Category Archives: Criminal Defense

California sheriff sentenced for domestic violence

Posted on by

The sheriff of a major California city will spend the next three years serving a probation sentence after pleading guilty to domestic abuse in connection with a recent altercation with his wife.

According to court documents, the alleged domestic violence incident took place on New Year’s Eve, when the sheriff of San Francisco forcefully grabbed his wife’s arm during a heated argument. Last month, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment under a plea deal that included the dismissal of three other criminal charges.

Following the guilty plea, the sheriff was sentenced to three years of probation. He must also complete 100 hours of community service and 52 weeks of domestic violence counseling, and pay about $600 in fines and court fees. Under a current restraining order, he is not allowed to contact his wife until he begins his court-ordered counseling

The sheriff’s job future is also uncertain. The San Francisco mayor is reportedly assessing his options, which include suspending the sheriff for official misconduct. The sheriff says he has no plans to step down.

After his sentencing hearing, the sheriff gave a tearful statement to the waiting press, stating that the arrest and court process had been “a very public reminder that I’m not the person that I thought I was,” and admitting that he has already started counseling to deal with the issues that caused the incident.

“I deeply and humbly apologize for my behavior and the pain it caused to my wife and son. For what happened on December 31, there are no excuses,” he said. “I accept full responsibility.”

ICE on the lookout for drug smugglers crossing into San Diego

Posted on by

The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office is taking action to combat drug smugglers that are luring Tijuana citizens to participate in alleged drug trafficking operations that move narcotics across the U.S. border into San Diego.

According to ICE officials, the Tijuana ‘drug lords’ are placing ads in local newspapers alerting citizens of what appear to be reputable employment opportunities involving transporting company vehicles across the border. These jobs later turn out to be fronts for drug trafficking operations, often resulting in the innocent drivers being arrested and charged with federal drug crimes when they reach California.

Since 2011, ICE has apprehended and arrested nearly 40 such drivers at the San Diego border. This reportedly led to the seizure of 100 pounds of methamphetamine, 75 pounds of cocaine and more than 3,300 pounds of marijuana.

To alert Tijuana residents of the potential of arrest and criminal penalties, ICE has placed ads of its own into the two main newspapers in Tijuana. “Warning! Drug traffickers are announcing employment for drivers to cross to the United States,” the ads read. “Don’t be a victim of the smuggler’s trap.”

ICE says that, in most cases, the drivers suspected that something was amiss. However, needing gainful employment, they were willing to overlook the inconsistencies and irregularities for the promise of a much-needed paycheck.

For example, one Tijuana man told officers that he had searched the vehicle, suspecting that his new employer may have been up to something illegal. Despite his search, he did not find the 30 pounds of cocaine that were packed into the gas tank, which ultimately led to his arrest when he reached the U.S.

Should juveniles receive criminal life sentences?

Posted on by

We all make mistakes; some are obviously more serious and have long-standing consequences. When thinking back to when we were adolescents or teenagers, many of us can recall a few, if not more, poor decisions we made. Teenagers are often prone to over-reacting and feeling invincible. They also tend to not weigh consequences and act on impulse.

Recently the United States Supreme Court heard arguments related to whether or not juveniles should ever receive life in prison without parole sentences. Taking the cases of 2,500 juveniles, many whom committed crimes when they were as young as 13-years-old, into consideration, justices will ultimately determine whether teens charged with crimes should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

While family members of those killed by the serious crimes of juveniles often seek retribution in the form of a life sentence without parole, others advocate juveniles simply aren’t able to weigh the consequences of their actions and should not be punished for the rest of their lives for crimes committed during their adolescent years.

Currently, 39 states have laws that allow juvenile prison life sentences without parole in cases related to murder. The high court’s ruling will help determine if these laws are constitutional and also impact future rulings across the country and in states like California.

Many juveniles who commit crimes were born into violent homes and impoverished communities. While this certainly doesn’t give then license to commit crimes, steps towards rehabilitation should be explored rather than simply writing them off, locking them up and throwing away the keys to any type of future.

 

UPDATE:  In the case of Miller vs. Alabama, (Case #10-9646, June 25, 2012) the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to ban mandatory life sentences for juveniles, and reaffirmed the juvenile justice system must recognize developmental differences between juveniles and adults

Supreme Court rules in favor of strip searches for everyone

Posted on by

Imagine driving along with your spouse. They are pulled over for speeding. You’re a bit annoyed as you’d recommended they slow down five miles back. A police officer approaches the car, runs the plates and determines you have an outstanding warrant due to an unpaid fine. You try to explain that you’ve paid the fine, but are arrested and taken into police custody anyway.

This is the exact scenario that lead to the false arrest of one man recently. The man was held for a week in two separate jails and while there, subjected to humiliating and degrading strip searches which he said man him “feel less than a man”.

Upon being released, the man filed a lawsuit which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court leading to a 5-to-4 decision that, , regardless of the offense, strip searches are permissible for every arrest. Dissenting justices evoked the Fourth Amendment which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures citing that strip searches are not necessary for individuals arrested for minor offenses.

While those Justices in favor of strip searches contended that even individuals arrested for seemingly minor offense can turn out to be dangerous criminals, those opposed cited examples where people arrested for driving with a noisy muffler or failing to use a turn signal had been subjected to invasive strip searches.

In addition to the dissenting arguments including the Fourth Amendment and matters related to a general right to privacy, those Justices against strip searches also questioned the effectiveness of the searches in uncovering contraband. They contended that many contraband items detected by jail and prison workers could be detected using much less intrusive means.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on strip searches is troubling as it will likely encourage police and jail workers to increase their practices of carrying out humiliating and degrading strip searches. While safety is a concern for police and law enforcement officials, one has to wonder if there are ulterior motives at play. For example is a nun arrested during an anti-war protest really a danger or likely criminal? Sadly, police who arrested and subjected her to a strip search seemed to think so.

Defense files motion dismissing evidence citing police coercion

Posted on by

When being falsely or wrongly accused of anything, most of us become upset and flustered. When an interrogation is being conducted by actual police officers, skilled at using coercive tactics to confuse and intimidate, many of us would likely fall victim and appear guilty.

Two young men are currently behind bars awaiting trial for the murder of another 20-year-old man. The criminal defense attorney for one of the accused men, contends his client is innocent and was coerced through police aggression and intimidation into making statements that made him appear guilty.

The two men are accused of killing one man and attacking another. Both men have pled not guilty to the charges and there is no physical evidence linking either to the crime. Trying desperately to tie the men to the crime, prosecutors are relying on the testimony of four witnesses who have since recanted their statements claiming police coercion.

Additionally, prosecutors plan to introduce evidence collected during interrogations. The defense attorney for one of the accused, however, contends his client was not aware of his constitutional rights during the interrogations. He also points out that his client has a learning disability which affects his reading and comprehension skills and that questioning by police took place during extremely early and late hours which served to disorientate his client.

The defense attorney contends any statements made by his client were the result of intimidating, misleading and outright lying on the part of police interrogators. The accused defense attorney believes so strongly in his client’s innocence that he is working the case pro bono.

The hearing ruling on the defense’s motion to dismiss the majority of statements submitted by police officers on the grounds they are not valid will be heard on April 26.

Drug charges upheld in case where drugs delivered via mail

Posted on by

Who doesn’t like getting packages in the mail? Imagine, however, that you receive and sign for a package, only to discover it contains illegal drugs. One man, who found himself in this situation, is now facing misdemeanor drug charges.

Appealing a lower court’s decision, the man claims police who arrested him lacked probable cause to do so. According to court documents, a package intended for the address at which the man resides, was intercepted by a United Sates Postal Service worker who believed the package contained drugs.

A police officer posing as a postal worker made a “controlled delivery” of the package to the man’s home. The police officer maintains the man acknowledged the package was intended for him. The man, however, contends the package was addressed to another recipient and that the police officer coerced him into signing for it. He argued he planned to return the unopened package to the post office.

The appellate judge hearing this case remarked that it was one of the first to address questions related to if the acceptance of a package delivered via a “controlled delivery” qualifies as probable cause to arrest the recipient.

In her opinion, the judge maintained probable cause is classified by “some awareness that the package contains contraband” on the recipient’s part. While in this specific instance, law enforcement officials had additional information to tie the man to criminal drug activity, the case is interesting in the potential questions it raises related to a recipient’s liability for the contents of packages delivered via mail.

Poor legal representation may result in death of innocent man

Posted on by

A now 33-year-old man is currently sitting on death row for a crime he and many others contend he did not commit. While in recent years the media has reported several cases with this similar scenario, in this specific case, the man’s criminal defense attorneys may be to blame.

Charged with murdering a police deputy in 2000, the man now faces an uphill legal battle as he attempts to appeal his case. Despite compelling evidence pointing to his innocence, including several witnesses who are willing to testify that another man has confessed to the murder, the judge presiding over the case cited that “federal law does not recognize actual innocence as a mechanism to overturn an otherwise valid conviction”.

An expected Supreme Court decision may hold the man’s last chance for justice. The ruling will decide whether a defendant has a constitutional right to adequate lawyers during the appeals process. During the first appeal of the ruling, the defendant’s attorney filed a poorly prepared application that contained little information specific to the defendant’s case. In 2006, this attorney asked to be removed by the court from a list of death penalty defense attorneys.

In 2007, another appellate attorney was assigned to the case, but he faced a difficult situation as the previous appellate attorney failed to present evidence asserting the defendant’s innocence during the initial appeals process. A judge denied the second appeal citing that evidence proving “claims of innocence and shoddy lawyering” were not sufficient to warrant a new trial.

Yet another appellate attorney is currently preparing the defendant’s third appeal and much will likely hinge on this attorney’s ability to convince the judge that both trial and appellate attorneys failed to present effective and compelling evidence on behalf of the defendant.

This case illustrates the importance of having a skilled and fully committed defense team, especially when facing charges as serious as murder.

Perry v. New Hampshire Summary (Criminal Trial Defenses)

Posted on by

In the case of PERRY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, the U.S. Supreme Court on January 11, 2012 (Case #10-8974 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-8974.pdf), affirmed the Decision of the New Hampshire State Supreme Court, holding eyewitness identification that was not procured by unnecessarily suggestive circumstances by law enforcement is not a violation of Due Process and, therefore, cannot be held inadmissible in court. In summary, the U.S. Supreme Court held a preliminary judicial determination to assess the reliability of an out-of-court eyewitness identification was not required before admitting such evidence at trial. The Court held:

“The Constitution protects a defendant against a conviction based upon evidence of questionable reliability, not by prohibiting introduction of the evidence, but by affording the defendant means to persuade the jury that the evidence should be discounted as unworthy of credit. Only when evidence “is so extremely unfair that its admission violates fundamental conceptions of justice,” Dowling v. United States, 493 U. S. 342, 352 (internal quotation marks omitted), does the Due Process Clause preclude its admission. Contending that the Due Process Clause is implicated here, Perry relies on a series of decisions involving police-arranged identification procedures. See Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293; Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377; Foster v. California, 394 U. S. 440; Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188; and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U. S. 98. These cases detail the approach appropriately used to determine whether due process requires suppression of an eyewitness identification tainted by police arrangement. First, due process concerns arise only when law enforcement officers use an identification procedure that is both suggestive and unnecessary. Id., at 107, 109; Biggers, 409 U. S., at 198. Even when the police use such a procedure, however, suppression of the resulting identification is not the inevitable consequence. Brathwaite, 432 U. S., at 112-113; Biggers, 409 U. S., at 198-199. Instead, due process requires courts to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether improper police conduct created a “substantial likelihood of misidentification.” Id., at 201. Reliability of the eye witness identification is the linchpin” of that evaluation. Brathwaite, 432 U. S., at 114. Where the “indicators of a witness’ ability to make an accurate identification” are “outweighed by the corrupting effect” of law enforcement suggestion, the identification should be suppressed. Id., at 114, 116. Otherwise, the identification, assuming no other barrier to its admission, should be submitted to the jury. Pp. 6-10. ”

Smith v. Cain Summary (Murder Homicide; Armed Robbery; Criminal Defenses)

Posted on by

In the case of SMITH v. CAIN, the U.S. Supreme Court on January 10, 2012 (Case #10-8145), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-8145.pdf reversed the Decision of the Louisiana State Trial Court, which erroneously convicted the defendant of first-degree murder based upon the testimony of a single witness. At trial, the only witness to link the defendant to the crime untruthfully claimed he was face to face with the defendant during the initial moments of an armed robbery, and identified Smith as the first gunman to come through the door when two other gunmen entered the residence in question. There were no other witnesses and no physical evidence to implicate the defendant in the crime.

During a state post-conviction proceeding, the defendant obtained police files containing exculpatory statements by the eyewitness that contradicted his trial testimony, which evidence was not disclosed by the prosecution in the Discovery they provided to the defendant’s counsel. The police investigator’s notes made at both the time of the murder as well as five days later contained statements by this sole witness that he could not supply a description of the perpetrators other than they were black males, as he could not see their faces and further that he would not know any of them even if he saw them. The notes were so damaging to the prosecution it was a clear travesty of justice for the prosecution to have failed to provide this evidence to the defense. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded the prosecution’s failure to disclose those statements violated the legal precedent established in the 1963 case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83, which held due process bars a State from withholding evidence that is favorable to the defense and mate­rial to the defendant’s guilt or punishment.

Barnes v. State of Indiana Summary (Criminal Defenses Unlawful Police Entry)

Posted on by

“In the case of BARNES vs. STATE OF INDIANA, the Indiana Supreme Court on May 12, 2011, held there is no right to unreasonably resist an unlawful entry by law enforcement officers. The Court argued public policy favors rejecting the fundamental and three hundred years of precedent English common-law right to be safe and secure in our residence and to reasonably resist the unlawful entry of police officers. In part, the Court based its ruling on the fact allowing one to resist law enforcement unlawful entry unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and harm and, therefore, the risk of injuries to all parties involved.”

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