September 28th, 2009
On September 27, 2009, the Swiss Police arrested film director
Roman Polanski in Zurich, Switzerland. Polanski faces possible extradition to the United States for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Under California law, 13-year-old minors are incapable of consenting to sex. The prosecution originally charged Polanski, aged 43 at the time, with sixcounts of rape, sodomy, child molestation and giving drugs to a minor. He faced up to 50 years in state prison. In August 1977, Polanski pleaded guilty to a single count of having unlawful sex with the 13-year-old girl. In December, he went into prison for a 90-day psychiatric study, but was released after 42 days. In February 1978, Polanski jumped bail and fled to France, his native country where he has remained ever since.
Mr. Polanski had a tough life. His accuser, Samantha Geimer, who
long ago identified herself publicly, wants the case dismissed and wants the saga concluded. Polanski, a French native, who was taken to Poland by his parents, escaped Krakow’s Jewish ghetto as a child during World War II and lived off the charity of strangers. His mother died at the Nazis’ Auschwitz death camp. Polanski became a film maker in Poland and eventually came to Hollywood, where he directed several movies. In 1969, his wife, actress Sharon Tate, and four other people were gruesomely murdered in Los Angeles by followers of cult figure Charles Manson. Tate was eight months pregnant at the time.
Should the case against Mr. Polanski be dropped since so much time
has passed, the accuser wants the case concluded and Mr. Polanski
suffered several horrific tragedies over his lifetime? Or, should he face the criminal justice system?
By: Fay Arfa, Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
Tags: child abuse, child sex crime, child sexual abuse, Roman Polanski, sexual assault
Posted in California Defense Attorney | 1 Comment »
September 1st, 2009
In 2006, Lori Drew registered and set up a profile for a fake 16 year old boy named “Josh Evans” on MySpace. She posted a picture of a boy without that boy’s knowledge or consent. The government claimed Drew’s conduct violated MySpace’s terms of service and prosecuted Lori Drew a.k.a. a “Cyber Bully” under a misdemeanor statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claiming that Drew intentionally violated MySpace’s terms of services.
The U.S. District Judge held the law unconstitutionally overbroad because the law would make criminals out of “the lonely-heart who submits intentionally inaccurate data about his or her age, height and/or physical appearance . . . the student who posts candid photographs of classmates without their permission. . . . and/or the exasperated parent who sends out a group message to neighborhood friends entreating them to purchase his or her daughter’s girl scout cookies . . . “
Should the government be prosecuting people for intentionally violating an Internet website’s terms of services?
By: Fay Arfa, Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
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: drugs, homicide, manslaughter, Michael Jackson
Posted in Los Angeles Criminal attorney | No Comments »
August 6th, 2009
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.
Tags: federal park, Fourth Amendment, illegal hunting
Posted in California Defense Attorney | No Comments »
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: Assault Weapons, militia, Second Amendment
Posted in Los Angeles Criminal attorney | No Comments »
May 26th, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor’s parents immigrated to New York from Puerto Rico. She has overcome personal obstacles. She has suffered from diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9. She is divorced with no children.
She graduated Princeton University and Yale Law School. She served as a prosecutor and an attorney in private practice. Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992 and an appeals judge in 1998 for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers New York, Vermont and Connecticut.
At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, “I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.”
Sotomayor has ruled on two high profile cases. In 1995, she issued the preliminary injunction against Major League Baseball which ended the 1994 Baseball Strike. Sotomayor made a ruling allowing the Wall Street Journal to publish Vince Foster’s suicide note. In 1997, she was nominated by Bill Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. After more than a year, she was confirmed and joined the court in 1998. Sotomayor was an Adjunct Professor at New York University School of Law from 1998 to 2007 and has been a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School since 1999.
Prior to her selection by Obama, Sotomayor had been considered by both Democrat and Republican presidents as a Supreme Court candidate. In 2005, Senate Democrats suggested Sotomayor as a nominee to George W. Bush, who eventually selected Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Prior to Souter’s retirement announcement, there was speculation that Sotomayor was a potential nominee. After Souter’s retirement announcement was leaked to the press, Sotomayor received attention as a possible nominee, and in May 2009 reports had Sotomayor on a shortlist of possible nominees. On May 26, 2009, Obama nominated Sotomayor to the court. If confirmed, she would be the court’s first Latina justice (and the second Ibero-American justice, after Benjamin N. Cardozo).
Tags: Baseball Strike, judge, liberal, Sotomayor, Supreme Court nominee
Posted in California Appeals Attorney | No Comments »
May 22nd, 2009
Recently, in a California case, the defendant’s dog bit the victim’s leg. The jury convicted the defendant of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury and the personal infliction of great bodily injury.
The California court held that the evidence supported the finding that the evidence supported the finding that one of the dogs obeyed the defendant’s command to attack and maul the victim. The defendant knew that the dogs would attack on command, having been present during an earlier incident when the dog’s owner had instructed the dogs to attack a man. The dog’s also obeyed the defendant who cared for them.
When a neighbor told the defendant to stop the attack, the defendant refused to call off the dogs. The California court held that the defendant directed the attacked and hindered its ending so that the defendant, not the dog, should and could be held responsible for personally inflicting great bodily injury. People v. Frazier (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 613.
Tags: assault, bodily injury, dog bite
Posted in Dog Bite Attorney | No Comments »
May 15th, 2009
In the case of People v. Mays issued on May 8, 2009 [Case No. C057099], the police questioned Mr. Mays about his involvement in a homicide. The defendant denied guilt and asked for a lie detector test. The police agreed to give him the test and then set up a fake polygraph and generated fake results showing the defendant lied. The defendant then made several incriminating statements.
The California Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District in Sacramento, upholds the conviction and finds that the police can lie, unless it’s coercive or is the kind of lie that would produce a false confession. The California Court of Appeals finds the fake polygraph would not have produced a false confession and that the defendant’s statements were voluntary and not coerced.
Tags: homicide, lie detector, polygraph
Posted in California Appeals Attorney | 1 Comment »