Articles Posted in Criminal

by

Researchers have discovered a there is a genetic link between personality and mental illness. As one of the researchers explained: “Mental illnesses can be viewed as maladaptive or extreme variants of personality traits.” The researchers studied the genetic profiles of 260,000 people focusing on the five long-established personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness to experience and conscientiousness) that are considered the basic categories of personality. What the researchers found was that these personality dimensions when identified on a person’s genome map (yes, there are “personality genes”) strongly correlated to gene variations that predicted various mental illnesses.

Now you might say, “What’s new?” It is observable in our everyday life that people we know who have, for example, a neurotic personality also tend to have anxiety disorders and depression. These links between personality and mental illness have long been observed and studied. What this study reveals however is that there is a genetic link; in other words, it’s not all nurture. The researchers theorize that the personality a person is born with may tip over into mental illness when pushed to extremes by life experiences.

This field of research, which is sure to eventually unlock the keys to mental illness, is a potential minefield in terms of the criminal justice system. It would not be a stretch to say that many criminals are born. In other words, a criminal is born with a certain personality type—as are we all— but the criminal personality is one susceptible to the risk of mental illnesses, such as antisocial disorders or psychopathy. Indeed, it is estimated that more than half of all incarcerated criminals have some kind of mental illness. (Removing the large numbers of persons incarcerated for victimless crimes would increase that percentage substantially.)

Continue reading →

by

On November 8, 2016, California voters passed Proposition 57, The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 201, by an overwhelming majority of 64%. This proposition contained two key provisions:

1) It makes certain non-violent felons eligible for immediate parole and

2) It requires a court hearing before a juvenile can be tried in adult court.

Continue reading →

by

The Brave New World of Law Enforcement Investigation

The digital age has changed everything in the world around us and law Enforcement is no exception. Back in the old days, police investigation procedures were limited to talking with potential witnesses, taking lots of photographs, lifting fingerprints, forensic analysis of blood, and that sort of thing. Now law enforcement has investigation tools that make their job easier and make it harder for the criminal to “get away with it.” But these tools present their own dangers to the public. As civil rights advocates warn, the brave new world of law enforcement tools endanger our civil liberties. I will discuss why this may be so in my next post but today, let’s review just a few of the new age law enforcement tools.

We might begin with DNA analysis, which was no doubt the first huge law enforcement tool of the digital age. We are all familiar with DNA analysis, but it’s pretty amazing to think that it has only been around since the mid-1980s. DNA has proven to be a very effective law enforcement tool and on the flip side, DNA evidence techniques have freed individuals who were wrongly convicted of a crime.

Continue reading →

by

NEW CALIFORNIA LAW PULLS IN THE REINS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT’S SEIZING OF PROPERTY

You have probably heard of civil asset forfeiture but did you know that under this procedure law enforcement can confiscate property—be it money, a house, a vehicle, or any other asset—without any due process to the owner of the property. The property can simply be seized under civil asset forfeiture laws on the “suspicion” that the asset was gained by or used for a criminal enterprise.

While the owner of the asset can petition for the return of asset, the petition must be filed within a very short period of time and the process is daunting. In the end, the government can refuse to return the asset on the continuing suspicion that the asset is connected with criminal activity. And guess what: Even if the owner of the asset is never convicted of any crime as it relates to the suspected criminal activity for which the asset was seized, the asset is not returned to the owner.

Continue reading →

by

In 2015, Orange County Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals removed the Orange County District Attorney’s Office from the trial of Scott Dekraai, who was accused and since convicted of the worst mass murder in Orange County. Judge Goethals booted the District Attorney’s Office from the case after an investigation initiated by the defendant’s lawyer revealed that law enforcement investigating the case withheld material evidence from the court. Law enforcement officers are agents for the District Attorney and as such, the judge found that the District Attorney’s Office was responsible for the illegal withholding of evidence in the trial. Although Judge Goethals found that the district attorneys on the case had committed serious misconduct, but concluded that their actions were not intentional.

Some legal observers would beg to differ with the judge’s ruling. Many defense attorneys have long suspected, or even known, that the District Attorney’s Office regularly withholds exculpatory evidence at trial. Sometimes a trial seems more like a competition, with the District Attorney out to win at all costs, than the right guaranteed by our Constitution for a fair and impartial presentation of facts to be heard and decided by a trial of peers. This is not only a violation of the defendant’s due process rights but it perverts the criminal justice system. The withholding or distortion of evidence denies a defendant a fair trial and, worse—it can (and has) result in the conviction of an innocent person.

Jumpstarted by the events in Judge Goethals courtroom, Assembly Bill 1909, was signed into law by Governor Brown last month. This law, which will be added by a subdivision to Penal Code section 141, punishes prosecutors who are found to abuse their power by “intentionally and in bad faith” tampering or withholding evidence in a criminal trial. The new law requires that the prosecutor knew the evidence was “relevant and material to the outcome of the case” and acted with “specific intent.” In the Orange County case, Judge Goethals found that the district attorneys did not act intentionally. So even though this new law was prompted by the actions in that trial, the district attorneys involved would not be prosecuted under this new law.

Continue reading →

by

Look up in the sky! No, it’s not Superman, it’s a drone. Well, maybe some of you are too young to get the reference but drones are becoming a modern version of Superman. They can, and are, being used to ferret out criminal activity and fight forest fires. They are also becoming a menace.

Drones were first offered for sale to private individuals about six years ago and until recently have been subject to few regulations. As their use become ever more common among hobbyist and for commercial purposes (photography, reconnaissance   services, etc.) can the law be far behind?

As of August 29, 2016 a commercial drone operator must follow the new set of FAA operational rules ( Part 107 of the Federal Aviation Regulations). Among the requirements are that the operator must be at least 16 years old and have a “remote pilot airman certificate” as well as pass TSA vetting. The drone must fly no more than 400 feet above ground level and below 100 mph. Fortunately for the rest of us, a drone being used for commercial purposes must not fly over people. (I don’t know how that would work for a photography drone operator filming a wedding, for example.) You know those Amazon packages that are going to be delivered by drone? Not happening under Part 107. While the new regulations permit delivery by drone, the rule also requires that the drone remain in the operator’s sight at all times.

Continue reading →

by

On a recent afternoon, a Texas grandmother discovered that her two granddaughters, aged 12 and 5, were missing from her home. Her car was missing too. Imaging the worse—that her granddaughters have been kidnapped from her home and forcibly taken in her car by the kidnapper—she called 911 to report the incident

Fortunately for Grandma, she had OnStar installed in her car and the police were able to quickly track the location of her car. The police caught up with the car and a chase ensued. The police dash cam videotape of the chase looks like a police chase out of an action thriller. The driver of Grandma’s car was running red lights, sideswiping vehicles while weaving in and out of traffic, and going at speeds of up to 118 mph. The chase lasted about 40 minutes along Highway 105 in the outlying suburban area of Houston right during rush hour. At one point during the chase Grandma’s car was heading right into oncoming traffic.

Ultimately police were able to have the OnStar center shut off the car remotely. The chase ended— almost miraculously without any injuries. Inside Grandma’s car sat her 12 year old granddaughter at the steering wheel with her 5 year old granddaughter in the passenger seat. The frightened 5 year old jumped straight into an officer’s arms; the 12 year old was arrested.

Continue reading →

by

YOUR PET CAN SEND YOU TO PRISON

You could be charged for a crime your animal “commits.” Okay, animals can’t commit crimes but this is serious stuff. If your dog attacks a person or worse yet, kills someone, you can be facing some very serious criminal charges.

But it needn’t be your dog or even an aggressive act by an animal you own. One Vermont man is being charged with negligent involuntary manslaughter when his roaming bull was hit by a vehicle, killing the driver and the bull. The bull’s owner faces a sentence of up to 15 years in prison if he is convicted. The significant fact is the bull owner’s negligence. It is alleged that he did not properly contain the animal and this wasn’t the first time the bull had been seen wandering off the property; the bull’s owner had been cited five times for allowing his animals to wander off the pasture. In fact, it was reported that minutes before the fatal accident, another driver had warned the bull’s owner that the bull was in the road.

Continue reading →

by

THE FIRST RULE TO FOLLOW AFTER AN ARREST: REMAIN SILENT EXCEPT TO REQUEST AN ATTORNEY

There is a scene in the Showtime series “Billions” where one of the characters is arrested by the F.B.I. for financial fraud. As he is read his Miranda rights and led away in handcuffs, he repeats only one word: “Lawyer, Lawyer, Lawyer,” Now I don’t say this just because I am a criminal defense attorney, but this scene got it right. When you are arrested, the cops must immediately “read you your rights,” which is to say, you must be informed that you have the right to remain silent, that anything you say may be used against you in a court of law, and that you have the right to an attorney. Let me emphasize something: anything you say will in all probability be used against you in a court of law even if the police later suggest during an interrogation that it won’t. All too often after an arrest the cops will use well-honed tactics to get an arrestee to talk. Your best advice is to follow the character’s action in Billions, request an attorney and say nothing else.

Under the law, once an arrestee invokes the right to remain silent and requests an attorney, the police are supposed to cease their questioning. Any response or statement made by the arrestee to further police questioning is evidence that is violation of the law and can be suppressed (i.e., not admitted in evidence). But in reality, what often happens is the police will manage to strike up a conversation with the arrestee and the arrestee will take the bait and engage in conversation with the police. Even if an arrestee says something like “I ain’t talkin’” and indeed remains silent, but then later responds—even in a limited way— to police questioning, it may be considered a waiver of the right to remain silent. In short, an arrestee must affirmatively and clearly state that he or she wishes to remain silent and moreover, do just that: Remain silent (with the exception of requesting an attorney).

Continue reading →

by

THE TERRY STOP – “STOP AND FRISK” DETENTION

You’ve seen it in the movies and on TV shows: The police approach a person on the street or tell them to get out of a vehicle after a traffic stop and command the person to submit to a frisk. In my previous post, I discussed the lawfulness of police detentions so you might wonder what factors must be present for an officer to lawfully conduct what is commonly called a “Stop and Frisk.”

In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is not an unlawful search and seizure when an officer stops an individual in the public arena and frisks that individual if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is committing a crime, has committed a crime, or is about to commit a crime and furthermore, has a reasonable belief that the individual might be armed and therefore dangerous. Officers and legal authorities often refer to this as a “Terry Stop,” referencing the Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, in which this decision was pronounced. The decision is premised on officer safety, that is, if the officer has reasonable suspicion of the criminal activity, the officer can lightly frisk the detained individual for a weapon. Because the officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the individual is considered “detained” (but not arrested) and is not free to walk away without the officers consent.

Continue reading →