Saturday, June 13, 2015

Entrapment as a defense to crime in California 909.913.3138 Free Consultations

California Entrapment Law & Defense
To entrap another person means to induce another person to commit a crime that they would not ordinarily be inclined to commit.
Entrapment by police is a defense to many California crimes. If the defendant is found to have been entrapped by the police a criminal defense attorney may have his or her client acquitted of the criminal charges. 
Entrapment occurs when law enforcement overreaches in their efforts to catch criminals. For example, if law enforcement places scantily clad undercover officers posing as prostitutes on a street corner  and the prostitutes (undercover officers) flag down an unsuspecting passerby for the purpose of catching defendants who are lured in to propositioning the undercover officers this could amount to entrapment if the unsuspecting passerby is not ordinarily predisposed to picking up prostitutes.
For entrapment defense to work the defendant must not be predisposed to commit the alleged criminal act. For example, even if law enforcement set up a prostitution sting operation as described above, the defendant may not use the defense of entrapment if the defendant has a criminal history for picking up prostitutes because the defendant will be found to be predisposed to picking up prostitutes and it would not have mattered if the police overreached in the efforts to catch criminals.
Procedurally, the way entrapment defense works is that the defendant admits that he or she committed the underlying crime. Thereafter, the defense puts on evidence that the police over-reached in their efforts to catch criminals to the point that the police actually caused or encouraged the crime itself. If the defendant successfully proves that the police entrapped the defendant then the district attorney may rebut the entrapment evidence by demonstrating that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime.
The defendant has the burden of proving entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the defendant must show more likely than not that he or she was entrapped. Ordinarily, the defendant has the right to remain silent through every stage of a criminal case, including trial; but, if the defendant claims that he or she is entrapped he or she must put on at least some evidence of the facts that lead to his or her entrapment.
The most common crimes where the defense of entrapment is used include drug crimes, prostitution crimes, conspiracy crimes, traffic offenses, and illegal gaming and gambling. The defense of entrapment may apply to infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies in California.
As stated, if the defendant is found to have been entrapped by the police he or she is entitled to an acquittal of the criminal charges.
If you have been charged with any traffic infraction, misdemeanor, or felony in California and you believe that you may have been entrapped by the police, call criminal defense attorney Christopher Dorado today.
Attorney Dorado represents defendants who are charged with any criminal offense in California, including major complex felonies, and consultations are provided to clients by one of our experienced criminal defense attorneys at no cost to the accused or his or her family.
Attorney Dorado dedicates one hundred percent of his law practice to criminal defense law and procedure and our criminal defense attorneys are available twenty-four hours a day-seven days a week to answers all of your criminal defense questions.
Attorney Dorado or one of our experienced criminal defense attorney will patiently review your case and describe for you your rights and defense options. Call today!

Assault with a deadly weapon PC 245 Law & Criminal Defense

California Assault with a Deadly Weapon Law & Defense
Information on the crime of assault with a deadly weapon is found at California Penal Code Section 245. To prove that the defendant is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon the prosecutor must prove that the defendant:
1) did an act that by its nature would directly & probably result in the use of force, and
2) used force that was likely to produce injury to another person, and
3) did the act willfully,
It does not matter if the defendant actually succeeded in applying force to another person. The act of trying to apply unlawful force to another person is sufficient for assault with a deadly weapon charges. For example, if a defendant attempts to shoot another person, but the bullet misses the other person, the defendant may be charged with assault with a deadly weapon even though the other person was never it by the bullet.
Assault with deadly weapon, or Penal Code 245, can be charged as a misdemeanor or as a felony. When assault with a deadly weapon is charged as a misdemeanor the defendant could face up to a year in jail. If assault with a deadly weapon is charged as a felony the defendant could face up to four years in prison. In some cases of assault it might be possible to reduce the sentence or reduce the charge.

In addition to any jail sentence, criminal convictions in general can lead to other severe consequences such as: Immigration issues (non-U.S. citizens), probation, fines, lawsuits, employment loss, CPS consequences, mandatory anger management, and more.
Defenses to assault with a deadly weapon charges under PC 245 include insufficient evidence, insanity, self defense, statute of limitations (three years for felony PC 245 charges and one year for misdemeanor PC 245 charges) and more. 
Assault with a deadly charged as a felony under PC 245 is considered a strike under California's Three Strikes Law.
If you have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code 245, contact criminal defense aattorney Christopher Dorado today to learn your rights and defense options without delay. Call today!
Closely related crimes to Assault Penal Code 245(a)(1)
Assault penal code 240
Assault with a firearm penal code 245(a)(2)

Saturday, June 6, 2015

PC 647.6 Criminal Defense in California Criminal Defense Attorney

Penal Code 647.6(a) Law & Defense
The law on the crime of annoying or molesting a child is found at California penal code 647.6(a). In order for the District Attorney to find the defendant guilty of PC 647.6(a) the District Attorney must prove that:
1) the defendant was motivated by unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children (under the age of 18),
2) when the defendant was motivated by unnatural or abnormal behavior he or she annoyed a child in a sexual manner.
Annoying or Molesting a child can be accomplished with sexual language or behavior that is directed toward the child while the defendant is simultaneously sexually motivated or aroused by a child.
PC647.6(a) is considered a misdemeanor in California. If found guilty of PC 647.6(a) the defendant may face up to one year in jail.
For defendant who have been previously found guilty of a violation of PC 647.6(a), or has been convicted as a sexual offender pursuant to California penal code 290, the defendant may face up to four year in prison.
In addition, if the defendant is found guilty of PC 647.6(a), he or she must register as a sex offender pursuant to California sex offender registration laws (see Sex Offender Registration for more information).
Finally, criminal convictions in general, including any conviction for annoying or molesting a child under PC 647.6(a) may lead to fines, probation, restitution, employment loss, U.S. citizenship denial, mandatory classes, and more.
Common defenses to a charge of annoying or molesting a child charged as PC 647.6(a), include: insufficient evidence to prove sexual motivation, reasonable mistake of age, mistake of recipient who receives sexual communication, insanity, intoxication, and more.
In some cases of annoying or molesting a child charged as PC 647.6(a), it may be possible to reduce the charge or even the sentence associated with the charge. In some cases, a criminal defense attorney may handle your case without the need for the defendant to attend criminal court.
For more information on the California crime of annoying or molesting a child charged as penal code 647.6(a), contact criminal defense attorney Christopher Dorado today.
Attorney Dorado has successfully defended hundreds of sex crimes including charges of annoying or molesting a child charged under PC 647.6(a). Attorney Dorado's practice is 100% dedicated to criminal defense; he is an experienced criminal defense trial attorney with a proven track record of success and consultation are provided at no cost to the accused.
Closely associated crimes to PC 647.6(a), include:
PC 647.6(b) Child Molesting;   PC 647.6(c)(1) Child Molesting w/Prior;    PC 647.6(c)(2) Child Molesting w/prior felony conviction of Child Molesting to a child under 16. 

Monday, June 1, 2015

Is it legal to secretly record another person's voice PC 632

Unauthorized Audio Recording & Wiretapping
California PC 631 & PC 632
In California it is illegal to wiretap the communications of persons without the other person's permission and without court order to do so (Court order or warrant signed by a judge). It is also illegal to record another person's audio communication without the other person's permission.
There is a difference between wiretapping law, which is found at PC 631, and unauthorized recordings, which is found at PC 632. However, often times both crimes are charged together because the facts surrounding an illegal wiretap uses evidence that was recorded.
When the illegal wiretap does not use recording equipment (just eavesdropping on a communication), then only a wiretap crime has been committed.
The Crime of Wiretapping
The law on illegal wiretapping is found at PC 631. Wiretapping means to use a device, commonly called a "bug" or "spy ware" to listen in on another person's conversation, or "eavesdrop" on that communication.
The communication does not necessarily have to be recorded for the crime of wiretapping to be complete but often times the same equipment used to eavesdrop is also part of a recording system.
Both law enforcement and private citizens have the ability to wiretap due to the sophistication of modern technology that is available to private citizens and to law enforcement agencies.
Wiretaps that are installed on electronic equipment are usually placed on cell phones, telephones, and computers. Wiretaps can be both stationary, such as a bug placed in a flower at an office, or mobile, such as a bug sewn into a woman's purse or on a cell phone.
Sometimes a wiretap is designed to just listen in on conversation. Wiretapping is never legal for private citizens.
When wiretapping is used by police to just listen in on a conversation it is because the police believe that the conversation will lead to evidence of a crime that has been committed or is about to be committed. In other words, the police are listening to a conversation in order to produce probable cause to charge a crime. 
However, in order for the police to obtain a legal wiretap the police must obtain a warrant (See PC 631). The warrant must specifically describes for the judge when and where a particular conversation is suppose to take place, and why that conversation will lead to probable cause that a crime is about to be committed or has already been committed.
In other words, law enforcement can not just listen in on conversations hoping to get information about a crime. In addition, police can not get a warrant from a judge for a legal wiretap without informing the judge exactly what law enforcement is seeking to hear and why law enforcement believes that the conversation will take place at a particular time. 
Any evidence obtained as result of an illegal wiretap (a wiretap without a warrant) is subject to being thrown out in court (made inadmissible) through a suppression of evidence hearing.
In addition, both law enforcement and private citizens can face jail or prison time for the illegal wiretap. Finally, both law enforcement and private citizens may be sued in civil court for money damages for illegal wiretaps.
If found guilty of felony wiretapping the defendant could face up to three years in prison. If found guilty of misdemeanorwiretapping, the defendant could face up to a year in county jail.
Whether or not the district attorney charges felony or misdemeanor illegal wiretap criminal charges against a defendant depends on the facts of each case and the defendant's criminal history.
Illegal or Unauthorized Audio Recordings:
Recording the audio communications or conversations of another person without a court order or the other person's permission is illegal in California. Audio communication means recording another person's voice without the other person's permission or knowledge. However, if the recording is not directed at a particular person there is no violation of PC 632 (think of recording an open and public event with people talking in the background without the people in the background giving permission to record their voice)
The law on unauthorized audio recordings is found at California Penal Code 632.
As stated PC 632 makes it illegal for a person to record another person's audio communication or conversation. However, law enforcement may record the communications between two people without a warrant if the police officers reasonably believe that the communication will lead to probable cause to believe that a crime is about to be committed or that a particular crime has been committed and if they have the permission of at least one party to the recorded conversation.
The most commonly recorded conversation by law enforcement is between defendants and victims of crime. In the most common scenario, the alleged victim of a crime is contacted by police and asked to perform a "pretext" phone call. The term "pretext" simply meaning that the text of the conversation is predetermined.
In pretext phone calls the police attempt to get the defendant to confess to the victim about a crime that is alleged to have occured.
Private Citizens Recording Other Private Citizens Without Permission:
When private citizens record the communications between themselves and other persons (usually to gather evidence against the other person) it is illegal unless the other person gives permission for the recording or there is a court order that allows the private citizen to record the conversations (See PC 632).
All evidence obtained illegally may not used in either civil or criminal court (with a narrow exception discussed below).
Court orders that allow private citizens to record the conversations between the private citizen and another person are easily obtained during civil harassment cases or domestic violence cases where it is alleged that the defendant, Petitioner, or Respondent, is harassing, or likely to harass, the alleged victim by telephone or cell phone. 
Also, if a person reasonably should know that he or she is being recorded than they do not need to be expressly told of that fact. For example, if a person places a recorder in front of another person and says "I want to record this conversation" then the fact that the other person does not object is equal to the other person's "implied consent" to have his or her voice recorded.
There is also implied consent to record another person's voice when the other person leaves a voice mail or recording on another person's recorded messages.
Finally, there are some limited exceptions in PC 632 that allow for the use of otherwise illegal audio recordings. The first two are discussed above: Permission to record and Court Order; but the third exception is very limited. The exception is found at California Penal Code 633.
PC 633 states that if the unauthorized audio recording concerns a conversation concerning the immediate commission of a very serious or violent crime then the audio recording may be admissible in court.
For example, if two people are discussing a plan to murder a police officer in the near future and one person secretly records the conversation then that recording will be admissible despite the fact that the person recording the conversation did not have permission from the other person to record his or her voice (See PC 633).
If found guilty of a violation of PC 632, illegal or unauthorized recording of another person's audio communication or conversations, the defendant will charged with a misdemeanor and may face up to 180 days in the county jail for each violation. In addition, as stated, the illegal evidence that was recorded can not be used in civil or criminal case (except in a prosecution for PC 631 or PC 632).
If you or a loved one has been charged with a violation of California PC 631, wiretapping or eavesdropping, or PC 632, illegal or unauthorized audio recording of another person's voice, contact criminal defense attorney Christopher Dorado for a free consultation.
Or, if you have been charged with a crime and the evidence that is being used against you includes evidence gathered from a wiretap or recorded phone conversation without permission or court order in violation of PC 631 or 632, contact criminal defense attorney Christopher.
Criminal defense attorney Dorado dedicates 100% of his law practice to criminal defense and initial consultations are provided at no cost to the accused.
Attorney Dorado has a successful and proven track record of success in dismissal of criminal charges, successful negotiated deals, and criminal trial victories.
Attorney Dorado will patiently explain to you the law of PC 631 & 632, wiretapping and illegal or unauthorized audio recordings. In addition he will describe for you the possible defenses against a PC 631 or PC 632 criminal charge.
Our office is conveniently located in the heart of the Inland Empire, and attorney Dorado represents defendants charged with PC 631 or PC 632 in cities of Yucaipa, Redlands, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Riverside, Victorville, Banning, and all surrounding cities.
Call today! 909.913.3138

California Manslaughter Law Explained by Criminal Defense Attorney

California Voluntary Manslaughter Law & Defense
California Involuntary Manslaughter Law & Defense
California Vehicular Manslaughter Law & Defense

California Penal Code sections 191 & 192
California Voluntary Manslaughter Law & Defense
The law on the crime of Voluntary Manslaughter (usually simplified to "Manslaughter" without the word "Voluntary") is found at California Penal Code section 192(a).
The definition of voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing that would otherwise be considered murder but is reduced due to some mitigating factor. The mitigating factors in California include imperfect self-defense, heat of passion, and diminished capacity.
As stated, voluntary manslaughter means that the defendantintended to kill another person. When a defendant intentionally kills another person without legal justification, such as self-defense, the defendant is charged with murder; however, where the defendant killed another person but did so during one of the four mitigating factors listed above, the defendant may have his or her murder charged reduced to the charged of involuntary manslaughter.
If found guilty of voluntary manslaughter the defendant could face up to eleven years in prison. Voluntary manslaughter is considered a strike in California under California's Three Strike Law. 
Imperfect self-defense:
Imperfect self-defense is a term that basically means thatwhile the defendant killed another person he or she truly believed that he or she needed to act in self defense, but in fact, it would be unreasonable to believe, under the circumstances at the time of the killing, that the defendant needed to act in self-defense.
To have the defendant's murder charge reduced to manslaughter with an imperfect self-defense claim the defendant would have to truly believe that he or she needed to kill another person to stop the other person from killing the defendant. This is known as the subjective belief. If the average person believed that the defendant would have needed to kill the victim in order to save his own life (the life of the defendant) then this would simply be a self-defense case. But imperfect in imperfect self-defense means that the average person would not have believed that that he or she (the average person) would have needed to kill the victim in order to save their life. This is known as the objective belief. Of course, if the defendant did not have the subjective belief that he or she needed to kill another person to save the defendant's life then this is simply charged as murder without any mitigating factor that would reduce the murder charged to voluntary manslaughter. 
Note: Threat of future harm is never sufficient to reduce a murder charge to a voluntary manslaughter charge by way of imperfect self-defense. For example, if the defendant learns that the victim was planning to kill the defendant's wife in the future it would not be a defense to murder charges, or manslaughter charges, to defend on the grounds that the victim was going to kill the defendant's wife sometime in the future. There must be a danger of imminent death or great bodily injury for imperfect self-defense to apply.
Heat of Passion Defense:
Another mitigating factor that may reduce murder charges to voluntary manslaughter charges is known as the heat of passion defense. Basically, an intentional killing that occurs during the defendant's heat of passion will likely be filed as murder but then reduced to voluntary manslaughter.
Heat of passion occurs where the defendant intentionally kills another person because the victim did something that drove the defendant to kill the victim during an uncontrolled rage or passion. For example, if the defendant comes home to find his wife in bed with another man and the defendant immediately kills the wife or the other man, then the defendant may be found to have killed during the heat of passion, and thereby have his murder charges reduced to manslaughter.
Heat of passion defense requires that the defendant subjectively and objectively rose to the level of anger during a heat of passion event. This means that the defendant must have actually been so enraged that he could almost not control himself during the killing. In addition, the event that lead to the killing must have enraged that average person to point of almost not being able to controll themselves during the killing.
Heat of passion defense only works if the killing is immediately after discovery of the event that lead to the killing of another person. In other words, if the defendant has sufficient time to cool off from the discovery of the event that gave the defendant the heat of passion then the defense does not work. Also, the defendant must have killed the person that was the subject of the heat of passion. In other words, the defendant can not use the heat of passion defense if he finds out his wife is cheating on him and thereafter goes and kills a person not associated in any way to his wife or the person with whom she was cheating.
Diminished Capacity:
When the defendant is operating under a diminished capacity during the intentional killing of another person then the defendant may have his murder charges reduced to voluntary manslaughter charges.
Diminished capacity means that there is some internal or external mental ingredient that did not allow the defendant to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act of killing another person. If the defendant has severe mental or cognitive impairment such that the defendant could not appreciate the very nature of the act of killing, or appreciate the difference between right and wrong, the defendant may have a defense of insanity (Defense of insanity is a complete defense to the crime of intentional murder and voluntary manslaughter); however, diminished capacity is not the equivalent of insanity in California. Diminished capacity does not rise to the level of an insanity defense but rather demonstrates that the defendant operated under some mental laboring such that the killing should be reduced from murder to manslaughter.
California Involuntary Manslaughter Law & Defense
The law on the crime of involuntary manslaughter is found at California Penal Code section 192(b). The definition ofInvoluntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another human being due to gross negligent conduct of the defendant.

If found guilty of involuntary manslaughter the defendant may face up to four years in state prison. In addition, involuntary manslaughter is considered a strike under California Three Strikes Law.

The negligence standard for involuntary manslaughter charges is gross negligence, which is a higher type of negligence than simple negligence but not as high assubjective recklessness.

If the defendant is found to have killed someone while acting with subjective recklessness, meaning that he or she knew how dangerous to human life his or her conduct was at the time he or she unintentionally killed another person, then the defendant may be charged with murder under a theory known as malignant hear murder.

The difference between murder and iinvoluntary manslaughter depends on whether the person was aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded that risk. An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done n conscious disregard of that risk, is murder. An unlawful killing resulting from a willful act committed without intent to kill and without conscious disregard of the risk to human life, but never the less committed while the defendant acted with gross negligence, is invlountary manslaughter. 

For example, if a defendant is driving 100MPH on the freeway and kills another person in a car crash as a result of the defendant's reckless driving, the defendant may be charged with iinvoluntary manslaughter. This is because the defendant did not intend to kill another person; however, whether or not driving 100MPH on the freeway is gross negligence or subjective reckless conduct is probably a close call. If the defendant acted with subjective reckless conduct and indifferent to the risk for loss of human life then the defendant will probably be charged with murder under a malignant heart theory as opposed to iinvoluntary manslaughter.

California Vehicular Manslaughter Law & Defense
The laws on the crime of Vehicular Manslaughter is found 191.5 & 192(c). Vehicular manslaughter is defined as the unintentional killing of another person while the defendant was driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol or while the defendant was driving in a grossly negligent manner.

There are several varieties of vehicular manslaughter criminal charges in California. California Penal Code section 191.5 deals with vehicular manslaughter charges where the defendant is found to be intoxicated on drugs or alcohol while driving and where the intoxication influenced the defendant's driving (DUI).

If the defendant is found to have killed another person with his or her vehicle while the defendant is under the influence (DUI) then the amount of prison time the defendant faces depends on whether the defendant was grossly negligent (in addition to being under the influence) and whether or not the defendant has a history of DUI offense. For example, where the defendant is charged with killing another person while driving and while intoxicated and with a prior DUI conviction, the defendant may face up to life in prison under PC 191.5(c). This is also known as a "Watson Murder."

Some vehicular manslaughter charges, such as PC 191.5(b), DUI related killing without gross negligence, may be charged as a misdemeanor.

To learn more about the California crimes of voluntary manslaughter, iinvoluntary manslaughter, and vehicle manslaughter, including defenses to these crimes, contact criminal defense attorney Christopher Dorado today.

Attorney Dorado dedicates 100% of his law practice to criminal defense. He has successfully represented hundreds of defendants charged with serious crimes. In addition, attorney Dorado has a proven successful trial record. There is no charge to speak to one of our experienced criminal defense attorneys today and our office is available to assist you seven days a week. Call today!!