Category Archives: Criminal Defense

Man Kidnapped During Bogus Craigslist Dealing (Sam Spital)

Posted on by

Commentary by Criminal Attorney Sam Spital:

“A suspect is facing kidnapping and attempted robbery charges in a plot that began with an advertisement on Craigslist by a seller who intended to find a buyer for his camera lens &/or photography equipment. The NBC Channel 39 online news reported on January 16, 2013 the male adult suspect who has not yet been caught was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and may have been 25 years old. The article revealed the victim met the suspect at a hotel in Pacific Beach; he had a gun and then forced the victim to drive to his bank in La Jolla to have him withdraw his money. The suspect did not like that the bank was taking too much time to get the money so he demanded the victim drive away without obtaining any money.

There have been similar robbery crimes as well as at least one murder incident related to ads placed on Craigslist and, therefore, the unsuspecting public needs to be more cognizant of the risks of meeting someone they do not know and/or to allow a would-be buyer to come to their residence. These offenses have escalated and represent a further sign of the economic crisis the country has been facing far too long; some pundits have opined the current economic decline is due to a lack of appropriate and timely leadership to obtain solutions via bipartisan consensus.”

–Sam Spital

Woman Pursued Evidence in Brother’s Murder – Nearly 2 years to the day after the tragic crash, CHP arrested a man in the hit-and-run death (Sam Spital)

Posted on by

Commentary by Sam Spital, San Diego Criminal Law and Murder Defense Lawyer:

“On January 16, 2013, NBC San Diego contained an article in which a murder suspect was arrested about two years to the day after a hit and run death. When law enforcement could not identify the person responsible, the sister of Frank Yarborough, the victim in this homicide case, initiated her own investigation and through a series of steps located the individual that now has been arrested for felony hit and run. The article revealed that Dixon Russell Dixon, the driver of a Ralph’s semi-truck trailer, made a u-turn and ran over the motorcycle driven by Yarborough.

Interestingly, Dixon was actually interviewed by CHP investigators as he was eating inside his truck that was parked close to the scene of the crime. It is claimed that he said he was “in Del Taco getting lunch” so the officers did not pursue him any further. The loyalty, love and devotion of a sister clearly helped law enforcement obtain additional information in order to help determine who to arrest even after two years doing their own cold case investigation. Because it is not known what evidence ultimately led to arresting Dixon, we should presume his innocence until proven otherwise in court.”

–Sam Spital

 

Ex-Border Patrol agent sentenced for theft, child porn (Sam Spital)

Posted on by

Commentary by Criminal Defense Lawyer SAM SPITAL:

“A former Border Patrol Officer convicted of interstate transportation of stolen goods, theft of government property and possession of nearly 400 photos of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct was reported by CBS8.com on January 14, 2013. The U.S. District Court Judge sentenced the defendant to 3 years in federal prison and was ordered to register as a sex offender (RSO) on his plea to the theft of night-vision goggles worth approximately $10,000 and a GPS unit worth under $100.

The story did not contain any facts regarding the defendant, his lawyer’s arguments nor position of the defense. Little was revealed as to the social and family history of the defendant nor evidence of mitigation and/or remorse. Accordingly, it is difficult to evaluate the case and offer any thoughts or opinions.”

—Sam Spital

Officers Fatally Shoot Pursuit Suspect-The suspect driver allegedly accelerated toward the officers at a dead end (Sam Spital)

Posted on by

Commentary by Sam Spital, Criminal Lawyer- San Diego:

“NBC Channel 39 in its electronic news on January 12, 2012 reported an officer had shot an assailant at about 1:15 a.m. when there was a pursuit of a vehicle driving at an excessive speed that in spite of the police siren and red lights flashing eventually only came to a halt at a dead end street when it made a u-turn. When the officers stopped the vehicle and ordered the occupants to exit the unreported stolen vehicle, they did not do so and instead the car was accelerated towards the officers. Even after the officers admonished the 21 year old female driver to stop, she did not. Fearing their safety, the officers who had been on the police force from 4 to 6 years fired their weapons and the driver was shot and killed in the process.

It would be unreasonable to attribute blame to the officers in such exigent circumstances because enough facts are not known as to whether the officers could have prevented the situation if they had blocked the street to prevent the car from escaping and/or obtained assistance from other patrol cars to do the same. Suffice to say, the reporter did not interview the officers and obtain more information, nor did she contact any of the passengers in the stolen vehicle to develop a more complete account of the events in question.”

–Sam Spital

Victims Stabbed, Sexually Assaulted During Mall Hostage Situation – At least 14 people were escorted from the Nordstrom Rack early Friday by LAPD SWAT members (Sam Spital)

Posted on by

Commentary by San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer Sam Spital:

“On Friday, January 11, 2013, the NBC Channel 4 online news described a sexual assault and non-life threatening stabbing at approximately 11:00 p.m. Thursday night at the Nordstrom Rack in the Los Angeles Promenade Mall where more than a dozen individuals were taken hostage. At the time the article was published, the Swat and members of the homicide and robbery division of the LAPD were still searching for at least two possibly armed assailants in the neighboring community of Culver City.

What no doubt began as an opportunity to be out shopping on a Thursday night has left far too many patrons and shoppers scared, feeling troubled and unsafe at a popular Mall in the greater Los Angeles area. The reporter did not reveal any other details in the story such as the number of similar crimes in the same location, other violent crimes in the greater Los Angeles community as well as crime trends during the past 12 months. It appears no security officers, Nordstrom employees or Mall management were interviewed as well. It is fair to say there are a growing number of violent crimes and the public must be vigilant of their surroundings no matter where they are.”

–Sam Spital

California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces Nurse Sentenced to 3 Years in Prison for “Convenience Drugging” Elder Patients

Posted on by

Commentary by San Diego Criminal Defense and California Professional License & Statewide Administrative Law Attorney Sam Spital:

“On January 9, 2013, the Sierra Sun Times, a local newspaper in Mariposa County, California, reported Gwen Hughes pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to three years in state prison for one count of felony elder abuse with a special allegation that the abuse contributed to the victim’s death. The article revealed the former licensed Registered Nurse ordered the administration of psychotropic medications to 23 elderly residents under care and treatment for Alzheimer’s or dementia at a skilled nursing facility who were noisy, complained &/or were argumentative as well as prone to wandering, to control and quiet them for the convenience of the staff and not for therapeutic reasons and/or prescribed by a medical doctor. According to the news article, the drugs accelerated the death of 3 patients, and all of the specific residents in question experienced an adverse physical reaction.

For a copy of the the Court Order previously suspending her license, you can click the following link:https://rn.ca.gov/public/rn260423.pdf The online license history of the former RN reveals she also allowed her license to expire (see: https://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=260423&P_LTE_ID=828) The article also noted the Medical Director of the facility, Dr. Hoshang Pormir, failed to conduct examinations and monitor the reaction to medications and as a result was placed on probation by the Court, required to make restitution in the civil lawsuits that were pending and to perform 300 hours of voluntary service.

Nothing was reported concerning any interview or dialogue with the nurse or physician, their prior employment and social history, mitigation and’/or remorse, if any. Since there are many factors considered in the sentencing of a defendant, these elements are critical to the analysis by a criminal court judge. Crimes are generally punished according to the seriousness of the offense. As a criminal defense lawyer as well as in administrative law matters, I argue in favor of mitigation, using some or all of the following elements: (1) a client’s prior criminal record; (2) her age; (3) her work history; (4) her social and family history, including use of drugs and/or alcohol; (5) her religious history; (6) whether a weapon was used in the offense. Clearly, the circumstances surrounding a crime may be of interest, however the defendant’s personal history can be persuasive as well as significant factors of rehabilitation and remorse.”

–Sam Spital

Smith v. United States (Sam Spital)

Posted on by

Commentary by San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer Sam Spital:

“On January 9, 2013, the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous 9-0 opinion written by Justice Scalia in the case of Smith vs. U.S., (Case No. 11–8976 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-8976_k5fl.pdf), affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that held a defendant who had been charged with conspiracy to distribute narcotics and his role in an illegal drug business (RICO conspiracy) could not argue the charges were barred by the five (5) year Federal statute of limitations because he allegedly withdrew from the scheme. A conspiracy is deemed to continue until it is terminated or at the time a particular defendant withdraws, if at all. In this case, the Petitioner was in prison for the last six years of a criminal conspiracy that spanned over a decade. This was the basis for his argument that he could not be prosecuted since he had withdrawn from the conspiracy more than five years before the criminal indictment was filed.

However, the court concluded a defendant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of withdrawal from the conspiracy by a preponderance of evidence, and it is not the obligation of the Assistant U.S. Attorney to prove a particular defendant participated in the conspiracy during the limitations period; further, this requirement did not violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court ruled that ‘unless an affirmative defense negates an element of the crime, the Government has no constitutional duty to overcome the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.’ A defendant would not be liable for the acts of the co-conspirators after an actual withdrawal from a conspiracy. Based upon such a principle, the defense lawyer contended an element of the crime of conspiracy is one’s membership and, therefore, when one withdraws it negates that component. The Court held the contrary is true and the proposition that one has withdrawn from a conspiracy does not negate any element of the crime since it presupposes there indeed was a conspiracy. In other words, the conspiracy still took place, but it establishes the point in time at which a defendant is no longer liable.

In summary, in order for a defendant to have had a complete defense to the within conspiracy charges, he had to prove by a preponderance of evidence his withdrawal occurred outside of the applicable statute of limitations period of time.”

–Sam Spital

Competency trial postponed for teen accused of stabbing mother’s fiancé (Sam Spital)

Posted on by

Commentary by Juvenile Defense and Criminal Law Attorney Sam Spital:

“On January 8, 2013, CNS Channel 8 online news printed an article regarding a 17 year old boy facing attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon charges in adult court and life in state prison if convicted for repeatedly stabbing the fiancé of his mother multiple times with a butcher knife in the head and neck and who will soon have a competency hearing. This is a process in which a defendant is evaluated to determine whether he is competent to understand the charges and assist his attorney in order to stand trial. The Public Defender handling the case was reported to have said his client has serious psychiatric issues and a diagnosis of mental illness.

It is noteworthy that Penal Code section 1367 (a) mandates a person cannot stand trial or be sentenced for a crime if he/she is mentally incompetent. In order to arrive at such a conclusion the defense attorney must rely upon a psychiatrist or forensic psychologist to evaluate the accused; then, the mental health expert is placed under oath and must testify at the competency hearing it is his/ her professional opinion that because of the mental illness of the accused the defendant is incapable of understanding the nature &/or purpose of the criminal proceedings or is incapable of assisting in his/her defense &/or cooperating with defense counsel.

Further, it is the burden of the defense to prove the defendant is incompetent pursuant to PC 1367 (a). In the case of Medina vs. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992), No. 90–8370, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court and held there is a presumption of competency and there is no violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution by requiring a defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence he is not competent to stand trial. In the stabbing case herein, it will now be up to the defense to present sufficient evidence to avoid a trial in the underlying criminal case.

An excellent resource for anyone who would like to know more about competency hearings and how a Superior Court in California evaluates the issue of competency to stand trial can be reviewed by clicking the following link that is a ‘bench guide’ for judges: https://www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/protem/pubs/bg63.pdf.
Once again, society is faced with having to deal with horrific crimes that might have been prevented had the accused received appropriate care and treatment. It seems more money is spent by our government to incarcerate criminals than to prevent crime through education as well as timely and appropriate intervention. Sadly, many insurance carriers and HMO’s place strict limits on the number of sessions one can have for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”

–Sam Spital

 

LA police arrest man suspected of murders in 1980s (Sam Spital)

Posted on by
Commentary by San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer Sam Spital, a Former Deputy Attorney General with the California Department of Justice:
“On January 7, 2013, the UT San Diego News printed an online article of a 72 year old transient who had been described as a ‘career criminal’ because he had wandered from one place to another, having a record of arrests by police in 24 states, and now was caught and arrested for the brutal sexual molestation and strangulation killings in the late 1980’s of three woman, ages 35 to 46.  He was linked to these savage crimes by DNA evidence and charged with 3 counts of murder with special circumstances.
The article revealed a criminal history of two separate convictions for false imprisonment and assault of two women in San Diego for which he was sentenced to State Prison and later paroled. The suspect was also charged in Florida and Mississippi with two counts each of attempted murder and murder, but not convicted of those offenses. Most of the other arrests that were publicized were for drunk driving and burglary, although investigators believe the suspect also committed violent crimes against others with ‘high lifestyles,’ such as prostitutes and drug addicts. It is believed the defendant will be assigned the Public Defender, but that is still undetermined. With the charges now being filed over two decades later, the attorneys will have a greater challenge trying to put together dates, times and events to build their respective cases. Private investigators may be hired by the defense and the defendant will be called upon to assist in establishing his account of the horrific murders.”–Sam Spital

15 to face indictments in South Bay case (Sam Spital)

Posted on by

Commentary by Sam Spital, Criminal Defense Lawyer:

“A previous criminal probe involving officials in three school districts in San Diego County has expanded to now include 15 who were indicted for 232 felony and misdemeanor charges related to bribery and conspiracy in an ongoing ‘pay for play’ corruption case in connection with construction contracts entered into by district officials was reported by the UT News on January 7, 2013. The case involves campaign contributions, tickets to plays and sporting events as well as lavish meals, etc. in exchange for multi-million dollar school construction bond contracts.

At least one defense counsel was reported to be discussing a severance of the multiple cases so all of the defendants are not prosecuted together. The public’s interest in receiving information regarding the criminal case and the defendants’ right to due process and to have a trial free of adverse publicity has to be balanced by the court, with such a claim likely to be made by at least one of the defense counsel. The court will also have to manage this complex case with over a dozen defense counsel seeking to make a series of arguments and motions on behalf of their respective clients. Also, this case will no doubt proceed over many months, and here will be some defendants who will enter guilty or nolo contender pleas (plea in which one declines to admit or dispute the charges); it is even possible immunity may be given by the prosecution to some of the offenders if they have not done so already in helping to build their case. In spite of all of the allegations and innuendos, one always needs to be cognizant of the fact a person must be deemed innocent until proven otherwise.”

–Sam Spital

Ratings and Reviews

BBB 10.0Samuel Eugene Spital
Samuel E. SpitalClients’ ChoiceAward 2021 Samuel Eugene SpitalClients’ ChoiceAward 2020
avvo rated 10/10 in Criminal Defense avvo rated 10/10 in Juvenile Law avvo rated 10/10 in Licensing
avvo rated 10/10 in Personal Injury Top ContributorAward 2012Samuel Eugene Spital Samuel Eugene SpitalReviewsout of 207 reviews