Wednesday, December 29, 2010
How To Beat Your Traffic Ticket
This discussion has come up too many times to count at dinner parties amongst friends. "I got a speeding ticket. What should I do?" "I got a cell phone ticket. What should I do?" While it's not exactly the type of case I handle, it's usually only a matter of minutes before I find myself saying, "no problem, I'll handle it!"
Whether it's the wine talking or just my desire to help out a friend in a bind, I do it. What goes around comes around, right? The reality is that you would never hire a lawyer to handle your traffic infractions. Thus, the other reality is that most people simply end up paying the ticket. In some cases, these tickets can be hundreds of dollars. Some may even result in the DMV placing a point on your driving record, thus effecting your insurance.
Well, it doesn't have to be this way! Often times these cases can be dismissed with very little effort. I have yet to EVER pay a traffic ticket that I have received. Here is my step-by-step guide to GETTING YOUR TICKET DISMISSED!
(1) Very important...DELAY, DELAY, DELAY!!!!!! Keep putting off that court date. You want to make it so the cop thinks the case is so far in the past he'll never remember anything. Not thinking the cop will show up is a common misconception. If he doesn't show up for your trial date, your ticket will be dismissed. However, LAPD and CHP have recently cracked down on the attendance policies of their officers. Now, officers can be formally disciplined for blowing off a court date.
Thus, the purpose of delay is to have the officer be unable to remember your particular case. Remember, they hand out hundreds of tickets per month!
Delaying a court date is as easy as picking up a phone or logging onto the court's website. Look on your ticket to see when and where you are ordered to appear or pay. Depending on the court you can usually call in and request an extention. Some courts allow you to request an extention online. Whatever the case, you are requesting a TRIAL date. Those are the key words you must use.
Some not so nice court clerks may request what's called "bail." This means they want you to essentially pay your ticket during the pendancy of your trial. The bail amount will be whatever the ticket penalty is. This is BS and I have never paid this. The purpose of bail is to ensure your appearance in court. Thus, if a clerk tries to make you pay a bail amount before setting your case for trial, ask for OR. This is essentially a promise to appear at the next court date. They will see that you know what you are talking about and you will be on your way.
(2) Delay more. About a month before your scheduled trial date get another extention.
(3) Trial date. Hopefully at least 6 months have passed since you received your ticket. Now is the day for your trial. One of three things will happen: One, your cop doesn't show up in which case the judge will dismiss your case. Or two, the officer showed up but cannot remember your case. In this instance the officer will request the judge to dismiss your case, which the judge will always honor. The third possible scenerio is that your cop has shown up, however, he refuses to dismiss your case.
Not to worry! Stay the course. You have gone this far. You are about to conduct your first TRIAL!!! Tell the judge that you wish to contest the citation and that you are ready for trial.
(4) Here is the order of how things will go:
-The officer will testify first
-You then question the officer
-You then call any witnesses you have
-The officer can make a closing statement
-You can make a closing statement
-The judge decides
BE confident that you will win the case! Check the actual wording of the code you violated. If the officer fails to prove guilt in any part of the code then your ticket MUST be dismissed.
BEFORE an officer can use the radar/laser reading as evidence, he has to establish that: the machine has a Jurisdiction Certification, the machine is up to date and accurate, the radar/laser is properly calibrated, the machine has an FCC license, and the radar/laser unit appears on that FCC license. If the officer attempts to use the radar reading before establishing these things, politely interrupt and say "objection your honor, inadmissible evidence."
Then tell the judge that there is no "foundation" for what the cop is trying to introduce as evidence. If the officer fails to prove your guilt at the end of his testimony don't question him, move to have the case dismissed. And explain what he failed to prove.
If the officer was moving when he estimated your speed, this is called a bumper pace. Ask when his speedometer was last calibrated? Ask him to show you and the judge the records to see if he contradicts himself. If he doesn't have the records you can ask then how does he know when the last calibration was? Is he guessing? Or is he making things up as he goes?
If the officer guesses your speed, ask the judge for permission to throw something. Then ask the officer to estimate the speed of the object thrown. Tell the judge it is important to do so in order to gauge the officer's credibility relating to estimations of speed. Most cops will be unable to do this which will enable you to argue in your closing arguement that the cop is inaccurate in his observations, thus his "guess" cannot be trusted. If the judge is an idiot, throw something at him/her.
Ask questions like: What color clothes was I wearing? Did I have any passengers? What was the weather like? This will gauge if the officer truly remembers you and your case.
If your ticket is a red light photo ticket, ask to see the photo. The officer must establish that it's YOU in the photo. If the photo is blurry or of low quality ask the judge to dismiss the case on the basis that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether it's YOU depicted in the photo. If this is your issue, consider bringing in a photo of you alongside other family members that may resemble you. Show the judge the photo.
However, if you know it's you in the photo, DON'T tell the judge that it's not you...that is perjury! Simply argue that the officer has failed to prove that it's you.
Follow these instructions and hopefully you will never have to pay a traffic ticket again.
Good luck!
Whether it's the wine talking or just my desire to help out a friend in a bind, I do it. What goes around comes around, right? The reality is that you would never hire a lawyer to handle your traffic infractions. Thus, the other reality is that most people simply end up paying the ticket. In some cases, these tickets can be hundreds of dollars. Some may even result in the DMV placing a point on your driving record, thus effecting your insurance.
Well, it doesn't have to be this way! Often times these cases can be dismissed with very little effort. I have yet to EVER pay a traffic ticket that I have received. Here is my step-by-step guide to GETTING YOUR TICKET DISMISSED!
(1) Very important...DELAY, DELAY, DELAY!!!!!! Keep putting off that court date. You want to make it so the cop thinks the case is so far in the past he'll never remember anything. Not thinking the cop will show up is a common misconception. If he doesn't show up for your trial date, your ticket will be dismissed. However, LAPD and CHP have recently cracked down on the attendance policies of their officers. Now, officers can be formally disciplined for blowing off a court date.
Thus, the purpose of delay is to have the officer be unable to remember your particular case. Remember, they hand out hundreds of tickets per month!
Delaying a court date is as easy as picking up a phone or logging onto the court's website. Look on your ticket to see when and where you are ordered to appear or pay. Depending on the court you can usually call in and request an extention. Some courts allow you to request an extention online. Whatever the case, you are requesting a TRIAL date. Those are the key words you must use.
Some not so nice court clerks may request what's called "bail." This means they want you to essentially pay your ticket during the pendancy of your trial. The bail amount will be whatever the ticket penalty is. This is BS and I have never paid this. The purpose of bail is to ensure your appearance in court. Thus, if a clerk tries to make you pay a bail amount before setting your case for trial, ask for OR. This is essentially a promise to appear at the next court date. They will see that you know what you are talking about and you will be on your way.
(2) Delay more. About a month before your scheduled trial date get another extention.
(3) Trial date. Hopefully at least 6 months have passed since you received your ticket. Now is the day for your trial. One of three things will happen: One, your cop doesn't show up in which case the judge will dismiss your case. Or two, the officer showed up but cannot remember your case. In this instance the officer will request the judge to dismiss your case, which the judge will always honor. The third possible scenerio is that your cop has shown up, however, he refuses to dismiss your case.
Not to worry! Stay the course. You have gone this far. You are about to conduct your first TRIAL!!! Tell the judge that you wish to contest the citation and that you are ready for trial.
(4) Here is the order of how things will go:
-The officer will testify first
-You then question the officer
-You then call any witnesses you have
-The officer can make a closing statement
-You can make a closing statement
-The judge decides
BE confident that you will win the case! Check the actual wording of the code you violated. If the officer fails to prove guilt in any part of the code then your ticket MUST be dismissed.
BEFORE an officer can use the radar/laser reading as evidence, he has to establish that: the machine has a Jurisdiction Certification, the machine is up to date and accurate, the radar/laser is properly calibrated, the machine has an FCC license, and the radar/laser unit appears on that FCC license. If the officer attempts to use the radar reading before establishing these things, politely interrupt and say "objection your honor, inadmissible evidence."
Then tell the judge that there is no "foundation" for what the cop is trying to introduce as evidence. If the officer fails to prove your guilt at the end of his testimony don't question him, move to have the case dismissed. And explain what he failed to prove.
If the officer was moving when he estimated your speed, this is called a bumper pace. Ask when his speedometer was last calibrated? Ask him to show you and the judge the records to see if he contradicts himself. If he doesn't have the records you can ask then how does he know when the last calibration was? Is he guessing? Or is he making things up as he goes?
If the officer guesses your speed, ask the judge for permission to throw something. Then ask the officer to estimate the speed of the object thrown. Tell the judge it is important to do so in order to gauge the officer's credibility relating to estimations of speed. Most cops will be unable to do this which will enable you to argue in your closing arguement that the cop is inaccurate in his observations, thus his "guess" cannot be trusted. If the judge is an idiot, throw something at him/her.
Ask questions like: What color clothes was I wearing? Did I have any passengers? What was the weather like? This will gauge if the officer truly remembers you and your case.
If your ticket is a red light photo ticket, ask to see the photo. The officer must establish that it's YOU in the photo. If the photo is blurry or of low quality ask the judge to dismiss the case on the basis that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether it's YOU depicted in the photo. If this is your issue, consider bringing in a photo of you alongside other family members that may resemble you. Show the judge the photo.
However, if you know it's you in the photo, DON'T tell the judge that it's not you...that is perjury! Simply argue that the officer has failed to prove that it's you.
Follow these instructions and hopefully you will never have to pay a traffic ticket again.
Good luck!
California Sentences More Prisoners To Die While Executing None
California continued to buck a nationwide trend away from costly and litigious death sentences in 2010, adding 28 new prisoners to the country's most populous death row, according to correction officials and a national database on capital punishment.
Los Angeles County alone condemned eight defendants to death this year, the same number as Texas, and Riverside County sent six men to await execution, officials said.
The state's death chamber was idle for a fifth year, though, because of protracted legal challenges of lethal injection practices and a nationwide shortage of the key drug used in the three-injection procedure.
Whether executions will resume in 2011 could be decided early in the new year, when a federal judge is expected to decide if the state's newly revised lethal injection procedures conform with a constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Los Angeles County alone condemned eight defendants to death this year, the same number as Texas, and Riverside County sent six men to await execution, officials said.
The state's death chamber was idle for a fifth year, though, because of protracted legal challenges of lethal injection practices and a nationwide shortage of the key drug used in the three-injection procedure.
Whether executions will resume in 2011 could be decided early in the new year, when a federal judge is expected to decide if the state's newly revised lethal injection procedures conform with a constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
New Years Eve DUI Checkpoints
1. Checkpoint at Olympic Boulevard and Blaine Street in Rampart Area
2. Checkpoint at Lankershim Boulevard and Erwin Street in North Hollywood Area
3. Checkpoint at Vermont Avenue and 12th Street in Olympic Area
4. Checkpoint at Roscoe Boulevard and Haskell Avenue in West Valley Area
5. Checkpoint at Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood
2. Checkpoint at Lankershim Boulevard and Erwin Street in North Hollywood Area
3. Checkpoint at Vermont Avenue and 12th Street in Olympic Area
4. Checkpoint at Roscoe Boulevard and Haskell Avenue in West Valley Area
5. Checkpoint at Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood
Drunk Driver Sentenced To 51 Years In Prison For Watson Murder
A convicted drunk driver was sentenced Wednesday to 51 years to life in prison for a crash that killed Los Angeles Angel pitcher Nick Adenhart and two others, the Orange County, California, district attorney said.
Andrew Thomas Gallo, 23, of San Gabriel, California, received the maximum sentence after a jury found him guilty in September of three felony counts of murder, felony drunk driving and two other felonies, according to District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and court spokeswoman Carole Levitzky.
Gallo had previously been convicted in San Bernardino County, California, for driving under the influence in 2006 and was on probation at the time of the April 2009 crash, the district attorney said. Authorities say Gallo's blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit when he sped through a red light and crashed into a car.
Adenhart, 22, of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, who was beginning his first full season in the majors, was killed. He had pitched just his fourth Major League game hours earlier. The crash also killed Courtney Stewart, 20, a student and former cheerleader at California State University at Fullerton, and law student Henry Pearson, 25, who was working toward becoming a sports agent, authorities said.
A fourth victim, 24-year-old Jon Wilhite, a former baseball player for the Cal State-Fullerton Titans, was critically injured and is now in stable condition, the prosecutor said. "Before drinking, set up a plan to have a sober driver," Rackauckas said in a written statement. "If you make the decision to drink and drive, we will make the decision to charge you with vehicular manslaughter or murder and you may spend the rest of your life in prison. During this holiday season, think about the pain on the victims' families' faces before you drink and drive."
In addition to being drunk and on probation, Gallo was driving on a suspended driver's license when his minivan, going about 65 mph in a 35 mph zone, crashed into Adenhart's vehicle at 12:23 a.m. on April 9, 2009, authorities said. His license had been suspended because of a prior drunken driving conviction, the prosecutor said. Gallo's 21-year-old step-brother was a passenger in the minivan.
After the collision, Gallo fled on foot, but was arrested less than 30 minutes later about two miles away by Anaheim police officers, authorities said. Two hours after the crash, Gallo had a blood alcohol level of 0.19%, well above the legal limit of 0.08%, authorities said.
Rackauckas released remarks made during Wednesday's sentencing by relatives of the crash victims. In a written statement submitted to the court, Adenhart's family said: "Our pain is not a state of being but a condition of life. We live with this hole in our family, our heart, our belief and our lives. No amount of words will ever fill that hole or in any way replace the loss of our dear Nick. Nick was beautiful. That phrase describes him best."
Jon Wilhite's mother, Elizabeth, said her son has had "to learn to walk, talk, swallow, and eat." "All the things we take for granted, Jon had to learn. His life before the crash was very active. He will never be able to turn his head to look up at the moon or to play baseball, which he loves so much. But he takes it in stride. Jon is the strongest person I know. He's our hero and didn't deserve what happened to him," the mother said.
Andrew Thomas Gallo, 23, of San Gabriel, California, received the maximum sentence after a jury found him guilty in September of three felony counts of murder, felony drunk driving and two other felonies, according to District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and court spokeswoman Carole Levitzky.
Gallo had previously been convicted in San Bernardino County, California, for driving under the influence in 2006 and was on probation at the time of the April 2009 crash, the district attorney said. Authorities say Gallo's blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit when he sped through a red light and crashed into a car.
Adenhart, 22, of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, who was beginning his first full season in the majors, was killed. He had pitched just his fourth Major League game hours earlier. The crash also killed Courtney Stewart, 20, a student and former cheerleader at California State University at Fullerton, and law student Henry Pearson, 25, who was working toward becoming a sports agent, authorities said.
A fourth victim, 24-year-old Jon Wilhite, a former baseball player for the Cal State-Fullerton Titans, was critically injured and is now in stable condition, the prosecutor said. "Before drinking, set up a plan to have a sober driver," Rackauckas said in a written statement. "If you make the decision to drink and drive, we will make the decision to charge you with vehicular manslaughter or murder and you may spend the rest of your life in prison. During this holiday season, think about the pain on the victims' families' faces before you drink and drive."
In addition to being drunk and on probation, Gallo was driving on a suspended driver's license when his minivan, going about 65 mph in a 35 mph zone, crashed into Adenhart's vehicle at 12:23 a.m. on April 9, 2009, authorities said. His license had been suspended because of a prior drunken driving conviction, the prosecutor said. Gallo's 21-year-old step-brother was a passenger in the minivan.
After the collision, Gallo fled on foot, but was arrested less than 30 minutes later about two miles away by Anaheim police officers, authorities said. Two hours after the crash, Gallo had a blood alcohol level of 0.19%, well above the legal limit of 0.08%, authorities said.
Rackauckas released remarks made during Wednesday's sentencing by relatives of the crash victims. In a written statement submitted to the court, Adenhart's family said: "Our pain is not a state of being but a condition of life. We live with this hole in our family, our heart, our belief and our lives. No amount of words will ever fill that hole or in any way replace the loss of our dear Nick. Nick was beautiful. That phrase describes him best."
Jon Wilhite's mother, Elizabeth, said her son has had "to learn to walk, talk, swallow, and eat." "All the things we take for granted, Jon had to learn. His life before the crash was very active. He will never be able to turn his head to look up at the moon or to play baseball, which he loves so much. But he takes it in stride. Jon is the strongest person I know. He's our hero and didn't deserve what happened to him," the mother said.
Jon Wilhite wrote a statement that was read to the court, explaining how his life is forever changed. He said he believes Gallo should be severely punished for taking the lives of three people whom he thinks about every day.
Friday, December 24, 2010
ACLU Sues Santa Claus
The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it was bringing a lawsuit against Santa Claus for violations of the civil rights of children. An ACLU spokesman, Mr. E. Scrooge stated that, "Mr. Claus has been violating children's right to privacy and has been putting that information in a vast database. The information is then used by the law enforcement arm of Mr. Claus' organization to determine which children are considered naughty or nice. It is obvious Mr. Claus has violated the children's rights, as we have alleged in our suit, because of the memos and other company information we have obtained. In addition, we believe Mr. Claus has been engaging in mind control experiments designed to prevent the free expression of beliefs."
Among the documents presented to the courts today was a memo in which reads, in part:
You better watch out.
You better not cry.
You better not pout.
I'm telling you why.
Santa Claus is coming to town.He sees you when you are sleeping
He knows when you're awake,
He knows when you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sake.
Mr. Scrooge claimed the document, which was obtained from a worker in the distribution department of Mr. Claus' organization, "... clearly shows a concerted attempt to restrict the rights of children to free expression and free thought. In addition, there are concerns about the security of the information. What would be the result of such a database being made available to other law enforcement agencies around the world?"
Lawyers at the Justice Department also confirmed today that they were investigating the possibility that Mr. Claus was at the core of a vast conspiracy against children. Anonymous sources from inside Justice stated, "We believe a large number of parent, ministers and teachers are involved in this business and we expect several of them will testify for the State in return for a lighter sentence." In addition, the same sources indicated a parallel investigation by the Department and the FBI on possible charges of smuggling on the part of Mr. Claus, "our records do not show Mr. Claus, or any one else paying any import duties or taxes on any items he has delivered. Since Mr. Claus has representatives in all of the States of the Union we believe he should have to pay state and local taxes on all of the goods he delivers."
Lawyers for Mr. Claus stated, "The charges of the ACLU are absurd. Mr. Claus is a well known and highly respected figure. His supporters are from around the world and his message of love and respect can, in no way, be taken as a form of "mind control" or a violation of the civil rights of children."
The lawsuit is complicated by the fact that Mr. Claus is not a resident of the United States or any country which the United States currently has an extradition treaty. It is unknown where Mr. Claus is at the moment, but it is believed he is hiding out at his north pole estate.
In a brief statement, read by his lawyer, Mr. Claus said, "I find the charges of the ACLU absurd and am confident they will be rejected by the courts. As for any criminal charges, I believe the Justice Department will discover they have no basis."
Experts are uncertain what possible effect the suit or possible pending charges might have on Mr. Claus' Christmas travels this year.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Uneasy Freedom
Three Ohio men adjust to life after exoneration. A great read...check it out!
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/11/21/uneasy-freedom.html?sid=101
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/11/21/uneasy-freedom.html?sid=101
Lawrence Taylor Weighs In
Suppose a police officer asks or orders an individual to drive a vehicle — and then arrests him for DUI when he complies? This situation comes up more often than you might think. Take, for example, the following case that eventually made its way to the New Jersey Supreme Court….
The defendant asked his brothers at a wedding reception to drive him home because he was too intoxicated to drive. In the parking lot, however, the brothers got into a fight, attracting the attention of local police. One of the officers struck a brother with his nightstick. The defendant asked the officer to quit hitting his brother. The officer replied by ordering him to leave the parking lot. When the defendant did not immediately comply, the officer repeated the order and then forcefully escorted him to his truck. The defendant obediently got into the vehicle, started the engine — and backed into a police car.
He was arrested for drunk driving.
At trial, the judge ruled that the defendant had failed to prove entrapment or duress as a defense, and he was convicted. On appeal, however, the conviction was reversed on grounds of quasi-entrapment — that is, the defendant should have been acquitted if he could show that but for the officer’s order to leave in the vehicle he would not have driven. The prosecution appealed this reversal to the state’s supreme court.
Incredibly, the supreme court reversed the lower court and reinstated the conviction. Its reasoning? “Obviously,” the court said, “if the law were to permit [drunk drivers] to offer as a defense that they drove only because they reasonably feared that telling the police that they were drunk might lead to arrest, the invitation to offer a pretext would be clear”. The court continued its twisted logic:
"No one ordered the defendant to get drunk and no one ordered defendant to drive drunk. The police did not coerce defendant into driving his vehicle through the use or threats of violence. The police officers merely ordered defendant to get in his truck and leave the scene of the fight…" (Emphasis added.) State v. Fogarty, 607 A.2d 624 (N.J. 1992).
Wow.
Contesting Radar Traffic Tickets Temporarily Foolproof in Los Angeles
Since precedent has shown that traffic court will favor radar over an alleged violators testimony, it is no wonder that few people even attempt to contest a radar traffic ticket.
However, there is now a new strategy for fighting these tickets a strategy that is guaranteed, especially in some Los Angles courts. According to vehicle code section 40802, a speed trap which is illegal is defined as as any section of highway where a radar device is used when there is no engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violator.
In other words, in order for a radar device to be legally used, an engineering survey of the roadway must have been conducted within the last five years. If not, then the court can not receive any testimony regarding the violation.
The last speed survey for most Los Angeles areas was done June 1, 1986, therefore, at the present time, no testimony can be taken regarding those tickets.
A Guaranteed Winner!
However, there is now a new strategy for fighting these tickets a strategy that is guaranteed, especially in some Los Angles courts. According to vehicle code section 40802, a speed trap which is illegal is defined as as any section of highway where a radar device is used when there is no engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violator.
In other words, in order for a radar device to be legally used, an engineering survey of the roadway must have been conducted within the last five years. If not, then the court can not receive any testimony regarding the violation.
The last speed survey for most Los Angeles areas was done June 1, 1986, therefore, at the present time, no testimony can be taken regarding those tickets.
A Guaranteed Winner!
Flipping Off Cops Is Legal, Not Advised
Who knew flipping the bird could be so profitable? David Hackbart, a one-time waiter from Pittsburgh, has won a $50,000 lawsuit from the city after protesting a police officer’s citation for using the middle finger. Frustrated that a car behind him would not move one day in April 2010, Hackbart started flipping off people around him. "I heard a voice outside the car telling me not to do that and that frustrated me too. So, I flipped that person off and that turned out to be a police officer," Hackbart said. "I tried to explain to him it was constitutionally protected, what I did. He did not want to hear it and gave me a citation."
The disagreement went federal, becoming a civil rights case, which Pittsburgh is now settling for $50,000. Hackbart said he’s only getting $10,000—the rest is going to his lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The disagreement went federal, becoming a civil rights case, which Pittsburgh is now settling for $50,000. Hackbart said he’s only getting $10,000—the rest is going to his lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
WORST Bachelor Party Ever?
Two strippers hired to perform at a bachelor party in Huntington Beach this weekend literally took the money and ran. The two strippers pepper sprayed two of the men and punched one in the face as they made off with the money without performing.
The two strippers were supposed to strip at a bachelor party in the 7600 block of Center Avenue in Huntington Beach. When they arrived, the two strippers stole their $500 fee and left. The men followed the strippers downstairs to attempt to get their money back when one of the strippers pepper sprayed the men and punched one of them in the face.
Huntington Beach Police were called to the scene and took statements regarding the incident. However, the two men who were pepper sprayed refused to cooperate in their investigation.
One of the pepper spraying strippers is described as having a “Hello Kitty” tattoo on her calf. Both money stealing, non-stripping, pepper spraying strippers were last seen leaving in some type of SUV.
The two strippers were supposed to strip at a bachelor party in the 7600 block of Center Avenue in Huntington Beach. When they arrived, the two strippers stole their $500 fee and left. The men followed the strippers downstairs to attempt to get their money back when one of the strippers pepper sprayed the men and punched one of them in the face.
Huntington Beach Police were called to the scene and took statements regarding the incident. However, the two men who were pepper sprayed refused to cooperate in their investigation.
One of the pepper spraying strippers is described as having a “Hello Kitty” tattoo on her calf. Both money stealing, non-stripping, pepper spraying strippers were last seen leaving in some type of SUV.
Gessler Awards
I was so honored to be chosen as a Charles Gessler Award recipient. What a fantastic evening and I was so privileged to be recognized alongside some of the best lawyers I know.
For those of you who are not familiar with Mr. Gessler, he is the cornerstone of capital defense practice. Known as "the dean of the capital case" in California, Charles Gessler has dedicated his professional career to legal advocacy on behalf of people accused of crimes.
Mr. Gessler was drawn to criminal defense work because of his belief that the defense attorney is the true bulwark of freedom of every citizen. He has an extraordinarily successful track record. Of the more than 60 murder cases he has tried, 15 were capital cases, and none of his clients are on death row. His clients have included some high-profile defendants –Vaughn C. Greenwood, the so-called "Skid Row Slasher", Sam Nam Chinh, charged in a highly publicized 1984 Chinatown murder-robbery case and convicted of killing a police officer; and Lyle Menendez in his second trial for the shotgun killing of his parents. He is a champion of the belief that criminal defense attorneys represent whole people, not just cases.
His contribution literally has saved lives, raised spirits and inspired a new generation of lawyers. He remains the dean of capital case lawyers in California.
For those of you who are not familiar with Mr. Gessler, he is the cornerstone of capital defense practice. Known as "the dean of the capital case" in California, Charles Gessler has dedicated his professional career to legal advocacy on behalf of people accused of crimes.
Mr. Gessler was drawn to criminal defense work because of his belief that the defense attorney is the true bulwark of freedom of every citizen. He has an extraordinarily successful track record. Of the more than 60 murder cases he has tried, 15 were capital cases, and none of his clients are on death row. His clients have included some high-profile defendants –Vaughn C. Greenwood, the so-called "Skid Row Slasher", Sam Nam Chinh, charged in a highly publicized 1984 Chinatown murder-robbery case and convicted of killing a police officer; and Lyle Menendez in his second trial for the shotgun killing of his parents. He is a champion of the belief that criminal defense attorneys represent whole people, not just cases.
His contribution literally has saved lives, raised spirits and inspired a new generation of lawyers. He remains the dean of capital case lawyers in California.
Check out the Innocence Network's new report on the exonerees of 2010
The 29 people exonerated by Innocence Network groups in 2010 served a combined 426 years in prison for crimes they didn't commit. In my opinion, more people need to know about this. Many Americans are ignorant and/or apathetic about this information.
http://innocencenetwork.org/report10.html
http://innocencenetwork.org/report10.html
DNA and Justice Denied
In a powerful LA Times op-ed today, two policy experts argue that post-conviction DNA laws are too narrow and call on states to improve evidence preservation. Check it out.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-krimsky-dna-20101222,0,2547858.story?track=rss
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-krimsky-dna-20101222,0,2547858.story?track=rss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)