Long Beach Criminal Defense Attorney, DUI Lawyer

What is the Legal Definition of Insanity?

Many hear of the insanity defense in criminal cases but few actually know what the test is. Most jurisdictions employ the M’Naghten test of insanity. That is:

The defendant is legally insane only if he suffers from a mental disease or defect such that at the time of the commission of the offense he was unable to understand the nature and quality of his acts, or he was unable to understand that what he was doing was wrong.

According to one local Long Beach Criminal Attorney, ten states have eliminated the “cognitive incapacity” alternative of the M’Naghten test, allowing an insanity defense only for defendants who are incapable of understanding that their actions were wrong (“moral incapacity”). Some states supplement M’Naghten with an “irresistible impulse” test. The irresistible impulse defense is available when the accused’s mind has become so impaired by disease that he is totally deprived of the mental power to control or restrain his criminal act; Under many state laws in for defendant to be considered “legally insane” the jury must find that the defendant (a) did not know the nature and quality of the act, or (b) did not know that it was wrong, or (c) was incapable of preventing himself from committing it).

A number of jurisdictions, Long Beach notwithstanding,  have adopted the Model Penal Code test for criminal insanity form, under which a person is not responsible for his criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct, or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.  Special thanks to Matthew Ruff, Criminal Attorney in Long Beach.

How Does Long Beach Court Handle a Bench Warrant?

A bench warrant is one that is issued by a judge on the bench, usually when a person does not appear in Court.  A commonly asked question is how do you clear a bench warrant once it has been issued?

The first thing that must be asked is whether the warrant is for a felony or a misdemeanor.  If it is for a misdemeanor such as DUI or petty theft than a lawyer can show up for the person and have the matter resolved.  For felonies however, the law requires a personal appearance by the accused in order to clear the court record.  According to Matthew Ruff, a Long Beach Criminal Attorney, the Judge will often look to the person’s record of failures to appear in order to decide whether bail will be set.  if the individual has no prior FTA’s on their DMV record than the Court will likely recall and quash the warrant.  Thereafter the case can be set for a trial or some sort of pretrial hearing in order to work out a deal on the case.  However, in some instances if the case is extremely old the attorney may be able to get the charges dismissed based on a denial of the defendant’s right to speedy prosecution.  This type of legal motion is very complex and a lawyer should be contacted to discuss the nuances of the case.

Nalalie Wood’s Daughter Arrested For Drug Possession

The daughter of the late Natalie Wood and actor Robert Wagner, has been arrested for drug possession after police responded to a domestic disturbance at her home in Los Angeles this week. The middle-aged Wood who was just a child when her famous mother drowned on a weekend trip to Catalina Island in California — was taken into custody last Sunday at her Malibu home when officers responded to a call that a woman at the home was screaming and there was gun shots.  Courtney was arrested on suspicion of felony drug possession for reportedly having cocaine and heroin. The other person involved, an unidentified male, was also arrested for negligent discharge of a firearm.  She was released after she posted bail.  So what lies ahead for the woman?  When she goes to Court she will likely be offered drug diversion which would keep her out of jail.

When is a Warning Required Before Citing an Attorney for Contempt?

Contempt of Court can be criminal in nature and the Judge has wide latitude to impose sanctions.  But when is a warning required before an attorney can be cited for contempt?  A warning is required before citing an attorney for contempt based on the tone of voice used by the attorney. No warning is required if the statement is contemptuous on its face. Unless the conduct is outrageous and immediately recognizable as an act of contempt, the judge must warn the person that further similar conduct will result in a citation for contempt. The warning must be made on the record, and any contempt order must recite the warning that was given.  What is required to support a finding of direct contempt in such a case is not simply that the alleged contemner used an objectionable tone of voice, but that he or she continued to do so after being admonished according to one Long Beach Criminal Lawyer. A judge, however, may find an attorney in contempt even though the attorney has not engaged in a pattern of repeated violations before the judge. A judge has wide latitude to determine what conduct “so infects orderly judicial proceedings that contempt is permitted.” Because the judge may need to act quickly “to prevent a breakdown of the proceedings,” a single violation may be sufficient.

What Are My Rights If The Police Want To Talk To Me?

In this country we all enjoy the freedom to say no to the police when they want to question us about a crime.  The right is called the fifth amendment to the constitution and permits any person to ignore a request to answer questions from law enforcement.  However, few exercise this right that our forefathers fought so hard to acquire.  The purpose of the right is to prevent the government from running roughshod over the weak and unsophisticated and see to it that law enforcement cannot simply detain and hold someone as long as they want to get information or answers to questions that they believe is crime related.  The most courteous way to deal with the police is to simply say that they do not want to answer any questions unless a lawyer is present both before and during any interrogation.  According to one Long Beach Criminal Defense Attorney, if one is polite about their demand to have a lawyer present, then the officer will likely relent and end the interview.  The bottom line is that the right to say no is a constitutional right and is well protected.

What Happens When a Criminal Suspect Confesses After Asking For an Attorney?

As a general rule, a criminal suspect who expresses his desire to deal with the police only through a lawyer may not be interrogated unless — and until — his attorney is actually present.  The one exception to this rule occurs when the suspect himself initiates further communication.In this situation, police may obtain a Miranda waiver and then resume the interrogation.  A suspect initiates further communication. . . when he speaks words or engages in conduct that can be fairly said to represent a desire on his part to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation.ates. In one recent Court case, a border patrol agent read the accused the Miranda warnings, and the suspect requested an attorney. The following day, a Los Angeles detective arrived to interrogate him. As he was introducing himself, the suspect interrupted and said “What can I do for you,or “What do you want from me.” After some additional small talk, the accused waived his Miranda rights and gave a series of increasingly incriminating statements. The California Supreme Court concluded that while the criminal suspect may have thought he was just being polite, objectively speaking, his remarks could fairly be said to represent a desire on his part to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation. . . .” In other words, since the suspect initiated the interrogation and then waived his Miranda rights his confession was not constitutionally barred. Interestingly, in a departure from the past, the court at least acknowledged that the detectives description of the encounter with the arrestee which he never memorialized in a police report — could have been recently fabricated to defeat [the] motion. It also conceded that the detective would have interrogated the suspect even if he had not initiated the questioning.

How Much Evidence Does the District Attorney Need to Present at a Preliminary Hearing

California law requires that every criminal defendant be given a preliminary hearing within 10 Court days of his arraignment.  At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to convince the magistrate that probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed the crime.  If the D.A.  shows probable cause, the magistrate holds the defendant to answer to the charge, and the prosecution must then file an information with the court within 15 calendar days.  If the magistrate finds insufficient evidence that probable cause exists, the magistrate must dismiss the case.  According to one Criminal Defense Lawyer in Long Beach, at the preliminary hearing, the magistrate must be convinced only of such a state of facts as would lead a reasonable person to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the defendant’s guilt. The evidence that will justify a prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction.  All that need be shown is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it

Does Overcrowding of the Courts Lead to Injustice?

We all know that the Long Beach Court is at a tipping point as far as workload and the ability to process cases.  The Courts are essentially shutting down all civil trials and focusing only on criminal cases. But does the system reach a point where the overworked players become numb to the protection of rights and want to move cases along, sometimes turning a blind eye the violations of constitutional rights?  Some say this happens all the time, that Judges, Public Defenders and District Attorneys become jaded.  How can this be avoided? A lighter caseload takes the stress off everyone, it allows the participants to focus more on every case, giving attention to violations of rights when they become apparent.  Heavy case loads create an assembly line mentality, the cases come down the line faster and faster and they cannot get backlogged, they must be disposed of (imagine the scene from I Love Lucy in the chocolate factory) In this scenario, rights violations get ignored in the interest of “moving the cases along”.  Our criminal justice system is far too important to allow it to get to this point.  More resources must be allocated to the Court system before it is too late.  Your Thoughts?

Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases

In many criminal cases, parties may wish to introduce various scientific evidence to prove or disprove elements of the charge.  In order to keep uniformity in the process, the Kelly-Frye test was adopted by California courts, including Long Beach,  to ensure that novel scientific methods of proof be based on subject matter that may reasonably be relied on.  This legal test was implemented to comport with the California Evidence Code that requires expert’s testimony must be based on reasonably reliable matter and an expert must be qualified on the subject to which testimony relates. The law is rooted on the holdings of Frye v U.S., and People v Kelly. In Daubert, the United States Supreme Court overruled Frye which held that scientific evidence is admissible only if it is generally accepted in the scientific community, and rules that it is up to the individual judge in a case to decide whether scientific evidence is based on scientific knowledge. This case is based on the Federal Rules of Evidence, which are not consistent with the California Evidence Code

More recently, the California Supreme Court held that the more flexible approach to the admission of scientific evidence outlined in Daubert does not require overruling Kelly.  Therefore, what used to be called the Kelly-Frye rule (or, since Daubert overruled Frye, the Kelly rule) is still good law and courts must still require a preliminary showing of acceptance in the scientific community before novel scientific evidence may be introduced.  The tests that must be met before admission of expert evidence relating to a new scientific technique are:

(1) There must be general acceptance in the scientific community, which may be established by endorsement of the technique in a published California appellate opinion. If it has not been established by this method, courts should use an overview of the literature along with testimony of experts and relevant decisions from other jurisdictions to determine if there is acceptance.

(2) The expert must be qualified; in this regard, an expert may have some interest in the technique (a certain degree of interest must be tolerated if scientists familiar with the technique are to testify at all).

(3) Correct scientific procedures must have been used.

The scientific expert who testifies about this third part of the test is not required to testify regarding the validity of the technique or its scientific acceptance, although he or she must thoroughly understand the technique and be able to testify as to whether the procedures used were correct. According to one DUI Attorney in Long Beach,  One specific area of criminal law where the validity of a particular scientific test was successfully challenged is the HGN test utilized in DUI cases, the court ruled the reliability of the method was questionable and disallowed the results as it pertained to a suspect’s blood alcohol level.

What is a Ramey Warrant?

Police officers may arrest a person when they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.  In some cases, an officer may elect to submit the facts of an investigation to a Judge and ask that a warrant be issued for the person’s arrest. An arrest warrant is a court order directing officers to arrest a certain person if and when they locate him or her.  If a Judge is satisfied from the officer’s declaration that probable cause exists that the offense described has been committed and that the described defendant committed the offense, the Court issues a warrant of probable cause for the defendant’s arrest. This species of warrant is called a “Ramey Warrant”.  In contrast to a traditional type of arrest warrant, Ramey warrants are issued before a formal complaint has been filed against the criminal suspect by the District Attorney. This may occur, according to one criminal attorney in Long Beach, when a police officer lacks sufficient evidence to file charges, but hopes to obtain sufficient evidence to file a complaint through questioning, lineups, or other investigatory techniques.  These warrants pose particular problems in terms of resolving without the person being taken into custody, a lawyer should certainly be retained to assist with the matter.