Trial Tactics

Published on: February 9, 2012

The Supreme Court and Eyewitness Testimony

by Law Offices of Rudolph E. Loewenstein

The United States Supreme Court on January 11, 2012, rendered a decision in Perry v. New Hampshire, that limits the ability of the defense to successfully attack a suggestive or unreliable identification of the defendant by an eyewitness. Eyewitness identification has long been the subject of commentary and even experiments. Many of us have seen the video of or even participated in a situation where a professor has a classroom full of students when a subject rushes in steals the professor’s purse and the class is asked to describe the suspect. It’s incredible how varied the descriptions of the suspect are. Different facial features, races, clothing, height and weight and numerous other identifiers have been listed by witnesses seeing the same thing. How many times have you been in line at a theater, seen someone you think you recognize and been mistaken? It’s happened to all of us.

Stress of an unexpected, even scary, situation can affect one’s perception and ability to accurately identify suspects or describe events. On a personal note, I witnessed a car crash right in front of my eyes. I stopped, waited for the police, submitted to an interview, and was told that my account was completely “wrong”. Physical evidence and other eyewitnesses made it quite obvious that what I thought I had seen was just plain in error. I didn’t mean to mess it up or make a mistake, it just happens because when events occur quickly under unexpected conditions what we think we see isn’t always what actually happened.

Now, when a police officer investigates a crime and gets a description of the suspect from the victim he can just take the information or by his questions and technique he can influence the identification. For example, when a photograph of a suspect is shown to a victim several similar looking photos are used in a “six pack”. The eyewitness is asked to view the subjects, admonished it’s just as important to exonerate the innocent as to find the guilty person and just because a picture is in the “six pack” it doesn’t mean the perpetrator’s photo is contained in it. When that doesn’t happen and a singular photo is shown to a witness and no positive identification is made, what do you expect would happen if that same singular photo is placed in a subsequent “six pack” ? Isn’t that overly suggestive? Isn’t that type of police technique almost ensuring the identification of the photo of the singular photo individual? Of course it is. Once suggestive procedures like this one are used, the ultimate identification of the suspect (now defendant) taints the whole process. Now you will never know if the identification is the product of what the eyewitness saw or the suggestive procedure used by the police.

Published on: December 21, 2011

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PROSECUTORS WITHHOLD EVIDENCE?

by Law Offices of Rudolph E. Loewenstein

Recently, in Texas, a man was freed after serving 25 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. The Innocence Project was successful in overturning the conviction of Michael Morton when a piece of evidence in his case was re-tested and found not to contain the DNA of Morton but of another man. One of the most interesting aspects of this case isn’t that DNA exonerated Morton, but that other evidence that was in the DA’s possession at the time of the trial was withheld from the defense. This evidence was exculpatory, or in other words, tended to help prove Morton’s innocence.

It was only after trial when one of the prosecutors was overheard telling a juror that Morton’s file was several inches thick , that the defense had any inkling of the existence of other evidence. In fact, the victim’s credit card was used by a suspect days after the murder during a time period that Morton could not have been involved in any use of the victim’s credit card. Furthermore, a witness told the prosecution that a suspicious man had been seen near the victim’s home seemingly casing the residence days before the break in and murder in the home. None of this was disclosed to the defense prior to trial.

The importance of the evidence is clear to anyone with an ounce of common sense. If the thief/murderer took the victim’s property and used the stolen credit card and it wasn’t Morton, then maybe Morton wasn’t the killer. If a man, not Morton, was seen acting suspiciously in the area of the murder than perhaps he was the killer and not Morton.

Published on: December 7, 2011

Sentencing Dr. Conrad Murray

by Law Offices of Rudolph E. Loewenstein

As almost everyone on planet earth knows, Dr. Conrad Murray was convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson. On November 29, 2011, Dr. Murray was sentenced to the maximum term of four years in State Prison. How did the judge determine that four years was the appropriate sentence?

The cynical among us might just say that because the deceased was the most famous pop star in the world that the judge would have been crazy to give Dr. Murray anything less than the maximum. Those of that opinion could easily conclude the public expected the maximum and therefore why would the judge do something that would enrage the public and possibly cost him his job in the next election? Those cynical enough to believe that would think the discussion would end right there. But, what did the judge have to do under the law in order to justify the maximum sentence? The answer can be found in the Rules of Court.

The Rules of Court set forth the criteria affecting probation (Rule 4.414). Dr. Murray was technically eligible for probation, no matter how unlikely that might have been as a practical matter. There are two sub-sets to consider: facts that relate to the crime and facts that relate to the defendant.

Published on: December 2, 2011

Dr. Murray Won His Case Before it Ever Started

by Law Offices of Rudolph E. Loewenstein

Dr. Murray killed Michael Jackson. No doubt about it since the jury found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He got sentenced to the maximum term of four years. Dr. Murray won his case when he got convicted. How can I say that when he went through a hard fought trial that lasted weeks and cost him and the taxpayers millions of dollars? According to the evidence, he lied to the paramedics, failed to call 911 in a timely fashion, treated his patient with an extremely dangerous drug under circumstances that failed to meet the most minimum of medical standards among a host of other omissions and commissions. So involuntary manslaughter was the charge and guilty was the verdict. Who says the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office can’t win the big ones? Who says that the District Attorney’s Office loses one high profile case after another? They got their man here didn’t they? Well, yes and no as far as I’m concerned.

Yes, the LADA got a conviction as charged. But, why only charge Dr. Murray with Involuntary Manslaughter? Why not seek a Second Degree Murder conviction? Why not charge both Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter? Based on the facts as presented by the prosecution, the jury could very easily have found Dr. Murray guilty of Second Degree Murder. Why? The real question is why not?

To find a defendant guilty of second degree murder you must look to CalCrim Section 520 which sets out the elements of Second Degree Murder. To prove this is the real crime Dr. Murray is guilty of the DA needed to prove the following: The defendant committed the act that caused the death of Michael Jackson and when he acted he had a state of mind of malice aforethought. The relevant malice element here is implied. Did Murray’s actions consist of the following: 1. Did he intentionally commit an act, and; 2. The natural and probable consequences of the act were dangerous to human life, and; 3. At the time he acted, he knew his act was dangerous to human life, and; 4. He deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life. Ask yourself, from the facts of this case, wasn’t this the proper charge?

Published on: October 3, 2011

Teaching Other Lawyers How To Defend A DUI in Orange County, CA

by Law Offices of Rudolph E. Loewenstein

Recently I had the opportunity to teach a class to other attorneys. All attorneys are required to attend and complete mandatory continuing education classes on various issues in the law. One of those classes offered was “How To Defend A First Time DUI”. Since I am a Certified Specialist in Criminal I was asked to teach this six hour class.

The questions I had to ask myself started with, what would I want to know if I had to defend someone who is charged with a DUI and I had no experience in defending against such a charge? That answer is, I would want to start at the beginning of the case and go through to the end of a trial so I would know what to tell the client to expect. I had to remember that the knowledge I take for granted isn’t necessarily shared by the lawyers in the class because they don’t have the experience I have.

The class focused on how to start the process of defending someone against a DUI. The request for a DMV hearing has to be made within ten days of the arrest. An appearance has to be made at the arraignment. A decision has to be made on issues such as, can I get a better deal in the arraignment court than I can if I enter a not guilty and discuss the case with the DA later? The lawyer has to do his or her homework to know the judge who is sitting in the arraignment court so as to know if settling the case earlier rather than later is better for the client. Is it a case that should go to trial? The lawyer has to know his court, the DA, and his facts. If he goes to trial and loses will his client be punished more harshly than if he had settled before trial? What’s a good settlement?

Published on: August 18, 2011

In Orange County, CA, Race Matters In Picking A Jury, Part Two

by Law Offices of Rudolph E. Loewenstein

“A party may not use a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of an assumption that the prospective juror is biased merely because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.” Code of Civil Procedure Section 231.5.

If a party (represented by his or her lawyer) uses a peremptory challenge in an effort to systematically exclude a member of a recognizable group, it is error under both the California State Constitution and the United States Constitution. But, as a trial lawyer, I thought for years that I just wanted fair, impartial, open minded jurors. I thought race didn’t matter if someone was “fair”. I was wrong. Race matters even more than the strength of the evidence or the law given to the jury by the judge.

To date, I have tried well over one hundred and seventy five jury trials. These trials have been for almost every conceivable charge, from assault and battery, to shop lifting, to sexual assault, to burglary to even health code violations, all the way to first degree murder with special circumstances. In each of these trials the jurors swore they would view the evidence impartially, without bias for or against the Defendant, and would apply the law equally as instructed by the judge.

Published on: August 15, 2011

In Orange County, CA, Race Matters In Picking A Jury, Part One

by Law Offices of Rudolph E. Loewenstein

A Defendant has a right to have a jury of his peers decide his fate. Twelve people drawn randomly from the community who come to the courthouse and vote on the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Constitution requires the selection come from a cross-section of the population of the area served by the court.

Source lists are compiled from voter registration roles, driver’s license lists, utility company lists, telephone directories, and Department of Motor Vehicles’ identification card records. Generally speaking, a prospective juror has to be a citizen of the United States, live in California and be a resident of the jurisdiction in which the case is being tried. The juror cannot have a disability which would prevent him or her from judging the case, speak English well enough to understand the proceedings, not be convicted of a felony or of malfeasance in office, not be the subject of a conservatorship, and not be simultaneously serving on a grand jury.

The picking of a jury requires the attorney to decide who shall sit on the jury to decide his client’s fate. The prospective jurors must assure the court that they can decide the case based solely on the law and the evidence. The lawyer looks for body language signals as well as the actual answers to the questions posed to the prospective jurors. It isn’t always as obvious as a rolling of the eyes or a shrug of the shoulders. Many times it is the inflection of the voice or a shifting uncomfortably when answering the questions.

Published on: June 8, 2011

Shoud You Waive Preliminary Hearing?

by Law Offices of Rudolph E. Loewenstein

Unless a defendant is charged by way of a grand jury indictment he or she is entitled to a Preliminary Hearing. At a Preliminary Hearing a judge determines whether there is sufficient evidence against a defendant to justify going to trial. It is often called a probable cause hearing. Officers must testify to evidence and be subject to cross examination by the defendant.

Before Proposition 115 was passed several years ago, a Preliminary Hearing was thought to be a critical stage of the proceedings. It was a time when the defense could challenge the evidence and have a “free shot” at the witnesses on cross examination. The law has changed and how a criminal defense lawyer represents his clients has to change with it.

In deciding whether or not to conduct a Preliminary Hearing, a defendant needs to think about what he want to get out of it. For example, if a defendant wants to question the police officer about descriptions given by a witness he would not waive Preliminary Hearing. If a defendant wants to present an affirmative defense at the Preliminary Hearing in order to try and prove his innocence, a Preliminary Hearing is required.

Published on: June 2, 2011

Representing the Elderly in Criminal Matters In Orange County, CA

by Law Offices of Rudolph E. Loewenstein

An elderly criminal defendant who commits a crime is in an especially difficult position. What does the criminal justice system do with a defendant who has violated the law but who is of an age where it makes no sense to put him in jail? An elderly defendant can be someone who kills their aged and desperately ill spouse, acts out because of conflicting medications and a diminished mental state or perhaps someone who has committed an economic crime in an effort to make ends meet when he is on a fixed income.

Recent examples in the court system point out the difficulties in representing defendants who are elderly. In an economic crime like Worker’s Compensation Fraud an elderly defendant might continue to work after getting injured on the job simply to ensure that he is able to pay the bills. Of course, it is illegal to work without reporting that fact while receiving Worker’s Compensation benefits. This is because those benefits are based on the theory that the defendant isn’t working.

However, Worker’s Compensation benefits rarely allow the recipient to pay his bills. Many times young and old alike are tempted to work even though they are not supposed to while getting Worker’s Compensation benefits. If one gets benefits, those benefits will be cut or even terminated if the defendant goes back to work. If an elderly defendant is working to supplement his income and gets hurt he may be unable to even pay for his medicine and necessities of life.

Published on: February 22, 2011

I Don’t Want This Judge! Now What?

by Law Offices of Rudolph E. Loewenstein

When you don’t like the judge you are in front of you are in trouble. There is a provision for changing your judicial officer but it must be used with caution.

When a defendant doesn’t want a particular judge, commissioner, or referee to hear any matter that involves a contested issue of fact or law, the defendant can challenge him or her under Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 170.6. This is called a peremptory challenge. A defendant or his attorney states that the judge, commissioner, or referee is prejudiced against him. However, this statement is just that, a statement. A defendant and/or his counsel do not have to prove that the judicial officer is, in fact, prejudiced against him. If a defendant doesn’t like the way the judicial officer looks, an affidavit of prejudice can be filed and the case will be re-assigned to another judicial officer.

There are limits to challenging a judge. For example, if a judicial officer has heard and determined a contested fact relating to the merits of the case it is too late and you are stuck with that judicial officer. This only makes sense since all losing parties would like to challenge the judge who rules against them. With all rulings the court is going to make, at least one party to the law suit is going to be unhappy. Therefore once you have lost a ruling on an issue that goes to the merits of the case you can’t file a 170.6 affidavit. If it were otherwise there would be chaos in the court system with litigants filing one challenge after another against the sitting judicial officer.