The Early Release Of California's Prison Population

This past Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the state's request to stop the early release of nearly 9,600 inmates by the end of 2013. California has been ordered to reduce its prison population as a result of "dangerous and unacceptable conditions" in 30 of the state's correctional facilities.

In 2011, a federal court panel instructed the state to reduce its prison population after lawsuits deemed overcrowding as the key element in harmful and hazardous conditions. During that time, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that "needless suffering and death have been the well-documented result. Over the whole course of years during which this litigation has been pending, no other remedies have been found sufficient."

The federal panel found that the medical and mental health care that was provided to California inmates was below a constitutional level, and the singular way to remedy the issue was to reduce overcrowding.

Starting in 2009, the California prison system was ordered to decrease its inmate population from 202% over capacity to a maximum of 137.5%, within two years. To prevent state officials from dragging their feet any further, this past May federal judges threatened to cite the state with contempt if it did not comply with release orders.

The state of California cites public safety as their reason for resisting the release, for fear inmates will commit additional crimes once they are release.

If you have been charged with a crime, contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney William Chestnut at 408-298-6990.

Should I Take The Field Sobriety Test?

When an officer stops a motorist suspected of driving under the influence, the officer will typically ask the motorist to engage in one or more field sobriety tests. These are a dozen or more physical tests that supposedly determine whether the taker is inebriated by measuring coordination, balance, eye movement and/or language/memory skills. The officer who stops a motorist for suspected DUI will often ask the motorist to take several of these tests alongside the road. With any stop by a police officer, you must step out of your car if told to do so. What the officer will not reveal is that, unless under 21, the motorist is free to refuse the field sobriety tests.

Should an adult driver refuse the field sobriety tests at the scene? Yes.

First, most of the tests are of little value in determining sobriety. Studies commissioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have shown, of the many tests used, only three-the one-leg-stand, nystagmus (eye tracking), and walk-and-turn are effective in determining sobriety. Yet, California law enforcement officers often continue to use other tests, now known to be of little use.

Second, even a sober person can have trouble "passing" field sobriety tests. This is particularly the case when the person is nervous or suffers from physical problems or disabilities.

Third, the tests are administered roadside under less than controlled conditions by a police officer whose subjective opinion alone determines whether the motorist has "passed" or "failed."

Refusing the sobriety tests offered at the scene is to be distinguished from refusing to take a chemical test at the station, if the officer decides (after you refuse the FST's) he wants to take you down to the station to get a sample. If subsequently convicted of driving under the influence, after refusing a chemical test at the station (blood, breath, or urine), the court will consider additional jail time and your license will be suspended for one additional year. It is know as the "implied consent" law. If you are licensed to drive in California, you are duty-bound and impliedly consent to a chemical test to determine if you are under the influence.

If you are arrested on suspicion of DUI and are over 21 you should politely and courteously refuse to take the roadside sobriety tests then contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney William Chestnut at 408-298-6990.

Your Decorum In The Courtroom May Be Critical To Your Case

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.  

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. 

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.