California Government Considering Law to Become Sanctuary State

California Senate Bill 54 has recently been introduced; it proposes to establish a new law to prohibit law enforcement agencies from cooperating with Federal Immigration Authorities. Whether state law enforcement (State Police; CHP, etc.), county (Sheriff), city (local police),  school police or security departments, organization or individual, they would be prohibited from investigating, detaining and/or arresting anyone suspected of a crime that would constitute or be characterized as aiding, assisting, helping or facilitating the enforcement of immigration laws. The Attorney General of the State of California will also be mandated to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement by the U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In addition, the bill would require the University of California, public schools and libraries, along with all other facilities that provide services related to education, wellness, physical or mental health, and courthouses to implement a similar policy.

ICE would still be permitted to conduct deportation raids in California, however, they could not rely upon or be assisted by state or local law enforcement (police, sheriffs, etc.). Basically, California would become a “sanctuary state” and countless numbers of individuals claim the state would be protecting criminal felons from being deported. In addition, ICE would be banned from entering jails to interview inmates suspected of living in the United States illegally.

You may be against the idea of sanctuary cities, but as you can see from SB 54, our California government is currently in the process of establishing it as a “state sanctuary.”

Opponents have argued against this bill because it would allow those with criminal records, such as violent felons, to remain on the streets. Proponents  claim by protecting immigrants, even those who have committed violent crimes and/or other felonies,  it is the only humane thing to do for anyone who lives in California. They cannot accept the proposition that there have been many innocent citizens who have been murdered at the hands of undocumented immigrants with prior criminal felony records.

Additionally, Senate Bill 54 does not distinguish between those non-documented immigrants who have a minor infraction, such as driving with an expired vehicle registration tag or broken taillight, and those who are extremely serious and heinous criminal offenders, such as having been convicted of murder, rape, arson and child molestation. Hence, California’s 2013 Trust Act that protects unauthorized immigrants who came to the United States before the age of 16 and other undocumented individuals living in California, who otherwise have been law-abiding, would be superseded by SB 54 and, therefore, these individuals would then be subject to deportation by ICE officers if they were arrested for an infraction.

 It has been reported that California gets about $1 BILLION A DAY from the federal government, and if that is withheld as a sanction against stopping immigration officers from picking up non-documented individuals (politically correct name for illegal immigrants) who have a criminal record, there will inevitably be budget shortfalls in California.

Even if the majority of the California  population oppose sanctuary cities, and no doubt will oppose SENATE BILL 54 that otherwise will make California a “sanctuary state,” if you want this to go to a referendum (to be put on a forthcoming ballot so everyone can have a chance to vote their conscience), you should place your name, city and email address on the web page posted by and this link from California State Senator Jeff Stone.

Court of Appeal Recuses Orange County District Attorney’s Office in Murder Case

On November 23, 2016, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court’s Decision  recusing the entire District Attorneys Office in Orange County [OCDA] in the penalty phase of a case in which the defendant had previously pled guilty to eight counts of murder. The Superior Court concluded the OCDA had such a severe conflict of interest (its duty to fairly prosecute a case under the rule of law) with the [OCSD] Orange County Sheriff’s Department (in which the loyalty by prosecutors to  the sheriffs conflicted). As a result, the court held  it was unlikely the defendant could have a fair trial. This determination came after hearings over a period of six months in which nearly forty witnesses testified as to the systemic, known and prejudicial use of confidential informants that violated the constitutional rights of inmates, along with substantial discovery failures of the OCSD.

The ruling came after a  murder trial heavily reported by the media involving a defendant who with a barrage of gunfire killed eight individuals at a hair salon where his former wife was working. Although the Deputy Public Defender representing the defendant eventually discovered sheriff’s deputies were using confidential jailhouse informants to solicit incriminating statements from high-profile defendants, the District Attorney’s Office and its prosecutors on an ongoing basis failed to disclose this practice.

 

California Death Penalty. Vote November 8th

There are two measures  that deal with the death penalty in California that are on the ballot in the forthcoming November 8th election. California has the largest number of inmates awaiting the death penalty of all the states. The last execution in California was about ten years ago when it was legally challenged because of a claim, among other things, that the process of using lethal injections was inhumane. The last attempt to abolish the death penalty occurred in 2012.

The first measure on the ballot is Proposition 62, which replaces the death penalty with life in prison without any possibility of parole and applies retroactively to all previous and existing cases in which anyone is currently incarcerated and facing the death penalty. If enacted into law, it will [also] apply to all future first degree murder convictions in which the death penalty would have been the sentence. In September of this year, a Field poll was conducted of likely voters and found that a plurality of voters (the most posted online votes, but not a majority of all votes which would be over 50%) wanted to abolish the death penalty and, therefore, voted that it be repealed. It is noteworthy that there were a substantial number of “undecided” voters, however,  and they will likely make the difference in the outcome on November 8th.

Those that oppose the death penalty cite, among other things, the following reasons: it is unfairly applied to minorities, the procedure is inhumane, and the process is costing far too much to the people of the State of California. Proponents of execution as the form of punishment assert this penalty is reserved for what can best be described as a most heinous and despicable crime against humanity, causing unparalleled and life long suffering to the families of such victims; and, there are newly developed procedures associated with death penalty cases that are being considered.

The second measure on the ballot, Proposition 66, is considered a competing measure and much different than Proposition 62 in that it speeds up executions and the death penalty process by requiring the outcome of a defendant’s appeal to not take more than five (5) years. A little over 1/3 of those in the Field poll noted above were in favor of this Proposition, but more importantly, about 42% of those who were polled were “undecided” and will indeed make a difference in the outcome of this Proposition.

To promote justice for whom they claim at this point in time are at least 1000 victims and their families, there are District Attorneys in the multitude of California counties, the California Highway Patrol Association and Peace Officers Association, along with victim advocates who are among those behind Proposition 66 declaring it to be much needed. The Office of the California Legislative Analyst reported when it last made a study it costs nearly $50,000 per year per inmate to be incarcerated in our State Prisons. The cost of a death row inmate is about $90,000 more per year due to the costs of lengthy and complex appeals to the California Supreme Court, which currently has a backlog that can take ten or more years for a ruling.

Today, there are about 750 Death Row inmates that for decades have been incarcerated in prisons. Proponents of Proposition 66 also note such inmates get three meals a day in state prisons that have heating and air conditioning; with access to cable TV and a library; and each receive nearly unlimited heath care, including but not limited to eyeglasses; dental care; hearing aids; hip, kidney, knee, heart and sex change surgery, all of which are often far better than most of us who do not get free health care, including senior citizens who often cannot afford the escalating cost of living, prescription medicine and/or a satisfactory long term care facility. In summary, these are stated as further grounds to support Proposition 66 and limit the current delays and streamline the criminal justice system in California.

If both measures were to pass on November 8th, then the one with the greatest number of votes will become law in California.

You are urged to vote on these and other critical issues that concern all of us in the forthcoming election.

Friend: Murdered woman texted ‘help’ after leaving with Marine

The preliminary hearing for the Marine sergeant accused in the murder of his wife has started. The woman’s body was discovered near a lake last year. According to a friend of the victim, the woman texted the word “help” shortly after leaving on a dinner cruise with the suspect.

During the testimony, the friend said the victim was reluctant to go on the cruise with her estranged husband, but decided to go with him after his pregnant girlfriend assured her it was fine. The girlfriend claimed that she could not accompany him due to her pregnancy. She is also a suspect in the woman’s murder case.

Discrepancies in the suspect’s narrative about what happened to the victim during their outing led the friend to report the woman as missing. Further investigation led to the discovery of BDSM paraphernalia in the suspect’s home. Authorities allege the victim was forced to participate in sexual behavior prior to being killed.

 

 

 

Are Firearms The Real Problem or People Who Abuse them?

With the escalating scourge of mass killings, we are obliged to examine both the underlying causes of and potential solutions to drastically reduce mass shootings, by those with depraved and evil minds, sociopaths, psychopaths, terrorists and barbarians who without any conscience (morals) whatsoever use military style assault weapons and/or stockpile and then utilize huge quantities of bullets and large quantities of ammunition magazines to murder innocent and unsuspecting individuals regardless of age, race, sex,  .

It is noteworthy, the subject of colossal shootings is complex and there are clearly two sides of the equation. Moreover, these concerns are not new; sadly and repeatedly have political overtones. Hence, it is hoped the reader of this blog will perform his/her own search on the internet to review state and federal firearms laws, exceptions, limitations and other issues, including actual statistics. We should be mindful that these are serious and horrific acts, yet we need to acknowledge there also are far more deaths that are due to other causes (such as deaths due to driving under the influence, but for the sake of this comment only and albeit an over simplification and generalization, but we do not outlaw or seriously limit the sale &/or consumption of alcohol).

Proponents of gun control claim we need stricter gun control laws. Opponents claim we already have strict regulations, and in those jurisdictions that have “gun-free zone” laws in which it is prohibited from having a firearm these locations have a far higher number of shootings.

First, it is noteworthy, that the Federal Gun Control Act, enacted in 1968, establishes a list of those (such as felons) who are prohibited from possessing, obtaining or receiving firearms and ammunition. In addition, there are many other restrictions as to the sale, use, possession, transfer, etc. of such weapons. Click the following link for the 247 page Federal Firearms Regulations: Federal Reference Guide

Second, California has one of the strictest gun control laws in the United States. Yet, the recent shootings in San Bernardino, a large metropolis in California, occurred even though assault weapons were used and are already against the law. Also, California has a huge number of restrictions, such as limiting large capacity magazines that hold a dozen or more bullets. Click the following Link for the California Firearms Laws summary: California Firearms Law

Is the solution to enact tougher gun laws? If so, why did the most recent shootings occur in three states (California, Colorado and Oregon) that already have very strict gun laws?

Some pundits argue the states that have the most lenient rules and regulations regarding firearms have the lowest number of mass shootings; perhaps, because terrorists look for sites where they will not face opposition by individuals that “carry” weapons. Maybe that is one of the reasons movie theaters and malls, shopping centers, schools, churches and social centers, etc. have been the place of choice and selected by such terrorists. These same pundits encourage individuals to arm them self to be able to defend and/or fight back; they note that police cannot be on every corner and the drive time to respond is too great to risk your death or anyone else in the interim. Some advocate we urge our legislators to pass emergency legislation to increase the number of police, sheriff and FBI, and give them the power they need to accomplish their job.

It is hoped this blog will open a further dialogue in the reoccurring debate that includes many who claim taking away &/or more severely limiting those law abiding individuals who desire to possess and/or carry firearms will not prohibit the lawless, who it seems inevitably find ways to obtain whatever weapons they desire, whether illegally or not. Choose the narrative you feel comfortable with, but be open to seeking a realistic solution that is based upon logic, reason, and, of course, our United States Constitution, and not political rhetoric. Contact your state and federal legislators to voice your opinion.

Appeals Court Upholds California Death Penalty

On November 12, 2015, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
the constitutionality of the California Death Penalty and in so doing reversed the ruling by the US District Court that decided under the 8th Amendment it was unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment because of lengthy and unpredictable delays. The California Attorney General argued the delays were a result of the number and length of time involved in the legal maneuvers and appeal process that affords inmates their constitutional right to file appeals and writs of habeas corpus.

The history of the case is that in 2003, the California Supreme Court upheld the underlying conviction of the defendant/inmate on first-degree murder and rape charges.

In California since 1978, there have been approximately 900 defendants sentenced to death, with only 13 actual executions, and none in about ten years. Executions at San Quentin State Prison have been on hold since 2006 when a Federal Judge deemed there to be legal issues with the then current and past combined multi-drug lethal procedures. Since there is now a national shortage of single lethal drugs that too poses additional problems. In California, there are now about 750 inmates on death row (about 100 died while imprisoned due to other causes).

4 killed in Orange County shooting spree

A series of shootings across Orange County has left four people, including the gunman, dead. According to this report, the first shooting occurred at Ladera Ranch. It is believed that the shooter killed one person here prior to fleeing in an SUV. The suspect then continued to attempt to carjack at least two vehicles, which resulted in two more deaths. He shot and killed himself shortly after police found him in a stolen vehicle.

 

 

Husband arrested in 2004 Westminster killing (Sam Spital)

COMMENTARY BY SAMUEL SPITAL, CRIMINAL HOMICIDE AND DEFENSE LAWYER

“On February 4, 2013, the Orange County Registrar published a digital article in which a husband was arrested in connection with a cold case investigation for the death of his wife about nine years ago. According to the story, this was a brutal murder in which the wife had her throat slashed and her head was nearly decapitated. All of this happened in the early morning hours when the 17 year old son was tied up and placed in a his bedroom closet by another suspect. It was further revealed that the husband had previously pled guilty to spousal battery and attempting to dissuade a witness (the victim in the current criminal case), then being sentenced to one year in County Jail and formal probation for five years.

Either the author did not interview the investigating officers more thoroughly or the Police and District Attorney declined to provide any further details as to the underlying evidence that led them to arrest the defendant for the vicious killing after so many years had intervened. Defense counsel will undoubtedly perform a painstaking investigation given the substantial intervening period of time from the incident and the current filing of the criminal charges, as well as raise various pre-trial motions and to establish the defense strategy.

It is interesting to note the husband was not arrested after so many years even though the the spouse is generally considered the first and often the primary person of interest in a murder; when this nexus is coupled with the previous conviction for domestic violence along with the type of and manner of killing, there would seem to have been other circumstantial evidence as well to link the husband to the crime even if no eye witness, including but not limited to DNA. However, the spouse may have had an alibi, he may not have used the knife in question and/or his participation in the crime as a co-conspirator could not have previously been established beyond any reasonable doubt. If the defendant does not have the means to retain private counsel, a Deputy Public Defender will be appointed.”

–Sam Spital

Suspect accused of killing California doctor was a patient with an appointment (Sam Spital)

COMMENTARY BY SAM SPITAL, Criminal Defense Lawyer, San Diego:

“The Fox.com news reported on January 30, 2013 that a 52 year old Newport Beach Urologist, Dr. Ronald Gilbert, was shot and killed by a 75 year old patient who had a scheduled appointment and brought a handgun with him into the exam room and fired multiple times. The article noted that the murder suspect had not previously seen Dr. Gilbert, but he had suffered from incontinence after a recent surgery although it was not revealed who performed it.

Two neighbors were interviewed and one said the accused claimed: ‘I had surgery and now I am worse than before the surgery.’ Another neighbor said he declared: ‘he wasn’t going to be around much longer.’ These facts and more may be the basis of the prosecution arguing this was a premeditated murder. The defendant can face life in prison or the death penalty.

In 1972, the California Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty. However, the California Constitution was modified through the voter-initiative process passing Proposition 17, thereby reinstating the death penalty. The statute was subsequently modified making the death penalty mandatory for specified crimes including murder one with special circumstances. Only a voter approved ballot measure can alter this statute, and in 2012 when the California voters had the opportunity to do so with Proposition 34, they rejected doing so by 53%.

At the time of the arraignment, the Defendant told the Superior Court he did not have the financial means to hire a private attorney, and the Judge set the matter over so that a Deputy Public Defender would be appointed on his behalf.”

–Sam Spital

SUSPECT IN SLAYING ARRESTED AFTER HUNT (Sam Spital)

Commentary by Criminal Law Attorney SAM SPITAL:“On January 30, 2013, the UT San Diego electronic edition published an article about a Riverside County 22 year old murder suspect who was arrested the previous day by the San Diego Police. He was identified as Matthew Rowley and reportedly in San Diego. After several hours, the alleged shooter was located with the use of a police helicopter and specially trained dogs who aided in the search; he was then taken into custody for the shooting death of 20 year old Corona resident, Daniel Stordahl.

The staff writer did not include any further information regarding the homicide victim, his family and any possible connection with the murder suspect. In addition, there was nothing further reported regarding the shooter to help determine any possible motive for the killing or surrounding facts and circumstances. It is unfortunate that very little is provided for the reader to have a balanced report rather than a story that simply identifies an event as if nothing more is important.

The role of the defense lawyer at the outset will undoubtedly be to investigate all of the facts in order to develop a plan of action and strategy to represent a client who is charged with murder. One or more private investigators will be employed as well as forensic experts. A Deputy Public Defender at County expense is assigned to a case when an individual does not have or cannot afford a private attorney.”

–Sam Spital

Ratings and Reviews