Armando Jacinto was accused in May of attacking a man with a knife in a restaurant. The victim identified Jacinto and prosecutors then charged the Sonoma County man.
However, Jacinto's criminal defense attorneys located a witness who said Jacinto had not committed the stabbing. Instead, the witness said, it was a woman who was with Jacinto at the restaurant who stabbed the victim.
]]> The witness was located in the Sonoma County Jail on an unrelated charge. After his release, he was turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities, who deported the undocumented immigrant to Mexico.Jacinto claimed that his constitutional rights to due process and to compel testimony of witnesses were violated by the deportation of the only witness able to testify in his defense. As the court noted in its decision, "The right of an accused to compel witnesses to come into court and give evidence in the accused's defense is a fundamental one."
The state Supreme Court rejected the argument that the deportation violated the defendant's rights, saying that prosecutors had nothing to do the expulsion of the witness.
The court upheld a lower a state appeals court ruling, stating that Jacinto had to prove that misconduct by the prosecutors led to the deportation. Instead, the court found that sheriff's employees acted on their own by turning the witness over to ICE.
The seven-justice panel also pointed out that Jacinto could have secured the witness's testimony by taking a deposition or by contacting the Sonoma County Sheriff or ICE to have the witness detained.
Jacinto's defense lawyer said that because of this decision by the California Supreme Court ruling, an innocent man may be convicted of attempted murder.
]]>Hughes, a relatively obscure candidate with apparent republican leanings, has made a splash with his proposal to exile convicted child molesters to an island 26 miles off the coast of Santa Barbara. The goal, Hughes says, would be to create an isolated and self-sufficient society made up entirely of pedophiles.
]]> As Hughes explains on his campaign website, the first prisoners released to the island would be in charge of laying the framework for the community by establishing a police force, organizing construction efforts and drafting their own constitution. He says they would also be required to establish and use their own currency, a measure intended to financially handicap residents who may be tempted to make a break for the mainland.Under Hughes' proposed plan, sex offenders who did not wish to join the island society would be given the option of remaining in prison for life or leaving California forever.
Santa Rosa Island, the site of the proposed exile colony, is about four times the size of Manhattan, is mostly uninhabited and was used primarily for cattle ranching until recent years. In the 1980s, the island was added to the national parks system and is now open for camping, hiking and other recreational activities. Hughes argues on his campaign website that the island in its current state is a waste of taxpayer money, since, he reasons, it is visited mostly by park rangers or environmentalists.
Public reaction to the plan has been mixed, ranging from enthusiasm, to outrage, to disbelief. While the proposal seems downright laughable to some, others take it as a sign that California's sex offender laws are threatening to spin out of control.
Recent California legislation has made it more difficult for sex offenders to find housing after they serve their time, and has threatened to restrict their internet access while on parole or probation. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled recently that certain sex offenders may be detained by the government even after completing the terms of their prison sentences.
Critics question the effectiveness of these laws at preventing future crimes, and argue that "cracking down" on sex offenders has become an easy way for politicians to score votes by appealing to knee-jerk emotion rather than reason.
]]>The San Diego Board of Supervisors recently passed a restrictive new ordinance to regulate marijuana dispensaries. The board has traditionally been hostile to the law legalizing medical marijuana, even filing suit in an attempt to overturn Proposition 215 in 2006.
]]> New OrdinanceThe new ordinance would restrict the location of where marijuana dispensaries could operate and impose steep licensing fees (up to $20,000).
The final regulation dictates that dispensaries can now only be located in industrial zones, being a minimum of 1,000 feet from homes, schools, churches and parks. This is an increase from the proposed 600 foot buffer from parks, churches and schools, and the 500 foot buffer from homes.
Because of the 1,000 foot buffer distances, there are only about 15 locations that would meet the requirements. According to Kate Valentine of Americans for Safe Access, all of the 15 locations are "either undeveloped land, cement factories, mining operations, even land that's zoned for treatment of radioactive materials." Additionally, noted Ms. Valentine, there are currently "no buildings on the sites," adding the costs of building structures to the already steep licensing fee. This will effectively force patients to drive long distances to neighboring counties and cities with less onerous zoning restrictions to fill their prescriptions.
Also included in the new regulations are requirements for maintaining records of transactions and the prohibition of the sale of foods or beverages that contain marijuana.
The new ordinance was a reaction to a recent uptick in community complaints against dispensaries. Those in favor of stricter regulation claim that the dispensaries can become storefronts for the illegal distribution of marijuana, attract crime and expose children to drugs.
However, the fact remains that Proposition 215 is the law in California and there are legitimate uses of medical marijuana, including relieving pain and alleviating nausea among patients of chemotherapy.
A balance must be struck between the legitimate concerns of the community and the legitimate medical needs of patients throughout San Diego.
For questions about San Diego's new ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries consult with an experienced attorney.
]]>Each state and most tribes and territories across America have sex offender registries. In addition, various states and localities have enacted residency restriction laws that preclude sex offenders from living in close proximity to schools, day care centers, parks, beaches and even bus stops. These measures, geared toward limiting predators' access to victims, make many parents feel safer but may be based more on fear than on facts about sexual offenders and their victims. In reality, the rates of sexual assaults are decreasing.
]]> The general public believes that sex offenders will re-offend, that sexual assaults are perpetrated by strangers and that sex offenders cannot be effectively treated; however, studies reveal that only 5.3 percent of convicted sex offenders are repeat offenders within three years. Recent reports indicate that effective treatment reduces re-offense rates by nearly 40 percent. Also, evidence shows that the majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by offenders known to the victim--not by strangers.There are also unforeseen consequences to sex offender regulations. For sex offenders and their families, the exclusion zones often force them to live in high-crime areas or to be homeless. The restrictions can also drive offenders from urban areas to rural areas with limited resources for housing, mental health services and treatment, or employment. Further analysis by some states reveals that sex offender laws do not reduce offenses or the number of victims. These studies show that the cost of sex offender monitoring and registration is a growing tax burden due to elaborate registries, sex offender treatment programs, GPS monitoring and supervision services.
While good intentions abound, the current sex offender laws have led to many unforeseen consequences for offenders, their families and the general public. As states continue to review their sex crime laws, voters and legislators should keep in mind that the safety of children and the rehabilitation of sexual predators are not competing interests, but societal necessities.
]]>This Blog page is intended to serve as a forum for discussing case law and relevant court decisions in the legal areas of violent crimes, sex crimes, theft and other criminal charges. Periodically, we will update our Blog information and topics, so please return here often to see our most current post and comments.
Additionally, our firm has long emphasized personalized attention and responsiveness to our clients' concerns. We take your input seriously and we pay attention to your comments. We therefore invite your feedback about this and future Blog posts. Thank you for visiting. If you have questions, call 619-234-2300 or contact us by e-mail to discuss your specific legal issue.
]]>