Best Defender Bytes:

August 25, 2009

Was the Homicide of Michael Jackson, Murder or Manslaughter?

Filed under: Los Angeles Criminal attorney — Tags: , , , — fayarfa @ 3:56 am

The L.A. Coroner’s Office has classified the death of Michael Jackson as a Homicide.

The Associated Press reports that Los Angeles Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner, Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran’s initial autopsy findings show that Michael Jackson died from a high dosage of a powerful sedative. According to the reports, Jackson’s death was caused by lethal levels of propofol (Diprivan), a drug that depresses the central nervous system. Apparently, the cause of death may be due to the actions of a single night and/or a single doctor, or the grossly negligent treatment of several doctors over an extended period of time. The law defines homicide as the death of a human being and an unlawful act which was a cause of that death.

Should the death of Michael Jackson be classified as murder defined by California Penal code section 187 (the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought) or manslaughter defined by California Penal Code section 192 (the unlawful killing of a human being without malice)?

The law defines two kinds of manslaughter, voluntary, upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion and involuntary, in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution or circumspection.

By: Fay Arfa, Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney

August 6, 2009

OK FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SET UP CHECKPOINTS AT NATIONAL PARK

Filed under: California Defense Attorney — Tags: , , — fayarfa @ 2:43 am

In United States v. Fraire (9th Cir., 8/4/09, 08-10448) ___ F.3d ___

federal park rangers, who intended to stop hunting and the “illegal taking of animals in the park,” set up a checkpoint to briefly question drivers illegal hunting. The Fraire court okays the momentary checkpoint stop aimed at preventing illegal hunting, justified by a legitimate concern for the preservation of park wildlife and the prevention of irreparable harm. directly related to the operation of the park, and confined to the park gate where visitors would expect to briefly stop — is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

BOTTOM LINE: If you plan to hunt in the national park, plan on getting caught.

Powered by WordPress