September 2008 Archives

David Diamond made a radio appearance to discuss the media involvement in criminal cases as well as sex crimes.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/justiceinterrupted/2008/09/24/Justice-Interrupted-Crime-Radio-Network.mp3 

Los Angeles Criminal Defense lawyer David D. Diamond recently appeared on a talk show to discuss criminal defense.  He was asked to get the other side of justice by speaking withabout his perceptions of cases in the media, how the media effects criminal cases, and how justice is interrupted for defendant's, suspect's and people of interest.

To listen:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/justiceinterrupted

The four tree-sitters who had been living in a redwood tree near the University of California football stadium were charged with multiple misdemeanor counts of contempt of court for allegedly violating a court order as well as lodging illegally, according to the Alameda County District Attorney's Office.

The individuals took began their protest at a grove of trees on the site where the university plans to build a new sports training facility.

Recently, the tree-sitters agreed to come down from their perch only on the condition that the University of California create a land use committee to look into the school's future land decisions.  A UC spokesman denied the deal, and no such plans exist.

Early Tuesday afternoon, the protesters climbed down and heard cheers from the nearby supporters.  They were arrested immediately.

If you are facing criminal prosecution, please call David D. Diamond at 213 250 9100 or visit www.LADefender.com  

In Las Vegas, Nevada, OJ Simpson's defense wants to seat a racially diverse panel that has not prejudged the former pro football star based on his past.

On Tuesday, three panelists were dismissed while the day before, 16 were excused for various reasons.

Reports state that the initial jury pool of 500 had at least 50 blacks, and that defense lawyers had not shown a "systematic exclusion of a group."

Simpson, 61, and co-defendant Stewart, 54, have each plead not guilty to all 12 charges, including felony kidnapping, armed robbery, conspiracy, burglary, coercion and assault with a deadly weapon.

The men face prison time if convicted of armed robbery. A kidnapping conviction carries the possibility of life in prison with the possibility of parole.

 Blogger David D. Diamond is a Los Angeles based criminal defense attorney and an adjunct professor of law. 

www.LADefender.com   213 250 9100

DUI ARRESTS

If you are arrested for a DUI, you must call the DMV within 10 days of that arrest to request an administrative hearing.  

At the DUI hearing with the Department of Motor Vehicles,  it must prove ALL of the following 3 elements to suspend your license. 

Factors at the Hearing that must be proven by the DMV

• Did the peace officer have reasonable cause to believe you were driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code?
• Were you lawfully arrested?
• Were you driving a motor vehicle when you had 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in your blood?

Factors at the Hearing that must be proven by the DMV when there is allegations of a Refusal To Submit To Or Failure To Complete A Chemical Test

• Did the peace officer have reasonable cause to believe you were driving a motor vehicle in violation of Section 23152 or 23153 of the Vehicle Code?
• Were you lawfully arrested?
• Were you told that your driving privilege would be suspended for one year, or revoked for two or three years if you refused to submit to, or failed to complete, a chemical test?
• Did you refuse to submit to, or fail to complete, a chemical test after being requested to do so by a peace officer?

WHAT IS AN EXPUNGEMENT?

We offer clients the opportunity to clean up their criminal past.  The great benefit of this relief is that it removes the blemish of a criminal record. We do want to note that there are exceptions to the expungement procedure. 

If you have completed probation and fulfilled its conditions, the Judge must grant you relief.   There is no discretion. 

WHAT DO I TELL MY EMPLOYER?

Private employers may not even require an answer to the question of whether you were ever convicted and had an expungement. Pursuant to the Labor Code, no employer, whether a public agency or private individual or corporation, shall ask an applicant for employment to disclose, through any written form or verbally, information concerning an arrest or detention that did not result in conviction.

However, an expungement does not erase the actual court records. 

WHAT IF I AM A WITNESS IN A TRIAL?

If you are a witness in a civil or criminal case, you cannot be impeached as a witness with a felony conviction dismissed under section 1203.4.  This immunity does not apply to a defendant witness.

ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS?

There is a rule pertaining to weapons.  In the areas of weapon possession, you still cannot permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control any firearm.

Some sex and vehicle code offenses are excluded.  There is no expungement for any misdemeanor that is within the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 42001 of the Vehicle Code [involving pedestrians who receive infraction offenses], to any violation of subdivision (c) of Section 286, Section 288, subdivision (c) of Section 288a, Section 288.5, or subdivision (j) of Section 289, any felony conviction pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 261.5, or to any infraction.

 CAN I GET MY LICENSE BACK?

An expungement does not have any bearing on any revocation or suspension of the privilege of the person convicted to drive a motor vehicle.

WHAT ABOUT PUBLIC ENTITIES?

Public Office, State, Local Agencies...  You still must disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery.

WHAT ABOUT FEDERAL COURTS?

Federal Courts May Not Abide by the Relief.  While it appears that the federal government will honor the decision of the state court to relieve its citizen of the felony convictions under most circumstances, any of the limitations which apply within the state will apply in the federal action as well. But, there is no guarantee. 

The law is changing in California.  The courts are recognizing the need to properly interpret the laws pertaining to medical marijuana.

Transportation

Under People v. Trippet (1987) and People v. Wright (2006), the medical marijuana defense can be applied to a charge of transportation of marijuana.

Return of Marijuana

Garden Grove v. Superior Court (Kha) ruled that patients do have a lawful right to the return of marijuana.

Jury Cannot Second Guess Lawful Medical Rx

The court, in People v Jones, ruled that the jury cannot second guess the validity of a medical marijuana prescription and that a patient's testimony is all that is required.  People v Spark (2004)

Police Officers Must be Qualified as Medical Marijuana Experts

The officer must be an expert in medical marijuana in order to claim that the marijuana was being used for sales. People v. Chakos (2007)

Conspiracy

A good faith belief in the medical marijauna defense is a defense to conspiracy to sell marijuana.  People v. Uriceanu (2005)

No Limit to Marijuana

People v. Kelly recently held that the legislature's enactment of quantity limits on California's medical marijuana law in 2003 constituted an unconstitutional amendment of the voter-passed Compassionate Use Act.

Contact Los Angeles Drug Crimes Attorney David D. Diamond today!
http://www.ladefender.com  213 250 9100

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, commonly referred to as the Compassionate Use Act ("CUA").  The theory behind this vote to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes without criminal penalty. [1] After passage of Proposition 215, a great deal of confusion has erupted.   Marijuana patients have been searched, arrested and prosecuted for marijuana violations, partly because the act has been interpreted by many different eyes. As a result, California Legislature passed Senate Bill 420, which became law on January 1, 2004. After SB 420 became law, there have been numerous decisions by both the Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court that have attempted to clarify the law.

Initially, the CUA provided protection for medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers from prosecution for cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use. They courts exhibited an initial fear regarding abuse of this law.  As such, the initial rulings were narrowly construed, in an effort not to overstep the wishes of the California voters. For the first few years medical marijuana patients and their caregivers were left unprotected from arrest and prosecution for the transportation and distributing of medical marijuana.  Drug task forces also seized the medical marijuana. Individuals were left with valid documentation proving their eligibility under the CUA, but unsure how legitimate they were. Consistency was lacking for all parties.  The decisions were left to local government and local law enforcement to determine how they would proceed under the laws.