A minor is defined as a person being less than 18 years of age.

Sexually explicit conduct is defined in child pornography as actual or simulated:
“(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person”

In California, it is the state’s laws addressing obscenity which also cover the sensitive issue of child pornography. It is a felony under the California Penal Code 311 to distribute or exhibit any material depicting a minor personally engaging or personally stimulating sexually explicit conduct. Apart from what has been defined above as sexually explicit conduct, the California penal code’s definition also includes a) Penetration of the vagina or rectum by any object; and b) Defecation or urination for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer.

In the United States, federal law does not out rightly ban obscenity. This instead is left to state laws. In the state of California, child pornography as covered by obscenity laws is prohibited when coupled with California’s “harmful to minors” statute that id California Penal Code 313(a). Matter which is thus rated harmful would be matter which when taken as a whole by an average person is capable of being patently offensive or appealing to the prurient interest upon application of contemporary statewide standards. It would also be matter which lacks any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. 

The production, possession, distribution or sale of child pornographic materials is a crime. Despite controversies that such blanket bans are violative of First Amendment freedoms, the law in California has been enacted with the aim of destroying the child pornography market by simultaneously targeting consumers, producers, marketers and distributors. So strict is the law that even a simple act of forwarding an email containing child pornographic material could amount to distribution prohibited under the law.

Even possessing child pornographic material privately is a felony and persons charged with such possession could spend up to three years in jail. In case of a prior conviction imprisonment could be upto 6 years. This could be in addition to fines up to 2500 USD and registration with the California Sex Offender Registry as a sex offender which is a mandatory registration for life.
 
Though the law against Child pornography correctly necessitates strictness, often people become victims of such strictness due to an innocent download or even for images contained in the cache of their computer which they might not even be aware of. Often persons might access child pornographic material inadvertently or become an unwilling participant in peer to peer networks on the internet where it is difficult to control the information and data being shared.

Due to the stringency of the laws in California, it is very important that a person accused of crimes of child pornography seek advise from a knowledgeable child pornography criminal defense attorney well versed in state and federal laws on the subject, particularly Californian law as such charges require an adept and aggressive defense. Any failure could result in an unwitting stigma for life.

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

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 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

A world famous musician and dancer, Michael Jackson’s songs and videos, including Thriller, have never been more popular.  With so many fans attending Michael Jackson’s public viewing and mourning his death, it is no wonder the district attorney’s office in Los Angeles faces pressure to charge this man if he is responsible.

“First of all, prosecutors have the public on their side.”  Said Darden, prosecutor for the O.J. Simpson case in 1994.  “Many people in Los Angeles are upset with what Dr. Murray did.”  Any good criminal defense attorney is also all too familiar with the powerful role that public opinion can play in court battles.

Darden thinks the prosecution’s case will hinge on the allegations regarding Propofol, a sedative typically used in hospitals rather than in residential settings. It was this drug that was responsible for Michael Jackson’s death; the prosecution will claim it was administered by Murray in a way that was criminally negligent.

Expect prosecutors to line up expert anesthesiologists to support their case.  But he says that a guilty verdict is no easy win here.  The Defense, on the other hand, will use jury selection to find jurors who are not emotionally involved in this case.  One of the best criminal defense attorneys in Los Angeles would suggest to jurists that what happened was wrong, but that it did not rise to the level of a criminal act.

Murray has become the primary focus of the investigation into the death of Michael Jackson on June 25, 2009.  Investigators appear to believe Murray may have injected Jackson with propofol, a hospital-grade anesthetic at approximately midnight.  It is alleged that Murray then left Jackson him unattended.  A search of Jackson’s home also revealed several prescription drugs.

DEA agents and local police searched Murray’s home. According to Murray’s attorney Ed Chertoff, the doctor was home at the time, and was cooperative with investigators in their search.  It is unknown who will take charge of Michael Jackson’s chimp, bubbles.

According to police reports, Murray stated that he found the fifty year old singer in Jackson’s Los Angeles home.  Murray administered CPR,  and requested that an employee of Jackson call 911. In October 2009, the coroner’s office determined that Jackson received an overdose of propofol, as well as benzodiazepine, a powerful sedative.  Both were thought to contribute to Jackson’s death.   A later toxicology screen indicated that several drugs were in Jackson’s body at the time of death.

Murray, whose office in Houston was searched by authorities last week, is already named in court papers as the subject of manslaughter charges related to this case.

Accused of a crime?  The Elden Law Group will help.

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

 In November, voters will consider the very issue on a ballot measure that would legalize the distribution, possession, and cultivation of marijuana, while regulating and taxing that industry.  Advocates argue that taxing such businesses would raise $1.4 billion annually in tax dollars that could be used to bolster law enforcement and prison budgets that are already strained.

In 1972, a similar effort at legalizing marijuana failed to gain public support.  However, that campaign tried to justify legalization by offering evidence that marijuana was harmless and did not require regulation. 

Today, the campaign offers a different justification: money.    California has been hit hard by the recession, and the state’s budget shortfall has led to cuts in every state agency across the board.  By taxing the sales of marijuana that already take place illegally in an unregulated black market, the people of California as a whole stand to benefit. The law would permit licensed retail markets to sell up to one ounce to a customer. Those sales would be a new and welcome source of sales tax revenue for California.

And the measure enjoys a newfound high in support, with a 2009 Field Poll showing 53 percent of Californians support marijuana legalization.  Dan Newman, a San Francisco-based strategist in support of the measure, said he expects support for the bill to be bipartisan and widespread because Californians are worried about the economy.  “Voters’ No. 1 concern right now is the budget and the economy,” “makeing them look particularly favorably at something that will bring in more than $1 billion a year.”

The language in the law has an “opt out” clause that some cities and local governments might adopt.  Even some advocates, such as the director of the Drug Policy Alliance, imagines a modest implementation of the measure, with most local jurisdictions choosing not to legalize sales.  Yet, such opt-out provisions could reduce the fears that some may have about legalizing behavior they don’t personally condone.  Supporters believe this provision might even result in greater support from non-pot smokers who are yet undecided.  Opponents, such as Frank Schubert agree, stating that “There’s going to be a large sector of the electorate that would never do this themselves that’s going to sort out what the harm would be versus what the supposed good would be; that’s where the election is going to be won.”

In addition, between $10 and $20 million is expected to be raised in support of the proposition.  The primarily source of fundraising is expected to be small donations through the internet.  National groups are already planning to suggest that individuals donate $4.20 each, a nod to the slang name for the drug, “420.”

The state race for governor does not appear to ride on the debate, with all major candidates, including former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman,  insurance commissioner Steve Poizner, and  Jerry Brown all opposing the measure, although for different reasons.

On a national level, although the Obama administration has already indicated it will continue to honor laws in 14 states making the use of medical marijuana legal, it has not said the same about this proposition, which appears to conflict with federal law.   In that case, even if the law passes through a popular vote in California, a user or retailer might find themselves charged with a violation of federal law.  In that case, you would need a federal criminal defense attorney with experience fighting drug-related charges, like the attorneys at Elden Law Group.

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

Some organizations might sue the city, and another might collect signatures for a referendum. The city attorney says state law does permit collectives to sell marijuana for a profit.  He has a lawsuit against a dispensary in Eagle Rock, hoping to get courts to decide the issue.  The L.A. County D.A. is also prosecuting dispensaries.  The number of people needing a criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles appears to be increasing as well.

The ordinance, aimed at blotting out the image of Los Angeles as the weed Capital of the West, allows city officials to shut down dispensaries by the hundreds.  It also imposes restrictions on where dispensaries can be located.  These limits could eliminate most sites outside of isolated industrial parks. “It’s a disaster for patients,” said the director of the Union of Medical Marijuana Patients James Shaw.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa reportedly plans to sign the ordinance, as it reduces the number of dispensaries while keeping them 1,000 feet from schools and churches.  “This legislation isn’t perfect, but the mayor feels it is a step in the right direction, and it’s time to focus our attention on other pressing issues,” said spokeswoman Sarah Hamilton.

The 9-3 vote was the second on the ordinance.  Both times Bernard C. Parks, Jan Perry and Bill Rosendahl voted against it.   After the vote, council members said they were relieved that an ordinance would take effect soon.  Councilman Ed Reyes led the effort to draft the ordinance.  He admitted it may require changes.

The law will take effect once the City Council approves the fees that dispensaries pay for registration.   That process could take more than a month.

Although the ordinance allows only a total of 70 dispensaries to operate, there are exceptions.  For instance, it makes an exception for dispensaries that registered by 2007, that stay at their original locations, or that moved just once if their landlords were facing federal prosecution. City officials thought there are approximately 150 dispensaries that could meet these exceptions.

Other restrictions attempt to end the late-night pot scene that LA has developed: dispensaries must close by 8 p.m., marijuana use at the stores is banned, and patients may belong to and receive marijuana from only one collective, and dispensaries must not make a profit.  These changes make it essential that collectives, as well as patients, know and understand the law to avoid potential criminal charges. 

Hundreds of dispensaries have opened in L.A., and City officials believe up to 500 will be forced to close.

Once the ordinance comes into effect, the city attorney’s office plans to send letters to landlords and operators.  That process, according to Special Assistant City Atty. Jane Usher could take up to 45 days. That office expects a third to close, leaving the city to take those remaining to court.

Many of the allowed dispensaries have to move within six months in order to comply with the land-use restrictions. However, because the ordinance appears to give operators just weeks to tell the city where they are moving, some are panicked.

The ordinance requires that dispensaries are more than 1,000 feet from other dispensaries and schools, parks and libraries, and churches. Also, dispensaries must not be adjacent to or across a street or alley from residential properties. This requirement eliminates most commercial streets, such as Melrose, Pico, Ventura, or Lankershim, where alleys commonly separate stores from homes. 

The number of arrests for marijuana possession and cultivation is sure to go up.  If you think you may need a criminal law lawyer, call the Elden Law Group for a free consultation.

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