Los Angeles law enforcement authorities will have the permission to use drones in order to make the most from surveillance in the most challenging criminal situations and instances. The Los Angeles authorities granted the police with their permission to make use of the drones for surveillance. The permission will be active for one year and it is meant to help with lowering crime rates. However, not everyone is happy about that decision. There have been a number of protests against the decision and people are genuinely afraid that the usage of drones will invade their private lives, will not help in any actual way, and simply ruins Fourth Amendment Rights.
In response, the authorities claim that the use of drones will be extremely limited only in the most extreme circumstances and instances. One way or the other, the drones will not be used simply for surveillance or in low risk situations. Instead, SWAT will have the permission to use drones if a situation gets out of hand and presents a genuine challenge for the police. Furthermore, the police will only be able to use a single drone for surveillance. Of course, a second drone will be at the station as backup if something goes wrong with the first one.
Needless to say, not everyone was too happy about the idea that drones will be used for surveillance, even if their use will be limited to high risk situations. Right now, the drones can be used in the most extreme instances, but if they will prove to be valuable in such situations, odds are, the authorities will find a reason to extend the program and to make the most from incorporating it even further. Hence, it may even imply intruding into people’s day to day living and their private life as well.
As drones are relatively new and were not used actively in the past, when it comes to legal matters, there is a gray area and this is one of the many reasons why the courts are still undecided on how to proceed in such instances. Some of the courts are trying to apply existing legislation and to make sure that it will work with the drone situation as well. After all, it is not illegal to take photos of a person’s property from a plane or a helicopter, if, of course, those aircrafts are maintaining a certain distance above the ground so there people’s expectations for privacy will also be met in full.
Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that drones are very much different from all of the above-mentioned aircrafts and this is why it is so important to come up with another solution that would allow Los Angeles citizens to make the most from legal needs and requirements.
Is there a possibility that the drones will violate people’s privacy? Well, for example, a person will be convicted for a crime in line with all of the evidence that the drone collected. The defendant’s criminal attorney could argue that all the evidence collected against the defendant was accumulated through the invasion of privacy. Hence, the court will need to find out if the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hence, it will need to answer two main questions – did the defendant demonstrate that he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy and will society consider that the expectation of privacy was reasonable? If both of the questions are answered in a positive manner, it will demonstrate that the defendant did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so any kind of evidence that was gathered with drones will be completely thrown away.
One way or the other, it is apparent that the drones will be used by the law enforcement authorities more often and this may imply an even deeper invasion of private life. Hence, it is very important, crucial even, to know your rights and to be able to use them properly. Of course, if you have reasons to believe that your own rights were infringed in some way, you will need to get in touch with a qualified, genuinely experienced Los Angeles criminal defense attorney to make the most from your legal needs and to make sure that your rights were not infringed on in any kind of way.
When it comes to the legal process, things can get complicated, especially if you don’t have the right attorney to help you handle the matter properly. Preliminary hearings often occur several months after an arraignment takes place, and the prosecution will get an opportunity to review all of the available case evidence against the defendant. In the mean time, if you have a qualified, experienced legal representative, the lawyer will also get a chance to look for inconsistencies in case evidence as well as the prosecution’s allegations. Like, for example, did the law enforcement officer pull the driver over because he had a reason to? And was the search performed in the defendant’s car lawful?
During the demonstration of all the available evidence, both in favor and against the defendant, the judge can make an educated decision in line with all of the gathered information. If there is sufficient evidence against the defendant, the judge will allow the case to go to trial. If there is no evidence that would definitively implicate the defendant of any crime, the case will be dismissed and the prosecution will have a chance to refile their charges. As far as dismissal goes, there are two major categories – dismissal with prejudice and without prejudice.
Dismissal without prejudice may sound like a great option, as it indicates the case is closed for good, but it actually implies that you have one more try.
If there is not enough evidence against you, you can file a motion to dismiss all charges. However, if the case is dismissed without prejudice, the prosecution can refile the charges in the future. Yet, as far as it goes, the state does have several choices:
Despite the fact that the prosecutors will have a chance to refile their charges in the above-mentioned circumstances, it is rarely the case. Dismissal without prejudice does not have a toll on the statute of limitations. Hence, time starts ticking. The physical evidence from the scene will deteriorate quickly and the notes of the police officers witnessing the crime could be long gone already, since the law enforcement destroys these after a short life cycle.
In some cases, if the prosecution establishes flaws in the case evidence beforehand, dismissal without prejudice could turn out to be voluntary, if, for instance, the prosecution invited a professional chemist to verify the evidence and the chemist did not show up in court on time. The prosecutor will realize that the judge will not change the time and there are two options – either arrive empty-handed or file a voluntary dismissal without prejudice in order to refile the charges later and to start it all over again.
One way or the other, when it comes to dismissing the case from the outset, you will need to seek aid from industry experts. While there are plenty of different law firms that are quite readily available on the net, odds are, you will search for the best lawyers that will not let you down and will help you in your time of legal need.
West Burnett, a 6-year-old boy, was recently abducted from elementary school by his troubled mother – Nisha Burnett Thayer. Thankfully, the situation was handled properly and no one got hurt. The mother, who did not have legal custody over her son, was finally apprehended by law enforcement authorities. They were looking for the boy for about 12 hours. Shortly after, young West was released to his father and his legal guardian – his aunt. West was smiling and was quite happy to return to his dad and his aunt, though he admitted that the whole situation actually scared him a bit.
The whole situation started when West was dropped off at school by his father’s cousin, who walked the child straight into his classroom. Little did he know, Nisha had followed them to school without being noticed. She chose the perfect time, when parents were dropping their children off and she would attract as little attention as possible. But, she then acted frantically and simply walked into the classroom, took the boy and went away. Although the personnel allegedly tried to stop her, she would not listen and told the boy to get in the car and drove away.
Finally, when the law enforcement authorities were notified, they put an Amber Alert on and started an intense search, which eventually allowed them to find Nisha with the boy. Initially, the car was pulled over by the police, but after a short dialogue, Nisha decided to flee the scene so the police was forced to pursuit her. The chase was relatively brief, so very soon Nisha was apprehended.
Thankfully, right after the child was abducted, the police managed to identify the woman as the mother, who had a restraining order due because she posed a threat to the child. The father, William Burnett, also mentioned that his ex-wife was quite a disturbed person. She was homeless, known for living in her car, had a history of drug abuse and a certain mental illness. Clearly, the father and the aunt were very worried about the little West and once the Amber Alert was put into action, they went live to plead with Nisha to give the child back to them because she was not well and could harm the child.
Even though the police acted effectively in this case and managed to get things under control within a relatively short period of time, such cases are happening all too often all over the country. Parents, who do not have parental custody over their children, are somehow managing to find new ways to abduct them, which is a pretty disturbing tendency. Especially if the parent had problems with the law before, was taking drugs or suffered from certain mental illnesses and disorders.
So, is there a way to regulate such behavior and make sure this doesn’t happen in the future? Well, unfortunately, law enforcement officers do not have the right to follow people 24/7, nor do they have the resources, so it really makes it quite challenging to handle the matter effectively. In fact, it is up to the parents themselves to be aware of the possible consequences of such behavior. And, we are not just talking about being chased by the police – just think about how scared the child may be? West’s aunt also mentioned that during his first night home after the chase, he was scared to fall asleep and told them that he could hear his mom in the room. This really is one traumatizing experience and one that no child should go through.
So, before doing anything as dangerous or troubling, it is important to think about how it will affect the child and how difficult it will be for him or her to handle the experience. The police cannot help, though we will do our best.
Despite the fact that the United States government is constantly preaching about equality and how genuinely “free” and “democratic” the nation really is, more and more often we get the chance to actually witness how “tolerant” and genuinely welcoming some people are when it comes to others who are different in appearance, nationality, race or even medical condition.
With that said, a relatively recent example of such a hate crime clearly demonstrates that the country really has a pretty long way to go until it does live up to the standards that it aspires to. Not that long ago, a Latina caretaker was walking outside with a 25-year-old man, who had suffered from a serious stroke when he was only a few weeks old. Subsequently, the poor guy was unable to talk and had plenty of health related problems. The woman was taking care of him for quite a whil. As they were peacefully walking around the neighborhood, a group of aggressive teenagers – about five boys – started to throw rocks at them. Those rocks were pretty heavy and the caretaker decided to shield him with her own body. She was screaming, and both her and the boy were scared and could not do anything about it. Thankfully, though, all the noises attracted the attention of the neighbors, so the teenagers were distracted and quickly retreated as soon as people started to come out of their houses, wondering what all the fuss was about.
The mother of the person with disabilities is claiming that the teenagers were screaming that they wanted to kill a Mexican and referred to her son as “another very ugly word for people with developmental disabilities which begins with a ‘R.’”
Now, in line with those claims, the sheriff’s department is conducting an investigation to try to find the teenagers who committed this attack. Furthermore, it also turns out that the mother of the person with disabilities also started a special center that is meant to help people with disabilities integrate into society when they reach 22 years and after they graduate school. Hence, it makes the crime even more damaging.
It is also important to keep in mind that there are plenty of reasons why some of Americans are hating on immigrants. With everything that is going on in the world and in the States in particular, some of the things happening are just horrible. Nevertheless, one must not mix politics into this particular case. The teenagers were obviously aggressive and hostile, so who knows how it all could have actually ended if not for the neighbors.
Hate crimes are horrifying and innocent people get hurt – people, who, just like the above-mentioned Latina, are taking care of others, who are in need of assistance and people, who, like the above-mentioned 25 year old, are different from others.
It all puts the integrity of the American society under a big question. Who is going to control all that rage and is it possible to stop those hate crimes from occurring so often to begin with? After all, who knows how it will all end the next time some of the kids want to focus their aggression on someone else.
It is very important to make sure that the government does place a very obvious line between all those illegal immigrants selling drugs, soliciting people into prostitution, selling weapons, stealing things from others, raping women and so on. There are people of all nations and races that are scum of the earth, but it does not necessarily make the whole nation that way, so the scope of the government is to establish that there is a way to live in peace with each other and that people who are different have the same rights, so there should be no room for discrimination – that much is 100% certain.
There are too many people with bad intentions who are not afraid to use physical force to get what they want. Sadly, the official statistics clearly demonstrate that the number of crimes is rising all the time: more and more people get hurt due to criminal actions and so on.
While some people’s motives are pretty clear, other criminals are demonstrating bizarre and wild behavior. For instance, 37-year-old Joseph Molohon learned that being generous is not always a good thing, especially if you are in a company of degenerates who do not think like human beings and who enjoy hurting people and stealing from them.
Molohon was eating at Texas Chicken and Burgers in Brooklyn and minding his own business. A group of people could not pay for their meals, since they were short on cash. Well, Molohon, being a polite and genuinely generous person, offered to pay for their meals in full. What followed was completely unexpected. The group started an argument and then things quickly escalated and violence erupted. The entire group was hitting Molohon with arms and legs and even took his own cane to use it against him. Finally, when Molohon was already lying on the ground and the group left the building, another person appeared and stole everything that Molohon had in his pockets.
Well, the police managed to apprehend one 21-year-old suspects. Another four are still at large but the law enforcement representatives are promising to handle the matter properly.
So this case really goes to show that being generous is not always a good thing and could really get you in trouble. Of course, we still do not know all the details of the case, but it is 100% clear that the group of offenders was not messing around – Molohon was hospitalized with numerous lacerations and fractures. Such violent behavior must never be tolerated in the civilized society we claim to be.
It is apparent that in most cases, even if you are a kind person who really wishes to help others, you should mind your own business and ignore what is going on around you. But will we lose our humanity that way? Perhaps, since we will be forced to take into consideration cases like the above-mentioned one. Every instinct says that it is the wrong thing to do and you will probably agree with that, yet you will likely not intervene the next time some guys are broke and have no money to pay for their food.
It is alleged in the recently filed court documents in Casey Anthony’s case that she ran naked through her lawyer Jose Baez’s office back in 2008. Furthermore, according to the same papers, she also owed him three oral sex sessions.
These claims and more are included in an affidavit that was filed by Dominic Casey. He was working as a private detective for Anthony’s defense team.
Dominic Casey wrote that “Baez had scheduled a television interview that night. She did not want to interview and asked Baez to call and cancel. He called the network, saying they would have to take a raincheck, hung up the phone and said to Casey: ‘You now owe me three blow jobs.’”
Later on, Dominic Casey declared that “misconduct between Casey and Jose Baez had escalated. I arrived at Baez’s office unexpectedly one day and once again, witnessed a naked Casey. This time she ran from his private office through the conference room to the hallway.”
“Casey told me she had to do what Jose said because she had no money for her defense. I reminded her that Baez had more than enough money from the network he sold the photographs to so as to pay for her defense. Casey apologized and assured me it would not happen again.”
Nevertheless, Baez himself is actually still working and operating his law offices in Miami and Orlando. He denied any and all of Dominic Casey’s claims that were all filed in court: “I unequivocally and categorically deny exchanging sex for my legal services with Ms. Anthony. I further unequivocally and categorically deny having any sexual relationship with Ms. Anthony whatsoever. I have always conducted my practice consistent with the high ethical standards required of members of the Florida Bar. My representation of Ms. Anthony was no exception.”
In addition, it was also confirmed that the Florida Bar did not receive any complaints and is therefore not conducting any investigations on the matter.
Back in 2008, Dominica Casey decided to terminate his work with the Baez Law Firm. Nevertheless, he had to be involved later on, in 2011, when Casey Anthony, who was then 25, was trialed for murdering her two-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony. However, Casey Anthony was eventually found not guilty. Furthermore, the jury found her not guilty of aggravated manslaughter of a child or aggravated child abuse. But they did find her guilty of lying to law enforcement agents.
In his affidavit, Dominic Casey claims that both Baez and Casey “knowingly and purposefully made false statements about me and portrayed me as being involved in a conspiracy with George and Cindy Anthony and Roy Kronk to conceal Caylee Marie Anthony’s body.”
This very affidavit makes an appearance in a federal bankruptcy case that involves Roy Kronk and Casey Anthony. Roy is the man who found the remains of Caylee. Kronk is suing Anthony for defamation and is claiming that she accused him of kidnapping Caylee.
Along with his numerous claims that he made in the filing, Dominic Casey also claimed that a serious drug trafficker and money launderer for “El Chapo,” the Mexican drug lord and head of the Sinaloa Cartel, was offering a reward of $200,000 for defending Casey Anthony plus the $500,000 required to pay for the second bail bond in Casey Anthony’s case.
Finally, Dominic Casey also claims he had evidence of the fact that Caylee Anthony accidentally drowned in the Anthony family’s backyard pool, so Casey panicked and consequently dumped the child’s body. Even though a version of this story appeared in court as a defense theory for Casey Anthony, it was never entirely developed during the trial.
Baez claims that the former investigator is making serious and outrageous claims to the media and the court.
Back when Lee Baca was first put on trial and charged with obstruction of an ongoing FBI investigation, the attorneys of this ex Los Angeles County sheriff almost convinced the jury that the case, which was built up by the government actually has no basis at all.
The retrial will be opening this week. The lawyers behind Baca are already planning on presenting yet another defense, which will be even more daunting. Only one of all the 12 jurors on Baca’s case in December managed to vote to release him of charges that imply his involvement in a 20111 scheme, which was carried out by the people who worked for him in order to thwart a federal probe into largely spread abuses in addition to extensive corruption by deputies that work in county jails.
Despite the fact that it was 100% obvious that the people working under Baca were not acting in an appropriate manner, the prosecutors were unable to prove that the ex sheriff had anything to do with them. At least, this is how the jurors see it. Nevertheless, the only juror who was convinced that Baca actually was guilty, insisted on declaring a mistrial. Hence, the US attorney’s office announced its plans for retrial almost immediately.
The selection of jurors for the second trial started on Wednesday. Later this week or even early next week the opening statements are expected to be made. Generally speaking, the second trial is overall going to be quite similar to the first one. The government in this case is hoping to get valuable testimonies from some of the people, who were actually contributing to the conspiracy. The government is also hoping to get information from other witnesses in addition to phone as well as email records, which will prove that Baca was the one helping in concocting and carrying out the plant to obstruct the FBI investigation.
On the other hand, Baca’s main lawyer – Nathan Hochman, is going to once more present Baca as a leader, who, even though he was angered by the efforts of the FBI to investigate the jails he was running, was not doing anything unlawful. Furthermore, during the very first trial, Hochman was pointing out the lack of any hard evidence that would prove Baca’s involvement. He is probably going to use this strategy once again.
However, now it would be fair to expect some differences. One of the most peculiar changes would be the fact that with the obstruction of justice and conspiracy charges from the initial trial, Baca may now be facing additional allegations that he was providing false statements to the investigators regarding his own knowledge and personal involvement in the obstruction plan throughout a 2013 interview.
Initially, the US District Judge Percy Anderson was planning on splitting the false statement charges from the main case and wanted to hold a second trial. He did this due to the fact that Baca was to be tested by a psychiatrist, who would prove or disprove that the false statement could have been a result of the early stages of the Alzheimer’s disease. Such a testimony, Anderson stated, would unfairly bias the jurors when they would be making a decision whether Baca was guilty of the additional charges.
Nevertheless, after the Assistant US Attorney Brandon Fox argued about it, Anderson decided to rejoin the three charges for the retrial. And afterwards he granted Fox’s request to prohibit the psychiatrist to testify, seeing how the claims of Alzheimer’s were actually speculative and misleading as well.
The actions of Fox were actual an attempt by the public corruption prosecutor to actually restart the trial. At least, this is what Miriam Krinsky – an ex federal prosecutor believes as she was the one leading the commission on county jails violence.
Seeing how the false statement charges will be brought back, it will allow Fox to actually argue to jurors that the ex sheriff lied to the investigators in an attempt to cover up his involvement in the obstruction that was committed earliest. Such a strategy was not available during the first trial.
Furthermore, Fox has managed to win a series of pretrial motions, which will make it a whole lot more challenging for Hochman to make the 74 years old Baca look like a wise and law abiding public servant who did not know about the misconduct that was takin place around him. In addition to other actions, Anderson also ruled out that Hochman will not be able to again elicit the testimony for witnesses about programs that were occurring while Baca was overseeing the issue. In addition, Baca was prohibited from wearing the lapel pin in shape of the Sheriff’s Department star insignia.
The allegations and charges against Baca are largely focuses around a six-week period. This was during August and September of 2011. This is when the deputies discovered a phone, which was smuggled to an inmate who was operating as an FBI informant. The inmate was providing the agents with information as they were investigating the allegations that deputies of the sheriff are beating the inmates and receiving bribes. Obviously, the investigators’ attention turned to Baca and he was later charged with obstruction of an ongoing FBI investigation, which eventually led to the upcoming retrial.
Even though the ACLU is constantly expressing its concerns about the use of body cameras by the law enforcement officers from Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), those cameras have already turned into an invaluable asset for the entire department and are being actively used most of the time.
Not too long ago two police officers were deployed on a scene, when witnesses reported that they saw a woman armed with some type of knife. It is not entirely clear what happened when the police arrived on the spot, but one thing is certain – they shot the woman. She was taken to a hospital, but her condition and her injuries were critical, so she did not make it. It seems that both law enforcement officers discharged their weapons into the woman. The police chief also stated that both officers were wearing body cameras when the shooting took place and that both of the cameras were already taken to the lab, their content was downloaded and is part of an active investigation. In addition, the law enforcement officers collected all footage from the security cameras that were near the shooting and will examine it as well. It is peculiar that the LAPD division that both of the officers are from is one of the first divisions that received body cams. That footage will be analyzed by specialists and will be used as evidence in this case.
Body cameras are slowly and yet inevitably becoming a part of the law enforcement. Despite the fact that the use of body cameras is seemingly accumulating praises and public recognition, should you dig a little bit deeper, you are going to be surprised with results. Some representatives of the law enforcement authorities as well as various public organizations and civil rights groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are actually expressing their concerns and are questioning whether it is correct to use those cameras in the first place.
The ACLU claims that the body cameras program needs to be defended. According to this group, the use of body cameras automatically violates the basic human rights for privacy. This is due to the fact that those cameras are going to be recording everything around the law enforcement officer all the time. Hence, certain people and events that may not want to be on cameras will have their rights violated. This basically means that the goals of those cameras to deliver better transparency as well as public trust will automatically be violated as well.
There is plenty of controversy around using body cameras. First of all, the official statistical data clearly indicates that since the law enforcement officers in San Diego started to use those cameras, the number of complaints against them dropped nearly 90%. Furthermore, the use of those body cameras allowed to reduce the use of force by the law enforcement officers as well.
On the other hand, there were cases when the law enforcement officers were involved in shootings and were wearing their body cameras. Yet, the footage from those cameras was not released to the public, since the official stance implies that once the footage becomes evidence in an active investigation, it cannot be shared with the public under any circumstances.
Well, such an approach also raised plenty of questions. For example, will the release of the footage actually mess with the investigation? Furthermore, will the footage be used in order to investigate fellow officers or for criminal investigations only? Will the police officers be allowed to turn their cameras off? What will be the length of video that will be permitted to keep in storage and how long the video will be kept for? Some of those questions are fairly reasonable and demand answers.
The mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, has the same position on the body cameras as the LAPD. However, he confirmed that even though the footage from body cameras will not be released to the public in case it will be a part of an active police investigation, in extraordinary cases that very footage will be used in order to restore order on the streets, protecting from eruption of violence. Moreover, the mayor stated that there were particular cases when the police body cameras allowed to record important evidence that was later used in order to benefit the case in general. Of course, the mayor also stated that the videos are not going to be released in rape cases and domestic violence cases. Additionally, the mayor said that people are going to be afraid to report any crimes at all if all those videos will be released to the media and the internet. People will stop calling the police in order to report a crime, since they will be too afraid that a video will appear on YouTube later with them in the leading roles.
On the other hand, the ACLU representatives as well as their attorneys stated that the mayor is misrepresenting their intentions. They claim that they never had the intention to release all the videos to the public – only those videos that demonstrate unlawful actions of the law enforcement officers and nothing else.
Needless to say, ever since the Michael Brown shooting, the relationship between the law enforcement authorities and the public was slowly deteriorating. Hence, president Obama allocated $75 million dollars for the body cam program in order to make sure that the law enforcement officers are acting in a transparent as well as genuinely lawful way that will appeal to the people around the nation.
Los Angeles already purchased 700 body cameras for its law enforcement officers, using a part of those $75 million. However, the city also intends to acquire 7000 more cameras and will even use a part of its own budget for the purchase.
Still, the controversy is very real when it comes to police body cameras and there is no definitive answer to whether the cameras are harmful or beneficial for the public.
The holiday season is nearly upon us! Well, this is without a doubt the time of the year that we were all waiting for so eagerly! The cities all over the nation are changing – holiday decorations make people feel better and cheer them up indeed.
With that said, even though this time of the year is generally a very fun as well as cheerful one, it is also a pretty dangerous time of the year indeed. That is right – the official statistical data clearly demonstrates that the number of crimes being committed during the holidays is pretty high. Below are the most common types of crimes that take place during the holidays:
Well, in case you or maybe your loved ones were charged with one of the above-mentioned offenses during the holidays, it is very important, crucial even, to make sure that you get in touch with a qualified as well as genuinely experienced Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer at the earliest opportunity. Only a good criminal attorney will have what it takes to get you through the whole process and to make sure that you or your loved ones will not have to be impacted by the severe legal consequences.
The case begins with the pre-arrest investigation. First of all, once the law enforcement authorities are going to be made aware that the crime took place, they will need to determine what kind of crime it really was. This is why they will need to gather plenty of evidence, which would be used in the case in the future. Once the law enforcement authorities have plenty of reasons to believe that they have managed to find the criminal offender, they will be able to make the arrest in line with all of the gathered evidence. In some cases, before the arrest will be made, the police will need to deliver ample evidence to the prosecuting attorney.
In case an arrest will be made, the suspect will be taking into custody by the police officers. The arrest can be made in two cases. First of all, in case the law enforcement officers will arrive on the scene and will quickly determine that there are plenty of reasons to believe that the suspect is guilty of crime – perhaps he or she is resisting arrest, is in possession of weapons, illegal drugs and so on. Furthermore, the arrest also can be made in line with the warrant issued by a judge. Of course, the requirements for the warrants may vary from one state to another, but if the police have a warrant – they will have every right to arrest the suspect and to take him or her into their custody.
In case you or perhaps your loved ones are arrested for some kind of crime, the very first thing that you will need to do would be getting in touch with the best Los Angeles criminal attorney possible. In addition, it is very important, crucial even, to make sure that you remain silent. You have that right. Anything you may say could and will be used against you in court and, at times, people say things they did not mean in such stressful situations. Every word you say may be used as evidence against you.
The arrest is followed by the initial hearing. This is when the defendant is brought before the court. The judge is going to tell him or her about the offenses that he or she is charged with and will advise to find a legal representative and to remain silent until the attorney will have a possibility to examine the case.
In some cases, the Grand Jury will determine whether or not the defendant is guilty. It is a group of people, who do not know each other and are meant to decide if the defendant should be found guilty. Of course, the legislation varies from state to state. Still, in some cases the prosecution may ask the jury to indict the defendant.
If the defendant was charged with a felony, the initial hearing will be followed by the preliminary hearing. In some cases, this is when the fate of the defendant will be decided altogether. Hence, it is also strongly advised to have a qualified as well as genuinely experienced Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer by your side during the hearing.
The arraignment is when the defendant will be presented with official charges. Furthermore, this is when the defendant will have a choice on how to plead. Needless to say, the prosecution will want the defendant to plead guilty. However, it is not the best idea, even though the prosecutor may claim that it will ease your sentence. At times, the prosecutor simply wishes to get it over with and will want you to give up easily. This is also one of the moments when it is essential to have a qualified criminal defense attorney, who will be able to assess the case and will tell you how to proceed in order to avoid the harshest legal penalties.
Things can be resolved during the arraignment or the case can go to trial. However, dealing with charges before trial may help you to avoid any jail time. This is why is essential to have a good Los Angeles criminal defense attorney by your side. Please contact our law offices at (855) 858-2755 or use online contact form.
If there is one thing that people are counting on when going to a lawyer’s office, it is without a doubt the fact that the attorney-client relationship is going to be private and confidential indeed. That is right – lawyers always ask you to be honest with them and all of the things that you say are considered to be completely confidential.
With that said, it is all confusing as well as somewhat irregular to say the least to find out that Sarah Caplan – one of Phil Spector’s lawyers actually testified against former client during the motion hearings. This fact is not only irregular – it really stands out and it is somewhat difficult to form an objective opinion on the matter. People view this fact very differently and there is a lot of controversy around Caplan’s actions.
One way or the other, even though Sarah Caplan testified earlier, she refused to testify on the very same matter before the jury and there is a lot of speculating going on about it. It is important to understand that the case is becoming more and more complicated, especially seeing how Caplan was a part of the law firm that was working for Spector – the very same team that Spector fired and is now suing.
Clearing the matter is quite challenging and not as straightforward as a lot of people would like it to be. However, Dmitry Gorin – a former prosecutor, who is now a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, tried to comment that fact and explained that seeing how the new evidence arisen in this case, it was clear and entirely obvious that Caplan would be risking to ruin her entire career by testifying for the jury.
See, yet another person appears to be interested in clearing things up a bit. We are, of course, talking about Zvonko “Bill” Pavelic. He is a retired LAPD officer and he is claiming that prosecutorial misconduct took place in this particular case. In fact, Pvelic was working with the Shapiro team and is not calling Caplan a liar, who is doing her best to ruin the reputation of Dr. Lee. Pavelic has photos with a retired LA Sheriff’s detective, Stanley White and Sarah Caplan. They are both in the foyer area of Spector’s house, at the death scene. The photos were taken on February 4, 2007. However, Caplan testified that White was not there, in the foyer area. The photos were already given to Spector’s defense team.
criminal lawyer Dmitry Gorin considers that Caplan decided to go against the court’s orders to testify, because this new evidence would make her a witness and in these conditions it would not only ruin her reputation as an attorney – it could make things even more difficult for her in general. One way or the other, the Spector’s case is becoming very much similar to the O.J.’s and we all know how it turned out in the end.
Getting back to Caplan’s decision to testify at first, it is safe to say that she was pretty certain that her testimony will be decisive and, unless the above-mentioned evidence had not been identified, who knows how the case would go in the end.
According to Los Angeles criminal lawyer Dmitry Gorin, who has plenty of experience in this field and talks from a very knowledgeable perspective, Caplan would not testify even if she were really pressured, since her actions and wrongdoings already led to a fiasco and she is swiftly losing her good reputation, which is without a doubt the worst that could ever happen to an attorney.
The situation is a very challenging one and difficult to comment upon, but, despite the missing crucial piece of evidence as well as Caplan’s words, it is clear that the case will end up similarly to the O.J. Simpson’s. The prosecution is already doing its best to prosecute Spector and Caplan could be an invaluable witness. But now that she is not testifying, the future of this case is somewhat unclear and unpredictable. The Spector case could turn out to be a grand fiasco for both the prosecution and Caplan herself.