southern california criminal defense lawyer

On July 27, 2010, the Utah Supreme Court overturned the rape convictions of Warren Jeffs. The Supreme Court held that the lower court failed to give proper jury instructions and ordered a new trial.

Jeffs is the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints, a polygamous sect of the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Jeffs presided over the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her first cousin, who later raped her. Jeffs was convicted as an accomplice to the rape and sentenced to two consecutive 5 year to life sentences.

The Utah Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that Jeffs could not be convicted unless he had the specific intent that the victim’s husband rape the victim.

Jeffs was not released from custody after the court decision because of outstanding bigamy and sexual assault charges in Texas. Texas officials are seeking to have him extradited if the Utah Attorney General declines to prosecute him again.

In California, rape is sex with a person against the person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury. (California Penal Code section 261(a)(2).) Under California Penal Code section 264(a), rape is punishable by three, six, or eight years in state prison. A person who is convicted of rape must register as a sex offender. (California Penal Code section 290(c).)

Under the relevant California case law, an accomplice, also known as an aider and abettor, is someone who knows of the perpetrator’s criminal purpose, specifically intends to aid the perpetrator, and does in fact aid the perpetrator in the commission of a crime. (People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.3d 547.) If convicted of being an accomplice to a crime, the accomplice is criminally liable as if he was the actual perpetrator of the crime. (California Penal Code section 31.)

If you or someone you know is accused of a sex crime, you will need an experienced Southern California defense attorney who will aggressively represent you, especially considering the legal and social consequences of a conviction. For over 30 years, Wallin & Klarich has helped people accused of crimes, including rape and other sex offenses. Feel free to contact us at (888) 280-6839 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.

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.

One of the most common domestic violence crimes in California is the crime of inflicting corporal injury to a spouse under California Penal Code Section 273.5. Inflicting corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition on a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the other or father of his or her child is considered guilty of a felony punishable by two, three, or four years in state prison, or for up to one year in county jail. A fine of up to $6,000 can also be given.

A traumatic condition means a condition of the body, such as a wound or external or internal injury, whether of a minor or serious nature, caused by a physical force.

The punishment for corporal injury to spouse increases if the defendant has a prior conviction, within the last seven years, of inflicting corporal injury to a spouse, battery, battery causing great bodily injury, battery against a spouse, assault with chemicals, assault with a stun gun or less lethal weapon, assault with a deadly weapon. The punishment increases to imprisonment in county jail for up to one year or in state prison for two, four, or five years. The defendant will also face a fine of up to $10,000.

If the person has a prior conviction and the person is granted probation, the court shall impose one of the following conditions: 1) Minimum 15 days in county jail or 2) If two prior convictions within the last seven years, minimum 60 days in county jail. The court must make a finding of good cause on the record if one of these minimum sentences is not imposed.

If you or a loved one is facing a domestic violence charge, 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 from domestic violence charges. It is even more critical to hire an attorney if you have a prior conviction. With increased penalties, it is in your best interest to have an attorney who can provide you with the best possible defense. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or contact us through our website at www.wklawdomesticviolence.com. We will be there when you call.

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.

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.

It was recently reported that a Sacramento man plead guilty to his seventh DUI in 10 years and was sentenced to three years in jail and four years probation. Mark Trevino, 27, started drinking at age 14 and had been in and out of custody for his drunk driving offenses before his most recent arrest. He received his first two DUI offenses before the age of 18. The punishments for his previous 6 DUI convictions have ranged from probation to 16 months in prison.

Driving under the influence is a serious offense in the state of California. It is important to note that a driver may still receive a DUI if his or her BAC is lower than 0.08%. California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a) states that it is unlawful for any person who is “under the influence” of any alcoholic beverage and/or drug to drive a vehicle. It does not say that the driver’s BAC needs to be 0.08% or higher. A driver is considered “under the influence” when his or her mental or physical abilities are so impaired by drugs and/or alcohol that he/she is no longer able to drive a vehicle with the same caution as a sober person using ordinary care under similar circumstances. A conviction for a first-time DUI can result in probation, jail time, fees, and community service.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for a DUI, it is critical that you speak with an experienced DUI attorney. At Wallin & Klarich, our DUI attorneys have over 30 years of experience in handling all types of DUIs. Your lawyer will aggressively fight to get the best possible result in your case. We understand that this is a stressful time. Our attorneys will always keep you updated with your case and provide you with the quality representation you deserve. 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 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.

There are more and more stories in the news reporting on how Facebook has come into play in a court case. Family law cases are no exception. If you find yourself going through a divorce or child custody case, be aware that Facebook can be your friend or enemy depending on what you or your spouse has posted on the social networking site.

In the state of California, the law states that to dissolve a marriage, neither you or your spouse has to show any wrongdoing to file for the divorce. It is called a “no-fault” divorce. With that you might think that anything you or your spouse posted on Facebook can’t affect the outcome of your divorce proceedings. However, evidence obtained from Facebook can be useful in negotiating your divorce settlement. It is important to keep this in mind when speaking with your Southern California Family Law attorney.

In a child custody case, Facebook can be a huge factor as well. You have probably heard a few of the stories relating how a parent said they were doing one thing and then Facebook shows that they were doing something completely different. Other stories have shown that Facebook was used to prove that one parent was speaking badly about the other parent. Some parents have been caught in lies with the help of Facebook. All of this evidence found on Facebook can be brought into court and either help or hurt your child custody case.

Our San Diego Family Law attorneys at Wallin and Klarich can be there for you or a loved one who may considering a divorce or are currently seeking child custody. We understand the seriousness of these types of situations and the support you need during this time. Contact us today at 888-749-0034.

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, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report stating that the United States government issued passports to at least 4,400 convicted sex offenders during the 2008 fiscal year.

Convicted sex offenders who were issued passports included federal employees, prison inmates, and offenders who had failed to update their sex offender registration. Some frequently traveled internationally, including to countries known for sex tourism. The report described several instances where sex offenders who traveled abroad were later convicted of committing sex offenses in the visiting country.

Of the 4,466 convicted sex offenders who received passports, 1,020 of the passport recipients lived in California.

The Department of State, which is responsible for issuing passports, responded by stating that the report was “very misleading” and that no law specifically prohibits the issuance of a passport to a convicted sex offender, except if the offender was convicted of sex tourism. In addition, of all the passports issued during fiscal year 2008, only 0.0003% were issued to convicted sex offenders.

Under California Penal Code section 290, also known as the Sex Offender Registration Act or Megan’s Law, a person who is convicted of a sex offense and who lives in California must register as a sex offender. The California sex offender list is publicly available online.

Failure to register as a sex offender for conviction of a misdemeanor sex offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. (California Penal Code section 290.018(a).) If a person is convicted of a felony sex offense or has prior failures to register, the failure to register is a felony punishable by 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in prison. (California Penal Code section 290.018(b).) Under federal law, all states must forward their sex offender registry information to the United States Attorney General for inclusion in the National Sex Offender Registry.

If you or someone you know has been accused of a sex crime, you will need an experienced Southern California sex crime attorney who will aggressively defend you, especially considering the social stigma and legal consequences of an adverse result. At Wallin & Klarich, we have defended people accused of sex offenses for over 30 years. Call us today at (888) 280-6839 or visit us at our website at www.wklaw.com. We will be there when you call.