California Considering Significant Juvenile Justice Reform

Aug 17, 2018

Why is Juvenile Justice Reform Important?

Since the Clinton Administration, many American criminal justice systems implemented measures to make them appear to be tough on crime. One of these measures has been to increasingly charge juveniles as if they were adults. Consequently, in California, juveniles as young as 14 were subject to being charged and tried in adult court.

Given the potentially catastrophic consequences that such a charge can have on the rest of that juvenile’s life, retaining the services of an experienced criminal defense attorney should be the first priority if a juvenile is charged with a crime.

In the time since the implementation of laws allowing for juveniles to be charged as adults, many scientific studies have been conducted that have shown that charging juveniles as adults not only does not benefit society, it has had a detrimental effect on the juveniles, unfortunately preventing them from becoming productive members of society.

Recently, the California Assembly has begun consideration of a bill, that has already passed the Senate, which will impose a minimum age at which a juvenile may be tried as an adult to 16.

A discussion of the bill currently in front of the Assembly, as well as the crimes for which a juvenile can be charged as an adult, will follow below.

What is CA Senate Bill 1391?

As alluded to above, Senate Bill 1391 will put a minimum age on those individuals who can be tried as an adult. Specifically, the bill mandates that only those who are 16 or 17 years old have the potential to be tried as an adult. Anyone younger must be tried within the juvenile justice system. Further, as is currently the law (and will not be affected by SB 1391), anyone over the age of 17 must be tried within the adult criminal justice system.

Generally, crimes committed by individuals under the age of 18 are tried in Juvenile Court. Juvenile Court, officially, is not part of the criminal justice system, and the cases are typically considered confidential. When a matter is heard in Juvenile Court, the judge does not find the juvenile to be innocent or guilty. Rather, the judge will sustain the petition if he/she finds that the juvenile committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge then issues a disposition – an order requiring the juvenile to pay a fine, perform community service, be placed on probation, or be made a ward of the court.

If and when the juvenile successfully completes the terms of the program, the charges are dismissed. Unlike the criminal justice system, the primary goal of the juvenile justice system is not retribution, but rehabilitation.

What is Section 707 Crimes in California?

However, there are some crimes, set forth in Section 707 of the California Penal Code, in which a juvenile under the age of 18 can be tried as an adult. Prosecutors have discretion over whether to charge a juvenile, suspected of committing one of these crimes, as an adult or as a juvenile. These crimes will not be affected by SB 1391 – only the age at which a juvenile can be subject to this Section will change.

These crimes include:

• Murder
• Rape with force, violence or threat of great bodily harm
• Forcible sex in concert with another
• Lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14 with force, violence or threats of great bodily injury
• Torture
• Forcible sexual penetration
• Carjacking
• Sodomy or oral copulation by force, violence or threat of great bodily injury

Hire A Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are aware of a juvenile who has been charged with a crime, contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys at Manshoory Law Group, APC as soon as possible. Vigorous defense of a minor facing criminal charges is a must to ensure that they can be given a chance to eventually succeed in life.

The lawyers at Manshoory Law Group, APC will use their knowledge of criminal law to devise a strategy and present the best case for the minor’s defense. Attorneys are available 24/7 to take your call. Contact us today for an initial consultation.

What is Mental Health Diversion in California?

Aug 16, 2018

Facing prison time is never a happy moment, and it is the major tenet of the American justice system that punishment for a crime, is intended to be a deterrent. However, in some cases, the individual committing the crime may not have the capacity to truly understand the consequences of his/her actions. Specifically, those with developmental disabilities, traumatic brain injuries, or post-traumatic stress disorder, or those who have mental health problems resulting from military service may not fully comprehend, or in some cases control, their actions.

Consequently, subjecting these individuals to prison may do more harm than good. In fact, such individuals may want to retain an attorney experienced in criminal defense law to ensure they get the most appropriate help.

California has a law that allows certain criminal suspects to be diverted to mental health treatment programs and have their charges dismissed, and, earlier, Governor Brown signed off on an expansion of the suspects that are eligible for this program, to include those with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, and even those who commit serious or violent felonies.

However, recently, various prosecutors have been lobbying the Governor to retract some of this expansion, alleging that this expansion casts too wide a net, and will put dangerous felons back on the street. A discussion of this expansion, as well as the potential for retraction, will follow below.

What is California’s Mental Health Diversion Program?

The law described above allows a criminal defendant suffering from a specified mental disorder to be granted pre-trial diversion for a crime if a judge finds the disorder played a significant role in the crime. In a pre-trial diversion, the criminal trial is stopped for a period of up to two years and, if there is substantial compliance by the defendant with the diversion program and the defendant has not committed a significant crime, the charges will be dismissed, and the records of the arrest and prosecution sealed.

What has angered prosecutors is that the law was expanded to those who have been charged with any crime, and does not take into account any past convictions. Thus, as the prosecutors allege, this law is applicable to murderers, rapists, robbers, child molesters, arsonists, and the like, and does not take into account whether this is the second rape, for example, that the defendant has committed.

Additionally, there is some confusion as to what constitutes a “significant” crime during the two-year diversion program. Finally, prosecutors are wary of the fact that the law allows for eligibility in the diversion program for almost every type of mental health diagnosis. Thus, defendants diagnosed with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia (diagnosis of some serial killers), paraphilia (of which serial rapists are often diagnosed), and depression (associated with mass school shooting murders) would be eligible for diversion.

Retraction Potential

Based on these concerns, various California prosecutors have been lobbying Assembly members to pass a law curtailing the above-stated issues. Specifically, prosecutors wish to limit the new program to those charged only with misdemeanors or non-serious, non-violent felonies.

A bill had been moving through the Assembly with these limitations, without opposition, and with bipartisan support, but was stopped when the new bill was passed as part of a trailer to a budget bill. Additionally, various newspapers and other media have been advocating for this change, so it does appear that there may be a better than not chance that these restrictions will eventually be added.

Hire A Criminal Defense Attorney

If you, or someone you love, have been charged with a crime, contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Los Angeles law firm Manshoory Law Group, APC as soon as possible. It is vitally important to have an experienced criminal defense attorney on your side, and doing so can truly be the difference between a prison sentence and getting the treatment you need.

We will use our knowledge of criminal law to devise a strategy and present the best case for your or your loved one’s defense. Attorneys are available 24/7 to take your call. Contact us today for an initial consultation.

Rethinking California’s Felony-Murder Rule

Aug 6, 2018

In California, as in most states, to be charged with homicide means that the prosecutor has evidence that the defendant “unlawfully killed another human being or fetus with malice aforethought.” Accordingly, this means that the defendant must have been directly involved with the unlawful end of another person’s life; that is, he/she effectively “pulled the trigger.”

However, California, like the vast majority of states, also allows a defendant to be charged with homicide if the defendant, or a fellow perpetrator, kills another human being while committing certain felonies, regardless of whether the killing was intentional. This is known as the Felony-Murder Rule, and retaining the services of an experienced criminal defense attorney can be crucial to those who have been charged with the Rule’s violation.

In February, Berkeley Senator Nancy Skinner introduced a bill in the Legislature that would reform California’s, Felony-Murder Rule. A discussion on the current felony-murder rule, and the proposed reform, will follow below.

What is the Felony Murder Rule in California

Expanding on the previous description, California’s Felony-Murder Rule maintains that if a person, either alone or in concert with another, decides to commit an enumerated felony, and, while committing that felony, that person (or anyone acting in concert) kills another, that person, and anyone else involved, can be tried, and convicted, of murder. The intention of the Felony-Murder Rule is deterrence – to deter people from committing felonies and to deter people from putting other lives in life-threatening situations while committing certain felonies.

The qualifying felonies for application of the Felony-Murder Rule include:

• Arson
• Rape
• Carjacking
• Robbery
• Burglary
• Mayhem
• Kidnapping
• Train wrecking
• Any murder that is committed during a felony or attempted felony is inherently dangerous to human life

As is evident, it does not matter whether an intent to kill is present, just that a homicide resulted when committing, or attempting to commit, one of these acts.

What is the Proposed Amendment to the Felony-Murder Rule?

The proposed amendment to the Felony-Murder Rule provides a distinction between active and passive persons involved in the underlying felony. That is, the proposed Rule attempts to distinguish between persons who participated in the underlying felony, but did not know a murder was apparent nor participate in the murder, and those who chose to commit murder or aided in the process.

Thus, the law limits liability to those who participated in an underlying felony which resulted in a homicide if the individual was the actual killer or, with an intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the murder.

The intention of this proposed amendment is to hold those who had active participation in murder to a more stringent standard than the person who just participated in the commission of a felony. As an example, a lookout person or a getaway car driver to a burglary in which a homicide took place would not be facing the same penalty – which could be life in prison or the death penalty – as the individual who in fact did kill another person. Rather, such individuals would be charged with aiding and abetting a crime and can face the punishment more appropriate for that crime.

Hire A Criminal Defense Attorney

If you, or someone you love, have been charged with a homicide, and especially if you or a loved one has been charged with a violation of the Felony-Murder Rule, contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Los Angeles law firm Manshoory Law Group, APC as soon as possible.

Our knowledge of criminal law, including homicide, is deep, and we will use this knowledge to devise a strategy and present the best case for your or your loved one’s defense. Attorneys are available 24/7 to take your call. Contact us today for an initial consultation.

Understanding Juvenile Probation In California

Jul 23, 2018

What is Juvenile Probation?

When a person is convicted of a crime, a judge may order probation in lieu of prison in certain cases. This is not standard, as not all crimes provide a judge with this latitude, but for those that do allow this option, having a criminal defense attorney persuade the judge, on behalf of the criminal defendant, that this option is better than a prison term is crucial.

Further, if the criminal defendant is a juvenile, probation is almost always preferable, as it keeps the juvenile from having a criminal record and affords him/her a chance to redeem himself/herself going forward, in spite of any childhood transgressions. However, recently, Riverside County instituted a program under which juveniles are put on criminal probation as a result of having poor academic grades.

While this may seem like an extreme use of probation, and, in fact, from the article, the ACLU has instituted a lawsuit against the program, it does illustrate the use of criminal probation to punish juveniles, a discussion of probation and its specific application to minors will follow below.

What are the Rules of Probation in California?

Criminal probation, refers to the supervision of a convicted defendant for a specific period of time, in place of serving time in prison. Typically, the convicted will be ordered to meet various conditions by the court, and failure to do so may result in the imposition of the prison term.

By way of examples, convicts are typically required to surrender any firearms in their possession, remain employed (or participate in an educational program), abide by a curfew, live at a specified residence, obey the orders of a probation officer, and/or not leave the jurisdiction. In some cases, convicts may be required to retain a tracking device, such as an ankle bracelet, to track their movement.

California has two types of probation – summary and formal. Summary, also known as court probation, typically is imposed when one is convicted of a misdemeanor crime, or a wobbler crime, and where the convict is deemed not to be a danger to the community.

Formal, or felony, probation occurs when the convict has deemed a danger to the community. Formal probation, which is more restrictive, requires regular meetings with a probation officer to ensure that the convict is meeting all the conditions of the probation, while also ensuring that he/she has not left the jurisdiction.

What are the Types of Juvenile Probation?

When the convict is a juvenile, the types of probation available become more nuanced, as, in some cases, the probation allows the juvenile to be removed from his/her place of residence. Differing from adult probation, in juvenile matters, there is also non-wardship and wardship probation. The primary difference between these two types of probation is that, in wardship probation, the probation-ordering court will have jurisdiction over the juvenile as if it was the juvenile’s parent.

This jurisdiction includes the ability to remove the juvenile from his/her place of residence. In the majority of cases, juvenile probation is for a six-month period, after which a determination is made regarding whether the juvenile successfully met all conditions of the probation, or whether charges will be filed, and/or a prison sentence will be imposed.

When the probation is non-wardship, voluntary diversion programs between the probation officer, the juvenile, and his/her parents, are an option. Successful completion of the program means that the matter is closed, and no further action is taken.

Failure to complete the program means that a formal petition is filed with the Juvenile Court, which can lead to another round of informal, non-warship probation, in which the court will put the sentence on hold to allow successful completion.

Hire A Criminal Defense Attorney

If you are aware of a juvenile who has been charged with a crime, and are curious about the possibility of probation, contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Los Angeles law firm Manshoory Law Group, APC as soon as possible.

Our knowledge of criminal law is extensive and we will use this knowledge to formulate the best strategy to defend against criminal accusations. Attorneys are available 24/7 to take your call. Contact us today for an initial consultation.

Expectations of Privacy in Rental Car

Jul 6, 2018

As the U.S. Supreme Court winds down its term, every June and October, a flurry of opinions is typically released. This June was no exception. One case, in particular, touched on an issue that has been addressed by the Court in previous matters – an individual’s expectation of privacy, particularly from searches by the government.

Such an expectation varies according to the circumstance – trash left on the curb for pickup, for example, is accorded no expectation of privacy, and can be accessed by law enforcement without a warrant – and an attorney experienced in criminal defense lawyer can help combat warrantless searches if the circumstance demands it. In this instance, the Court held that, even though one is not listed as the authorized driver on a rental vehicle agreement, he/she still has an expectation of privacy just as if he/she was the authorized driver.

A discussion of this recent Supreme Court case, as well as how it may be applied going forward, will follow below.

The Fourth Amendment’s Expectation of Privacy

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution generally prohibits warrantless searches and seizures. However, case law has diluted this prohibition to, as stated above, various circumstances. Prior to this holding, most federal courts have held that a driver whose name is not listed on the rental contract does not have any right to challenge a search of that vehicle.

Unanimously, however, the Court rejected that viewpoint and maintained that one who has lawful possession and control of a vehicle will generally have an expectation of privacy. The Court specifically made the analogy that if a friend allowed another friend to drive his/her vehicle (or, pointed to a previous case, if a person is permitted to stay at a friend’s apartment), the driver (or the apartment dweller) would have an expectation of privacy.

Further, in this case, the Court noted that the fact that one is not on the rental contract is not, per se, illegal (the contract did not specify that such an act would void the agreement). Consequently, lawful possession of a rental vehicle would be if the rental company, or, in this case, the rentee, allowed the individual to operate the vehicle.

Even if the rental contract did indicate that the agreement would be void, the Court seemed to imply that this fact was irrelevant, as the agreement is actually about risk allocation of the rental vehicle, and not necessarily an effort to block someone from allowing another person to drive it.

Effect of the Holding

At first glance, it would seem that the effect of this holding is clear when it is applied to situations just like the one at issue. However, it is important to note that the Court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine if any exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches and/or seizures would apply (ex. consent, plain view, stop and frisk, or vehicle with probable cause).

Consequently, the Petitioner is not out of the woods just yet. Nevertheless, the holding does give some guidance – if no exception applies, then the fact that one is not listed on the rental agreement as an authorized driver does not destroy his/her expectation of privacy.

Hire A Criminal Defense Attorney

While the Supreme Court case discussed in this post is somewhat narrow, if you have been charged with a crime in which you believe law enforcement may have searched your person or your effects improperly, and potentially violated your rights, contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Los Angeles law firm Manshoory Law Group, APC as soon as possible. If indeed, evidence was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the attorneys at our office will use their skill to argue against its introduction at trial.

Attorneys are available 24/7 to take your call. Contact us today for an initial consultation.