Study Shows Wrongful Conviction Rate of Up To Six Percent

As reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, a comprehensive study by the Urban Institute has found that wrongful conviction rates in violent felony cases is as high as six percent. Samuel R. Gross, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and a former criminal-defense lawyer, attended the presentation made by the Urban Institute in November and said that “this is a very big surprise. I would have guessed an error rate of 1 or 2 percent. Six percent is surprisingly high.”

Given the fact that the study focused on only violent felony cases, and that those are the types of cases that the most prosecutorial resources are devoted to, it is likely that the rate is even higher for cases that don’t rise to the level of “violent felonies.”

Download the report by clicking the link below.

Download PDF

Arson Investigation Burn Pattern Theory Debunked

A November 2011 study by The Arson Project has confirmed the hypothesis that ‘the presence or absence of an ignitable liquid in a post-flashover setting cannot be determined through visual examination of the resulting burn patterns. Any attempt to do so is no more reliable than a flip of a coin.”

Download the Full Report by clicking the button below.

Download PDF

Novel Conservative Approach to Death Penalty Debate

As more and more Republicans are taking the “Right on Crime” (as opposed to “Tough on Crime”) approach, the Concord Monitor is reporting that Republican State Representative Phil Greazzo has come out in favor of abolishing his state’s death penalty statute. What makes his position noteworthy is not only the fact that he is a conservative, but also that Rep. Greazzo has a history of favoring the expansion of crimes to which the death penalty could apply. Despite generally seeking to broaden the use of the death penalty, Rep. Greazzo said he sees such inconsistency in the current law that he would sooner have lawmakers eliminate the death penalty altogether than maintain the status quo.

While Rep. Greazzo’s position is a far cry from seeking to abolish the death penalty altogether, it is refreshing to see another conservative join the ranks of those who recognize that the current system is broken.

Reckless Response to Service Call vs. Reckless Evasion of Officer

The Bakersfield Californian is reporting that the recent accident involving a Kern County Sheriff’s Deputy and two pedestrians (which resulted in the deaths of those pedestrians) was a result of the officer responding to a report of a stolen vehicle. Whether or not the officer’s siren and emergency lights were activated at the time of the accident is still unknown (to the public). The story is tragic in every respect and one can only hope that Sheriff Donny Youngblood is sincere when he says the department as a whole is deeply saddened by the deaths. Unfortunately, this evokes memories of similar incidents in which innocent pedestrians have been killed during police pursuits of fleeing criminal suspects. Understandably, the public outrage directed to the defendants in those cases was harsh, as was the response of both law enforcement and the District Attorney’s Office in their prosecution of the defendants. At this point, given the public comments posted in relation to the story, it appears that at least the public is concerned about the prudence (or lack thereof) of the officer’s actions. One can hope that that level of concern is mirrored within the District Attorney’s Office once the investigation is complete and the case is submitted for a determination of whether or not to file criminal charges.

More Young Adults Arrested Than Ever Before

According to the New York Times, nearly one third of American adults have been arrested for a criminal offense by the age of 23.  In my experience, arrests at this early age generally have one of two effects on the person arrested: they either act as a wake-up call and lead the young adult to come face-to-face with the reality that poor choices can lead to some very serious negative consequences, or they simply become remembered as the first, in a long history of run-ins with the criminal justice system.

As the article implies, how a young adult addresses their first encounter with the criminal justice system system can play a key role in the development of the remainder of their adult life.  Given the fact that schools and employers are now using the internet and the vast array of information available it provides to screen potential job or school applicants, it is imperative that young adults who find themselves charged with a crime, yet who are also mindful of their future prospects, retain an experienced criminal defense attorney with an eye toward limiting any possible lasting damage of an arrest and/or conviction.

More on “Strikes” in California

The law in California on “Strikes” can be very confusing, mainly because there are different types of “Strikes” and, depending on what type of “Strike” you have been charged with, the difference determines what percentage of your sentence you will actually serve.  In California, “Strikes” are categorized as either “Serious Felonies” or “Violent Felonies”.

“Serious Felonies” are defined by California Penal Code section 1192.7.  Depending on your prior criminal history, if you are convicted of a “Serious Felony,” you will have a “Strike” on your record, but you will serve only half of whatever sentence is imposed (commonly referred to as “half time”).

On the other hand, “Violent Felonies” are defined by California Penal Code section 667.5.  Convictions for “Violent Felonies” will also result in a “Strike” on your record, but also carry the added consequence of having to serve 85% of any sentence imposed.

If you have been charged with an offense that you believe may result in a “Strike” on your record, or if you have questions about prior convictions and whether or not you have a “Strike” prior, call us today for your free initial consultation.

24 DUI Detection Cues Police Use

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has identified twenty-four visual cues to aid officers in detecting nighttime impaired drivers.  Be advised that any one of these cues may cause an officer to believe that you are driving under the influence and therefore pull you over.

  1. Weaving
  2. Weaving Across Lane Lines
  3. Straddling A Lane Line
  4. Swerving
  5. Turning With Wide Radius
  6. Drifting
  7. Almost Striking Object or Vehicle
  8. Stopping Problems (too far, too short, too jerky)
  9. Accelerating or Decelerating Rapidly
  10. Varying Speed
  11. Slow Speed (10 mph + Under Limit)
  12. Driving In Opposing Lanes or Wrong Way on One-Way Street
  13. Slow Response to Traffic Signals
  14. Slow or Failure to Respond to Officer’s Signal’s
  15. Stopping in Lane for No Apparent Reason
  16. Driving Without Headlights at Night
  17. Failure to Signal or Signal Inconsistent with Action
  18. Following Too Closely
  19. Improper or Unsafe Lane Change
  20. Illegal or Improper Turn (too fast, jerky, sharp, etc.)
  21. Driving on Other Than Designated Roadway
  22. Stopping Inappropriately In Response to Officer
  23. Inappropriate Or Unusual Behavior (throwing objects, arguing, etc.)
  24. Appearing to be Impaired

Robbery Penal Codes

Robbery offenses are quite serious, not only because of the potential for lengthy prison commitments, but also because they amount to “Strikes” on your record and require that you serve 85% of any prison sentence imposed upon conviction.  In California, simple petty theft offenses can easily turn into robbery charges if there is any allegation that force or violence was used or threatened in order for the suspect to retain possession of the stolen merchandise.  The key to successfully defending against robbery charges is often an immediate and thorough investigation by a private investigator, at the direction of an experienced criminal defense attorney.


Robbery Penal Codes

211.  Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

212.  The fear mentioned in Section 211 may be either:

1. The fear of an unlawful injury to the person or property of the person robbed, or of any relative of his or member of his family; or,

2. The fear of an immediate and unlawful injury to the person or property of anyone in the company of the person robbed at the time of the robbery.

212.5.         (a) Every robbery of any person who is performing his or her duties as an operator of any bus, taxicab, cable car, streetcar, trackless trolley, or other vehicle, including a vehicle operated on stationary rails or on a track or rail suspended in the air, and used for the transportation of persons for hire, every robbery of any passenger which is perpetrated on any of these vehicles, and every robbery which is perpetrated in an inhabited dwelling house, a vessel as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code which is inhabited and designed for habitation, an inhabited floating home as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and

Safety Code, a trailer coach as defined in the Vehicle Code which is inhabited, or the inhabited portion of any other building is robbery of the first degree.

(b) Every robbery of any person while using an automated teller machine or immediately after the person has used an automated teller machine and is in the vicinity of the automated teller machine is robbery of the first degree.

(c) All kinds of robbery other than those listed in subdivisions (a) and (b) are of the second degree.

Download PDF

Possession of Methamphetamine (Health & Safety Code 11377)

Possession of methamphetamine for personal use is governed by Health & Safety Code section 11377(a). Although the code allows a violation of this section to be charged as a misdemeanor, in Kern County, the reality is that it is ALWAYS charged as a felony, even on a first offense. While being charged with section 11377 by itself will normally make the accused eligible for either PC 1000 (Drug Diversion) or Prop. 36 probation, any additional charges in the same case that are not solely drug related can render the accused ineligible for either of those programs. Additionally, the District Attorney’s Office may charge you with either Possession for Sale (H&S 11378) or Transportation (H&S 11379) in an effort to keep you out of these programs, depending on the particular circumstances of your case.

Drug cases, in particular, require the services of an experienced criminal defense attorney. Oftentimes, there are issues with the legality of the police conduct in detaining or searching the suspect that can result in the dismissal of the entire case.


Health & Safety Code Section 11377

(a) Except as authorized by law and as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) or Section 11375, or in Article 7 (commencing with Section 4211) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, every person who possesses any controlled substance which is (1) classified in Schedule III, IV, or V, and which is not a narcotic drug, (2) specified in subdivision (d) of Section 11054, except paragraphs (13), (14), (15), and (20) of subdivision (d), (3) specified in paragraph (11) of subdivision (c) of Section 11056, (4) specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (f) of Section 11054, or (5) specified in subdivision (d), (e), or (f) of Section 11055, unless upon the prescription of a physician, dentist, podiatrist, or veterinarian, licensed to practice in this state, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of not more than one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code.

Download PDF

Vehicle Code Section 23152

In California, DUI charges are normally limited to application of Vehicle Code sections 23152(a) and (b). What can be quite confusing to people charged with DUI is that often they will be charged with both subsection (a) and (b). Too many people, this creates the mistaken belief that they have been charged with two separate DUI offenses.
What most people don’t realize is that it is possible to be charged with, and even convicted of, DUI even if one’s blood alcohol content (BAC) is below 0.08 percent.

If you’ve been arrested for DUI and have not given a blood, breath, or urine sample (for whatever reason), you will most likely be charged with only section 23152(a).

If you have been arrested for DUI and have provided a blood, breath, or urine sample that shows a BAC of 0.08 percent or more, you will most likely be charged with both subsections (a) and (b) of Vehicle Code section 23152. The fact that you have been charged with both sections does not mean that you are charged with two separate
DUI offenses.

In addition to the criminal penalties that DUI convictions carry, there are administrative penalties as well with the Department of Motor Vehicles. DUI arrests require quick action on the part of the person arrested in order to protect your rights. Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney and the DMV immediately.


Vehicle Code section 23152

(a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person’s blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.

Download PDF