Criminal Defense Attorney Diane C. Bass

But For the Grace of God

2011-11-24T12:00:00.000-08:00

As a criminal defense attorney, the question I am most often asked is, "How can you defend someone when you know they are guilty?" My answer is always the same. "Because but for the grace of god go I."

So many people come from unimaginable circumstances. People have the most tragic family backgrounds and have sufferred things most of us could not comprehend. My clients are often people who had parents were were drug addicts and/or were in prison. My clients have witnessed violence in their own homes which would make your blood turn cold in your veins. My clients have been abused and molested and left behind. My clients all have a story that needs to be heard.

On Thanksgiving I wanted to take a moment to give thanks for the things that allow me to do the work I do. I have been given the great gift of being born into a loving family. I have always been told I could do anything I dreamed of doing. I have had the amazing opportunity, not only to receive a college degree but also a law degree. I have the mental capacity to reach these goals and the ability to do the work that my clients need me to do to defend them. I am thankful for being born in a country that tries to be a democracy and attempts to have a criminal justice system that is fair.

I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the table whom I respect and who make me better at what I do every day. I am grateful for the support I receive from the legal community and the judges I stand before. I am grateful for the US Marshalls, the bailiffs, the clerks, the court reporters who come to work every day to play their part in the system.

Most of all, I am grateful to my clients for trusting me to defend them and for allowing me to do what I do...to play my part in the system we call justice.

Give Them Back Their Medicine!

2011-10-29T11:23:00.000-07:00

The Feds have recently cracked down on medical marijuana dispensaries by threatening legal action to landlords who lease their property to medical marijuana dispensaries. Medical marijuana users are now hard pressed to find their medicine. Legitimately needy users are being deprived of their ability to use medical marijuana, as allowed by California state law. Andre Briotte who is the U.S. Atttorney in Los Angeles has said that the reason for the crack down is because the system is being exploited by recreational users and entrepreneurs. So because of a few people who exploit the system, people with legitimate need have to suffer.

For years people who are undergoing cancer treatment have relied on medical marijuana to ease their pain and the devastating side effects of chemo therapy. People suffering from chronic pain use medical marijuana instead of resorting to highly addictive pharmaceuticals like vicodin and oxycontin. Medical marijuana is not addictive and has virtually no harmful side effects yet the Federal government simply will not acknowlege this. What is their problem?

The fact that the feds are demanding back taxes from dispensaries says that they want a piece of the action. They want a cut of the proceeds. So legalize it and tax it. It's simple!

A medical marijuana advocacy group out of Oakland filed suit in federal court asking for an injunction against the justice department's crackdown as an unlawful assault on state sovereignty. Court papers state, "While the government is entitled to enforce its criminal laws against marijuana in the states that have decriminalized it for medical marijuana use in an even handed manner, the Tenth amendment forbids it from selectively employing such coercive tactics to commandeer the law-making functions of the state." The suit is asking the court to stop the crackdown and give them back their marijuana! It's like prohibition all over again.

The Feds Aren't the Only Ones Cracking Down on Marijuana Growers

2011-10-23T13:28:00.001-07:00

Humboldt and Mendocino Counties are famous for their marijuana cultivation. Most people have always thought that pot growers were immune to prosecution up there. Well, they were wrong. Twelve people were charged in a large scale marijuna cultivation case in Humboldt County this week. The charges are being brought by the DA's office, not the feds! This case will most likely go federal as it involves large quantities of marijuana, money and guns. The individuals charged also allegedly have ties to an international drug ring. Eleven of the twelve charged are foreign nationals which means that if convicted, they will most likely be deported. However, the case is currently a state case being prosecuted by the Humboldt County DA.

One of the defendants claimed that the cultivation operation was in compliance with California medical marijuana laws but local authorities obviously disagreed. The sheriff's department seized 428 pounds of dried marijuana and more than 400 plants. They also found a handgun, evidence of sales and over $40,000 in cash. Evidence of sales or what is also referred to as "indicia of sales" can include scales, packaging materials and "pay-owe sheets" or ledgers of transactions involving sales.

It is possible that this group was targeted because of their possible involvement in an international drug ring although the DA's office would not comment on this. It is also possible that these individuals were targeted because they are not U.S. citizens. Either way, the myth that there is no risk in cultivating and selling marijuana is being busted. The peaceful bubble that was Humboldt County has burst. People are being arrested and it's not just the feds arresting them.

I strongly urge anyone out there who is involved in marijuana cultivation or sales to reconsider your profession. I believe that medical marijuana is extremely beneficial to many people. I believe that marijuana should be legal. But it is not legal yet and until that day comes, anyone involved in cultivation or sales of marijuana could very well be arrested and may face very serious consequences.

In federal court 100 kilos or 200 pounds of marijuana or 100 or more plants regardless of weight carries a 5 year mandatory miminum sentence. 1000 kilos or 2000 pounds or 1000 plants regardless of weight carries a 10 year mandatory mimimum sentence and a maximum life sentence. They're not fooling around!

If you are facing criminal prosecution for marijuana sales or cultivation it is critical that you contact an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Call the Law Office of Diane C. Bass.

Feds Crack Down on California Marijuana Dispensaries

2011-10-06T19:48:00.001-07:00

If you have a recommendation for medical marijuana, today is a very sad day. The four US attorneys offices in California have announced their intention to crack down on medical marijuana dispensaries. They have begun to contact landlords who lease space to dispensaries instructing them to evict these tenants within 45 days or face federal criminal charges and forfeiture of the property and any money received from these tenants.

President Obama initially said his administration would not raid these establishments. Earlier this year the US attorneys office circulated a memo stating that they would only go after establishments that sold over 200 kilos (440 pounds) or 1000 plants a year. The US attorneys office will hold a press conference Friday morning to announce their new plan. We are very disappointed Mr. President.

Many attorneys who specialize in medical marijuana law have been advising their clients that as long as they follow the rules set out by the state of California that they will not face criminal prosecution. This is very dangerous advise and obviously, it is wrong! The sale of marijuana has always been illegal under federal law. Anyone who grows, sells or transports large amounts of marijuana faces federal criminal charges.

If you or a loved one are facing federal criminal charges it is critical that you retain the services of an experienced federal criminal defense attorney. Please call The Law Office of Diane C. Bass

Martin Sheen Lobbies Congress to Support Drug Courts

2011-07-20T18:04:00.000-07:00

Martin Sheen who played President Bartlet on "The West Wing" lobbied congress this week to support drug court programs. Drug Courts are programs designed to keep non-violent drug offenders out of jail. If someone is charged with being under the influence of a controlled substance or narcotics or possession of a controlled substance or narcotics they can participate in a couple of different programs. Individuals charged with sales of narcotics are not eligible for drug court.

In California there is diversion program for first time drug offenders. If someone is charged with being under the influence or possession they can participate in a 6 month drug class. They then have to stay out of trouble for an additional 12 months and their case will be dismissed. Drug Court is a more complex version of this designed individuals who have aleady gone through a diversion program.

Drug court is designed help drug addicts overcome their addiction and give them tools to stay clean rather than sending them to jail or prison. Our jails and prisons are already far too overcrowded. Drug addicts do not need punishment, they need rehabilitation. Drug court provides that opportunity. Drug court is an intensive program which involves mental health services, supervision by probation, drug testing, group and individual counseling and frequent court appearances. This program can last for up to several years depending on the individual. If a drug court participant uses and has a "dirty" or positive drug test, they are sanctioned and might spend a few days in jail. They are then released and placed back in the program.

Many individuals have successfully completed drug court and they have gone on to lead productive lives. Many have gone on to assist others in their rehabilitation. Sending an addict to jail does not serve anyone. The addict is released from custody and continues to use drugs. The community suffers. If we can rehabilitate drug addicts through drug court programs society will benefit. There will be less crime, less violence, less overcrowding in prisons and more contributing members of society. How can we lose?

If you or a loved one are charged with drug or narcotics offenses you should always be represented by an experienced criminal defense attorney. Contact the Law Office of Diane C. Bass at (949) 494-7011.

Jesse James' Sister Charged in Federal Mail Fraud Case

2011-07-06T16:37:00.000-07:00

A Federal Grand Jury has indicted Juliana James England for Mail Fraud. Ms. England is the sister of Sandra Bullock's infamous ex-husband Jesse James. Ms. England was arraigned in Federal Court in Santa Ana, California this week after being arrested at her home in Arkansas. She made her initial appearance in Federal Court in Arkansas where she was released on her own recognizance.

Ms. England allegedly defrauded her former employer, Callan Western Sales in Los Alamitos, California out of approximately $400,000. Ms. England had access to the company's checks, credit cards and online checking account. Ms. England allegedly wrote checks to herself and used the company credit cards without authorization. The fraud was discovered after the business closed due to financial difficulties and the owners received credit card statements with charges unrelated to the business.

Why is she charged with mail fraud you may ask? Because Ms. England allegedly had the credit card statements mailed to a post office box which she specifically opened to hide the transactions from her employer. Any time the mail is used during the commission of a crime involving fraud, it can be charged as mail fraud.

Here's where it gets silly; news articles and press releases, even one by the FBI itself, state that Ms. England is facing 60 years in Federal Prison. Let's get this straight. There is a huge difference between someone's statutory maximum sentence, which may be 60 years in this case, and what they will actually be sentenced to IF convicted. First, we have to pressume that Ms. England is innocent. If the U.S. attorney's office can prove that she is guilty of each element of the offenses for which she is charged beyond a reasonable doubt, or if she enteres a guilty plea, then and only then will she be sentenced. Sentencing in Federal Court is quite complex but basically it is based on a set of guidelines. Under the sentencing guidelines, assuming Ms. England has no prior criminal convictions, and assuming she pleads guilty to the charges, she is facing approximately 21 months in federal prison, of which she will serve around a year and a half.

If I were Ms. England's attorney, after reviewing the evidence and helping her decide how she should proceed with her case I would spend time with Ms. England determining whether there were any mitigating factors to present to the court which might persuade a judge not to send her to prison at all. An experienced federal criminal attorney will know what issues a court would find extraordinary and what factors are important to the court. I have worked with the assistant United States attorney who is handling this case and the Judge who is assigned to this case many times. I have a great deal of respect for both of them. I'm sure they will do the right thing for all of the parties involved in this case.

Is That Guy Really Going to get 140 Years in Prison???

2011-06-30T14:35:00.001-07:00

You all know who I'm talking about but that's not the point. Many times the media will announce that someone has been charged with a crime or convicted of a crime and they are facing some extraordinary amount of time in state or federal prison. They are usually referring to the statutory maximum sentence for those crimes and not the actual sentence that the person will receive.

All crimes in federal court have a statutory sentence which in some cases includes a maximum and a minimum sentence. That means the court can't impose more or less than these sentences. However, in federal court there are also the United States Sentencing Guidelines which essentially provide a formula for calculating a sentence in any given case. There are "offense levels" which are applied to each offense which are taken into consideration with a person's criminal history and together these factors, among others, help a judge determine the applicable sentence in any given case. In most cases, this sentence is far less than the statutory sentences such as 140 years.

In state court there are sentencing ranges for felony offenses which range from 16 months to life in state prison. However, a state court judge can sentence someone who pleads guilty or been found guilty of any one of these felony offenses to a period of probation which includes a significantly shorter period of time in jail, if any.

Is most of what we hear on the news regarding the kind of time people are facing hype? Yes. It is also a lack of understanding about the way the law works. That is why it is so important to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney when you facing charges in state or criminal court, even if it's simply to give you peace of mind so you don't have a heart attack worrying that you're going to go to jail for 140 years!

Bill to Remove Marijuana from Federal Controlled Substances List

2011-06-29T11:59:00.000-07:00

When it comes to marijuana laws the states and the feds are not on the same page. Many states allow the use of medical marijuana and the fines and penalties for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana are minor. In California if you are caught with less than an ounce of marijuana you can have your case dismissed by either attending an eight hour class or by giving a DNA sample. The maximum fine for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana in California is $100. Many states and counties allow individuals to grow marijuana for personal use. Counties such as Mendocino allow individuals to plant a 10 square foot area of marijuana. The local police will not do anything to those growers. However, the feds will. So while you might have a recommendation to smoke and grow marijuana in a state which recognizes this right, the feds can still arrest you. This is a huge problem when it comes to marijuana dispensaries or collectives. The state is telling you you can do this while the feds could swoop in at any moment and arrest you. Where is the sense in this?

The current federal marijuana laws have created a black market for marijuana, increased crime and filled our prisons.

Senator Barney Frank and Presidential hopeful Ron Paul have just introduced a bill which allows the states to control the marijuana laws. The opponents of this law say that marijuana has no proven medical benefits which is simply not true. Many people benefit greatly from the use of medical marijuana. Others argue that there is a high potential for abuse. However marijuana is one of the least harmful substances out there. It is certainly less harmful and less addictive than other prescription medications such as vicodin and oxycontin which are lethal and highly addictive.

If you or a loved one are charged in state or federal court with possession, sales or transportation of marijuana please consult with an experienced criminal defense, marijuana or drug lawyer. They will be able to guide you through the process and obtain the best possible result for you.

The Unforgiving ask for Forgiveness

2011-04-12T17:51:00.000-07:00

One of the strictest judges in Orange County who is known for imposing harsh sentences has admitted to using his position as a Superior Court Judge to help friends and family members with traffic tickets. Judge Richard W. Stanford Jr. is one of the most "papered" judges in Orange County. A judge is "papered" when a lawyer files a motion to recuse the judge based on the fact that they do not believe that they could have a fair trial in front of this judge. Many Orange County Criminal Defense lawyers do not want to try cases in Judge Stanford's court because he is known to be harsh. This is apparently not true when the cases involve his friends or family. Judge Stanford helped several people by having their traffic tickets transferred to his court where he usually only handles felony cases. The judge then waived fines for these individuals. The judge purportedly donated the amount he would have assessed in fines to Orangewood Children's Home. Why not just pay the fines for his friends and family members instead? The judge now apologizes for his actions and says he now sees the error of his ways. How compassionate would he be if somoene came into his court and said they were sorry for their actions? I would guess, not compassionate at all. The commission on Judicial Performance has instituted formal proceedings against him. Once again, I submit that someone who is meant to uphold the law should be held to a higher standard. Why should he be forgiven when he, of all people, should have known better?

Not All Sex Offenders are Created Equal

2011-04-05T17:51:00.000-07:00

Orange County has just passed a law which bans all registered sex offenders from county parks. This law is unconstitutional because it is over-broad. It is overbroad because it treats all sex offenders the same. There is a great misconception in the public about registered sex offenders. Most people believe that all registered sex offenders are child molesters or pedaphiles but that is simply not true. A conviction for any "lewd act" can subject a person to the sex registration requirement. People who commit low level offenses which are misdemeanors may not even go to jail for their crimes yet they are treated in the same fashion as those who spend years in prison for their crimes. Low Level sex offenders are not necessarily predators. Someone who has been convicted of exposing themselves or of masterbating in public, and by public I mean in their car at night with no one around, or of having sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend or spouse in public, same scenario as above, could be required to register as a sex offender if convicted of this crime. While the sex registration law is intended to protect people from true predators, it simultaneously destroys the lives of those required to register for minor offenses because they are treated with the same disdain as those who have committed much more serious and harmful offenses. They are ostracized by society. They can't find jobs or homes. Obviously there are some predators that we are all concerned about. But this law is not limited to those people. Not all sex offenders should be treated equally, because they are not all the same.

Why Do Police Officers Always Get the Benefit of the Doubt?

2011-04-01T19:59:00.000-07:00

A former 25 year veteran of the Orange County Sheriff's Department was prosecuted for making false statements in a police report. The former sheriff stated in her report that she had contacted certain victims when she had not. District attorney's rely on police reports when filing charges against people. What officers put in their reports is critical information. However, the jury was deadlocked in the former sheriff's trial this week. Why do people always give police officers the benefit of the doubt? When was the last time a cop ever did anything for you? And yet, anytime a police officer testifies in a trial or hearing in a criminal case, their testimony is given more weight than that of a defendant. Officers walk into court in uniform with their guns strapped to their side and for some reason carry an air of credibility. I have been practicing criminal defense for approximately 15 years and 90% of my clients tell me that the police report in their case contains some form of fiction. One of the comments in response to an article about this case in the Orange County Register said, "Go after the real criminals." Officers of the law should be held to an even higher standard. They are arresting people and depriving them of their liberty and their basic constitutional rights when they lie. Someone who breaks the law yet pretends to be upholding the law is even worse than someone who is a hard, cold criminal in my opinion. If people who were charged with crimes were all given the same benefit of the doubt that officers are given, there would be far fewer innocent people convicted of crimes.

Borrow goes to prison while CEO of Countrywide walks

2011-03-30T19:28:00.001-07:00

Once again, money walks. A man who exaggerated his income on a mortgage application is serving 21 months in prison for a so called, "liar loan" while the CEO of Countrywide paid a $67.5 million fine to settle fraud charges brought by the SEC. Countrywide made billions of dollars selling subprime loans. The CEO personally made hundreds of millions of dollars and admitted that he knew many of the loans were fraudulent. These loans caused the housing bubble and also burst it. These loans are one of the primary factors which led this country into one of the worst recessions since the great depression. Yet the one with the deep pockets walks. Yes. It is a crime to lie on a loan application. But how many millions of people did this during the heyday of the subprime loan? Is the government going to prosecute all of those people? Of course not! How do they pick and choose which ones are going to be prosecuted? Furthermore, wasn't it the greedy mortgage brokers who were "encouraging" their clients to exaggerate their income? Shouldn't they be held responsible? This situation is exactly like the case involving CVS where they sold pseudoephedrine to "meth smurfs" far in excess of the amounts permitted under statute and yet they will not face criminal charges. They merely paid a fine. Meanwhile, the individuals who were buying the cold medicine which contained the pseudoephedrine for a small fee are facing years in federal prison. It is clear that the department of justice needs to get its priorities straight. Stop letting the real bad guys walk, even if they're loaded. Stop wasting tax dollars, which are scarce, to prosecute the little guy.

Why You Should Remain Silent

2011-03-28T17:35:00.000-07:00

A man was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison this week for attempting to lure a 13 year old girl to meet him for sex over the internet. Ten years is the mandatory minimum sentence for this offense in federal court. The court ordered the man to register as a sex offender for 20 years when he is released from prison. However, in California the sex registration requirement is a lifetime requirement. People convicted of sex crimes in federal court have to abide by the registration laws in the state in which they reside. The man in this case, was actually chatting with an undercover FBI agent posing as the girl. The man, who is 37 years old, testified at his trial that he thought he was chatting with an adult woman, not a 13 year old girl. The jury rejected the man's testimony because his testimony differed from what he had told the FBI when he was interviewed after his arrested. There was no other evidence that the man had any sexual interest in children. If this man had not spoken with the FBI after his arrest, the jury very possibly would have believed his testimony at trial and he might have been acquitted rather than convicted and facing 10 years in federal prison. You should never speak to law enforcement. Agents and officers will always make you believe that it is in your best interest to "cooperate" with them. It is almost never in your best interest. When they say, "Anything you say will be used against you" they mean it! It will be used against you. If you are arrested or under suspicion for committing a crime, always remain silent and call me!

Don't Punch Your Lawyer!

2011-03-25T18:47:00.001-07:00

An Orange County Man was convicted of multiple felony charges this week for punching out his laywer. The man was in court on a $100 marijuna ticket when he apparently became angry with his lawyer. The man punched his lawyer in the face, knocked her into a wall and broke her glasses. He pled guilty to felony assault on a public official (his lawyer was a public defender)and aggravated assault and battery with serious bodily injury. The man was sentenced to two years in state prison.

Moral of the story: Don't punch your lawyer!

No Warrant, No Search!

2011-03-24T20:00:00.000-07:00

Two young me were stopped by Tustin Police for riding their bikes without propper lighting at 2:00 a.m. The police searched the men's napsacks where they found items that had been stolen from unlocked cars in Tustin Ranch. After finding the items in the mens' backpacks, they confessed to stealing the items. The men were arrested for burglary, receiving stolen property, vehicle tampering and petty theft.

It is most likely that the two men gave the officers consent to search their backpacks. Most people don't realize that unless the police have a search warrant they may not search you, your car, your purse, your house, your phone or any items under your control. There are a few exceptions to this rule. Consent is one exception to the search warrant requirement. However, most people feel intimidated by police officers and will consent to a search because they think they have no choice. You have a choice. In this case, if the boys had not given the police consent to search their napsacks, they would not have been arrested for these crimes. They were not being detained for suspicion of committing car burglaries. They were stopped for riding their bikes without lights. An officer cannot detain someone for longer than necessary without a specific suspicion that a crime has been committed.

These men now face several misdemeanor, criminal charges. An experienced criminal defense attorney should be able to have some of the charges dismissed by the district attorney's office and if the men have no prior criminal history they will most likely be sentenced to community service for their crimes.

Feds Seize 25 Tons of Marijuana

2010-11-05T14:55:00.000-07:00

Federal Agents seized 25 tons of marijuana from a warehouse in Tijuana this week. The investigation was triggered by an arrest at the U.S. Border Patrol checkpoint in Temecula. A truck was searched after acting suspiciously. 10 tons of marijuana was seized. This arrest led to the search of the warehouse. Inside the warehouse was an opening which led to the dicovery of a tunnel which is 4 feet high and 1800 feet long going from Mexico to San Diego. It is believed to be operated by the Mexican cartel.

The individuals who were arrested in San Diego will be charged in Federal Court in San Diego. They will be charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute the 10 tons of marijuana. Rico charges may also be filed. Rico charges are filed when a criminal organization is involved.

A conspiracy is an agreement between 2 or more people to commit a crime followed by steps in furtherance of that crime. Whether an indiviudal is has an organizer or leader roll in a conspiracy or whether they are a minor participant, they can be held responsible for the same conduct. However, the person who has the minor roll shoud receive a reduction in their sentence for their roll. There are many other mitigating factors that the court can consider in these cases.

These two individulas need an expereienced criminal defense attorney who represents individuals in drug cases in federal court on a regular basis to defend them in this case.

CVS Pays Millions in Penalties While Individuals Face Years in Prison. How is That Fair?

2010-10-15T09:07:00.000-07:00

CVS has agreed to pay $75 million in civil penalties and to forfeit $2.6 million in profits to resolve a government investigation for illegally selling pseudoephedrine to individuals who use it to manufacture methamphetamine. Psuedoephedrine is the key ingredient in methamphetamine. Starting in September of 2006 laws were enacted which prohibit pharmacies from selling more than 3.6 grams of pseudoephedrine per day to any individual. CVS broke these laws by allowing indivuduals to purchase thousands of grams of psuedoephedrine in California and Nevada.

If you go into a drug store to purchase any medication containing this substance, you have to show your ID and sign an electronic device documenting the fact that you've made this purchase. You may have been asked to do this and not known why. Now you know.

Individuals, sometimes referred to as "meth smurfs" buy quantities of cold medicine which containes psuedoephedrine. They then sell the cold medicine to manufacturers of methamphetamine for a small fee. These individuals commonly make several purchases a day for many days in order to obtain the necessary quantities to make the drug.

The Drug Enforcement Agency, or DEA, has a website called, "Meth Check" where they can keep track of every purchase of pseudoephedrine. Indivuduals who are arrested for engaging in this conduct are caught using this system. They are then charged and sentenced based on the amount of psuedoephedrine that they purchase. The amounts can be extraordinary. Especially in light of the fact that large drug store chains like CVS are bound by the new laws. How then do they get away with paying a fine and individuals who purchase the medicine go to prison?

It's all about money. The "meth smurfs" who usually make very little money and engage in this conduct out of desperation spend years in federal prison while the huge corporate conglomorate pays a fine and walks away. There is something very wrong with this picture.

I represent an indivudual charged with purchasing large quantities of pseudoephedrine in Federal Court in Southern California. I am doing everything in my power to see to it that justice is served and you can be certain the Judge in our case will hear about this outrageous disparity of treatment.

Procedures Protect the Innocent

2010-10-11T11:31:00.000-07:00

When people hear that a case is dismissed on procedural grounds they immediately assume that the person was guilty and somehow used some sort of legal loophole to avoid the consequences of their actions. This is not necessarily true.

How Could Legalizing Marijuana Be Bad?

2010-10-07T18:01:00.000-07:00

On November 2nd California voters will decide whether it should be legal to possess and cultivate less than an ounce of marijuana. How could that possibly be a bad thing? Possessing or cultivating less than an ounce of marijuana has carried a $100 maxiumum penalty for years. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed a law making it an infraction. In most cases involving less than an ounce of marijuana a person could attend an eight hour class at a local community college and have the charge dismissed. The Orange County District Attorney's office recently launched a "spit and acquit" program where a person charged with possession of less than an ounce of marijuna gives a DNA sample and the charge is dismissed right then and there.

Medical Marijuana is prescribed readily in California. Many seriously ill individuals benefit greatly from using medical marijuana. It gives great relief to cancer patients and many others who suffer from debilitating illnesses when other drugs simply don't work. Many of these people can't afford the costs of buying their prescriptions at the marijuana collectives though. Some have difficulty getting there. If they were allowed to grow their own marijuana plant it would allow them to grow their own medicine.

An additional benefit to the legalization of less than an ounce of marijuana is that it would remove the element of danger for those who still purchase marijuana "on the street". Drug dealers would be out of the picture.

Many chemicals, pesitcides and other substances may be used on marijuana that is purchased. By growing your own, you can avoid those risks.

We would also save taxpayer money in processing marijuana citations which generally don't bring in revenue in the first place.

Marijuana is less addictive and less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes and they are legal.

Although marijuana is not legal yet in California, it might as well be. It just makes sense.

Man Sentenced to 70 Months for Wire Fraud in Federal Court

2010-10-06T08:42:00.001-07:00

A Tustin man was sentenced to 70 months in Federal Court for engaging in wire fraud. The man told investors that he could purchase Google stock at a discounted price because he allegedly had a special relationship with Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. He assured the investors that their money was not at risk. Multiple emails were sent throughout the transactions with his investors which provided false information, including a forged Morgan Stanley email. Wire Fraud occurs when an individual uses the internet for the purpose of executing fraud. Fraud occurs when someone uses false representations to obtain money.

The sentence in this case was calculated by determining the amount of money lost by investors. Even though a substantial amount of money was returned to investors in this case, the court must still consider the entire amount of loss as "relevant conduct". In this case, net losses after the return of some of the investor's money was approximately $10 million. The court also considered the number of victims. In this case, there were between 10 and 50 which increased the sentence. A reduction of the sentence is given for "acceptance of responsibility".

At sentencing the court must consider many factors including the nature and characteristics of the individual. An experienced criminal defense attorney will spend a significant amount of time with their client discussing any factors that may be compelling to the court and lead to a lesser sentence. There are often many mitigating factors in a case including restitution as was made in this case. Again, an attorney experienced in Federal Court will guide an individual through this process so that the necessary steps are taken to obtain the lowest sentenced possible.

Residential Rehab: How much time is enough?

2010-10-04T10:39:00.001-07:00

We hear stories of celebrities who go into rehab for 30 days. Is 30 days enough? The short answer is NO! For most addicts, 30 days is just the detoxification period. Most rehabilitation facilities require that the residents remain on "lock down" during the first 30 days. Residents are usually not allowed to work or even have visitors during that time period. Many rehab facilities have a mimimum 90 day stay. Others require 6 months and many are year long programs. Most people can't afford places like Betty Ford. So where do they go? There are a variety of residential rehab facilities in every county. The cost ranges from several thousand dollars a month to free. In many cases the free programs are actually the best but they have many requirements for entry. Some programs are exclusively for men or women. Some programs allow women and their children but there is generally a 2 child maximum and children over 10 are generally not allowed. This can cause great hardships for some women. There are programs which encourage people to work outside of the program while others, like Salvation Army, require residents to work for them. Many programs also have a halfway house component to the program which allows for a smooth re-entry into their lives. Many programs are based on the 10 step model. Some have a more religious apporach. If you are going into rehab as a result of a criminal case it is usually required that you attend a program that is approved by the probation department in your county. An experienced criminal defense attorney will assist you in locating and getting into the best program for you that will suit all of your needs personally and which will satisfy the court.

Man arrested attempting to cross border with 2 pounds of heroin

2010-10-03T21:01:00.000-07:00

A man was arrested by US Customs Officials for attempting to cross the U.S./Mexico border with 2 pounds of heroin stuffed into a girdle. Drug trafficking at a U.S. border is a Federal Crime. 1 Kilo of a substance containing heroin (2.2 pounds) carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years and a maximum of life in under the federal sentencing guidelines. 100 grams or more of a substance containing heroin carries a mandatory minimum of 5 years and maximum of 40 years. These are very serious charges. There are a few exceptions to the application of the mandatory minimum in these cases. It is also extremely rare that bail is granted in these cases because of the mandatory mimimums. That is why anyone facing drug trafficking charges should be represented by an experienced federal criminal defense attorney.

The One That Got Away

2010-07-08T17:30:00.000-07:00

Why are bank robberies such a bad idea? For one, tellers never keep much money in their drawers. The average amount a person will get from a traditional bank robbery is $1200. The second why robbing a bank is a really bad idea is that every bank has cameras. On June 24,2010 a young man walked into a bank in Laguna Beach, passed the teller a note saying that this was a robbery and walked out with the money. The bank video surveilance cameras captured a perfect image of the man. This image has been posted all over the news media. It's only a matter of time before someone recognizes and identifies him. Another reason why bank robberies are such a bad idea is because most banks use what they call "dye packs". The money is generally given to the robber in some sort of bag and a "dye pack" is placed in the bag with the money causing dye to be dispursed all over the money. When the robber attempts to spend the money it immediately raises a red flag because it is covered with dye. A common misconception about bank robberies is that they are violent. That robbers come into banks with masks and guns. This is generally not true. Most robbers will wear a baseball cap as did the young man in Laguna. They will simply pass a note saying something to the effect of, "This is a robbery. Give me all your money. No dye packs." A silent alarm is usually rung and police arive quickly. If there is a getaway vehicle someone usually gets the license plate number and the police are able to apprehend the suspects. The number one reason not to commit a bank robbery is that it is a federal offense. Most banks are federally insured. The sentences for bank robberies are significant. If a gun, or even a fake gun, is used, the punishment skyrockets. So, a word to the wise. Don't commit bank robberies. It's a really bad idea. If you do and you get caught. Call me. I can help!

What Recourse?

2010-03-03T14:42:00.001-08:00

I have a client who was charged with being a "look out" in a drug conspiracy case in Federal Court. The co-defendant in the case was set up by a confidential informant (usually someone who is charged in another case who is working down his sentence by cooperating with the federal agents by helping them bust other drug dealers.) My client was present during a drug transaction. There was no evidence that he did anything, knew anything, said anything or that he was ever in possession of any drugs. In other words, the evidence was paper thin. The only evidence to support probable cause for his arrest was the agent's statement that based on his training and experience (catch phrase) my client was acting as a "look out." Based on this tiny thread, my client was held in custody for 8 days pending a bail hearing. The judge was not available to hear the motion for bail any sooner. At the bail hearing, the U.S. Attorney, having realized that she could not prove her case, dismissed the case against my client. That almost NEVER happens in Federal Court. Great news! Right? Right. Except for the fact that my client spent 8 days in jail that he will never get back and he has absolutely no recourse. If he can find a lawyer to file a false imprisonment case, which won't happen, he will lose because the magistrate found probable cause to detain him. So although the "interests of justice" were served, where is the justice in that?

But For the Grace of God Go I

2010-01-23T11:13:00.001-08:00

I just represented a witness in a criminal case. She was subpoenaed to testify against her husband who is charged with distributing drugs. She agreed to testify in spite of her right to invoke her spousal immunity. During our interviews and her interviews with the government in preparation for her testimony I was struck by how intelligent this woman is. She answered the questions posed to her perfectly. She had such clarity. On the stand, she was brilliant. She was honest, direct. She said everything she needed to say without crossing any lines. The prosecutor and I talked about how smart she was. His comment was, “Under any other circumstances, she would have been a doctor or a lawyer.” My response to him was, “That’s why I do what I do. Because but for the grace of god go I.”

This woman didn’t have a chance. Her mother was a heroin addict and her father was an alcoholic. They are both deceased as a result of their addictions. My client was a drug dealer for many years, went to prison and has now been clean for 6 years. I have had so many clients who have tragic life stories that led them to a life of drugs. I’ve heard story after story after story of lives you can’t imagine. I have argued at sentencing over and over to the judges sitting high up on their benches in their marbled courtrooms, “My client did not have the advantages you and I had. We had the benefits of great parents, good homes, an education. They weren’t given those things. They never had a chance and but for the grace of god go you and I.”

So when people ask me, “How do you defend people?” I say, “Because but for the grace of god go I.”

Loss of Benefits - Loss of Reason

2010-01-16T19:11:00.000-08:00

I have a client who has been charged with aiding and abetting her husband conduct two drug transactions over a three month period over three years ago. The agents who arrested her have recorded phone calls which prove her involvement. Since that time my client has been working full time supporting her three children who can’t live without her. She has never used drugs. Her husband is already in jail and will be serving a mandatory minimum of 10 years in Federal Prison for his conduct.

As a consequence of her conviction, my client will lose all state benefits including food stamps. This is standard operating procedure. The prosecution wants her to serve approximately 24 months in federal prison.

This means that defendant will lose her job. When she gets out of prison, she will not be able to get her job back and it will be very difficult for her to find a decent job because she will be a convicted felon. AND she will not be eligible for any benefits to help feed her children.

How does this benefit society? Does it not just perpetuate the cycle of crime?

Not Guilty

2010-01-04T21:46:00.000-08:00

We hear stories on the news all the time about people who have allegedly committed crimes. Whether they are alleged terrorists, celebrities or other individuals, we are often inundated with news about the alleged offenses. These people are never presumed innocent by the media. In fact, they are basically convicted by the media before they ever make their first appearance in court. You will often hear newscasters report, "So and so pled not guilty today." This is almost always said in such a way as to imply that it is absolutely shocking that this person had the audacity to plead not guilty! So let me set the record straight. That is how the court process works. During either a first appearance in state court or a second appearance in Federal court, a defendant (an individual charged with a crime of which they are pressumed innocent unless proven guilty) always enters a plea of not guilty. This is done regardless of whether they intend to plead guilty at a later stage in the proceeding or whether they intend to persist in their plea of not guilty and force the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So next time you hear a newscaster say that someone pled not guilty remember that that is the way things are done.

Death Eligible

2009-12-26T11:56:00.000-08:00

I was in court recently on an 88 defendant gang case in Federal Court in Los Angeles. The judge asked the U.S. attorney how many of the defendants were “death eligible.” The U.S. attorney responded that they were waiting from approval from Washington D.C. on 9 of the defendants. It struck me that this prosecutor who seems like a very nice guy, is a murderer. He is going to ask a jury to kill 9 of the people who were sitting in that courtroom and the United States government was going to give him the authority to do that. The judge, who is also a very nice judge, seemed completely un-phased by the whole procedure. How can we as a nation condone killing when we’re trying to punish people for killing? Where is the logic in that?

A Prosecutor by any other name is still a prosecutor

2009-12-22T13:27:00.000-08:00

It drives me crazy when I see ads for defense attorneys that say, “former prosecutor”. Why would I hire a former prosecutor to defend me? I want a defense attorney. Former prosecutors are, by nature, prosecutors. Their inherent bias is that people are guilty. They are not by nature compassionate, non-judgmental people who will believe that someone is wrongly accused by their former colleagues. And they do not, despite hope, get special treatment by their former colleagues because they are former prosecutors. In fact, I was in court one day in the jury room where DAs and defense attorneys meet to discuss cases and there was a blackboard in the room. Written on the blackboard it said, “If you tell me you’re a former DA, the offer goes up.” I am not now nor have I ever been a prosecutor. I am a dyed in the wool, bleeding heart, “true believer”. I couldn’t prosecute someone. I couldn’t find someone guilty of I were a juror because I know that the system is flawed and that the only people who ever truly know what happened are the people who were there. Who am I to judge? I give everyone the benefit of the doubt because we are all human. That is not in the nature of a prosecutor. Someone who prosecuted people for 20 years is not suddenly going to change their very nature. Prosecutors usually leave their jobs as prosecutors because they decided they wanted to take a shot at making more money. This is not to say they’re not intelligent and capable lawyers. And some do become very committed to the cause. But, I believe that they’re cut from different cloth.

The Turn of the Wheel

2009-12-16T11:08:00.000-08:00

Federal Judges are chosen by the turn of a wheel, literally. After an idividual is indicted, or charged with a crime, they are arraigned in the magistrate court. At the arraignment, they enter a plea of not guilty to the criminal charges. The magistrate judge or his clerk then spin a wheel (or look through a stack of cards or do something on their computer) and a judge is "randomly" selected. Athough sometimes it is curious that the same judge ends up being "randomly" assigned to all of the complex cases involving certain issues. One Judge in our court seems to get all of the large gang cases in that court because he has a special expertise in dealing with these cases and the individuals involved.

The New York Times recently reported that this very same "turn of the wheel" will determine which judge will preside over the highly controversial trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of the alleged terrorists involved with the attacks of September 11, 2001. This trial will last years and will require the judge to have security around the clock, most likely for the rest of his life. It is actuallly quite common for any judge presiding over any case involving cases with allegations of extreme violence and life or death sentences.

This "turn of the wheel" changes the course of the judges life as well as the lives of the individuals whose cases are assigned to the particular judge. There is a moment in every federal arraignment when the defense attorney holds his or her breath while waiting to learn which judge has been assigned to their case. The whole ethos of the case is determined why which judge will preside not to mention the rulings on bail issues, motions invovling the defendants' constitutional rights and the potential sentences imposed. This flies in the face of what we are taught to expect about equal protection. That fundamental right does not just deal with civil rights but the adminstration of justice as well. Should this "random" act have so much weight in the lives of those effected?

The Immigration Conundrum

2009-12-12T12:46:00.000-08:00

The New York Times reported today that 300 illegal immigrants who had been convicted of "serious or violent crimes" were arrested in Los Angeles today. At least 100 have been removed from the country and others are awaiting deportation proceedings. An assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security said, "These are not people who we want walking our streets."

But that's not the whole story.

Illegal immigrants are arrested everyday. They are usually individuals who have lived here for years. Most of them have families, wives, parents and children here. They have jobs and most of them have no ties to their home countries. Many of them had a green card at some point in time but lost it due to a conviction. Many convictions that are deemed minor in any other circumstance are deemed "aggravated felonies" for purposes of immigration. These individuals are deported upon their release from incarceration for their criminal offense. When they return to the U.S., which most of them do because their families are here, they are arrested at some point for what we call "illegal re-entry." They are appointed a lawyer and spend from 18 months to 57 months in Federal Prison before being relased to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement who holds them for up to 90 days before droppping them off at the other side of the border where they have nothing and no one. How many millions of dollars are we spending prosecuting and incarcerating these individuals? Yes. A message must be sent so they don't just return ad infinitum but is this really the solution?