Posts Tagged ‘judge’

A Los Angeles judge delayed the trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor, Dr. Conrad Murray, at the request of his defense attorneys who sought additional time to prepare for cross-examination of new prosecution witnesses. The parties are now scheduled to resume jury selection on September 8, 2011. Last week when the jury selection was already under way, the prosecution presented to the defense statements of several new expert witnesses. The statements were produced apparently at the last minute, unfairly surprising the defense. The experts were expected to testify that it was impossible for Jackson to have orally taken a lethal dose of the anesthetic propofol, a drug that killed Jackson, as Murray’s attorneys plan to argue at trial.  

As I predicted in this blog in 2009, Dr. Murray is being prosecuted for committing involuntary manslaughter following Jackson’s death from an overdose of the powerful anesthetic drug that usually administered in hospital settings. He will be convicted of involuntary manslaughter if the jury finds that the lawful administration of the drug was conducted in a criminally negligent manner, i.e. “without due caution or circumspection.”  If convicted, he will be facing up to 4 years in state prison. It is undisputed that Dr. Murray gave Jackson the drug as a sleeping pill. However, he vehemently denies it was a fatal dose. As a result, at Dr. Murray’s trial his lawyers will attempt to present expert witness testimony showing that the amount of the drug administered to Michael Jackson by Dr. Murray could not have possibly killed the singer.  

The circumstances relevant to determining whether Dr. Murray was negligent in administrating the drug will include whether he was aware of the nature and type of the drug being administered, the side effects of the drug, his knowledge of its effects, the actual dosage, whether the drug was administered in a prudent and careful manner, and other factors that may bear on his subjective awareness of the dangers presented by the drug and on the issue of negligent supervision. Since Dr. Murray’s trial will be televised, everyone will be able to observe the battle of the experts that is going to determine the outcome of this trial.  

This office handles all aspects related to the defense of murder charges in San Diego County. For a free consultation, contact us at (619) 232-5122 or: info@attorneylombardo.com

For more information on murder and manslaughter, see the following:

http://www.attorneylombardo.com/murder_manslaughter/first-second-degree_murder

No CommentsTags: anesthetic, charges, criminal attorney, criminal defense lawyer, criminal trial, death, Dr. Conrad Murray, drug, expert witnesses, homicide, involuntary manslaughter, judge, jury selection, lethal dose, Michael Jackson, murder, negligent, patient, propofol, prosecution, punishment, risks, side effectsRead More

Probation is the suspension of the imposition or execution of a sentence, where an individual is conditionally released from custody under the supervision of a probation officer or the court. Probation is generally reserved for those individuals whose conditional release into society poses minimal risk to public safety. In order to successfully complete probation and have his or her case dismissed by expungement,  a probationer must satisfy all terms and conditions of probation during its entire period, which is usually either three or five years. Failure to satisfy any of the numerous conditions of probation may result in termination of probation and imposition of the sentence.  

However, the court may modify terms of probation at any time during a period of probation. Such modification may be done on the court’s own motion, or upon a request of the probation officer, the probationer, or the prosecutor. A court may revoke or modify terms of probation at any time before the expiration of that term. The court’s decision to modify probation must be based upon new facts or changed circumstances. Examples of such circumstances include instances when the probationer has violated any of the conditions of his or her probation, has deceived the court at the time probation was granted, or has subsequently committed other offenses, regardless of whether he or she has been convicted for such offenses.

At the same time, the court has the authority to modify probation conditions in favor of the probationer based upon the same legal standard of changed circumstances. However, the court may not modify a jail term that was included within the terms of a negotiated plea agreement (a “stipulated sentence”) unless both the defendant and the prosecution agree to the proposed modification. Neither is it possible for the court to modify the amount of restitution owned to the victim solely on the evidence of the probationer’s good conduct and reform without showing the existence of compelling and extraordinary reasons. It is also important to know that probation cannon be revoked for lack of payment unless the court finds that the person willfully failed to make restitution or other payments, and probation may not be extended past the maximum period for which the probationer could have been incarcerated, or five years.

An experienced attorney is in the best position to determine what factual circumstances warrant probation modification. This office handles all types of matters involving modification of probation in San Diego County. For a free consultation, contact us at:

info@attorneylombardo.com.

For more information on probation modification, see the following:

http://www.attorneylombardo.com/probation_violations/jail-sentence_fines-arrests

No CommentsTags: attorney, changed circumstances, conditionally released, court, criminal, execution of sentence, imposition of sentence, judge, modify terms of probation, probation modification, probationer, prosecutor, restitution, sentenceRead More

California law affords judges a great deal of discretion to terminate probation at any time. Most misdemeanor convictions are punishable by a probation term of three years. A specific provision of the California Vehicle Code, however, specifies that DUI violations are to be punished with at least a three year probation term. Most courts will impose a five year term of probation. While this may appear to require that a person convicted of DUI spend at least three years on probation, this is not actually the case. This minimum probation requirement only applies at sentencing. After probation is granted, the judge can terminate probation at any time upon the application of the defendant. However, as with any other probation case, the appropriate time to apply for probation terminate is when sufficient good conduct and reform can be demonstrated, or upon a showing of “good cause.” An experienced attorney is in the best position to make the factual determine of whether adequate time has elapsed to demonstrate what is required to be successful in an early termination request, an accordingly when is the appropriate time to file a such a request.

If you are on probation and would like your probation terminated, our office can help you determine when to file such a request with the court and we can outline proactive steps for you to take that will afford you the best chance of having your request granted. We may be reached at: info@attorneylombardo.com

Of course, once probation is terminated, there are may be options available for clearing the record through expungement, for example. For more information, see:

 www.attorneylombardo.com/clearing_criminal_record/expungement-clearing-sealing

No CommentsTags: attorney, California, convictions, courts, DUI. probation, early termination, expungement, good cause, judge, misdemeanor, term, terminationRead More

What constitutes an arrest warrant in California? An arrest warrant is a court order issued by a judge that directs any peace officer to arrest a specified individual charged with a crime, and to bring him or her before a judge for further criminal proceedings. A warrant is usually based upon a declaration by a police officer setting forth facts that the officer believes constitutes the offense listed in a warrant. The facts provided in the officer’s declaration must be sufficient enough to establish probable cause to arrest such an individual. “Probable cause,” “reasonable cause,” and “sufficient cause” are synonymous terms. They all describe the same definition, which is the state of facts that would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe that a suspect to be arrested is guilty of a crime.

An arrest warrant is directed to any peace officer in the state of California, or any other public officer authorized by law to act in such capacity. A warrant defines the crime that allegedly has been committed, and specifies the name of the individual to be arrested. A warrant also shows the time when it was signed by judge. In addition, when a judge determines that the offense charged is bailable, the amount of bail must be endorsed on a warrant. It means that an individual has to be permitted to bail out in the amount fixed and specified in such a warrant. It is also important to know that an arrest based upon a felony warrant may be made at any time, while a misdemeanor or infraction warrant is primarily executed during the daytime.

Persons arrested on misdemeanor new offense warrants may be released on a citation with a promise to appear in court on a specific date and time, in the discretion of the arresting officer. However, individuals charged with a new felony offense must be brought before a judge without unnecessary delay, and, in any event, within 48 hours after such a person has been arrested by a law enforcement agency. It is important to know, though, that the time authorized by law to bring a person before a judge excludes weekends and holidays, and the clock doesn’t start until the first business day following the arrest. Therefore, an individual who has been arrested on Thursday night may not see a judge in court until Tuesday afternoon. That is, the hearing occurs almost 120 hours after the arrest and yet within the statutorily prescribed period prohibiting unnecessary delay.

San Diego criminal courts ordinarily schedule misdemeanor and felony arrest matters on the third business day following the arrest. Arrest warrants for cases that have already had a court appearance, such as probation violations, for example, are not subject to the “48 hours” rule and are scheduled about 10 days from the date of arrest.

This office handles all types of San Diego County criminal court arrest warrants. For free advice on how to clear a warrant, contact us at info@attorneylombardo.com.

For more information on arrest warrants, see the following:

www.attorneylombardo.com/10-things-know-about-san-diego-arrest-warrants/

www.attorneylombardo.com/arrest_warrants_bench_warrants/traffic-offense-california

No CommentsTags: arrest warrant, bailable, bench warrant, California, court appearance, crime, criminal defense, criminal lawyer, felony warrant, infraction, judge, misdemeanor, night service, police officer, probable casue, probation violation, reasonable cause, san diego, sufficient cause, timeRead More

The Fourth District Court of Appeals tossed Judge Salcido’s lawsuit against the Honorable Judge Peter Deddeh and her fellow judges.  The Court noted that the traditional way a lawsuit is brought, where an aggrieved litigant such as the Office of the District Attorney or a criminal defendant, appeals a judicial decision. The Appellate Court ruled that she has no legal basis to press the lawsuit as a judge. Moreover, the appellate court will not issue what amounts to an advisory opinion. As predicted in this criminal lawyer blog, the lawsuit was doomed to fail on legal grounds. Whether the lawsuit helped her reelection campaign remains to be seen.

No CommentsTags: advisory opinion, criminal defendant, criminal lawyer, Deddeh, Fourth District Court of Appeals, judge, lawsuit, Office of the District Attorney, opinion, reelection campaign, SalcidoRead More

Local attorneys and judges are mystified as to why San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis ordered her prosecutors to file peremptory challenges in all criminal cases assigned to the Honorable Judge John S. Einhorn. Judge Einhorn is known as a tough, smart judge who routinely handles complex, high-profile criminal matters. He has an excellent reputation in the legal community. So why would the D.A. want one of the best trial judges removed from hearing criminal matters?

Criminal defense lawyers speculate that the D.A. thinks this tough judge wasn’t tough enough in recently denying a defense attorney’s request to bar the prosecution from retrying a murder case. Yes – the Judge denied the request – but that apparently wasn’t good enough for the prosecution. The D.A. believes that the Judge should never have entertained the motion in the first place. Why? Because the hearing on the motion forced the D.A.’s office to defend allegations that exculpatory evidence, which resulted in a nullified verdict, was deliberately withheld from the defense. The D.A. would rather have avoided the hearing entirely by saying, in effect, “trust us, we didn’t cheat.” The boycott therefore appears to be retaliation against the Judge for Dumanis having to defend the conduct of her deputies. For now, the D.A. refuses to reconsider her boycott or give reasons why the boycott exists at all.

No CommentsTags: attorneys, Bonnie Dumanis, boycott, criminal cases, criminal defense lawyers, criminal matters, D.A., deputies, exculpatory evidence, hearing, John S. Einhorn, judge, judges, motion, murder, peremptory challenges, prosecution, retrial, San Diego Criminal Court, trial judge, verdictRead More