Friday Fondling

This Friday we focus on a story about a 62 year-old Palos Verdes Estates man who was rearrested this week. He was charged last month with fondling two teen boys he invited to live in his house, and was arrested again on Tuesday on suspicion of molesting two more teenagers.

This Palos Verdes Estates man played himself off as a doctor to gain the teenagers’ trust. As a “doctor” he touched their intimate body parts, allegedly. The teenagers were 18 years old at the time. He is facing five misdemeanor counts of sexual battery and child molestation from his arrest last month.

Apparently, this 62 year-old man rented his homes in Rolling Hills and Palos Verdes Estates where the alleged sexual acts took place. He would invite his grandson’s friends to live in the houses by either paying rent or staying there for free. One teen moved in with the older man after his own parents through him out of the house. The teenager claims that the Palos Verdes Estates man cornered him in the shower and sexually assaulted him. The new arrest earlier this week was as a result of teenagers reading about the November arrest then coming forward to identify themselves as victims.

Now the 62 year-old Palos Verdes Estates man is facing an additional four counts of felony sexual battery by fraud – fraud for telling the teenagers that he was a doctor.

Felony sexual battery in California is an act committed for sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse. and is the non-consensual touching of the intimate part of someone who was unconscious as to the nature of the act because he/she was fraudulently convinced that the touching was for professional purposes. California sexual battery, in contrast to California rape, does not require that the offender engage in penetration or sexual intercourse.

California felony sexual battery has an additional requirement that you touch the "bare skin" of the accuser's intimate part. "Fraudulently" means that you made the representation with the intent to deceive and mislead the alleged victim.

Classic defenses are consent or insufficient evidence. In this case, any defense attorney would argue consent and against the fraud aspect. Since these teenagers were 17 or 18 years-old it would be unreasonable for them to believe that the defendant was acting as a doctor in his own home. They would also know from life experience what is appropriate touching in a medical setting and what isn’t. Therefore, a failure to object to the touching could be argued as consent. Otherwise, insufficient evidence is always a good defense where there is no medical evidence. This story sounds like a he-said-he-said scenario. The prosecution cannot rely solely on the victims’ testimony, but needs to bring in corroborative evidence to strengthen the case. That may be very difficult to do.

This will certainly unfold in an interesting way because the victims are not the traditional, impressionable and young victim. These are teenagers that are almost into young adulthood. They will certainly be grilled by defense attorneys regarding “consent.”

Read the story here.

Friday Favorite: Beefing up Security in San Pedro

I am excited to see that San Pedro leaders are taking matters seriously in downtown San Pedro. This week, leadership in San Pedro announced that after a recent spike in thefts, they want to bring in more security features such as lighting up alleys and installing security cameras in downtown San Pedro. It is probably seriously necessary since one outstanding incident occurred when an individual yanked a chain off a customer eating lunch at the Jolly Burrito!

For those individuals committing the thefts, the beefed up security would mean an increased chance in getting caught. A California theft related conviction can be particularly harmful to those defendants in seeking employment or state licensing in this already tough economy. Theft convictions are still harmful even after being expunged because they will arise after background checks when applying to state or federal agencies, or when applying to the state for any kind of license or certification.

Most California theft offenses are considered “crimes of moral turpitude;” and are often cited by state license boards as a reason to deny licenses and certifications. Even more harmful are the effects of a theft conviction for immigration purposes, where an individual is seeking a visa, green card or naturalization to the United States. A crime of moral turpitude could subject a defendant in this country illegally to deportation, and denial of naturalization or revocation of a visa or residency status.

The good news is that a first time petty theft where the item taken has a value less than $50, can sometimes be reduced to an infraction. In some D.A. offices, this deal will only apply if the item taken was a food item and there are other extenuating circumstances. This deal is probably reserved for transients and run-away teenagers living on the streets. The prosecution, in first offense cases, where the defendant has no criminal record, will sometimes consider dismissing the charges if the defendant repays the victim, undergoes theft counseling and performs community service.

A petty theft is normally a misdemeanor; however when there is a prior history of petty thefts then the prosecution can charge a new petty theft as a felony. Petty theft applies to taking property valued up to $950. Taking an item with a value over $950 can be charged as felony grand theft. From the article highlighting the new security measure in downtown San Pedro, it is clear that most crimes are probably petty thefts, characterized as “snatch-and-run” thefts.

It is great to see that San Pedro is trying to build a better downtown community and image. It has a lot to offer to its residents and visitors. Hopefully, these new measures will reduce any and all crimes in downtown San Pedro.


You can read the article about the new San Pedro security measures here.

Friday Story: Faculty and Sex Charges

Sorry for a late entry this week.

This week’s story is about a Peninsula High School teacher in Rolling Hills Estates who plead not guilty to sex charges. He was a dance teacher and he is accused of engaging in sexual conduct with a 16-year-old female student. More specifically, the charges are five counts of oral copulation with a minor and one count of digital penetration with a minor. The acts actually took place four years ago. The female student is now a young adult, but she came forward to the police detailing acts that took place with the teacher in 2006 and 2007 when she was 16 years old.

The acts that she detailed and the charges indicate the real seriousness of the offense. Oral copulation with a minor is the act of touching of the mouth of one person with the sexual organ of another person. Oral copulation with a person under 16 years old carries a punishment as a felony with imprisonment in state prison for up to 3 years. Digital penetration with a minor is the act of causing the sexual organ of another person to be penetrated by a foreign object – in this case “digital” means the defendant’s digits (fingers). Digital penetration with a victim under 16 years old carries a punishment as a felony with imprisonment in state prison for up to 3 years.

The prosecution’s entire case is at the mercy of the victim’s credibility. This is especially so because she waited four years to tell anyone. It will be interesting to learn what her motivation was to come forward now. A good defense attorney will want to subpoena the accuser's school, counseling, and medical records, interview his/her family, friends, schoolmates, and those she chats with online, and conduct a thorough background check on the accuser and any alleged witnesses. Sometimes, investigations reveal that the accuser has a bias and motive to harm the accused and that the accuser has a history of being untruthful and telling lies about other people as well.

If the acts actually took place, then one defense would be that the defendant had a good faith belief the accuser was 18 or over. The accused will be found not guilty if he reasonably and actually believed that the other person was age 18 or older. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably and actually believe that the other person was at least 18 years old. If the prosecution has not met this burden, the accused will be found not guilty. This may not be too difficult for the prosecution since at the time the accuser claims to be 16 she was also in high school as a junior. Defenses that are not available here would be consent or that the defendant and accuser were in a relationship.

You can read the story here.

A True Black Friday for this Felon

This Black Friday when you are pushing, shoving, jumping, and committing other Olympic feats to get to the hot-ticket items, remember this story and purchase extra security for your new “toys.” This Friday is a dark, dark Friday for a 22-year-old San Pedro man who is in custody for residential burglary. Detectives tracked him down using the “Lojack for Laptops” software on the laptops he stole from a Rancho Palos Verdes home.

It seems that this San Pedro man decided he just couldn’t wait for Black Friday deals and took matters into his own hands. He was identified as an unlicensed contractor who had done work at the victim’s home two months earlier. The security software was able to gather personal information, including his name and photograph once he logged into the computer. Now, that is pretty crafty of modern technology.

The article states that the police were able to convince him to bring the laptop to the Lomita Sherriff’s station, where he was then promptly arrested. Now, let me just make it clear what this means. The Sherriff’s officers are not brilliant negotiators; when an article says any officer “convinced” a defendant to come down to the station it means one of two things. The officer lied to the defendant somehow, prompting the defendant to head over to the station; or the officer threatened the defendant with arrest if he didn’t cooperate. Sometimes, there is a combination of both.

Earlier in our Friday series, I spoke about commercial burglary. The San Pedro man allegedly stole from a residence making the crime here residential burglary. Residential burglary is the more serious of the two types. A defendant commits residential burglary if he burgles any inhabited dwelling - a place where someone lives or sleeps. A dwelling is "inhabited" if it is used for dwelling purposes, whether or not it is currently occupied. A prosecutor has to prove that the defendant entered the dwelling and that, at the time he entered; he had the intent to steal.

Again, there is the sticky situation of “intent.” Any good defense attorney will latch on to this element, especially in this laptop case. Absent any other evidence, it's just as likely that the San Pedro man didn't form the intent to steal until after he was already inside the home. This is a prime case for theft, not residential burglary because when a defendant formed the intent to steal is the key difference between burglary and theft.

In this case, the prosecution is really going to have to nail down a timeframe for the defendant’s action. The prosecution will need to show something more than just his possession of the laptop. This is because he had a legitimate intent as he entered the home – work – and without more it is too much of a stretch to place intent to steal on him.

If he is convicted of first degree residential burglary, he faces two, four, or six years in the California State Prison and a maximum fine of $10,000. California Penal Code 462 instructs the judge not to issue a probationary sentence if he was convicted of burglarizing an inhabited structure unless it is an "unusual case where the interests of justice would be best served by doing so". Here, if the prosecution doesn’t reduce the charge to theft, then a judge should grant probation. This is because this is not a typical residential burglary – not at night, not with weapons, and not a “break in.” Either way, the San Pedro man faces a strike on his record.

This is an unfortunately black Friday for the San Pedro man. He really should have waited for the shopping deals on Black Friday. Instead, is in custody without bail because of his immigration status. However, this is an important Thanksgiving lesson – be thankful for modern technology and make sure to equip your important electronic toys with security software.

You can read the story of the Rancho Palos Verdes laptops stolen by the San Pedro man here.

Friday Family Feud: Child Abduction Charges

This week’s story is about a Lomita family and the child caught in the middle. The boy was in the legal guardianship of his paternal grandmother, which his mother apparently doesn't approve of. His biological mother, with the help of her parents, abducted the boy from his stroller. This happened while the boy’s relative was pushing the stroller he was in, down the street. Now, the biological mother and her parents didn't just run up and grab the boy. They verbally and physically confronted the relative before leaving with the boy.

Deputies were able to contact the biological mother and her parents, and convince them to return the boy. Of course, they were then arrested and released on bond. They will likely be facing charges of Penal Code 278, California's child abduction law. The child abduction law prohibits people who do not have legal custody over a child from maliciously trying to keep a child away from his/her legal parent/guardian. Since the biological mother and her parents did not have legal custody of the child, they can be charged with child abduction.

Child abduction is just a specially recognized form of kidnapping. California's kidnapping laws, found under Penal Code 207, 208, 209 and 209.5 PC, are violated when the defendant moves another person a substantial distance without that person's consent by using force or fear. “Force or fear” means inflicting harm or threatening too. "Simple" kidnapping is a felony, subjecting you to up to 8 years in the California state prison.

The biological mother and her parents are going to rely on the many defenses available to kidnapping. One defense is that the alleged victim consented to being moved. This is an obvious defense because a child will consent to going anywhere with his mother. The problem here is we do not know how old the child is, and typically children are deemed incapable of giving legal consent. They may also allege that they have the right to travel with the child. This would only be the case if the child custody order included such a travel provision. Otherwise, that defense may be a loser.

The biological mother and her parents could also allege that the prosecution will not be able to meet all the elements of kidnapping, especially as to force or fear. This goes back to a child wanting to go with his mother, no force or fear needed. A problem with this defense is that, when kidnapping a child, the only amount of physical force that is required is enough to take and carry the child away. Another problem they have is that they verbally and physically confronted the relative who had the child. This could be interpreted by the prosecution and a jury as being enough force or fear (threats of harm) to meet the elements of kidnapping.

The parents of the biological mother could have the best defense by asserting they were not the kidnapers but were merely present. The key here is where they were when the biological mother took the boy. Were they standing nearby, or just sitting in the car? If they were not aware of the biological mother’s plans, and they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, then they should be acquitted. This could explain why they returned the boy, because they never intended to take him.

The last applicable defense could be a stretch to apply here, but there is a statutory defense where a defendant would not be guilty of kidnapping if the defendant took the child under 14 years of age to protect the child from danger of imminent harm. The biological mother and her parents would have to show that the relative pushing the boy in the stroller posed imminent danger to the boy. Without knowing more about the situation, all I can say is this will be tough to win.

Child abduction is a wobbler, which means it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony. As a felony, it subjects the defendant to a maximum four-year state prison sentence and a maximum $10,000 fine. If convicted of child abduction and kidnapping, the judge could order defendants to serve this sentence in addition and consecutive to the time imposed for the kidnapping charge. Simple kidnapping is a felony, punishable by three, five or eight years in the California state prison, and a maximum $10,000 fine.

Lastly, Simple kidnapping qualifies as both a serious felony and a violent felony. This means a conviction for violating California's kidnapping law counts as a "strike" for purposes of California's three strikes law. If defendants are subsequently charged with any felony - and have a prior "strike" on their record - they will be referred to as a "second striker," and the sentence will be twice the term otherwise required by law. If charged with a third felony - and there are two prior strikes - defendants will be referred to as a "third striker" and will serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years-to-life in the state prison. That is a lot to face, and a lot to lose to get your biological child back.


Read the news story here.

Friday Favorite Flirty Criminals

This week’s favorite is about a flirty but dangerous mother-daughter team. This mother daughter duo allegedly conned a 90-year-old El Segundo man to give them $20,000 and to buy them a Mercedes-Benz. Police believe this duo likes to run cons and take advantage of elderly people. The mother was arrested this week, but the daughter remains at large, so be careful who you flirt with this weekend at the bars. The 29-year-old daughter is known to frequent areas in and around Harbor City, Downey, and Riverside.

The 90-year-old man was also conned into buying the duo a $2,000 mattress. They would also take him into banks, and tell him what to do, in order to get their money. The mother-daughter team was discovered after employees at an El Segundo Bank of America considered it suspicious that a 90-year-old man said he was withdrawing money to give it to someone but couldn’t remember their names.

The duo are facing charges for felony elder abuse and felony conspiracy to commit elder abuse. California "elder abuse" law covers a variety of crimes and can occur in a variety of situations. In this situation, elder abuse will be alleged to be in the form of financial fraud. It is considered “elder abuse” when it is directed at anyone over 65 years of age. The Los Angeles District Attorney's Elder Abuse Unit only prosecutes allegations of financial elder abuse if the monetary amount reportedly taken is either in the "thousands of dollars" range or involved a very sophisticated level of fraud or theft. Well, too bad for this mother-daughter team. They should have aimed low…..or not have defrauded an elderly man to begin with. ;)

Simply put, financial elder abuse is the theft or embezzlement of money or other property from an elder. This type of senior fraud is penalized in California Penal Code sections 368(d) and 368(e). In order to convict a defendant of senior fraud, the prosecutor must prove the following facts: 1) that defendant committed a "financial" crime (that is, theft, fraud, forgery, or embezzlement), 2) that the property involved in the crime belonged to an elder, and 3) in this case, that defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the individual was an elder.

The mother-daughter duo is going to face an uphill battle in their defense. It appears that the 90-year-old man is a very confused man. He doesn’t remember giving away that much money or even purchasing those expensive vehicles.

As for the conspiracy charge, a criminal conspiracy takes place when one agrees with one or more other people to commit a crime, and one of them commits an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. Any member of the conspiracy may commit the overt act which doesn't need to be criminal in and of itself. The act does need to be performed before the commission of the agreed upon offense. Maybe the daughter can argue that she never agreed with her mom to fraud this old man. She was just a victim of her mom too; she should utilize many available defenses to conspiracy.

Some of these defenses include: there was no agreement, there was no overt act, she withdrew from the conspiracy, she operated under a mistake of law, or she was falsely accused. Again, it will be tough for prosecutors to prove an agreement between mother and daughter. This will be especially tough if the daughter was never seen at any of the banks or the car dealership.

If they are convicted of committing felony conspiracy to commit elder abuse they face the same penalties that are imposed in connection with that felony. If convicted of felony senior fraud (“elder abuse”), they face the following penalties: formal probation; two, three, or four years in the California State Prison; and a maximum $10,000 fine.

In conclusion, that must have been some intense flirting by the duo with the elderly man. They got him to give them thousands of dollars in cash and gifts! Whether you are young or old, beware of these two.

Not a Friday “Favorite”, Just a Freaky Friday Story

This week, a Redondo Beach man pleads no contest in Torrance Courthouse to a charge of Penal Code section 289(e) sexual penetration of an intoxicated person. The story is not what you think, or anything you could think up on your own. The crime occurred after the victim went to the man’s home in Redondo Beach to work on his computer. The man provided his victim with an alcoholic beverage, and the next thing he knows – he finds himself in the man’s shower, alert but unable to respond to what was happening. The man was sexually assaulting the victim with a thin, hard object and later shaved his body hair. Freaky right?!

However, the victim doesn’t call the police or file any police report. Instead he sought treatment to determine if he had contacted a sexually transmitted disease. It was the doctor that reported the crime. I guess I am not the only one who finds it strange that the victim of this disgusting crime didn’t immediately go to the police. The defense attorney contends that the encounter was entirely consensual! If that is true than this is even freakier than I thought!

The man will spend three years in prison and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He decided to take the three year deal against his attorney’s advice because he was concerned about testimony regarding allegations that he had drugged and molested teenage boys as far back as 30 years ago.

You may not think three years is enough of a punishment for a grotesque crime as this, but trust me he is going to be punished for the rest of his life. Registration as a sex offender under Penal Code 290 PC (known as the Sex Offender Registration Act) is, perhaps, one of the most devastating penalties you face if convicted of a California sex offense. The Sex Offender Registration Act states that you are required to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life so long as you live, work, or attend school in California. This means keeping your local law enforcement agency informed as to your general whereabouts.

In general, the Sex Offender Registration Act requires that offenders annually update their information within five working days of their birthday. Beyond that, reporting requirements will depend on a variety of factors, such as whether (1) the offender moves, (2) is a transient, (3) the judge declares the offender a sexually violent predator, or (4) he is enrolled at or employed by a California institution of higher learning.

This Torrance case of the Redondo Beach offender sounded like it was somewhat violent. The crime is not classified as a violent crime in the statute, but if the Judge determines he is a sexually violent predator then he must update his information with local law enforcement every 90 days. A "sexually violent predator" is an individual who has been convicted of a violent sexual offense and who has a diagnosed mental disorder rendering him/her a threat to the community.

Let’s not forget about Megan’s Law. Once a sex offender reports to his local law enforcement agency, the agency forwards his information to the California Department of Justice (DOJ). The Sex Offender Tracking Program at the DOJ maintains California's list of registered sex offenders. This information is generally available to the public over the Internet on the DOJ's Megan's Law website.

The information on the website will typically include the offender’s name, a photo, identifying information (height/weight, eye color, tattoos), and the offense(s) which subjected the offender to Penal Code 290 sex offender registration.

So, the Redondo Beach man will be forever punished as new neighbors and employers find out about his sex offender status. As for his Redondo Beach or Torranceneighborhood, they should check out the Megan’s Law website in three years to see if this freak is back living on their streets.

You can read the news story here.

Friday Favorite: Stealing From the Dead Probably isn't the Smartest Thing, Especially Right Before Halloween!

I am going to start a new series to post each Friday what my favorite crime story of the week was, with a little bit of explanation of the charge or potential charges. Here is a local one to start with.

In Rancho Palos Verdes, a 21-year-old Redondo Beach man has been charged with two counts of felony burglary for taking personal items of deceased people from inside a mausoleum at a Rancho Palos Verdes cemetery. This is my Friday Favorite because I thought it fit in just well with the upcoming Halloween weekend. Not to be gruesome or inconsiderate about the victims here, but it can’t be a coincidence that he was allegedly seen taking things from a mausoleum the week before Halloween. I wonder what would happen if he brought those items into the bathroom, closed the door, turned off the lights and played Bloody Mary. Would the owners of the personal items appear in the mirror with Bloody Mary? Okay, enough insensitive talk from me.

Burglary means that you enter a building (or other specified enclosure) with the intent to commit a theft or felony once inside. He is likely charged with second degree burglary which requires entry into a commercial building. First degree burglary is commonly referred to as residential burglary and is the more serious of the two types. You commit first degree burglary if you burgle any inhabited dwelling, that is, a place where someone lives or sleeps. A dwelling is "inhabited" if it is used for dwelling purposes, whether or not it is currently occupied.  I wouldn’t put it past a prosecutor to charge him with first degree burglary arguing that the mausoleum was in fact occupied by persons in their final resting place.

It is the “intent” which will be hard to prove in this case. The prosecutor must prove that he intended to commit a felony or petty theft at the time he entered the mausoleum. California burglary law, under Penal Code 459, requires that you intend to "commit a petty theft, grand theft, or other felony" once inside. It isn't necessary for the prosecutor to prove that you actually committed the intended crime, only that you intended to do so. Sometimes intent is obvious, sometimes it's not. He was seen trying to open a glass cabinet inside a container holding the personal items of the deceased. Without more, the defense would argue that he knew the deceased and was replacing the personal items or adding to it. There is no indication that he walked into the mausoleum with tools to pry the glass open or had a bag in which to place items that he was taking. It is these tools and other actions by the defendant that prosecutors use to prove “intent”. This case will definitely be interesting.

If he is convicted of second degree burglary as a felony, he faces sixteen months, or two or three years in the state prison and a maximum fine of $10,000.

Read the news article and see his mug shot here.

Fullerton Police Department: The Lies Caught on Tape

As a criminal defense attorney, sometimes it can be easy to think that our cases effect only our clients and that the facts of a case will never be significant outside of that client’s life. But other times, a case has greater significance than you could have ever guessed.

This past July, I was privileged to sit as co-counsel to Attorney David Borsari on a misdemeanor case in Fullerton. Our client was charged with resisting arrest, and assault and battery on a peace officer – a Fullerton Police Officer. The report clearly described that while one officer was trying to subdue a belligerent suspect (our client’s friend), our client was alleged to have interfered with Fullerton Police officers by jumping on the back of the arresting officer, and trying to choke the officer while on the officer’s back. Reading the report alone, we were thinking this could be a difficult case.

Fortunately, our client had video of the entire incident. Video that our client caught on his iPhone!!! With video in hand which clearly supported our client’s case – that he didn’t do it – we were sure this case would be dismissed. But no, it wasn’t. Our case went to trial and our client was vindicated with all not guilty verdicts!

The case went to trial because the officer who alleged in his report that he pulled our client off the arresting officer’s back, claimed that the incident occurred before the video started recording. Unfortunately for him, we made his perjury clear to the jury. It was also clear in the video. This officer, testified that he was the first officer on the scene to help out the arresting officer dealing with the other belligerent suspect. As the first officer on the scene, he testified that the first thing he did was pull our client off the arresting officer’s back. He testified that he was 100% sure that it was our client our that officer’s neck. The incident is all on video, except that the person on the arresting officer is not our client, since our client was the one videotaping!!!

Later in the video, another “well-trained” Fullerton Police officer smacks the iPhone from our client’s hands and throws him around like a rag doll. Our client falls limp under the assault. This is all on camera, because another bystander picked up the iPhone to capture our client’s assault on video too. There is some speculation that the officer who assaulted our client is one of the six officers who used excessive force against the latest Fullerton Police Department victim, Kelly Thomas.

We can only hope that this officer gets what is coming to him (criminal charges), and the Fullerton Police Department takes note of its rogue officers and does something to instill trust within its community again.

View the video here.

What happened to Innocent until PROVEN guilty?

Giovanni Ramirez. We all know the name of the man accused in the beating of Bay Area paramedic Bryan Stow in the Dodgers’ Stadium parking lot. Some even say he is the man who beat Bryan Stow on the evening of March 31, 2011. Certainly Police Chief Charlie Beck believes they have “the right guy.” This means that the men and women investigating this case in the LAPD are now on a quest to find evidence against Ramirez. With the belief that Ramirez is the right guy, the LAPD has tunnel vision and this puts any justice for the Stow family in jeopardy.

Shouldn’t the investigation focus on obtaining any evidence relating to the crime, and not focus on Ramirez? Because, even though Ramirez hasn’t been charged with any crime, aren’t we all innocent until proven guilty? Well, maybe not.

It turns out that the presumption of innocence only applies at trial. Yes, you read that right. So, really until a jury is sitting in that jury box the criminal justice system can treat you as if you are indeed “the right guy.” A defendant is presumed innocent only at trial. This is why you will rarely see a defendant in shackles at the defense table (shackles could prejudice the jury into thinking the defendant is guilty). The same is true for prison clothing, a jury could be prejudiced into thinking the defendant is guilty if they see him at the defense table in his prison clothing. But, none of this applies to the timeline leading up to trial.

Maybe the presumption should apply from the beginning. Especially in high profile, high pressure cases like this Bryan Stow beating. Without the presumption of innocence, police investigations focus on the one person whom the media and their police chief say is the guy. They may overlook other leads or evidence pointing to a different potential suspect. Yes, everyone cheers and tears up when someone is arrested for the terrible crime that was committed against Bryan Stow. And, maybe those same people will again cheer and tear up if Ramirez if charged and put through a trial. However, is it really justice for the victim and his family for us to focus on one guy (where the evidence is pretty weak) and ignore all other potential suspects? If he is later found guilty because of the pressure to lock anyone up for this crime, is that justice?

Ramirez’ legal team understands that the innocence presumption isn’t triggered until trial, so they are taking matters into their own hands. They plan to prove him innocent in the public court, before charges are filed in the legal court. Ramirez’ attorney has already lined up several dozen witnesses who assert that Ramirez was not at Dodger Stadium that night. His attorney has also subjected Ramirez to a polygraph test which clearly reveals his belief in his client because as defense attorneys know, clients always lie…..just kidding….. But it really is a serious step to take even before he has received any police reports and police witness statements. Most recently, Ramirez’ attorney has released a photograph of him circa the time of the beating. The photograph shows Ramirez with a full head of hair – not shaved as in the suspect sketches.

Ramirez’ attorney is also trying to get a hold of video tape footage from a hotel that Ramirez is supposed to have checked into the day after the beating. The tape would also show that Ramirez had hair and not a bald head. I commend the Ramirez legal team for all their efforts in proving innocence now, instead of waiting for the presumption to take over in trial. After all, the best way to win a criminal case is to avoid getting any charges filed to begin with! Then, the investigation can get back on track in seeking true justice for the Stow family. 

Long Beach "Life Savers" Offers FREE Public Workshop

**Come and listen to our very own Veronica R Guzman and the firm's Of Counsel Criminal Defense Attorney David J. Givot**

The Only Way to Protect Your Rights is to Know Your Rights

On Saturday, March 26, 2011, from 9:45 to 11:30AM at Marshall Academy of the Arts in Long Beach, the Long Beach "Life Savers" will present the first in a series of free educational workshop programs designed to help regular people defend their rights, avoid scams, and protect their financial health in this down economy.

"This is not a sales pitch," says Long Beach Immigration Attorney, Alice Tadros. "There will be nothing for sale. It is just vital information that most people never get to learn."

The Long Beach "Life Savers" is a group of attorneys and professionals who have banded together to give back to the community by providing the most important commodity of all: Information. "When people know the rules that others are playing by, the game is more fair." Said Veronica Guzman, a Landlord/Tenant Attorney.

The first program will feature information and advice from Attorneys who practice Immigration, Bankruptcy,Landlord/Tenant, Estate Planning, and Criminal Defense. Plus, participants will hear from experts in dealing with the IRS, the down Real Estate market, and protection for small business owners. Julaine Wagoner of Remax College Park did not mince words: "The goal of the Long Beach "Life Savers" is simply to help people not get hurt and the more we know about how things really work, the better off we will be."

Marshall Academy of the Arts is located at 5870 E. Wardlow Road in Long Beach and doors open at 9:30AM. The event is free and open to the public. This is an information only session. No product or service will be offered or sold. For more information, contact Julaine Wagoner at (562) 234-8888 or Amy Becker (562) 489-6979.

Please help the Long Beach Life Savers protect as many people as possible by sharing this post with everyone in your network or contact sphere.

Thanks!!

Our Own Criminal Defense Highlight

Here at the Law Office of Veronica R. Guzman, we like to highlight our work on our real life criminal defense cases. Here is a statement from a thankful family on a case in which our hard work was accomplished behind the scenes.

Know Your Rights and Be Smart

NEVER consent to a search. Not of your car. Not of your home. Not of your friend's apartment. Not of your person. NEVER.

NEVER resist a police officer by physically struggling or pushing away. Physical resistance is always illegal.  

NEVER (when you are a suspect) give statements to the police. Never sign anything. Just do not talk to the police at all, except to say "My lawyer has advised me not to answer any questions." Ask to see your attorney. Exception: You must provide the police with your legal name, date of birth, and address for identification purposes.

NEVER under any circumstances argue with a police officer if you have been drinking. That's a guaranteed trip to jail.