Bay Area Criminal Lawyers Blog

Oregon Man Arrested in Bay Area for Carjacking and Other Offenses

Mon, 06 May 2013 21:41:52 -0800

According to reports, a man from North Bend, Oregon arrested in the Bay Area has been accused of a crime spree that included a murder, carjacking and a second attempted carjacking which was successfully diffused by the would be victim.

Jeffrey Boyce is believed to be a sympathizer with the Boston bombings. His mother contacted police earlier last week in order to report him missing. She further added her concern that he had been talking about the bombings, the Colorado movie theater and Columbine shootings, and was ranting that the government was trying to get him. He was believed to have been travelling to the San Francisco Russian Embassy for asylum. Police believe that Boyce may be connected to the death of an Oregon woman.

According to police, when he was arrested in Marin last week, Boyce was reportedly found to be in possession of three guns, including a fully automatic AK-47 rifle, along with high-capacity ammunition magazines, hundreds of bullets and a tactical vest. The pistol allegedly used in at least one of the carjackings was found in Boyce's pants pocket, while the AK-47 and a rifle were recovered from the car he had stolen.

According to additional reports, he had apparently tried to carjack another woman in Marin, but in that case the woman was able to successfully de-escalate the situation, and enlisted the help of another individual in the shopping center parking lot, who called police to report the situation.

San Jose Woman Faces Charges Related to Alleged Attempted Kidnapping

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:21:17 -0800

A San Jose woman accused of kidnapping an 11 month old baby, who was a passenger in the back seat of the car she allegedly stole, appeared in court Monday.

Karla Hernandez has been charged with car theft, child endangerment, and kidnapping, stemming from the alleged abduction of Gabriella Quintero at 6:30 a.m. March 25.

The Jeep was taken after baby's mother left the car momentarily unattended with the key in the ignition while she went to close the garage door. Prosecutors believe Hernandez knew the baby was inside of the car.

Authorities allege that once inside the car, she attempted to disable the mother's cell phone in order to prevent tracking. Authorities claim she drove away, potentially stopped at a nearby laundromat, and then abandoned the car. The little girl was safely recovered and returned to her mother.

According to government officials, DNA and fingerprint evidence was gathered from the inside of the car. Hernandez was initially arrested in an unrelated case. It was subsequent to that arrest, on April 12, that officials connected her with these allegations.

Coffee Attacks Result in Assault Charges for Two Bay Area Men

Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:33:09 -0800

Two unrelated cases in which hot coffee was thrown onto victims are being investigated by San Francisco prosecutors.

Late last month, a man allegedly attacked the leader of an AA meeting which he was attending by throwing it towards him. The suspect apparently had a history of insulting and otherwise interrupting others at AA meetings in the past. The victim suffered serious blisters. The attacker was charged with assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury and felonious mayhem. According to prosecutors, he remains in custody on $100,000 bail.

A few days prior to the AA attack, police say a woman had a cup of coffee thrown in her face in a San Francisco Starbucks location, when she asked a man to move so her suitcase wouldn't run over his feet. The man allegedly responded by saying, "f*** you, I'm not going to move," and shouted more obscenities before throwing coffee in the woman's face. Although she was reportedly crying in pain when police arrived, luckily the woman did not suffer a serious injury.

He attempted to flee, but was soon apprehended by police. The suspect has since been charged with one felony count of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury. According to prosecutors, he remains in custody on $50,000 bail.

Consequences In San Bruno DUI Vehicular Manslaughter Case

Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:57:41 -0800

News reports recently indicated that Mitnesh Reddy, 23, of San Bruno, entered a no contest plea in a San Mateo County DUI Vehicular Manslaughter case. The pleas were entered in November 2012 and he was sentenced on January 4, 2013. His San Mateo County defense attorney argued for a probation sentence while the prosecutors wanted a considerable prison term. Ultimately the judge imposed a nine year prison sentence.

What possible consequences does a person who drives drunk and kills someone face in California? It really depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. While the best bet is to speak with an experienced Bay Area criminal defense attorney, here are some possible consequences.

Felony DUI With Injury

This is covered in vehicle code sections 23153(a) and 23153(b). These are the basic DUI with injury sections. Even a minor injury may qualify someone for punishment under this section. If the injury is more than a minor or moderate, the additional enhancement of "Great Bodily Injury" may be charged. This enhancement may also be charged in fatality cases. The "Great Bodily Injury" enhancement adds three additional years on top of the maximum punishment prescribed for Felony DUI.

Vehicular Manslaughter - Penal Code Sections 192(c)(1)-(3)
This charge can be brought when the death resulted from gross ordinary negligence. This charge is a wobbler, meaning it may be a misdemeanor or a felony. This charge is typically brought when there is little or no intoxication on the part of the accused but a death occurred due to negligence.

Vehicular Manslaughter - Penal Code Section 191.5
This is the code section charged most often in DUI related fatality cases. California's Penal Code section 191.5 describes two types of Vehicular Manslaughter:

191.5(a) Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, in the driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, and with gross negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence.

AND

(b) Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, in the driving of a vehicle, where the driving was in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code, and the killing was either the proximate result of the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, but without gross negligence, or the proximate result of the commission of a lawful act that might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.

The distinction between the (a) and (b) sections is "gross negligence."

The punishment for Felony Vehicular Manslaughter Without Gross Negligence - PC191.5(b) - is 16 months, 2 years, or 4 years imprisonment.

The punishment for Felony Vehicular Manslaughter With Gross Negligence - PC191.5(a) - is 4 years, 6 years, or 10 years imprisonment.

The punishment for Felony Vehicular Manslaughter With Gross Negligence - PC191.5(a) - where the accused has a prior conviction for DUI or Vehicular Manslaughter, is 15 years to life.

What is considered "gross negligence?" The California Criminal Jury Instructions (CalCrim Section 590) define gross negligence in this context as:

Gross negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with gross negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high risk of
death or great bodily injury;

AND

2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that
way would create such a risk.

In other words, a person acts with gross negligence when the way
he or she acts is so different from the way an ordinarily careful
person would act in the same situation that his or her act amounts
to disregard for human life or indifference to the consequences of
that act.

Some of the factors that the jurors are asked to consider in deciding whether the accused acted with gross negligence are:

- The level of intoxication of the accused
- The way the accused drove
- Any other relevant aspects of the accused' conduct

It should be noted that the mere combination of driving a car while under the influence and violating a traffic law is not enough by itself to establish gross negligence.

Second Degree Murder - "Watson" Murder
This is a felony carrying an indeterminate life sentence and is brought when the accused is said to have acted with implied malice, i.e. conscious disregard for human life. People v. Watson (1981) 30 C3d 290, 179 CR 43. Second Degree Murder is typically reserved for cases where the accused has prior DUI convictions. These prior DUI convictions can be used by the prosecutor to show that the accused knew the dangers of driving under the influence.

Prosecutor Crosses The Line In Santa Clara Sex Case

Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:44:43 -0800

In general, we like to think of our friendly government workers as harmless and trustworthy and we typically give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. So when a California appeals court publishes an opinion stating that a prosecutor used "reasoning [that] has been condemned as faulty since the time of ancient Greece" the public faith in the system has to be affected.

This is not the only reprimand the court leveled against Santa Clara Chief Assistant District Attorney Jay Boyarsky in an unanimous opinion that overturned the jury's verdict against Dariel Shazier of San Jose. The court described the prosecutor's actions and arguments "flagrant misconduct."

Dariel Shazier originally pleaded guilty to three separate sex charges in 1994 and was sentenced to a 18 year prison sentence. According to the state of the law at the time of his conviction, he was supposed to be released after completing half the time. Mr. Shazier was instead committed to a state mental hospital and Santa Clara prosecutors looked to have him confined there for a lengthy period of time for treatment as a sex predator.

Under California law, someone convicted of sex crimes can be confined in a state hospital for an indefinite period of time after completing the original sentence. The person subject to the detention does have a right to have this matter heard by a jury and confinement can only be ordered if a the jury finds that he is more likely to engage in sexually violent behavior. This is referred to as the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) law. A Santa Clara or San Mateo Sex Crimes attorney can explain this law in great detail.

In short, California's SVP law is very complex and many criminal defense attorneys and even prosecutors don't understand its intricacies. According to California's Welfare and Institutions Case section 6600(a)(1) a sexually violent predator has been defined as:

"a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense against one or more victims and who has a diagnosed mental disorder that makes the person a danger to the health and safety of others in that it is likely that he or she will engage in sexually violent criminal behavior."

In the current case, the appeals court blasted the Santa Clara prosecutor for engaging in egregious behavior when presenting and arguing to the jury in an effort to have Mr. Shazier committed to continuous custody in the state hospital. According to the written opinion his arguments included insinuations that if the jurors were going to set Mr. Shazier free, they would be condemned by friends and neighbors. Other egregious conduct and argument included references to a defense expert as often speaking up for sex offenders and references to defense witnesses as "serial rapists and child molesters."

This, unfortunately, was not the first time a court of appeal slammed the Santa Clara DA for misconduct. Mr. Shazier's first trial ended up in a hung jury. The prosecution prevailed in his second trial only to have the verdict overturned by the appeals court in 2006 for prosecutorial misconduct. To the public it just doesn't look good. It really looks like the only way for the Santa Clara District Attorney's office to win is to cheat - and that's not what we expect from our friendly government employees.

Fatal Motorcycle Collision in Berkeley

Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:38:00 -0800

Some of the most tragic cases the Bay Area vehicular manslaughter attorneys at Dudek & Cintean LLP handle involve vehicle accidents that result in death. In fatality cases where the collision occurred due to a driver's negligence but where no intoxicating substances or wrongful intent are involved, the Bay Area District Attorneys' offices will typically level the charge of misdemeanor manslaughter. In cases involving drugs or alcohol with no prior DUI convictions, the prosecutors typically charge felony gross or aggravated vehicular manslaughter. In fatality cases involving drugs or alcohol where the person accused has a prior conviction for DUI, second degree murder is often charged.

According to a statement released by the Berkeley police department on December 12, 2012 a collision between a passenger vehicle and a motorcycle occurred sometime around 3:11 PM at the intersection of Shattuck Avenue and Rose in Berkeley. Many other details were not released but we do know that the motorcycle rider died a short time later at a local hospital. The information released did confirm that the driver of the other vehicle involved in this fatality accident did remain on the scene and was cooperative with Berkeley police. Drugs or alcohol were not suspected as a factor.

The Berkeley police did remain on the scene for several hours following the accident, methodically conducting their investigation. In cases involving the death of a pedestrian or a motorist it is not uncommon for the initial investigation to last a few hours. Most police departments will have a special team assigned to investigate major collisions. In this case, the Berkeley Police Department Fatal Accident Investigation Team (FAIT) was dispatched to the scene and was in charge of the investigation.

Prominent LA Advertising Writer Arrested At Oakland Airport For Suspicious Watch

Sat, 17 Nov 2012 22:29:02 -0800

News agencies reported on Friday that Geoffrey McGann of Rancho Palos Verdes, California was arrested at the Oakland International Airport after going through security while wearing suspicious items.

According to the releases McGann was wearing a watch which was set to the wrong time and had wires coming out of it along with a circuit board and a toggle switch. No actual explosives were found on McGann although he was also wearing a military shirt with built-in tourniquets and oversize shoes with hollowed-out soles.

McGann was arrested and was being held in lew $150,000.00 bail at the Alameda County Jail at Santa Rita.

So, what would prompt a man in this day of age appear at the airport wearing the items described below? Apparently Mr. McGann explained that this was art project and he was traveling for work. No explosive substances were found on him.

Airport security incidents not uncommon, just ask a TSA agent or even better AssemblymanTim Donnelly, a Republican from the San Bernadino Mountains who was arrested after trying to bring a loaded gun in a carry-on bag onto the plane at Ontario airport. The explanation was that he forgot the gun was in the bag.

It not clear and we may never know what Mr. McGann was thinking when he tried to board the plane with a watch made to look like an explosive device but one thing is clear he drew attention, desired or not.

Bay Area Animal Abuse Trial Underway in San Francisco

Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:59:53 -0800

One of the trials on the way in San Francisco Superior Court is the trial of People vs. Abraham Taylor, an employee of a city dog care business accused of neglecting four Labrador puppies. The San Francisco District Attorney's office brought one misdemeanor animal cruelty charge for each of the four animals.

According to opening statements, the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control paid a visit to the "Unleashed SF Doggy Daycare" business in March, 2012 after an anonymous complaint. They found the four dogs and determined that there were signs of malnourishment. Taylor insisted that the dogs were being fed consistently. Prior to the trial, Mr. Taylor entered a plea of not guilty.

Animal abuse or cruelty charges carry a particular stigma that can often be difficult to overcome even in cases where the charges are dismissed or the accused is found not guilty. If you or a loved are facing animal cruelty charges you should be aware of what the prosecutor must show in order to prove you guilty. Hiring an experienced animal abuse criminal defense attorney is essential and so is knowing the law.

According to California Penal Code section 597, animal abuse occurs when an animal is intentionally abused or intentionally neglected. A wide variety of situations are covered by this section of the code. Intentional animal abuse includes maiming, killing, or otherwise hurting the animal. Intentional animal neglect includes depraving the animal of food or water. Using an animal for a purpose the animal is not fit for may also qualify as animal abuse.

Most law enforcement agencies are not often faced with animal abuse cases and are not trained in how to properly investigate them so that the animals are protected and at the same time the rights of the person investigated are preserved.

San Francisco Homicide

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:54:51 -0800

During a weekend when the city was bustling with people there to see the air show and yacht races, San Francisco police reported another homicide. According to a San Francisco police officer the shooting happened in the city's South of Market neighborhood, at the intersection of 4th and Mission streets. The homicide report came in around 2:30 a.m. and no suspects have yet been apprehended.

The entire Bay Area has recently been struggling with violent crime with the city of Oakland leading the statistics. Oakland police recently investigated as many as four unrelated homicides within a 9 hour period. It is unclear what the cause of the increase in violence is but authorities agree that something needs to be done about it.

When in comes homicide, there are many possible scenarios and outcomes in the legal system. Not every homicide is murder and not every case where someone is killed should result in criminal charges.

Some homicides qualify as first degree murder. To qualify under this charge , a homicide has to be done with malice aforethought, the premeditation required under the law. Examples of first degree murder include killing someone by use of explosives or after torturing them. Felony-murder also qualifies as first degree murder.

Other homicides qualify as second degree murder. Second degree murder is a killing that is not premeditated or planned. Examples of second degree murder include killing someone as a result of engaging in conduct known to be dangerous to human life such as DUI murder. DUI related murder is typically charged if the person accused has at least one prior DUI related conviction.

Some homicides qualify as voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is also known as murder in the "heat of passion." Circumstances would typically include homicide in a situation where the facts are such as to "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." The most common example is a killing immediately after the discovery of infidelity.

Some homicides only qualify as involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter involves cases where there is no intent to kill, however death occurred as a result of an intentional or negligent misconduct. Such conduct could be as little as speeding and causing an accident resulting in a fatality.

Lastly, some homicides do not qualify for punishment under any criminal statutes. These include deaths in vehicle accidents where the other party was not negligent or justifiable deaths resulting from situations of self defense or defense of others.

San Mateo Kidnapping Suspect Arrested

Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:29:02 -0800

Christopher Maffei was booked into the San Mateo County jail on September 7, 2012. Maffei stands accused of kidnapping his two children and taking them on a three day boat ride along the Northern California coast.

The story starts with Mr. Maffei taking his children from their mother's home in South San Francisco and driving away in a rental car. He is alleged to have then stolen a yacht and boarded it with the two children. On September 4th, Mr. Maffei sailed under the Golden Gate and then along the Northern California coastline. After three days on the sea, the yacht was intercepted, boarded by authorities and Mr. Maffei was arrested. Both young children were recovered unharmed.

Christopher Maffei spoke to a Chronicle reporter from his jail cell and expressed regrets about stealing the boat but not about taking his children. "I knew I'd gone crazy by stealing the boat, but not about taking my kids," Maffei said. In court Maffei indicated that he was trying to protect his children from an abusive environment.

According to reports, when contacted, the children were well fed and healthy. According to Maffei, the kids had "a grand time." ""They were safe, they were warm."

Cases involving parental abductions are emotionally charged and very difficult for both, the prosecution and the defense. If you are faced with such charges contact a Bay Area criminal defense attorney today.

It is very interesting to note that in situations such as this, a person may be prosecuted for both, the crime of kidnapping and the crime of child abduction. Kidnapping is a crime against the child, while child abduction or stealing is a crime against the parents.

In order to prove kidnapping in this type of situation, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

1. The accused used just enough physical force to take and carry away the unresisting child.
2. The accused moved the child a substantial distance.
3. The accused moved the child with an illegal intent or for an illegal purpose; AND
4. The child was under 14 year of age at the time of the movement.

The question here most often is not whether the accused took the child but rather whether the accused had an illegal intent. It is a defense to kidnapping if the accused believed that he was protecting the child from imminent harm.

In order to prove an accused guilty of child abduction, the prosecution must prove that:

1. The accused maliciously took a child from the lawful custodian of the child;
2. The child was 18 years old;
3. When the child was taken, the accused did not have a right to custody of that child; AND
4. The accused intended to conceal the child from the lawful custodian.

There are several other provisions in the law having to do with when a person actually has and looses lawful custody rights. It is interesting to note that the child abduction statute can be violated by depriving a lawful custodian of the right to custody or visitation.

Several other criminal charges, including child abuse, may be charged in parental abduction situations.

Bay Area Man, Age 81, Arrested In Road Rage Incident

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:39:29 -0800

You are never too old to get arrested!

News agencies recently reported on the arrest of a Bay Area - Santa Rosa man following a road rage incident. This would typically not be very newsworthy except that in this situation the man arrested was eighty one.

According to news reports, Harry Edward Smith, 81, was arrested for assault and battery as well as hit-and-run after he allegedly drove unto a golf course path and hit a cyclist. The victim reported that just prior to the collision, the man behind the steering wheel was yelling, apparently angry that the victim was riding his bicycle without his hands on the handlebars. The victim yelled back and veered his bicycle into a golf cart path just before he was struck by Smith's car from behind.

Police identified Mr. Smith as the suspect after he had another verbal altercation with a cyclist. According to reports Mr. Smith was again yelling at a cyclist, a Bay Area attorney, who then tried unsuccessfully to engage him in a conversation. The cyclist noted down the vehicle license plate number and later picked Mr. Smith out of a photo lineup. Investigators also found damage to Mr. Smith's car. The damage was consistent with the collision described by the first victim. The vehicle also had debris from the golf course stuck to the undercarriage.

Harry Edward Smith's bail was set at 100,000.

The prosecutor's office will review the case and decide what charges Mr. Smith will ultimately face. Given the reports of Mr. Smith's statements prior to the collision and the path his vehicle took in order to collide with the cyclist, Mr. Smith could face felony assault with a vehicle charges. If someone is convicted of assault with vehicle they face a lifetime drivers license revocation in addition to considerable jail or prisontime.

It is unclear if Mr. Smith will put up a defense in the case but given the reported facts and his age, a Bay Area criminal defense attorney would likely explore Mr. Smith's state of mind at the time of the incidents. The state of mind of a defendant is a fundamental part of a criminal case and many times can be an important factor in reaching a fair resolution.

If you ever find yourself facing an angry driver, the best advice is to avoid engaging the person. This may mean taking the first exit, slowing down to let the driver pass, or sometimes even speeding up to remove yourself from the situation. If you find yourself a bit flustered by others' driving behavior, pull over and try to clear your mind, take a different road home or do what you know prevents you from getting your emotions too hot.

Oakland Crime Lab Way Behind

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:21:54 -0800

The grand jury has issued a scathing report concerning the state of the Oakland police crime laboratory. According to the report, at one point in 2011 the Oakland crime lab had close to one thousand combined unsolved sex cases and murder cases in which evidence was available for testing but the laboratory has not gotten to it.

The problems have been blamed on inadequate staffing and lack of funding. According to the report, the problem is especially bad in light of the fact that the city of Oakland refuses to contract with any outside agencies in order to facilitate this testing. Many cases remain unsolved despite the availability of evidence.

The Oakland technicians from the crime laboratory are responsible to test crime scene evidence and also to appear in court to testify as to their findings. Because they are understaffed the amount of time devoted to testing of evidence has decreased. The report found that the city of Oakland is not doing much about the situation and therefore the situations may worsen.

A police or District Attorney crime laboratory handles all types of evidence processing. This can range from testing blood for alcohol in DUI cases to testing for DNA in murder cases. The laboratory may also handle firearm testing, gun shot residue (GSR) testing and fingerprint testing and comparison.

From a Bay Area defense lawyer prospective, the backup of the crime laboratory is especially concerning. If charged with a DUI in Alameda county your blood may be stored for months before being tested. Depending on the storage method this may cause a rise in the alcohol level in the stored blood. The process is referred to as fermentation and it refers to a chemical reaction of the sugar in the blood that produces alcohol. The end result may be a significantly higher blood alcohol content (BAC) reading.

Arrest Made in Sierra LaMar Murder Investigation

Tue, 22 May 2012 10:02:15 -0800

Santa Clara Sheriff's Sheriff Laurie Smith reported in a news conference that an arrest had been made in the case of missing teen Sierra LaMar. According to the sheriff, Antolin Garcia-Torres, age 21, was arrested and booked into the Santa Clara county jail on Monday evening.

According to Sheriff Smith, this was a "purely random" crime and that the suspect did not appear to know 15-year old Sierra LaMar. The link between Garcia-Torrez and the crime was DNA found on Sierra's discarded clothing. The clothing was inside Sierra's purse that was found on March 18 near Santa Teresa and Laguna Avenue, a short distance from where her phone was found the previous day.

The Sheriff stated that "direct and circumstantial evidence, including forensic evidence, have contributed" to their belief that Sierra was a victim of murder.

According to the Sheriff, Garcia-Torres attended Central High School in Morgan Hill and has one misdemeanor conviction for "interfering with an officer" as well as a separate arrest for assault that did not result in a conviction. A person's prior record often plays an important part in law enforcement's determination to classify the person as a suspect or a person of interest in a case. Depending on the nature of the prior record and the nature of the new case, the court may even allow a defendant's prior record to be considered by a jury during a trial.

Sheriff Smith stated that Garcia-Torres had been under surveillance since March 28, the day that they were able to link him to Sierra's discarded clothing.

Authorities have not said whether they are any closer to locating Sierra's body.

Raiders' Wide Receiver Charged With DUI In San Francisco

Thu, 10 May 2012 12:22:50 -0800

According to court records the San Francisco District Attorney has filed charges of drunk driving against Raiders' wide receiver Darrius Heyward-Bey. The charges are a result of Heyward-Bay's arrest on April 7th, 2012 at about 2 a.m. on the Bay Bridge.

According to the CHP, Hayward-Bey was stopped after an officer observed his SUV speeding and weaving within a traffic lane. Hayward-Bey was subjected to standard field sobriety tests, which he failed. According to the CHP Hayward-Bey was very cooperative with the officers.

The blood alcohol concentration was not yet released, however DUI charges are generally brought if a driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is .08% or higher.

A lesser known fact is that DUI charges can also be brought in cases where the BAC is less than .08%.

California Vehicle Code Section 23152(b) applies when a driver has a BAC of .08% or higher. Section 23152(a) applies when a driver is under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, without reference to the BAC. This means a driver can be charged with an alcohol related DUI even if his or her BAC is measured at less than .08%. In making a charging decision in these types of DUI cases, the prosecutor will look at a variety of factors including bad driving, performance on field sobriety tests and objective signs of intoxication. If a driver has a BAC of .08% or more, prosecutors generally charge both DUI sections.

Wrongfully Convicted Man Sues San Francisco

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:31:08 -0800

In 1993 Maurice Caldwell was convicted in San Francisco Superior Court of murder. He was alleged to have shot a man by the name of Judy Acosta in San Francisco's Alemany public housing project. After a trial, Maurice Caldwell was sentenced to a penalty of 27 years to life imprisonment.

Mr. Caldwell exhausted his appellate rights when his case was taken on by the Northern California Innocence Project. The Northern California Innocence Project is based at Santa Clara University. According to their website, the advocacy group's mission is to "create a more just and humane world through working to exonerate innocent prisoners and pursue legal reforms that address the causes and consequences of wrongful convictions."

The Northern California Innocence Project argued that Mr. Caldwell had ineffective assistance of counsel when he was convicted and that his murder conviction was based on the testimony of an unreliable witness. After 21 years of imprisonment, Superior Court Judge Charles Haines initially ruled to overturn Mr. Caldwell's conviction. After prosecutors discovered that some of the exhibits from his 1993 trial had been destroyed, the same judge entered an order that the case could not be retried.

Mr. Caldwell's civil rights suit names city of San Francisco and several police officers who were part of the original investigation, as defendants.