Archive for the ‘Los Angeles Criminal attorney’ Category

Los Angeles Physician Sentenced to Five Years in Prison for Assaulting Bicyclists

Saturday, January 9th, 2010

The case against Thompson, 60, has drawn close scrutiny from bicycle riders around the country, many of whom viewed the outcome as a test of the justice system’s commitment to protecting cyclists.

Millington said he did not take into account more than 270 e-mails and letters from cyclists that were filed with the court urging a tough sentence.

The July 4, 2008, crash also highlighted simmering tensions between cyclists and residents along Mandeville Canyon Road, the winding five-mile residential street where the crash took place.

One cyclist was flung face-first into the rear window of Thompson’s red Infiniti, breaking his front teeth and nose and cutting his face. The other cyclist slammed into the sidewalk and suffered a separated shoulder.

At his sentencing hearing at the county’s airport branch court, Thompson cited the Bible in urging cyclists and residents of Mandeville Canyon to try to resolve their differences peacefully.

(more…)

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Los Angeles Criminal attorney | No Comments »

Are prosecutors immune from lawsuits for fabricating evidence?

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

In 2005, Curtis W. McGhee and Terry J. Harrington, both convicted of murder in 1978, sued Pottawattamie County, Iowa, and former county attorneys Joseph Hrvol and David Richter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, inter alia, that the Pottawattamie prosecutors coerced false testimony from third party witnesses and then introduced that testimony in their murder trials. The prosecutors argued that they were immune from the lawsuit based on the doctrine of absolute immunity, but both the district court and the Eighth Circuit disagreed. The Supreme Court’s decision will reveal the extent to which prosecutors are immune from liability for their pre-trial misconduct. This clarification may affect the way prosecutors try cases, and will, undoubtedly, influence the degree to which defendants can hold their prosecutors accountable for due process violations.

The Constitution prohibits shielding prosecutors who, well in advance of trial, fabricate evidence in order to frame innocent citizens.

Pottawattamie County, IA v. McGhee (08–1065) | LII / Legal Information Institute

Oral argument: Nov. 4, 2009

Question presented

Whether a prosecutor may be subjected to a civil trial and potential damages for a wrongful conviction and incarceration where the prosecutor allegedly (1) violated a criminal defendant’s “substantive due process” rights by procuring false testimony during the criminal investigation, and then (2) introduced that same testimony against the criminal defendant at trial.

Issue

Can a prosecutor who knowingly procures false testimony and introduces such testimony at trial be subject to a §1983 civil suit?

Facts

In 1978, Petitioners Joseph Hrvol and David Richter obtained convictions and life sentences against Respondents Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington for the murder of retired police captain John Schweer in Council Bluffs, Iowa the previous year. See McGhee v. Pottawattamie County, 547 F.3d 922, 925 (8th Cir. 2008). Although police attention initially focused on Charles Gates, a man identified by two witnesses as being near the scene with “a shotgun and a dog,” Hrvol and Richter soon turned their attention to McGhee and Harrington. See id. at 926. The foundation of their case against McGhee and Harrington was 16-year-old Kevin Hughes. See id. Hughes, who already had a lengthy criminal record, was facing charges for stealing a Cadillac and possible involvement in the Schweer murder. See id. Detectives offered not to charge Hughes for the murder and drop the laundry list of other criminal charges against him and held out the possibility of his recovering a $5,000 reward for information regarding the Schweer murder if he cooperated in the investigation. See id. at 927. Hughes agreed. See id. (more…)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Los Angeles Criminal attorney | 1 Comment »

Was the Homicide of Michael Jackson, Murder or Manslaughter?

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

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

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Los Angeles Criminal attorney | No Comments »

California Court Upholds Ban on Assault Weapons:

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The United States Supreme Court held, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U. S. [171 L.Ed.2d 637], that “the [District of Columbia's] ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” (Id. at p. 683.)

In so holding, the Court explained that the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing right of the individual “to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” (Id. at p. 657 ["The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed'"].)

However, the Heller Court pointed out that, like the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is not unlimited: “Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.” (Id. at p. 659.)

Recently, in People v. James (2009) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the California Court of Appeal held that possession of an assault weapon in California remains unlawful and is not protected by the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution as construed by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. [171 L.Ed.2d 657] (Heller).

Tags: , ,
Posted in Los Angeles Criminal attorney | No Comments »