A new law recently signed by Republican Governor Schwarzenegger addresses two emergencies that California faces; the budget crisis, and unconstitutional overcrowding in our state prisons.  This legislation achieves both aims through actions recommended for years by independent analysts and commissions.  The state spends, on average, $47,000 per year to house a prisoner; estimates suggest these changes could save $100 million in this year alone.  Perhaps one of the reasons the prisons are so overcrowded is that defendants failed to get one of the best criminal defense lawyers in Los Angeles.

This legislation, approved by the Democratic-controlled State Legislature by a narrow margin, changes the current focus of many parole officers.  Currently, they spend much of their time monitoring low-level offenders and sending them back to prison for technical violations of their parole.  Instead, parole officers will focus on tracking serious, violent offenders.  To enable this shift, hundreds of low-level offenders, released early under this legislation, not be required to be closely supervised by parole officers.  Prisoners may also be released early if they complete drug and education programs.  Others will have their sentences reduced because new sentencing formulas give more credit for the time each prisoner served in county jails before and after sentencing.   Currently, many parolees end up back in prison after a parole violation, which is why it is so important to get a criminal defense attorney who has experience with California Criminal Law and Parole Hearings.

The state prison population in California has been a major drain on the state’s financial resources, a problem being addressed by the governor.  Currently, almost $8 billion goes to the penal system annually.  That sum constitutes ten percent of yearly spending, resulting in prisons and jails receiving a larger budget than public higher education in California.
 
The prison system would require even greater financing if we continued with business as usual; this is evident when we look inside the state prison fifty miles north of Los Angeles.  There, 4,600 inmates are overflowing in buildings intended for half of that number.  For instance, a gymnasium is filled from wall to wall with triple-bunked beds; the deafening noise and stale air is caused by its residents, nearly 150 prisoners.

The last few weeks in California represent the most substantial effort to reduce prison overcrowding since the 1970s.  This proposal would reduce overcrowding and cut costs by removing criminals from prison who do not threaten society.  These prisoners would then be categorized as either little or no risk outside the prison walls, or as still requiring regular supervision.  A good criminal defense attorney would help their client try to seize this opportunity to get receive a favorable sentence.

The governor’s goal, through this legislation, is to reduce the current population of 167,000 prisoners next year by over 6,000.  Although this would be a small percentage of the total number of prisoners, such a reduction would outstrip the prison population of many states last year, including Utah, Nebraska, and New Mexico.
 
However, the legislation is not without controversy; the release of prisoners in California has stirred a backlash.  Some continue to advocate a “tough on crime” approach, asking that long sentences be served in full.  Others complain because of early problems caused by the release of particular prisoners. Other states have equivocated in their decisions to save costs by releasing inmates early and expanding parole, due to public safety concerns.

Even so, the prison overcrowding problem in California is the worst in the country, and the ever increasing $20 billion budget deficit has left lawmakers with no alternative but to enact fiscally rational measures.  The reality of shouldering the ever greater costs of our current penal system, combined with the additional costs that would come from housing prisoners while meeting the court-ordered reduction in overcrowding has squelched support for traditional but ultimately unsustainable solutions like building more prisons.

At county jails, hundreds of inmates were released in recent months because of confusion regarding the correct method of calculating credit for time served under the new legislation.  Attorney General Jerry Brown attempted to clarify the law through a public directive, but not before one prisoner was arrested and charged with attempted rape in Sacramento shortly after his release. In that case, the defendant had served jail time on an assault charge, and was released on probation.  Several lawmakers reacted to that case by clamoring for the end of early release. Crime victim and law enforcement groups have warned about the dangers of failing to closely track low-level offenders.  “We are concerned about victims these felons will leave in their wake before being rearrested for committing new crimes,” said Paul M. Weber, the president of the Los Angeles police union.
 
Proponents, such as corrections secretary Matthew Cate, have stood by the law, arguing that this legislation is not only necessary, it is overdue.  Make sure you have an attorney that will utilize this new legislation to receive the most favorable sentence you can by contacting a criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles at The Elden Law Group.

Call 1-800-455-6200 For A Free Consultation

Rodney Alcala faces the death penalty for the third time in the killing of an O.C. girl. This time, he is also accused of killing four L.A. County women.

Rodney Alcala is acting as his own attorney as he is tried in the deaths of an Orange County girl and four Los Angeles County women.  Death penalty cases are universally considered the most difficult in all of criminal defense; this is akin to performing surgery on yourself.  He should get a criminal defense attorney.

Rodney Alcala sat before an Orange County jury Tuesday and took the panel through a long-ago murder case, trying his utmost to sound like a polished defense attorney.

But he’s hardly that. The shaggy-haired man has been locked up for 30 years, and he’s back in court facing the death penalty for the third time in the killing of 12-year-old Robin Samsoe of Huntington Beach.

Now, though, Alcala is charged not only in Samsoe’s death but also in the rape and murder of four Los Angeles County women. Starting in 2001, while Alcala’s second conviction was going through the appeals process, Los Angeles County investigators discovered DNA evidence they say links Alcala to women who were killed in the late 1970s.  Cases involving DNA require a defense attorney that has successfully worked with DNA experts.

Despite the serious charges, Alcala has chosen to serve as his own attorney, a decision Superior Court Judge Francisco Briseno thought unwise and opposed. On Tuesday, Alcala gave his opening statement — three weeks after the trial began — in front of a packed courtroom of victims’ families, reporters and other observers.

He began by recounting the time that had passed since Samsoe was murdered, “about 10,820 days, five hours and 15 minutes ago.”

“About 33 days and 16 hours later, I was arrested,” he said. “I have been incarcerated ever since.”

His performance in the trial might be classified as erratic, ranging from seemingly intimidated to absurd to, at times, knowledgeable.

The former UCLA student is quiet yet eloquent. He has developed a rapport with Briseno, who at times guides him through the legal process, and with Matt Murphy, Orange County senior deputy district attorney, whom Alcala often asks to help with exhibits.

In the early parts of the trial, while prosecutors attempted to tie Alcala to the slayings of the four Los Angeles County women, the defendant was almost absent. He asked few questions and made few objections. He waited until the prosecutor had finished interviewing one witness and then broke in quietly with a handful of objections to the testimony, unaware that it was late.

His demeanor changed when prosecutors began presenting the Samsoe case.  Alcala was arrested in 1979, not long after Samsoe was kidnapped and murdered. He has been tried and convicted twice but both convictions were reversed on appeal.

In his opening statement, Alcala made it clear he is single-mindedly concerned with defending himself against the charges in the Samsoe case.  Observers may note that his previous criminal defense attorney investigated and defended that allegation.

He began with a document from his laptop projected on a screen in front of the jury: “The 6 Minute 15 Second Window of Opportunity.”  He argued that there was only a short “window” when the ballet student could have been kidnapped as she rode her bike to dance class from a friend’s apartment, and that he would prove he was at Knott’s Berry Farm then.

It is rare for a death penalty defendant to forgo the right to an attorney. Risks and challenges for both sides are great, experts say.  After all, it is difficult to complain about the quality of your representation if you choose to represent yourself.  Poor representation by an attorney is the most common reason cases are reversed; that is why it is so important to find a skilled criminal defense attorney.  In addition, it is difficult to take questions from the person that witnesses feel is responsible for murder.

One of the most unusual aspects of the trial has been Alcala’s cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. At times, the exchanges have been heated, none more so than when Alcala cross-examined Samsoe’s mother, Marianne Connelly.  He repeatedly questioned her about a pair of earrings. Gold ball earrings prosecutors say belong to Connelly were found in Alcala’s locker and are evidence in the case.

If you need the best criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles, call The Elden Law Group today.

Call 1-800-455-6200 for A Free Consultation