The state of Florida v George Zimmerman case is currently in the national spotlight. As the case gets underway, the prosecution's star witness is proving to be somewhat of a detriment to the prosecution's case--even though she's the prosecution's witness.
Why reference this current case? Let it be a lesson to anyone who finds themselves in court, facing either side of the judicial system. Whether you are the accused or the state's witness, it is imperative that you present yourself as well as possible.
Especially as a defendant, a jury not only considers your testimony, but they take into account your demeanor, your perceived sincerity, the way you respond to the judge and litigators. It is paramount that you dress appropriately and speak clearly and affirmatively. Many factors go in to deciding one's punishment. If the Judge finds you to be sincere and worth giving a second chance, you may find that to be as a result of proper courtroom etiquette (and a competent attorney).
If you have been charged with a crime, Contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney William Chestnut at 408-298-6990.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Friday, May 31, 2013
Be Careful Of Your Right To Remain Silent
The Supreme Court issued its ruling on Salinas v. Texas. In this case, prosecutors used Salinas' right to plead the fifth against him. Salinas was not arrested and not read his Miranda warning. During informal questioning by police, officers claimed Salinas was talkative until he was asked if the shotgun Salinas handed over to police for testing would match the shotgun shells found at the scene of a double homicide. When asked about the shotgun casings, Salinas clammed up.
More importantly now than ever, if you are arrested or simply called in for informal questioning, do not speak to anyone without having your lawyer present. Contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney William Chestnut at 408-298-6990 immediately. After the Supreme Court's ruling, your right to remain silent can now be used as an admission of guilt against you.
As many of us know, the first line of your Miranda warning is, "You have the right to remain silent." By remaining silent, you choose to not comment on the situation as not to incriminate yourself. It is the smartest thing you can do when facing criminal charges. Once you've waived that right, you are subject to having your own words used against you.
What happens when you elect to remain silent? As the rights read, "You have the right to REMAIN silent." What is not implied is that you have to orally tell the police that you are going to remain silent. Now, what lawmakers are arguing is that if one does not invoke their fifth amendment right either verbally or through written communiqué, then the prosecution can use their silence as a detriment against them, contradicting the whole idea of remaining silent.
Where this becomes unfair and even biased is in the case of those who don't speak English fluently, suffer from mental or physical handicap, are too confused, scared, incompetent to orally convey their wish to remain silent. Doesn't silence speak for itself? Do we really need to declare our silence to convey it?
What happens when you elect to remain silent? As the rights read, "You have the right to REMAIN silent." What is not implied is that you have to orally tell the police that you are going to remain silent. Now, what lawmakers are arguing is that if one does not invoke their fifth amendment right either verbally or through written communiqué, then the prosecution can use their silence as a detriment against them, contradicting the whole idea of remaining silent.
Where this becomes unfair and even biased is in the case of those who don't speak English fluently, suffer from mental or physical handicap, are too confused, scared, incompetent to orally convey their wish to remain silent. Doesn't silence speak for itself? Do we really need to declare our silence to convey it?
More importantly now than ever, if you are arrested or simply called in for informal questioning, do not speak to anyone without having your lawyer present. Contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney William Chestnut at 408-298-6990 immediately. After the Supreme Court's ruling, your right to remain silent can now be used as an admission of guilt against you.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
What Rights Does My Child Have When Facing Criminal Charges In California?
If your child is faced with a crime and is suddenly in the custody of the police, make sure you and your child know your rights. Just like an adult facing serious charges, a child has rights as well. It is in your best interest to familiarize yourself with law and make diligent efforts to ensure that the police and prosecutors are treating your son or daughter justly.
In the state of California, when a police officer takes your child to a probation officer at juvenile hall, that officer has a duty to notify the child's parent or guardian.
Your child has a juvenile right to make two phone calls. One to their parent or guardian, a responsible relative, or their employer.
Your child also has a right to make a second call to an attorney.
Your child also has a right to make a second call to an attorney.
By law, your child has a juvenile right to make the calls at public expense if the call is local and made in the presence of a public officer or employee. Any public employee who willfully deprives your child of this right is guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to WIC 627.
Whenever your child is taken before a probation officer, he or she is required to inform your child and his or her parent or guardian that anything your child says can be used against him/her and that your child has a right to remain silent, have a counsel present during interrogation, and inform the child that he (or she) has a right to have an appointed counsel if your child cannot afford an attorney.
Knowing your rights can be the difference between a life saved and a life wasted. If you or someone you know has a child facing criminal charges, contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney William Chestnut at 408-298-6990 for more detailed information pertaining to your California juvenile case.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Information Regarding My California Drug Possession Case
When facing drug possession charges it is important to know how the law will regard you. Everything depends on how much you were caught with and how it was packaged. Unfortunately for the arrestee, this can be an overly broad assessment of what your intent was. For example, if you were arrested with an ounce of marijuana in one bag, the charges would be far less severe if the same amount were split into three bags. With individual bags, you're facing possession on top of intent to distribute. Now, the law regards you as a drug dealer, even though you broke it up into three bags to keep in three different places for your own personal use.
The California Health and Safety Code also separates offenses related to controlled substances formerly classified under state law as narcotics or "restricted dangerous drugs" from offenses related to marijuana. California laws also establish separate offenses related to phencyclidine (PCP) and methamphetamine.
A prosecutor can charge a defendant with simple possession when the defendant possessed one of the substances listed under the Health and Safety Code. The state has the authority to punish drug-related offenses according to Section 1170 of the California Penal Code, a prosecutor may charge a defendant with "possession for sale" or "purchase for the purpose of sale" if the state believes that the defendant intended to engage in drug dealing. In addition, California law criminalizes the possession of specified ingredients that can be used to manufacture illegal substances such as PCP or methamphetamine.
Drug charges are very serious. Don't face it alone. Competent legal counsel can be the difference between community service and San Quentin. Contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney William Chestnut at 408-298-6990 for more detailed information pertaining to your California drug possession case.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Sue Reams, California's Three Strikes Law
Since November's 2012 election, more than 240 people serving harsh sentences under California's Three Strikes Law have been released, and many more are expected to be released in the future. This is a step in the right direction in reducing our nation's prison overpopulation epidemic. This unjust law sent many to prison to serve 25 years or more for drug offenses or small petty crimes. The effort was intended to reduce the out of control gang problem of the 90's. What it did was create a very discriminate dragnet to those who reside in or around gangland--which is every impoverished neighborhood in California.
One person we can thank for overturning this heinous law is Sue Reams. Sue campaigned to change California's Three Strikes Law and help set free her son, Shane Reams, free. Her son, was sentenced to a minimum of 25 years in prison for being involved in the $20 sale of crack-cocaine. A drug far less pure than cocaine and far more punishable by law. When news of her son's conviction hit, she went into action. She began to campaign to have the Three Strikes Law overturned. She campaigned vigorously, writing senators and members of congress, petitioning, attending hearings, doing anything she could to bring attention to this imbalance. Change didn't come overnight, however.
Sue Reams' son, Shane, served 17 of his 25 year minimum sentence. During his time in prison, Shane was forced to join a prison gang. He saw and participated in things he should have never been exposed to, especially in our prison system. A better fit for Shane's situation would have been sentencing Shane to a drug counseling program in lieu of a lengthy prison sentence. This is the argument Sue has campaigned on for 17 years. Finally, during the fall of 2012, her prayers were answered.
Today, drug counseling programs and gang prevention programs will have their chance to take a bite out of crime. Dealing with the source of the problem, rather than the problem itself, can produce fruitful results in the form of rehabilitated and functional members of society. This will hopefully result in less prisons and prisoners.
Click here to listen to Sue's interview with NPR as she talks about her impressive mission and victory. Contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney if you have been charged with a criminal matter.
One person we can thank for overturning this heinous law is Sue Reams. Sue campaigned to change California's Three Strikes Law and help set free her son, Shane Reams, free. Her son, was sentenced to a minimum of 25 years in prison for being involved in the $20 sale of crack-cocaine. A drug far less pure than cocaine and far more punishable by law. When news of her son's conviction hit, she went into action. She began to campaign to have the Three Strikes Law overturned. She campaigned vigorously, writing senators and members of congress, petitioning, attending hearings, doing anything she could to bring attention to this imbalance. Change didn't come overnight, however.
Sue Reams' son, Shane, served 17 of his 25 year minimum sentence. During his time in prison, Shane was forced to join a prison gang. He saw and participated in things he should have never been exposed to, especially in our prison system. A better fit for Shane's situation would have been sentencing Shane to a drug counseling program in lieu of a lengthy prison sentence. This is the argument Sue has campaigned on for 17 years. Finally, during the fall of 2012, her prayers were answered.
Today, drug counseling programs and gang prevention programs will have their chance to take a bite out of crime. Dealing with the source of the problem, rather than the problem itself, can produce fruitful results in the form of rehabilitated and functional members of society. This will hopefully result in less prisons and prisoners.
Click here to listen to Sue's interview with NPR as she talks about her impressive mission and victory. Contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney if you have been charged with a criminal matter.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
More Detailed Information Regarding My California Drug Possession Case
FEDERALLY
If convicted on drug possession charges, you are facing a wide gamut of penalties at sentencing, varying from state to state. Penalties for simple possession can range from a fine of less than $100 and/or a few days in jail to thousands of dollars and several years in state prison for the same offense. Simple drug possession sentences tend to be the lightest, while intent to distribute drugs or the manufacturing of drugs carry much heavier penalties. Prosecutors sometimes offer plea deals to defendants who may be able to help them with a higher-priority investigation, perhaps leading to the arrest of an organized crime leader and/or dismantling a cartel.
LOCALLY
Federal lawmakers enacted mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for drug offenses in 1986 in an attempt to target high-level distributors. However, these minimum sentencing guidelines also impact lower-level drug defendants. Most states have adopted a similar approach to drug sentencing. These fixed sentences are based on the type of drug, the weight of the drug, and the number of prior convictions. Kentucky, which has adopted similar mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, has some of the toughest provisions. For simple possession, first offenders in Kentucky get two to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $20,000. In contrast, here in California, we have some of the lightest drug possession sentences: between $30 and $500 in fines and/or 15 to 180 days in jail. We realize there are much bigger fish to fry!
DRUG COURTS
Many states have instituted what are known as drug courts, which are programs for felony drug defendants overseen by a judge who aims to rehabilitate the defendant (often repeat offenders) instead of taking the case to trial. Judges have substantial control over the operation of drug courts. A drug defendant who agrees to drug court spends roughly 12 to 15 months attending treatment sessions and undergoing random drug tests while appearing before the drug court judge on a regular basis. Those who fail to appear in court or fail drug tests are arrested and often given a brief jail sentence. But the idea of lengthy sentencing for repeat drug offenders is becoming a less popular solution. A "nudge from the judge" is sometimes exactly what some people need.
SENTENCING
Factors that influence penalties for drug possession -- aside from mandatory minimum sentences -- include a defendant's past record, the amount and type of drug. Some states have effectively decriminalized possession of marijuana, making it a simple infraction (not unlike a traffic ticket), while possession of crack cocaine once carried the harshest penalties in most states. Depending on a given state's sentencing rules, judges have a certain degree of discretion and can impose sentences ranging from fines, community service hours and probation to lengthy prison sentences.
Contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney William Chestnut at 408-298-6990 for more detailed information pertaining to your California drug possession case.
If convicted on drug possession charges, you are facing a wide gamut of penalties at sentencing, varying from state to state. Penalties for simple possession can range from a fine of less than $100 and/or a few days in jail to thousands of dollars and several years in state prison for the same offense. Simple drug possession sentences tend to be the lightest, while intent to distribute drugs or the manufacturing of drugs carry much heavier penalties. Prosecutors sometimes offer plea deals to defendants who may be able to help them with a higher-priority investigation, perhaps leading to the arrest of an organized crime leader and/or dismantling a cartel.
LOCALLY
Federal lawmakers enacted mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for drug offenses in 1986 in an attempt to target high-level distributors. However, these minimum sentencing guidelines also impact lower-level drug defendants. Most states have adopted a similar approach to drug sentencing. These fixed sentences are based on the type of drug, the weight of the drug, and the number of prior convictions. Kentucky, which has adopted similar mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, has some of the toughest provisions. For simple possession, first offenders in Kentucky get two to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $20,000. In contrast, here in California, we have some of the lightest drug possession sentences: between $30 and $500 in fines and/or 15 to 180 days in jail. We realize there are much bigger fish to fry!
DRUG COURTS
Many states have instituted what are known as drug courts, which are programs for felony drug defendants overseen by a judge who aims to rehabilitate the defendant (often repeat offenders) instead of taking the case to trial. Judges have substantial control over the operation of drug courts. A drug defendant who agrees to drug court spends roughly 12 to 15 months attending treatment sessions and undergoing random drug tests while appearing before the drug court judge on a regular basis. Those who fail to appear in court or fail drug tests are arrested and often given a brief jail sentence. But the idea of lengthy sentencing for repeat drug offenders is becoming a less popular solution. A "nudge from the judge" is sometimes exactly what some people need.
SENTENCING
Factors that influence penalties for drug possession -- aside from mandatory minimum sentences -- include a defendant's past record, the amount and type of drug. Some states have effectively decriminalized possession of marijuana, making it a simple infraction (not unlike a traffic ticket), while possession of crack cocaine once carried the harshest penalties in most states. Depending on a given state's sentencing rules, judges have a certain degree of discretion and can impose sentences ranging from fines, community service hours and probation to lengthy prison sentences.
Contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney William Chestnut at 408-298-6990 for more detailed information pertaining to your California drug possession case.
Monday, March 25, 2013
You Have The Right To Refuse A Breathalyzer Test
As the weather gets warmer and the days grow longer, a familiar scene is taking place all over America's vacation destinations. Spring Breakers are converging on every locale from the mountains to the beach. With that influx comes an increase in DUIs.
If you or someone you know has had a DUI, then you know what a costly and taxing ordeal it can be. Your spring break can go from a dream-like oasis to a nightmarish hell.
When people see the red and blue lights in their rear-view mirror they are often times so petrified with fear that they immediately start giving away their rights. Generally, the thought is if they are courteous and compliant with the officer then they could perhaps charm, or lie their way out of it. That's a big mistake. Yes, you should always be courteous and respectful to any peace officer. However, they are not there to make friends or even to cut you a break.
If you are accused of drunk driving, the arresting officer will ask you to perform a field sobriety test. Don't do it. It is your right not to and you should exercise that right. Also, you have the right to refuse a breathalyzer. Refuse it. This is another attempt to essentially try and convict you on the spot. Simply and respectfully decline. They will arrest you and they will impound your vehicle, but now you have a leg to stand on. You haven't provided field evidence that can be far more damning than any tests they subject you to when you get to the station.
It is not an ordeal anyone wants to go through. The best way to avoid a DUI, obviously, is through abstinence. But, reality has proven that the best of us still get caught up in the worst of scenarios. Just remember, if you do get caught up in one of those scenarios--Clam up and lawyer up.
Contact San Jose DUI Attorney William Chestnut at 408-298-6990 if you have been arrested for a DUI.
When people see the red and blue lights in their rear-view mirror they are often times so petrified with fear that they immediately start giving away their rights. Generally, the thought is if they are courteous and compliant with the officer then they could perhaps charm, or lie their way out of it. That's a big mistake. Yes, you should always be courteous and respectful to any peace officer. However, they are not there to make friends or even to cut you a break.
If you are accused of drunk driving, the arresting officer will ask you to perform a field sobriety test. Don't do it. It is your right not to and you should exercise that right. Also, you have the right to refuse a breathalyzer. Refuse it. This is another attempt to essentially try and convict you on the spot. Simply and respectfully decline. They will arrest you and they will impound your vehicle, but now you have a leg to stand on. You haven't provided field evidence that can be far more damning than any tests they subject you to when you get to the station.
It is not an ordeal anyone wants to go through. The best way to avoid a DUI, obviously, is through abstinence. But, reality has proven that the best of us still get caught up in the worst of scenarios. Just remember, if you do get caught up in one of those scenarios--Clam up and lawyer up.
Contact San Jose DUI Attorney William Chestnut at 408-298-6990 if you have been arrested for a DUI.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)