San Diego Criminal Lawyers Blog

In the latest court case involving Prop. 47, the California Supreme Court recently held that the voter-approved ballot measure that reduced penalties for certain drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, applies to prisoners convicted under plea deals. The panel unanimously held that Prop. 47 did not create an exception for prisoners whose sentences are based on plea deals that included the dismissal of more serious charges, therefore those convicted are eligible for Prop. 47’s benefits.

The case arose from a Los Angeles County case in which prosecutors agreed to a deal that dismissed a robbery charge and allowed the defendant to plead guilty to a lesser charge of grand theft in exchange for a six-year sentence. Prop. 47 reduced that grand theft charge to a misdemeanor, so the defendant petitioned for a lower sentenced for that already-pled down conviction. Prosecutors argued that they were entitled to have the original charges reinstated if such prisoners chose to seek a reduced sentence because those prisoners would otherwise be able to unfairly escape their sentence, “their part of the plea deal — and get an added benefit to which they were not entitled.” They further argued that they were entitled to the six-year sentence the defendant agreed to as part of his plea deal, and that they should be allowed to cancel the plea bargain in response to his petition.

Most cases and many felony ones are resolved by plea agreements rather than going to trial.  Legal experts said the court’s decision will have limited impact because most trial courts in the state have been extending Proposition 47’s benefits to inmates with plea deals even before Thursday’ ruling.

Plea Deals for Felonies

A plea bargain is an agreement between a defendant and a prosecutor, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest in exchange for the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence (which is usually a more lenient sentence). For those facing felonies, this is usually the preferred alternative than facing a jury trial for a crime that carries a much higher prison sentence.

After you have been charged, you must first plead “not guilty” in your first court appearance.  You are required to answer to the charge of your original crime either way. From there, the prosecutor will typically want to negotiate to avoid trial, and lighten his work load. It is recommended you have an experienced attorney negotiate out your felony for you. Continue reading

In a bizarre end to an already-bizarre criminal case, a group of six U.S. marshals surrounded the criminal defense attorney who defended Ammon Bundy, tackled him, and stunned him with a taser. The marshals have now filed a probable cause statement to justify their actions. In a statement filed in the U.S. District Court in Portland, the marshals give their explanation of why they took the actions they did, although their statement does not mention that a stun gun was used on Mumford.

Back in October, in a stunning loss for federal prosecutors, Ammon Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy, and five of their followers were acquitted from their federal conspiracy charges connected to their armed occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. It is reported that after the jury returned the not-guilty verdict, Mumford stood before U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown and demanded that his client be released from custody immediately. He continued to yell and argue as the judge told him that Nevada still had a hold order on Bundy. Evidently that was when Mumford was tackled an tased.  

A judge in Washington has been assigned to handle the citation against Mumford, who was cited for failing to follow a federal officer’s direction (a federal order) and disturbance at the end of the trial. The probable cause statement that was filed stated that Mumford was yelling so loud that people could hear him outside the courtroom, and his physical responses were pre-assault indicators consistent with someone preparing for a physical altercation.

What is Probable Cause?

Probable cause is generally defined as the reasonable belief based on the facts articulated, that a suspect has committed the crime.  Probable cause must exist for a law enforcement officer to make an arrest without a warrant, search without a warrant, or seize property in the belief the items were evidence of a crime.  It is a 4th Amendment requirement necessary before police make an arrest, get a warrant, or make a search.

A probable cause statement, also known as an affidavit of probable cause, is a a sworn statement, typically made by a police officer, that outlines the factual justification for why a judge should allow for an arrest or search warrant. If probable cause is found in the case of Mumford, then the U.S. Marshals had a legal right to seize Mumford and take him into custody. Continue reading

In a stunning loss for federal prosecutors, a jury has acquitted the leaders of the 41-day occupation and standoff at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. The Portland jury acquitted Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy and five others of conspiring to impede federal workers from their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, 300 miles southeast of Portland. The jury could not reach a verdict on a single count of theft for Ryan Bundy.  Currently, Ammon Bundy remains in jail because he still faces charges for the armed standoff at his father Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada two years ago. The Bundys and their clan had been charged with federal conspiracy to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs by occupying the refuge.

This defeat for the prosecution was especially unexpected given the circumstances and the fact that three of the defendants chose to represent themselves without an attorney. Additionally, one juror was dismissed from the trial after another juror and defendant Ammon Bundy’s defense attorney accused him of being biased, since is a former employee of the Bureau of Land Management, the agency involved in the Nevada standoff.  The dismissed juror was replaced with a replacement juror. US Attorney Daniel Bogden in Nevada, however, said the acquittals in Portland should have no effect on the currently pending Las Vegas case for the armed standoff.

Juror Misconduct in California

In a California jury trial, there are a variety of reasons a juror may be excused or discharged from a trial ranging from death, illness, or if the juror becomes too emotionally involved or impartial to participate. While these things do not rise to the level of misconduct, California law defines misconduct as any conduct that conflicts with the judge’s instructions as to how they should perform their duties. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Speaking to people or other jurors about the case,
• Discussing the case with a fellow juror while out of session,
• Concealing personal beliefs that could influence impartial deliberations, and
• Refusing to deliberate.

Jury misconduct triggers a new trial if it leads to incurable prejudice. The judge has the ultimate discretion to determine whether a juror has engaged in misconduct. He or she has the duty to investigate allegations.

Remedies

If misconduct is found, a judge may discharge the tainted juror, discharge the entire jury, declare a mistrial, or admonish the jury. Continue reading