california appeals lawyer

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that former Agriprocessors executive Sholom Rubashkin has filed an appeal with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis after being sentenced to 27 years in prison on 86 fraud charges. Rubashkin’s lawyers state that District Court Judge Linda Reade shouldn’t have allowed evidence about the slaughterhouse’s massive immigration raid and further that Rubashkin’s prison sentence is like a life sentence for the 51-year-old. Rubashkin’s fraud scheme collapsed in 2008, not long after the Postville, Iowa-based Agriprocessors became the target of a massive immigration raid. The plant filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection later that year and has since been sold to SHF Industries, which renamed the company Agri Star.

Under the California appeals process, a criminal appeal is a formal request to rehear a case that has already been decided; or rather a request that a new court reconsider the decision of the first court. If there has been a mistake at a trial, either side can file an appeal. However, California law gives criminal defendants just 60 days from the date of their sentencing to file a notice of appeal. Grounds for appeals can include improper rulings by the trial judge regarding evidence, improper jury instructions, and the quality of your representation or other circumstances that may have resulted in an unfair trial.

Practically, it is almost always better to have a new lawyer than the lawyer who represented you at your trial for the appeal. This is because the trial lawyer may not realize some of the errors that occurred during the trial. Furthermore, an appeal is entirely different than a jury trial. The court of appeals decides the case entirely upon the written briefs filed by your attorney and the Attorney General’s office. The final decision by the court of appeals often comes between 12 and 18 months after the defendant was sentenced. If the court reverses the conviction the defendant is entitled to a new trial. If the court affirms the conviction there are other options available.

If you or a loved one have faced an unfair trial it is important that you retain an experienced Southern California appeals attorney. Upon receiving your case, the team of Orange County criminal appeals attorneys at Wallin & Klarich will thoroughly review the transcript of your trial, court filings, and other documents to look for all potential grounds for appeal. Our California appeals lawyers have over thirty years of experience taking on cases just like yours. We will look at the particular facts of your case to determine the best defense strategy available that will result in the best possible outcome. Call us today at 888-749-0034 or visit us online at www.wklawappeals.com. We will be here when you call.

On June 15, 2010, defense attorneys for Dennis Cyrus, Jr., argued before a federal judge that forensic evidence handled by the San Francisco Police Department’s crime lab and leading to Cyrus’ conviction may have been tainted. His attorneys requested that the prosecution disclose a report of the crime lab’s errors.

Cyrus was convicted of murdering three people, including a witness to a federal trial. Cyrus’ attorneys contend that the crime lab’s poor evidence managment requires that the federal court grant Cyrus a new murder trial.

The San Francisco Police Department lab technician at the center of the potential scandal, Deobrah Madden, retired in March under suspicion that she had stolen drugs from the lab. She and other lab workers had earlier testified against Cyrus at his murder trial.

State prosecutors have already dismissed hundreds of narcotics cases because of the San Francisco crime labs’ possible mishandling of trial evidence. The scandal threatens the political campaign of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, candidate for California attorney general.

The government’s handling of crime evidence is of utmost importance to a fair trial. At Wallin & Klarich, we have over 30 years experience handling all issues related to criminal trial, including evidence. We will ensure that any possible evidence mishandling by the prosecutor will be identified and resolved in a way most favorable to your case. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

Actor Chris Klein is probably best known for his comedic role in the ‘American Pie’ films. However his arrest early Wednesday morning was not a part in a movie. The actor was arrested by California Highway Patrol on suspicion of driving under the influence.

A news release from the California Highway Patrol stated that Klein’s vehicle was “observed weaving from the #3 lane into the #2 and #4 lane” on the Ventura Freeway in Sherman Oaks, California.

A driving under the influence charge is codified under California Vehicle Code section 23152, which states it is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, or a person who has a blood-alcohol level of .08 or greater to drive a vehicle.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a crime, it is imperative that you hire an aggressive, experienced criminal defense firm. Hiring an experienced criminal defense law firm can greatly increase your chances of keeping your freedom, and ensuring you receive the lowest possible sentence. 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 www.wklaw.com for more information.

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.

If you have a loved one that has been convicted of a crime in California, you may be wondering how you can overturn the conviction and continue fighting your family member’s case. You have probably heard that you can appeal the conviction or that you can file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. You might also be wondering what the difference is between the two.

There are several differences between an appeal and a writ of habeas corpus. Both are part of the appellate process. The primary difference is found in the reason why you are using the appellate process. Appeals are used to correct errors that occurred during the case. In an appeal, the appellate courts only consider what they can find within the “four corners” of the file. They will not consider any new evidence. If you think that the trial judge made some legal error during the course of the criminal case, then you will want to file an appeal. An appeal is not used if you just want another stab at proving innocence in front of a jury or judge.

A writ of habeas corpus, on the other hand, can be used if you want the appellate court to consider evidence that the trial judge might not have had. The habeas petition is for situations when a legal error occurred, as we say, outside the “four corners” of the court file. To win a habeas petition, you have to prove that the legal error that occurred actually resulted in a loss of the defendant’s rights.

It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not you need to file an appeal or a writ of habeas corpus. In fact, sometimes both need to be filed. Before you proceed with either, you should also consult a knowledgeable California appeals criminal defense lawyer who handles appeals and writs of habeas corpus. At Wallin & Klarich, our attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling all types of criminal matters. Our attorneys have extensive knowledge of the appellate process. Call us today at (888) 749-0034 or visit us on our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.

A recent California Court of Appeal decision, People v. Katzenberger, held that there was prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor used an incomplete jigsaw puzzle to show how ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ works.

The prosecution’s Power Point presentation consisted of eight puzzle pieces forming a picture of the Statue of Liberty. The first six pieces came onto the screen sequentially, leaving two additional pieces missing. The prosecutor argued it was possible to know what was depicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” even without the missing pieces. The prosecutor then added the two missing pieces to show the picture was in fact the Statue of Liberty. The trial court overruled defendant’s objection to the presentation. On appeal, the Defendant claimed that reversal is required because the prosecutor’s Power Point presentation was prosecutorial misconduct belittling the reasonable doubt standard. The Court of Appeals agreed.

As the California Supreme Court recently explained, “The standards governing review of misconduct claims are settled.” A prosecutor who uses deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the jury commits misconduct, and such actions require reversal under the federal Constitution when they infect the trial with such “‘unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’” (People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703, 733.) Under state law, a prosecutor who uses such methods commits misconduct even when those actions do not result in a fundamentally unfair trial. In this case, it is clear that the prosecution used methods used by the prosecutor (using an incomplete iconic image to distort the view of “beyond a reasonable doubt”) were deceptive.

The Appeals court cautioned that prosecutors who are tempted to enliven closing argument with visual aids that using such aids to illustrate the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is dangerous and unwise. The California Supreme Court has recognized the difficulty and peril inherent in such a task, and has discouraged ‘experiments’ by trial courts in defining the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard. By a parity of reasoning, similar perils undoubtedly attend a prosecutor’s attempt to reduce the concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a mere line on a graph, chart (or Power Point presentation).

In all criminal cases, it is important to have an experienced Southern California criminal appeals attorney on your side. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 30 years experience handling criminal and appellate matters. Our attorneys have the skills and expertise to provide you with the best possible defense. Prosecutors often engage in deceptive and reprehensible methods to persuade the jury and it is the duty of a good defense attorney to object and file a timely appeal. The attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can be reached by phone at 1-888-749-0034 or through our website at www.wklaw.com.