instead of the constant three months of abuse that the District Attorney alleges, Bazelon’s sources state that the students who did allegedly harass Phoebe did so at varying times and for nowhere close to three months.

According to Bazelon, Phoebe was taunted and harassed because she had sex with Sean Mulveyhill, who was dating another girl at the time, Kayla Narey. The next month, Phoebe dated Austin Renaud, who had a serious girlfriend at the time, Flannery Mullins. In the following months, Flannery posted on her own Facebook account and obliquely referred to Phoebe as a “gross slutter poser” Irish person and an “Irish slut.”

On January 14, after school ended for the day, Phoebe was taunted by Sean, Kayla, and Ashley Longe, Sean’s friend. As Phoebe walked home, someone threw a drink can out of a car window at her. Later that day, she hung herself.

According to Bazelon, Phoebe apparently suffered tremendous emotional trauma even before she immigrated to America: a friend in Ireland stated that Phoebe began cutting herself before she left for Ireland, and a friend in America stated that she resumed cutting herself sometime after coming to America. Phoebe showed the same American friend her wounds, which started on her chest and went down to her hips. Others state that Phoebe had a deep connection with her father, who her mother divorced and who remained in Ireland, and that Phoebe missed him terribly. Before her death, Phoebe was on Prozac, an anti-depressant medication, and Seroquel, a medication for anxiety and mood disorders.

The most serious charge against the accused bullies, civil rights violation leading to bodily injury, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Defense attorneys expect that the District Attorney will argue that Phoebe was called an “Irish slut,” which is an ethnic slur, and that this civil rights violation led to her bodily injury, i.e., her suicide.

On reviewing the facts described by Bazelon, there’s no question that everyone involved, including Phoebe, was guilty of bad behavior. But do Phoebe’s alleged bullies deserve ten years imprisonment if convicted? It’s hard to believe that such a drastic and heavy-handed response is appropriate considering the circumstances, but District Attorney Schiebel has vowed to fully pursue criminal proceedings against Phoebe’s alleged persecutors. Do we really want the District Attorney to intervene in what amounts to typical high school meanness, even if it involved an especially vulnerable victim and a particularly tragic result?

“People want to think that there’s always legal accountability where there should be moral accountability,” said noted defense attorney and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz. “But in the criminal context, you should always err against overextending the law.” Furthermore, it’s extremely unwise to make policy based on extreme cases. Seeking criminal punishment for what should be considered moral transgressions ultimately does not address the problem of bullying because it fails to distinguish between typical high school antics and acts which actually merit criminal culpability. In most cases, bullies should be punished for their behavior through the normal means of school discipline, not by incarceration. And whether they should be punished by the school administration or the criminal system should depend on what the BULLIES did, not the particular vulnerability of the victim.

In California, though the Education Code describes bullying for purposes of suspending or expelling a student, the California Penal Code does not have a specific crime punishing bullying. (Educ. Code §§ 48900.2, 48900.3, 48900.3.) Instead, the alleged acts of bullying must fall under an existing crime. Examples may include criminal threats (Pen. Code § 422), assault (Pen. Code § 240), battery (Pen. Code § 242), sexual battery (Pen. Code § 243.4), hate crimes (Pen. Code § 422.6), or harassing electronic communication (Pen. Code § 653m).

If you or someone you know has been accused of a juvenile crime related to bullying, you will need an experienced Southern California defense attorney who will vigorously defend you. At Wallin & Klarich, we have helped juveniles accused of crimes for over 30 years. Call us today at (888) 749-0034 or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

A campus security officer at a California high school received a report of vandalism and pursued a group of students he suspected were involved in the vandalism. While pursing the group of students the security officer yelled for a particular student, M, to stop. The security guard yelled to M by name to stop many times but M continued to flee. When M was encountered by an actual school police officer he immediately complied. M was charged in Juvenile Delinquency court with a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code 148(a)(1), obstructing or delaying a peace officer, and the petition was sustained in the juvenile court, which is the functional equivalent of being found guilty of the charge.

M appealed the decision of the Juvenile Court and argued that the security guard was not “public officer” for purposes of the charge of willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer in violation of Penal Code 148(1)(1). The appellate court agreed with M that the security guard was not a “public officer” and overturned the decision of the lower court. Since M immediately submitted to the “real” public officer immediately he was found not to have violated the law with regard to his interactions with the security guard and the school police officer.

Juvenile Criminal law in California is very different in many ways from adult criminal law. If your child is facing criminal charges in California it is important to hire a law firm that is familiar with the unique procedures in juvenile criminal court. Nothing is more important than the safety and freedom of your child. Please don’t hesitate to contact the experienced and aggressive juvenile criminal attorneys at the law firm of Wallin & Klarich. We’ll be there when you call.

Juvenile status offenses are cases involving children that commit acts that are only against the law because they are done by children. The common offenses include being truant from school, running away from home, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, or violating a curfew.

It is important to recognize that just because someone is a minor does not mean that they cannot commit a crime. Crimes committed by minors are still punishable under the California Penal Code. The minor committing a crime will be considered a juvenile delinquent and be brought in front of a juvenile court. For more serious crimes, the minor can be charged as an adult and be tried in an adult criminal court.

The penalties for status offenses are not as severe as a juvenile delinquent case. However, the penalties can still detrimentally impact a minor’s life. For example, being a habitual truant will cost the minor his or her driver’s license for a year. See California Vehicle Code Section 13202.7.

If you or a loved one is facing a juvenile status offense, it is important to speak with an experienced juvenile crimes attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in helping minors with their juvenile cases. We will make sure the judge sees both sides and fight to get you the best possible result. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (888) 280-6839      end_of_the_skype_highlighting or contact us through our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

A federal appeals court ruled that an Arizona teenager’s confession to nine murders in 1991 during a 13-hour interrogation interview was involuntary. With the confession overturned, the Arizona Attorney General must now ask the Supreme Court to review the case or decide to retry the teen without the alleged confession.

In 1991, Jonathan Doody, a 17-year-old high school student from Phoenix, was sentenced to 281 years in prison following his conviction for murder, armed robbery, and other charges in connection to the nine people found dead in a local Buddhist temple. Doody and a co-defendant pleaded guilty to the murders. The co-defendant testified that Doody was the triggerman and that they had intended to steal the large amounts of gold and cash they believed were stored in the temple.

Doody confessed to the murders to two police officers after a marathon 13-hour interrogation in which Doody was deprived of sleep. Doody tried to file motions to suppress his confession, but they were rejected and his confession was included in his initial trial. The ruling stood until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard his case and ruled that the confession was involuntary.

Doody petitioned that the reading of his Miranda rights were inadequate, thus rendering his confession involuntary. The court agreed on both counts. The court found that the administration of Dooley’s Miranda rights were far from “clear and understandable.” On more than one account, Dooley stopped and asked the officers about certain parts of the Miranda form, stating that he did not understand certain parts of the Miranda rights. The officer who read the Miranda rights deviated significantly from the printed Miranda form and repeatedly minimized the warnings’ significance when explaining them to Doody.

The court also found that Doody’s confession was not voluntary given under the circumstances. The officers repeatedly asked Dooley the same questions several times and utilized relentless interrogation tactics precisely because Doody remained unresponsive or did not provide the answers the officers sought. Also, because Doody was a juvenile, the court did not believe Doody was physically and mentally mature enough to handle the 13-hour interrogation.

At Wallin & Klarich, our team of experienced Southern California defense lawyers can help you or your loved ones in the event of an arrest or interrogation by police. We will examine every detail of the incident to see if your Miranda rights have been violated. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us on the web at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Nothing obstructs the future of a young child more than a criminal record. When a child makes a mistake and incurs allegations of assault, weapons possession, drug use, sexual misconduct, or vandalism, a conviction can prove to be a lingering hindrance that may significantly deprive the child in later life of certain opportunities and privileges. In short, a child’s single lapse in judgment can have a lasting negative effect on his or her life.

At Wallin & Klarich, our view is aligned with that of the juvenile court system in believing that kids who “act out” should be rehabilitated rather than incarcerated. Therefore, we aggressively seek to obtain for our young clients informal disposition that removes their case from the damaging effects of a formal criminal conviction.

The California Welfare and Institutions Code section 654 provides for an informal resolution of a delinquency case that does not result in a criminal record. Our experienced Los Angeles juvenile defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can be instrumental in helping parents gain control of the situation to ensure that their child’s future remains intact.

When a child commits a crime, a probation officer may file a petition to declare that the child be deemed a ward of the court under section 601 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. This essentially means that a minor who commits a crime can be taken away from their parents’ custody. To avoid the wrenching heartache of this result, section 654 allows up to six months in which the parents and their child must adequately demonstrate a good-faith effort toward rehabilitation. This can be done by showing that the minor has undertaken some form of treatment or that the parents have exercised their parental prerogative by administering their own punishment.

With over 30 years of experience in defending juvenile delinquency cases, Wallin & Klarich has cultivated a strong sensibility in handling cases of this kind. For more information regarding how the attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can assist you with your case, please call 888-749-0034 or visit www.wklaw.com today.

If your child has been adjudicated a ward of the court and is on probation, or has been ordered to court on a criminal case, it is important to keep your child’s record as clean as possible. Many opportunities can be lost if you do not take affirmative steps in clearing the record. Your child could be denied acceptance into college or a job.

California has laws that allow you to seal the record. You have the right to petition the Juvenile Court to seal your juvenile record and records in the custody of other agencies, including law enforcement agencies and public officials, after one of the following occur:

1. Five years or more after the jurisdiction of the juvenile court has terminated.
2. Five years or more after you were cited to appear or were taken before a probation officer or any officer of a law enforcement agency where no petition was filed in the Juvenile Court.
3. At any time after you reach the age of 18.

Destruction or release of Juvenile Court Records (Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 826) – if your juvenile court record has not been ordered sealed, it will be destroyed after you reach the age of 38. You have a right to have your juvenile court record released to your custody rather then have it destroyed.

If you or a loved one has a juvenile court case, where a minor was arrested or charged with a crime, it is important to seek competent legal counsel. The law firm of Wallin & Klarich has been successfully representing minors for 30 years. We know the implications a criminal record can have on a minor. Many doors of opportunity can close for the minor unless you have an experienced California juvenile crime defense attorney that understands how to defend a juvenile case. Call the law firm of Wallin & Klarich. The stakes are too high not to.