Criminal Cases
- United States v. Alvarez (click here for our full narrative)
On February 22, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court on a Writ of Certiorari is set to hear oral argument in the case of United States v. Alvarez, Case No.11-210. The question presented is whether the Federal law that makes it a crime to falsely represent oneself to have received the Congressional Medal of Honor is a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
- Maples v. Thomas, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (click here for our full narrative)
The U.S. Supreme Court on January 18, 2012, in the case of MAPLES v. THOMAS, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, (Case #10-63)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-63.pdf, reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals, For The 11th Circuit.
In the underlying trial for murder, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to death by the Alabama Court. Thereafter, a world-renowned law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, on a pro bono basis filed a Petition for post-conviction relief; it is noteworthy that they contended the defendant's trial attorneys were inexperienced and incompetent, thereby depriving Maples of effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Later, the two attorneys associated with Sullivan and Cromwell separated from the firm, did not notify Maples and no one else substituted in as attorney.
- People v. Nelson (click here for our full narrative)
The California Supreme Court in the case of People v. Nelson, (#S181611, 01/12/2012), http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S181611.PDF, held the custodial written confession of the defendant, a 15 year old who was tried as an adult, was properly admitted at trial and, therefore, did not invalidate his conviction of the murder of a 72 year old woman and five first degree burglaries. The California Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal that had previously reversed the Superior Court murder and burglary convictions.
- Perry v. New Hampshire (click here for our full narrative)
In the case of PERRY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, the U.S. Supreme Court on January 11, 2012 (Case #10-8974 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-8974.pdf), affirmed the Decision of the New Hampshire State Supreme Court, holding eyewitness identification that was not procured by unnecessarily suggestive circumstances by law enforcement is not a violation of Due Process and, therefore, cannot be held inadmissible in court. In summary, the U.S. Supreme Court held a preliminary judicial determination to assess the reliability of an out-of-court eyewitness identification was not required before admitting such evidence at trial.
- Smith v. Cain (click here for our full narrative)
In the case of SMITH v. CAIN, the U.S. Supreme Court on January 10, 2012 (Case #10-8145), http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-8145.pdf reversed the Decision of the
Louisiana State Trial Court, which erroneously convicted the defendant of first-degree murder based upon the testimony of a single witness. At trial, the only witness to link the defendant to the crime untruthfully claimed he was face to face with the defendant during the initial moments of an armed robbery, and identified Smith as the first gunman to come through the door when two other gunmen entered the residence in question. There were no other witnesses and no physical evidence to implicate the defendant in the crime.
- Barnes v. State of Indiana
"In the case of BARNES vs. STATE OF INDIANA, the Indiana Supreme Court on May 12, 2011, held there is no right to unreasonably resist an unlawful entry by law enforcement officers. The Court argued public policy favors rejecting the fundamental and three hundred years of precedent English common-law right to be safe and secure in our residence and to reasonably resist the unlawful entry of police officers. In part, the Court based its ruling on the fact allowing one to resist law enforcement unlawful entry unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and harm and, therefore, the risk of injuries to all parties involved...."
Representative Cases
- People v. Lindsey (click here for our full narrative)
About 10 years after defendant had been convicted of armed robbery, the superior court issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground his confession was received in evidence in violation of the U.S. Constitution and a US Supreme Court case which held unconstitutional a sister state's practice whereby a confession was submitted to a jury for its determination of voluntariness without having the trial judge first satisfy himself that it was voluntary.
- People v. Wax (click here for our full narrative)
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for the sale of narcotics. Subsequently, he filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking to have the allegation of a prior conviction, found to be true at the time of the trial, stricken from the record. The court denied the writ and the Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed the narcotic conviction, holding that failure to obtain and to consider an up-to-date Probation Report or a report from the Director of Corrections before denying the writ was reversible error. The court reconsidered the prior narcotic drug conviction.
- People v. Williams (click here for our full narrative)
In a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of forgery in violation of Pen. Code, § 470. Representing himself as the payee thereof, defendant attempted to deposit and draw on two checks, which checks he knew to have been stolen from the U.S. mails. Defendant had previously pleaded guilty and been sentenced under a federal statute for possession of the checks as stolen mail. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. The court held that forgery and possession of stolen mail were separate and distinct offenses, founded on different acts, so that prosecution for the forgery violation was not barred. The court also held that Pen. Code, § 654, prohibiting double punishment for an act made punishable in different ways by different sections of the Penal Code, did not apply to prohibit punishment for the state forgery offense after imposition of punishment for the federal crime.
San Diego Criminal Law Attorney- DUI DWI Defense Lawyer San Diego - Misdemeanor, Felonies & Probation Violations Attorney -San Diego California
Some of the words and phrases that apply are: San Diego DUI Attorney , DUI/DWI Attorney, San Diego Criminal Attorney, San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer , San Diego Misdemeanor Defense Attorney, San Diego Felony Defense Attorney, Appeal Attorney San Diego California , California Appeal Attorney, California Writ of Habeas Corpus Attorney , sealing records attorney, San Diego Juvenile Defense Attorney , Federal Crime Attorney San Diego California, expungement lawyer, San Diego Expungement Attorney, assault & battery attorney , San Diego California Domestic Violence Attorney , domestic abuse lawyer, San Diego Child Abuse Attorney, child molestation attorney, hit & run attorney, San Diego Theft Attorney, stolen property attorney, shoplifting attorney , burglary attorney, embezzlement attorney , San Diego Fraud Defense Attorney, larceny attorney, Sex Crimes Defense Attorney San Diego , rape defense attorney, lewd conduct defense attorney, San Diego California Probation Violation Attorney , parole violation attorney, Arrest Warrant Attorney San Diego , bench warrant lawyer, bail attorney, bail reduction attorney, own recognizance attorney, San Diego Drug Defense Attorney , Drug Defense Lawyer San Diego, ecstasy, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ketamine, heroin, crack, methamphetamine, marijuana, PCP, Morphine, LSD, and alcohol.
Call 7 days a week at any hour or send an e-mail now.
