by

In 1963 Henry Montgomery was a 17 year old living in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He was playing hooky from school when he was approached by a deputy sheriff assigned to round up truants. When the deputy frisked Henry, Henry pulled out a cheap .22 and fatally shot the deputy. Henry’s lawyers argued that their client, who had an I.Q. in the 70s, panicked and did not fully understand the consequences of his actions. Henry was convicted and ultimately ordered to serve a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Now 69 years old, Mr. Montgomery has spent 52 years of his life in prison and until January 25, 2016, had no chance of parole.

In 2012, the United States Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ that mandatory sentencing of juveniles to life without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional. This case and others concerning the sentencing of juveniles was discussed in my recent blog titled “The Teenage Brain.” Following the Miller decision, many states held that the decision did not apply retroactively. Louisiana was one of those states. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the unconstitutionality of sentencing as enunciated in the Miller decision applied prospectively only. Thus, those serving life sentences without parole for crimes committed as juveniles in Louisiana had no hope of challenging their sentence based on the Miller decision. Mr. Montgomery decided to challenge Louisiana.

The United States Supreme Court decided to hear Mr. Montgomery’s argument and on January 25, 2016 issued its decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana. The Supreme Court ruled that the Miller decision applies not only to contemporary cases, but also to all those sent to prison for life, without the possibility of parole, no matter how long ago the defendant was sentenced. Thus Mr. Montgomery and others similarly situated must now be given the opportunity to petition the appropriate state court for relief from a mandatory life sentence without parole for a crime committed as a juvenile.

Continue reading →

by

California’s sex offender laws are among the strictest in the country. Even relatively minor sex offense convictions usually end up requiring a lifetime registration on the sex offender list. So what is a “relatively minor” sex offense you might ask. Well, consider the 18-year-old who is arrested for having consensual sex with a minor— that minor being his 16-year-old girlfriend. Or how about an adult of 19 who is convicted of making obscene and harassing phone calls to a minor, that minor being his younger brother’s friend and the acts, while immature, were done as a joke. While these acts and other similar crimes aren’t acts to be excused, they are hardly acts that suggest the offender poses a significant and lifetime risk of committing sex crimes. But that is how almost all so-called sex crimes are treated.

There are almost 100,000 sex offenders registered in California and this state is one of only four that requires a lifetime registration. The U.S. Justice Department estimates that more than a quarter of the sex crime registrants were minors at the time of the offense. According to the California Sex Offender Management Board, almost 900 of the registered sex offenders committed their last sex crime over 55 years ago. The strict requirements placed on sex offender registrants regarding where they can live has created an underclass marginalized by society.

How did the sex offender laws become so stringent in this country, and especially in this state? Even after serving the sentence for the crime, the sex offender is never relieved of the burden. The idea behind the registration laws is that sex offenders are likely to recommit sex crimes and therefore present an ongoing risk to society. But is this true?

Continue reading →

by

Ask any parent of a teenager whether teenagers think like adults and you are likely to get a hearty chuckle from the parent. It is self-evident that teenagers do not have the same reasoning and decision-making skills as an adult. We don’t need to be the parent of a teen to know—after all we were teens once and we no doubt remember the stupid things we did.

Brain science has come a long way in helping us discover why this is so. It is now an accepted scientific fact that the human brain does not fully mature until a person reaches his or her early 20’s. And the areas of the brain responsible for controlling impulses and planning ahead are among the last areas of the brain to mature.

Yet, our justice system typically treats the juvenile offender (roughly 15-18 years old) as an adult. It is always tragic when a young person commits a crime but shouldn’t we be taking into consideration the fact that these teen criminals are not capable of controlling their impulses or making a decision in the same way that adults are? The Supreme Court says “yes.”

Continue reading →

by

A young man from Buena Park now faces charges of vandalizing a Sikh temple, which he claims was not meant to be received as hate speech. The man faces felony vandalism of religious property and two misdemeanors on suspicion of vandalism. His defacement caused nearly $400 in damages.

On Dec. 6th, members of the temple were arriving for night services when they found the parking lot walls and a commercial truck sprayed with graffiti as well as a vulgar phrase about the Islamic State group.

To be clear: Sikhism is not affiliated with Islam or the Islamic State.

Continue reading →

by

The Netflix surprise hit over the recent holiday season was the documentary Making a Murderer. The story this documentary told was so engrossing that many people reported finishing all ten one-hour episodes within a day or two. Now that’s binge watching!

What compelled so many to devour this docu-series is that it followed the true crime saga of Steven Avery, a Wisconsin man who was exonerated of a rape he was convicted of committing and for which he spent 18 years in prison only to find himself back before the court a couple of years later convicted of a murder that he, to this day, insists he did not commit. Making a Murderer follows the murder trial and ultimately Mr. Avery’s conviction. What has gripped the nation is the questionable tactics used by law enforcement and the dubious evidence they presented in order to get a conviction – and from the documentary’s point of view – a conviction no matter what it took.

One key piece of evidence the prosecution used against Mr. Avery was the confession of his then 16-year-old intellectually challenged nephew. The detectives interviewed the nephew alone, no parent or attorney was present. The documentary shows extensive video clips from the nephew’s “interview” (read: interrogation). There is no question after viewing these clips that the nephew, unaware of his precarious situation, was manipulated and coerced into eventually “confessing” that he took part in the murder. Without divulging more, this is only one piece of evidence in a series of disturbing and suspicious facts presented by the prosecution. Watching the police “interview” of the nephew has opened up a firestorm of outrage and questions. Was this legal? Can the police interview a juvenile without any parent or attorney present? Is a police interview that results in a coerced confession legal?

Continue reading →

by

The Marijuana Laws Are A-Changin’

Back in 1964 when Bob Dylan sang “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” marijuana was called the “killer weed” and even simple possession was a felony in California carrying a sentence of one to ten years. Now over 60 years later, the citizens of California will decide whether to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. The wheels of change grind slowly.

California was the first state to enact laws allowing the regulated sale, cultivation, and use of medical marijuana. Since then, other states have pushed forward and made the recreational use of marijuana legal. Recreational use is now legal in Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Alaska, as well as the District of Columbia. California has its own ballot initiative, which will be before the voters in the 2016 elections. If the initiative passes, the recreational use of marijuana will become legal.

Continue reading →

by

Two adults and one juvenile were arrested today after a mail carrier called Irvine Police Department and reported a possible package theft. The Irvine PD responded to the neighborhood and spotted the individuals in the vehicle described by the witness. After pulling the vehicle over, the individuals were positively identified and a search of the vehicle resulted in the discovery of multiple stolen packages and stolen credit cards. They are being charged with theft, conspiracy and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

During the holiday season, I see an increase in this type of crime. The reason for this is two-fold. One very obvious reason is that many people now do much of their holiday shopping on line and have the packages delivered to their homes. If they are not there, the packages are left unattended on the front door step. This makes is extremely easy for an individual to walk up and take the package in a matter of seconds and be gone with it. Another reason is that during the holiday season, people become desperate. People who cannot afford to buy gifts feel the pressure and this type of crime is just too easy to pass up. However, they are not thinking about the consequences of being caught. Not only the legal consequences but the monetary costs involved with hiring an attorney and the fees and fines associated if convicted.

The two adults are being charged with theft, conspiracy and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. All three of these violations are “wobblers”, meaning they may be filed as either felonies or misdemeanors. When the District Attorney is deciding whether to file a theft charge as a misdemeanor or a felony, the value of the items taken will determine that. Regarding a conspiracy charge, the circumstances and the value of the theft will determine whether to file as a felony or a misdemeanor.

Continue reading →

by

The California Attorney General is responsible for collecting and analyzing yearly crime data for the State of California. Guess what? Crime is down in California – way down! According to the Attorney General’s statistics for the most recent year studied (2014) crime has decreased in number and rate in almost every category. Some crimes have seen big rate decreases (per 100,000 population) from 2013 and when compared to earlier, the declines are even more pronounced. In fact, 2014’s violent crime rate is at its lowest since 1967!

If we compare the crime rates from 2009 to 2014, the decreases in some categories are dramatic. For example, the homicide rate has decreased 17 percent from 2009 to 2014, robbery has decreased in the same years by a whopping 26.8percent! In fact, for all the major violent crime categories (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and major property crime categories (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny) the rates have decreased substantially. Compared to 2013, all crime rates contimued to decrease in 2014 except aggravated assault, which saw a 2.4 percent rate increase.

So what could account for this continuing decrease in crime in the state? Is it better policing, more criminals imprisoned, an aging population? There is no easy answer to why the crime rates are declining. And this is occurring not just in California, but across the country.

Continue reading →

by

TV star Charlie Sheen recently revealed that he is HIV positive. Mr. Sheen’s lifestyle is no secret, for years the tabloids have chronicled his seemingly non-stop partying, his coterie of “goddesses” and his many sexual escapades. According to Mr. Sheen’s revelation, he has known he was HIV positive for at least four years. He claims that he informed all of his sexual partners that he was HIV positive, but at least several of Mr. Sheen’s alleged sexual partners have denied that Mr. Sheen informed them of his condition.

Could Mr. Sheen have violated California criminal law? Well, maybe. When specific conditions are met, California makes it a felony to expose another person to HIV by engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse. (Cal. Health and Safety Code §120291.) Mr. Sheen may have violated this statute if he knew he was HIV positive at the time he engaged in unprotected sex but did not disclose his condition to the other party. If, as some of Mr. Sheens sexual partners in the last four years are correct, he did not inform them of his HIV positive status prior to having unprotected sex with them.

However, that is not enough to make it a crime. The statute also requires that the Mr. Sheen not only had unprotected sex and failed to disclose the infection but that he had the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV. Specific intent is a legal construct that means not only did the person commit the criminal act but that he or she did so with the knowledge and desire to achieve the illegal act. Thus in order to find Mr. Sheen guilty of this felony, the State of California would need to prove that Mr. Sheen had the unprotected sex with the specific objective of infecting his partner or partners with the HIV virus. Completion of the crime does not require that the partner did, in fact, become infected.

Continue reading →

by

When talking about theft laws in California, it’s important to distinguish between theft and grand theft.  To be specific, California law defines the crime of theft as the unlawful taking of someone else’s property.  In situations where the value of the item taken is $950.00 or higher, then the crime is characterized as grand theft under Penal Code Section 487.  What may start out as a simple shoplifting arrest, can result in a charge of grand theft, if the value is $950.00 or more.  It is also important to note that grand theft charges are “wobblers”, meaning that they may be filed as a misdemeanor or felony, depending upon the circumstances.  A conviction for grand theft can have devastating effects on a person’s professional and personal life but, with the help of an experienced criminal defense lawyer, it may be possible to have the charges reduced or dismissed completely.

So what does the District Attorney have to prove in order to convict someone of grand theft?  He or she must prove the elements of the crime as follows:

Continue reading →