Murder/Homicide

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 @ 04:11 AM
Author: maxgorby

If you have been arrested for the crime of murder, call experienced criminal defense lawyer Max Gorby at (323) 477-2819.

California Penal Code 187 PC —  MURDER. (“(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician’s and surgeon’s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not. (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus. (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.”

 

California Jury Instructions, Criminal – CALJIC 8.11 – “Malice Aforethought”. (“”Malice” may be either express or implied. [Malice is express when there is manifested an intention unlawfully to kill a human being.] [Malice is implied when: 1 The killing resulted from an intentional act; 2 The natural consequences of the act are dangerous to human life; and 3 The act was deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life.] [When it is shown that a killing resulted from the intentional doing of an act with express or implied malice, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought.] The mental state constituting malice aforethought does not necessarily require any ill will or hatred of the person killed. The word “aforethought” does not imply deliberation or the lapse of considerable time. It only means that the required mental state must precede rather than follow the act.”

 

California Penal Code 188 PC — Malice, express malice, and implied malice defined. (“Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite such awareness is included within the definition of malice.”

 

California Penal Code 189 PC — California’s murder laws; degrees. (“All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture [pursuant to Penal Code 206 PC California’s torture law], or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other kinds of murders are of the second degree. As used in this section, “destructive device” means any destructive device as defined in Section 12301, and “explosive” means any explosive as defined in Section 12000 of the Health and Safety Code. As used in this section, “weapon of mass destruction” means any item defined in Section 11417. To prove the killing was “deliberate and premeditated,” it shall not be necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully reflected upon the gravity of his or her act.”

 

California Penal Code 190 PC — Punishment for violating California’s murder laws. (“(a) Every person guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death, imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole, or imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 25 years to life. The penalty to be applied shall be determined as provided in Sections 190.1, 190.2, 190.3, 190.4, and 190.5.”

 

California Penal Code 190.05 PC — Penalty for second degree murder for defendants who have served a prior prison term for murder. (“(a) The penalty for a defendant found guilty of murder in the second degree, who has served a prior prison term for murder in the first or second degree, shall be confinement in the state prison for a term of life without the possibility of parole or confinement in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life. For purposes of this section, a prior prison term for murder of the first or second degree is that time period in which a defendant has spent actually incarcerated for his or her offense prior to release on parole.”

 

Please contact Attorney Max Gorby at (323) 477-2819 regarding any questions related to California Penal Code section 187 – Murder.

off

Voluntary Manslaughter

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 @ 04:11 AM
Author: maxgorby

If you have been arrested for the crime of Voluntary Manslaughter, call experienced criminal defense lawyer Max Gorby at (323) 477-2819.

California Penal Code 192(a) California’s voluntary manslaughter law. (“Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds…(a) Voluntary–upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.”

 

California Jury Instructions, Criminal, CALJIC 8.40 — California’s manslaughter law. (“Every person who unlawfully kills another human being [without malice aforethought but] either with an intent to kill, or with conscious disregard for human life, is guilty of voluntary manslaughter in violation of Penal Code section 192, subdivision (a). [There is no malice aforethought if the killing occurred [upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion] [or] [in the actual but unreasonable belief in the necessity to defend [oneself] [or] [another person] against imminent peril to life or great bodily injury]

 

Judicial Council Of California Criminal Jury Instruction, CALCRIM 570 — California’s voluntary manslaughter law. (“A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed someone because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. The defendant killed someone because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion if: [1] The defendant was provoked; [2] As a result of the provocation, the defendant acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured (his/her) reasoning or judgment; AND [3] The provocation would have caused a person of average disposition to act rashly and without due deliberation, that is, from passion rather than from judgment.”

 

“Heat of passion does not require anger, rage, or any specific emotion. It can be any violent or intense emotion that causes a person to act without due deliberation and reflection…[If enough time passed between the provocation and the killing for a person of average disposition to “cool off” and regain his or her clear reasoning and judgment, then the killing is not reduced to voluntary manslaughter on this basis”

“In order for heat of passion to reduce a murder to voluntary manslaughter, the defendant must have acted under the direct and immediate influence of provocation as I have defined it. While no specific type of provocation is required, slight or remote provocation is not sufficient. Sufficient provocation may occur over a short or long period of time. It is not enough that the defendant simply was provoked. The defendant is not allowed to set up (his/her) own standard of conduct. You must decide whether the defendant was provoked and whether the provocation was sufficient. In deciding whether the provocation was sufficient, consider whether a person of average disposition, in the same situation and knowing the same facts, would have reacted from passion rather than from judgment.” Wickersham, supra, at p. 327, quoting People v. Berry, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 515

 

CALCRIM 505 — Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another. (“The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if: [1] The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name or description of third party<) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime<)]; [2] The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger; AND [3] The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.”

CALCRIM 571 — Voluntary Manslaughter: Imperfect Self-Defense—Lesser Included Offense. (“A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed a person because (he/she) acted in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another). If you conclude the defendant acted in complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another), (his/her) action was lawful and you must find (him/her) not guilty of any crime. The difference between complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) and (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another) depends on whether the defendant’s belief in the need to use deadly force was reasonable. The defendant acted in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another) if: 1 The defendant actually believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ <insert name of third party>) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury; AND 2 The defendant actually believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger; BUT 3 At least one of those beliefs was unreasonable.”

Please contact Attorney Max Gorby at (323) 477-2819 regarding any questions related to California Penal Code section 192 (a) – voluntary manslaughter.

off

Vehicular Manslaughter

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 @ 04:11 AM
Author: maxgorby

If you have been arrested for the crime of Vehicular Manslaughter, call experienced criminal defense lawyer Max Gorby at (323) 477-2819.

Vehicular manslaughter

California Penal Code 192(c) — Vehicular manslaughter. (“Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds…(c) Vehicular– (1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 191.5, driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, and with gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence. (2) Driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, but without gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence. (3) Driving a vehicle in connection with a violation of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 550, where the vehicular collision or vehicular accident was knowingly caused for financial gain and proximately resulted in the death of any person [also a violation of California’s automobile insurance fraud laws]. This provision shall not be construed to prevent prosecution of a defendant for the crime of murder.”

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction — CALCRIM 591 — Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. (“To prove that the defendant is guilty of vehicular manslaughter with ordinary negligence while intoxicated [othwise referred to as Penal Code 191.5(b) California’s “vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated” law], the People must prove that: [1] The defendant (drove under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/[or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug]/drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher/ drove under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug] when under the age of 21/drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 or higher when under the age of 21/operated a vessel under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or a combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug]/operated a vessel while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher); [2] While (driving that vehicle/operating that vessel) under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug], the defendant also committed (a/an) (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]] / [or] otherwise lawful act that might cause death); [3] The defendant committed the (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]] /[or] otherwise lawful act that might cause death) with ordinary negligence; AND [4] The defendant’s negligent conduct caused the death of another person.”

 

California Penal Code 191.5(b) PC — Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. (“(b) Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, in the driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation of Section 23140 [California’s “under 21 DUI” law], 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, but without gross negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.”

Please contact Attorney Max Gorby at (323) 477-2819 regarding any questions related to  California Penal Code 192(c) — Vehicular manslaughter.

off

Gross Vehicular Manslaughter

Wednesday, November 2, 2011 @ 03:11 AM
Author: maxgorby

If you have been arrested for the crime of Gross Vehicular Manslaughter, call experienced criminal defense lawyer Max Gorby at (323) 477-2819.

 

California Penal Code 191.5 – Gross Vehicular Manslaughter (a) PC California’s gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated law. (“(a) Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, in the driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, and with gross negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence…(c)(1) Except as provided in subdivision (d), gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in violation of subdivision (a) is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 4, 6, or 10 years…(d) A person convicted of violating subdivision (a) who has one or more prior convictions of this section or of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 192, subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 192.5 of this code, or of violating Section 23152 punishable under Sections 23540, 23542, 23546, 23548, 23550, or 23552 of, or convicted of Section 23153 of, the Vehicle Code, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life. Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall apply to reduce the term imposed pursuant to this subdivision.”

 

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction — CALCRIM 590 – Gross Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. (“To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that: [1] The defendant (drove under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug]/drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or higher/drove under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug] when under the age of 21/drove while having a blood alcohol level of 0.05 or higher when under the age of 21); [2] While driving that vehicle under the influence of (an alcoholic beverage/ [or] a drug) [or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug], the defendant also committed (a/an) (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/ [or] otherwise lawful act that might cause death); [3] The defendant committed the (misdemeanor[,]/ [or] infraction[,]/ [or] otherwise lawful act that might cause death) with gross negligence; AND [4] The defendant’s grossly negligent conduct caused the death of another person.”

 

Vehicle Code 23103 VC California’s reckless driving law. (“(a) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. (b) A person who drives a vehicle in an offstreet parking facility, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12500, in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. (c) Persons convicted of the offense of reckless driving shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than one hundred forty-five dollars ($145) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, except as provided in Section 23104 or 23105.”

 

CALCRIM 590 — Penal Code 191.5 PC California’s “gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated” law. (“Gross negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with gross negligence when: [1] He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury; AND [2] A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. In other words, a person acts with gross negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.”

RECENT CASES:

  • People v. Johnigan, No. B220763, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1084; 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190; 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 807, June 23, 2011, Filed, Review denied by People v. Johnigan (Ashley), 2011 Cal. LEXIS 10281 (Cal., Sept. 28, 2011)
  • The trial court declined to give a special defense instruction that stated: “The distinction between ‘conscious disregard for life’ and ‘conscious indifference to the consequences’ is subtle but nevertheless logical.” (Special jury instruction No. 2.) Appellant also asked the court to instruct: “The term ‘gross negligence’ as used in the definition of manslaughter in these instructions means the failure to exercise any care, or the exercise of so little care that you are justified in believing the defendant was wholly indifferent to the consequences of her conduct and to the welfare of others.” (Special jury instruction No. 4, italics added.) The proposed instruction contradicted the CalCrim 590 instruction on gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated which stated: “Gross negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention or mistake in judgment. A person acts with gross negligence when: [¶] 1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of death or great bodily injury. [¶] AND [¶] 2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk. [¶] In other words, a person acts with gross negligence when the way he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.”

Please contact Attorney Max Gorby at (323) 477-2819 regarding any questions related to California Penal Code section 191.5 Gross Vehicular Manslaughter.

off
SANTA MONICA – Police are questioning a man in connection with a fatal hit-and-run crash in which a jaywalker was killed by the driver of a Toyota Camry, authorities said today.The accident at Lincoln and Santa Monica boulevards was reported at about 5:50 a.m. on Wednesday, Santa Monica police Sgt. Richard Lewis said.Witnesses told police the Toyota was headed south on Lincoln and hit a man trying to cross the street from west to east, throwing the victim about 30 feet, Lewis said.

Lewis said the 76-year-old driver had a green light.

The 73-year-old victim, a transient known in the area, died at the scene, Lewis said.

The suspect vehicle was described as a charcoal gray 2009-2011 model Camry with front-end damage. At least part of the passenger-side mirror was found near the point of impact, Lewis said.

Police received a phone call from a family member who believed their relative was involved in the crash, Lewis said.

Police questioned the Los Angeles man, whose name has not been released.

Lewis said the man, who apparently has medical issues, has cooperated with the investigation.

Lewis said damage to his vehicle was consistent with the damage witnesses described at the scene.

Police took a statement from the man but he was not arrested, Lewis said. Police have received a copy of the driver’s re-examination from the DMV as part of the continuing investigation.

The victim’s name was not released pending notification of his next of kin, Lewis said.

Anyone with additional information is asked to contact Santa Monica police Investigator Chris Dawson at 310-458-8954 or Sgt. Jeff Wiles at 310-458-8950.

 

If you have been arrested for hit and run a violation of vehicle code section 20001, you will need to consult with an experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer.  At the Law Office of Max Gorby, we will provide you with the aggressive defense you need to fight your hit and run charges. We have decades of experience and a solid understanding of defenses to hit and run laws in Los Angeles and throughout California. We have developed effective negotiation tactics for fighting hit and run charges.

 

If you have been charged with a criminal offense related to hit and run, you could be facing a conviction for hit and run that will adversly affect your life forever. Our Los Angeles hit and run lawyers can help you fight these charges.  Contact our office for a free case evaluation.

Man questioned in connection with fatal hit and run in Santa Monica – LA Daily News.

off

On Halloween, homeless sex offender parolees pulled off streets – latimes.com

Tuesday, November 1, 2011 @ 07:11 AM
Author: maxgorby

California’s homeless sex offender parolees will be rounded up and kept indoors Halloween night under a new initiative announced under the state’s annual Operation Boo crackdown.

The state corrections department began the Halloween night initiative in 1994 and has expanded it since.

Sex offenders on parole are required to remain indoors from 5 p.m. Halloween night to 5 a.m. the next day and are banned from turning on external lights or decorating their houses for Halloween.

During the curfew they may only open the door to law enforcement.

The new condition imposed this year deals with transient sex offenders, who will be required to report to special centers to spend the night under supervision.

In Southern California, several government entities have taken a hard line on sex offenders leading up to Halloween this year.

Riverside County supervisors and the cities of Hemet and Temecula have passed measures prohibiting sex offenders (including those not on parole) from decorating their houses or passing out candy.

If you have been arrested for a parole violation, you will need to consult with an experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer.  At the Law Office of Max Gorby, we will provide you with the aggressive defense you need to fight your parole violation charges. We have decades of experience and a solid understanding of defenses to parole violation laws in Los Angeles and throughout California. We have developed effective negotiation tactics for fighting parole violation charges.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense related to a parole violation, you could be facing a conviction for a parole violation that will adversly affect your life forever. Our Los Angeles parole violation lawyers can help you fight these charges.  Contact our office for a free case evaluation.

On Halloween, homeless sex offender parolees pulled off streets – latimes.com.

off

Some states rethink felony property crimes – USATODAY.com

Monday, October 31, 2011 @ 03:10 AM
Author: maxgorby

 

 

 

WASHINGTON – More than half a dozen states are reclassifying a range of property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, a change that could spare prison terms for minor offenses and save states jail and prosecution costs.

The changes increase the threshold dollar amounts for crimes such as check kiting, theft and criminal mischief. California, Delaware, Illinois, Montana, Oregon and Washington, among others, have amended their criminal codes in the past two years, aimed partly at deferring hundreds of offenders from costly prison and jail sentences.

State officials and criminal justice analysts said budget crises have forced state lawmakers, sometimes at political risk, to enact less punitive measures for criminal offenders. “Clearly one of the motivating factors is cost,” said Alison Shames, associate director of the Center on Sentencing and Corrections for the Vera Institute of Justice, an advocacy group. “States are looking at the numbers of people in prison for property crimes and asking themselves a simple question: Does everybody really need to be there?”

Crimes that do not meet the higher thresholds would be charged as misdemeanors or lower-level felonies. Prior to the new legislation, some offenders could have been prosecuted as felons for thefts of as little as $50 (in Oregon), less than the $62 per day average cost to house a state prisoner in the U.S.

In Illinois, the threshold for general felony theft was raised from $300 to $500 and retail theft (theft specifically from retail stores) from $150 to $300. The new felony theft thresholds took effect earlier this year.

Peter Baroni, who has helped direct an effort to revamp Illinois’ criminal code, said the changes, while incremental, were an attempt to update a criminal code that largely had not changed in nearly 50 years. Over time, there is an expectation that it will result in reduced prosecution, detention and court costs, he said.

“This (change) was not an easy task because nobody wants to be perceived as being soft on crime,” Baroni said, “but the budget constraints are so severe that the idea of being soft on crime is less abhorrent than it was in the past.”

In Montana, Republican state Sen. Jim Shockley was the primary sponsor of 2009 legislation that raised the threshold dollar amount on felony theft from $1,000 to $1,500. “You have to account for inflation,” Shockley said. “The cost of everything goes up. We’re hoping that there will be savings, if this results in prosecuting fewer felons. One public cost that people don’t think much about is the practical effect of convicting non-violent offenders as felons. Once a person has a felony record, the chances of finding future employment are essentially shot.”

Oregon Criminal Justice Commission Executive Director Craig Prins said 2009 legislation that raised thresholds for three categories of theft was largely driven by increasing costs of prosecuting and providing public defense for suspects accused of felony crimes.

Some states rethink felony property crimes – USATODAY.com

off

The case against Amanda Knox – CNN.com

Monday, October 31, 2011 @ 12:10 AM
Author: maxgorby

 

 

 

 

 

 

(CNN) — The evidence, and the claims:

The knife

Prosecution says: A knife found in co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito’s house has the DNA of Amanda Knox on the handle and of victim Meredith Kercher on the blade, suggesting it’s the murder weapon.

Defense says: The knife doesn’t match the shape and size of wounds on Kercher’s body or an outline of the knife left on her bed. The defense also presented experts who said DNA on the blade was too small to be definitive.

Prosecution says: A bra clasp that was ripped from Kercher’s bra and found on the floor of her room has DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on it, proving he was in the room when she was killed.

Defense says: The bra clasp is contaminated and essentially tainted evidence because it was moved around the crime scene and left there for more than six weeks before it was picked up as evidence.

Prosecution says: During her interrogation, Knox said she could hear Kercher screaming. She also pointed the finger early on at Patrick Lumumba, who was eventually released. The prosecution said Knox’s false statement proves she is lying and was at the home when Kercher was killed.

Defense says: Knox’s statements were made when she was asked to imagine what would have happened that night in her apartment. The defense maintains Knox pointed the finger at Lumumba because she was confused and pressured. Eventually the confession was thrown out because Knox was not questioned with a lawyer present.

Bloody footprint on bathroom rug

Prosecution says: The prosecution attributed a bloody footprint on a rug in the bathroom to Sollecito, which they say proves he was there at the time of the murder.

Defense says: Sollecito’s lawyers presented forensic experts who said the print is in no way a match to Sollecito, but instead a match to Rudy Guede, who was convicted separately in the case. The defense focused on Sollecito’s hammer toe, which they say wouldn’t leave an imprint like the print found on the mat.

Prosecution says: A broken window in the home Knox shared with Kercher was an attempt by the American to stage a break-in as a cover for the murder. The prosecution maintains it would be impossible for someone to break the window and climb through the window as proposed by the defense.

Defense says: The window was broken by Guede, a known drifter who had broken into homes before. Defense expert Francesco Pasquali simulated how glass would break if a rock were thrown from the outside. His testimony included that he believes a burglar could have thrown a rock that way, not from the inside (to stage a robbery) as the prosecution maintains.

Defense says: The defense has argued that several pieces of key DNA were contaminated at the scene. Crime scene video shows investigators sometimes not wearing gloves or hair coverings, prodding their fingers in Kercher’s wounds, leaving key pieces of evidence at the scene for weeks and moving them around, and at one point breaking a window for no reason.

Prosecution says: The prosecution has argued that all the evidence was indeed properly handled and that it isn’t their job to prove the crime scene work was good enough. Instead, they say, that’s the job of the defense.

Bloody shoe print in Kercher’s room

Prosecution says: The bloody shoe print found next to Kercher’s body belonged to Sollecito and placed him in Kercher’s room when she was murdered.

Defense says: After Guede, a man from the Ivory Coast who was convicted in a separate trial for murdering Kercher, was found to have a shoe box for shoes matching the print, they argued for a re-examination of the print. Francesco Vinci, a coroner and forensic specialist for Sollecito, testified he believes it was wrongly attributed to Sollecito and belongs to Guede.

 

 

If you have been arrested for murder a violation of penal code section 187, you will need to consult with an experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer.  At the Law Office of Max Gorby, we will provide you with the aggressive defense you need to fight your murder charges. We have decades of experience and a solid understanding of defenses to murder laws in Los Angeles and throughout California. We have developed effective negotiation tactics for fighting murder charges.

 

If you have been charged with a criminal offense related to murder, you could be facing a conviction for murder that will adversly affect your life forever. Our Los Angeles murder lawyers can help you fight these charges.  Contact our office for a free case evaluation.

The case against Amanda Knox – CNN.com.

off

Shoplifters find hope in addiction treatment – latimes.com

Sunday, October 30, 2011 @ 07:10 PM
Author: maxgorby

Shoplifters find hope in addiction treatment

A Newport Beach program takes only people — many of them well-to-do — who steal items they can afford. The aim is to identify root causes of the behavior, such as loneliness, anxiety or frustration.

October 30, 2011

Some people call them teacher of the year, family doctor, engineer or Girl Scout leader.

Nancy Clark calls them clients.

For 15 years, Clark has run a shoplifting addiction treatment program in Newport Beach. Many clients attend in lieu of possible jail or prison sentences.

Despite stereotypes about petty thieves snatching items out of financial desperation, many of the people in the program are well-to-do. They see shoplifting as an addiction that gives an endorphin rush on a par with drugs.

Nancy Clark & Associates Inc.’s treatment program enrolls only people who steal items they can afford. It is not for those who steal to support a drug or alcohol addiction — there’s another group for them.

Clark enforces a strict dress-and-grooming code during the 12-week program: No tank tops are allowed, men must be clean-shaven, and hats and sunglasses are forbidden.

“I don’t want somebody to look like the Unabomber when they come to my office in the morning,” she said.

That isn’t an issue for many in the largely female group. Many of the clients are professionals or publicly lauded in the community but quietly steal items to satisfy an urge often inspired by feelings of loneliness, anxiety or frustration in their personal lives.

“The clientele I work with usually can afford the products,” said program director Kathy Escher. “They are professionals…. The risk-taking in shoplifting can work as an antidepressant. It’s just like any other high with any other addiction. The pleasure area of the brain that’s stimulated can be addictive.”

Many of the stolen items are meaningless or unusable to those who take them. Clark knows of someone who stole a single shoe and another who amassed three storage units worth of items, spanning a 25-year “career.”

According to Clark, some shoplifters find their urges triggered by small stores filled with tchotchkes, while others feel a compulsion to act out in the aisles of big-box retailers.

The program aims for the root of why clients steal, emphasizing individual treatment coupled with group counseling to build a support network where they can share feelings that compel them to steal. By the group’s estimates, the recidivism rate of people who complete the program is 4%.

Elizabeth, 42, has been a stay-at-home mom for 20 years. She said Clark’s program helped her understand that she isn’t alone in her struggle with shoplifting.

“This is a real problem,” said Elizabeth, who spoke only on the condition that her last name not be used. “This is something you have to manage for the rest of your life. I’m a good, moral person. I know it’s wrong to steal…. For so long I didn’t realize why I was doing it. Basically, you’re trying to fill a need.”

Elizabeth has been in Clark’s program since her late 20s, and although she hasn’t stolen anything in eight years, she won’t go more than a few months without attending a group meeting.

“They are so, so helpful,” she said. “It’s basically my lifeline to make sure I stay OK.”

Many clients are afraid family ties will be jeopardized if they share their compulsion with those they are closest to.

“We’ve got people who were married decades and decades, and they are dealing with this on their own,” Clark said. “These people imagine they’ll never be invited to Thanksgiving again.”

Elizabeth said that rather than tell friends about her shoplifting addiction, she told them she had a DUI when the court ordered her to wear a GPS ankle device.

“It was more acceptable to say I had a DUI than ‘I got caught shoplifting,’ ” she said. “You hear of people getting DUIs, and people know I’m not an alcoholic. They thought that was just bad luck. That’s more acceptable than to say, ‘I have a shoplifting problem.’ ”

Kate Corrigan, president of the Orange County Criminal Defense Bar Assn., has worked with Clark and her team since the early 1990s.

“She is someone who is selfless,” Corrigan said. “She is someone who really takes great care in helping people turn their lives around…. She’s one of a kind.”

Although some of her clients arrive by court mandate, Clark doesn’t see criminals when she meets a client.

“We look at the person behind the crime,” she said. “There’s a story behind these people.”

In Clark’s office, dozens of awards and certificates line the bright teal walls — many from groups grateful for Clark’s work.

One portrait of the Virgin Mary holding baby Jesus stands out amid the checkerboard of frames. The gilt-framed picture was a gift she received while at the public defender’s office, where she worked from 1973 to 1990.

Beneath it, in Spanish, is this inscription: “Our lady of the sacred heart, lawyer of the difficult and desperate causes.”

“They said I work with hopeless causes,” Clark said. “Our motto is ‘There’s hope in every heartbeat.’ ”Shoplifters find hope in addiction treatment – latimes.com.

off

Swim coach admits molesting 15-year-old student over 10 months – latimes.com

Sunday, October 30, 2011 @ 06:10 PM
Author: maxgorby

Swim coach admits molesting 15-year-old student over 10 months

October 29, 2011 |  8:56 am

An Irvine swim coach pleaded guilty in court Friday to sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl while working as her swim instructor, authorities said.

Todd Robert Sousa, 37, will serve 16 months in state prison after agreeing to an offer to plead guilty to 13 counts of lewd acts on a child, three felony counts of unlawful sexual intercourse and two misdemeanor counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, according to a news release from the Orange County district attorney’s office.

Sousa was working as an instructor at Swim Venture when he began assaulting the 15-year-old girl, according to prosecutors. The D.A.’s office said that the assaults occurred between April 2010 and February 2011 in the Swim Venture office, an equipment closet and his car, according to the Daily Pilot.

During the sentencing Friday, the victim’s mother and stepfather said the assaults left the once-avid swimmer depressed and uninterested in the sport, and Sousa’s actions have ruined their lives, according to the D.A.’s office.

If you have been arrested for child molestation a violation of penal code section 288, you will need to consult with an experienced Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer.  At the Law Office of Max Gorby, we will provide you with the aggressive defense you need to fight your child molestation charges. We have decades of experience and a solid understanding of defenses to child molestation laws in Los Angeles and throughout California. We have developed effective negotiation tactics for fighting child molestation charges.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense related to child molestation, you could be facing a conviction for a sex crime that will adversly affect your life forever. Our Los Angeles child molestation lawyers can help you fight these charges.  Contact our office for a free case evaluation.

via Swim coach admits molesting 15-year-old student over 10 months – latimes.com.

off

Find Experts & Services

Ut tellus dolor, dapibus eget, elementum vel, cursus eleif end, elit. Aenean auctor wisi
et urna. Aliquam erat.

Success Stories

Mr. John Hummerhead Constetr adipcing elit. Maur siusfetun accumisan malesda donec...
All stories