Monder Law Group - News

Drunk Woman Who Drove with Man’s Body in Windshield Receives Trial Date

An Oceanside woman charged with a multitude of serious felonies including murder has finally received her trial date of August 15th, 2017. Esteysi “Stacy” Sanchez shook national headlines last summer when she allegedly drove into a man on the sidewalk while driving drunk with the grisly turn of events only getting worse from there. The man was hit with such force his leg was severed, ultimately slid across the top of her vehicle and remained on her car for the duration of her travel. Despite the gravely wounded man still stuck in her windshield at the time, she allegedly continued to drive home unfazed for another mile while his detached leg lay on her trunk. Tensions were high at the time the case broke national headlines, primarily stemming from the seemingly uncaring attitude Sanchez displayed toward the victim.

According to KUSI News, Sanchez has been charged with a slew of charges including hit-and-run, murder, DUI causing injury, gross vehicular manslaughter, and driving without a license. It took until December for both friends and witnesses of Sanchez to be allowed to present some of their testimony in a preliminary court hearing. The testimony presented included statements of Sanchez’ heavy drinking as well as repeated calls not to drive home following that long night of drinking. The defendant is alleged to have disregarded those warnings and driven home anyway at which point the victim was fatally struck.

Typically a murder charge is bestowed in a fatal DUI case when the accused has a history of DUI convictions. This is primarily known as a Watson murder charge. For Watson murder to apply, the defendant would have to have been issued a formal warning that drunk driving places others at risk for injury or death and they could be charged with murder in the future for doing so. This formal warning is most often accomplished by a court-ordered signing of a document, indicating one has read and understood the warnings and potential consequences. As an overview of the risks is also provided at DUI school, attendance of DUI can enough to provoke a Watson murder charge.

So what makes this case different? Sanchez has no prior history of any DUI convictions, nor did she know and intentionally kill her victim. In addition, Sanchez did not have a driver’s license at all. The murder charge alleged stems solely from her conscious disregard for human life, indicated by driving nearly a mile with a dying man stuck in her windshield and never offering assistance or contacting police. Even a drunk driver would have been unable to claim ignorance of a collision that serious, particularly with a body lodged inside your car and resting on your passenger seat. The defense, in this case, has an extremely tough road ahead of them. Based on the facts of the case it would seem that the DUI aspect may play a smaller role in this situation. As the murder charge is not intricately connected with the DUI, even if a DUI conviction proved unsuccessful the defendant could still face 15 years to life in prison based on second-degree murder alone. The severity of the charges and circumstances in question are clear. The San Diego Tribune reports that Sanchez is currently held on a bail of 1.5 million dollars.

With a controversial president now in office, this story has proved to be yet another catalyst for individuals and politicians supportive of tighter border controls. At the time of the incident, public reaction was swift with many protesters who were reported to have formed a wall outside of the Chula Vista courthouse, according to KUSI News. A group calling themselves, San Diegans for Secure Borders were also present in the group of protesters. Thankfully, the protests proved peaceful in nature, with only verbal confrontations. Concerned citizens held up pictures of other recent victims of illegal immigrant crimes and implored the government to provide better enforcement of our laws. Sanchez was placed on an immediate immigration hold by ICE, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. An immigration hold merely means that when eligible for release, they instead will be transferred over to federal custody to await an immigration hearing. Often individuals can obtain their release via bail while awaiting this hearing but mandatory detention until the decision and possible deportation is required for crimes of this nature if she is ultimately convicted.

Of the crimes she is charged with, second-degree murder leads the way with the stiffest of penalties as the minimum sentence is 15 years. Gross vehicular manslaughter is punishable by four to ten years in state prison. Enhancements can increase this term to 15 years to life but do not qualify in this situation as Sanchez has no prior DUI convictions or even a criminal record. DUI causing injury is a wobbler, giving discretion in either a misdemeanor or felony level charge. While we cannot speculate further on the charge, the difference is between up to a year in a county jail or several years in prison. The hit and run charges are similar with the wobbler factor. On the felony end of penalties, a conviction could result in a two to four-year prison sentence due to the fact a victim died in this instance. Lastly, driving without a license which is the least serious of all crimes Sanchez is facing. In this case, up to six months in county jail is the maximum penalty. All of the crimes charged here carry fines and other monetary penalties which will likely total tens of thousands in costs. However, the high likelihood of deportation upon release may deem collection all but impossible. For now, it is a long wait until trial and the results of it remain to be seen.

Accidents and arrests stemming from driving under the influence happen every day around the country. Not all cases are so grievous and upsetting as the case in question. Many are mistakes or underestimating how drunk you truly are when leaving a restaurant or party. It is these cases that benefit the most from a staunch defender of your right to a fair and balanced justice system. The most important resource in any DUI case is time, and in order to provide the best defense you should not hesitate to contact a skilled defense attorney with experience in DUI cases.

Criminal defense attorney Vik Monder has successfully represented those defending against all types of DUI related crimes, even the most tragic. As a highly experienced DUI lawyer, he understands the ins and outs of the process, and the best routes to take to ensure you do not suffer a lengthy conviction for an accident. A veteran of multiple high-profile cases, Vik Monder will give your case the attention it deserves when your livelihood and future may depend on it. To see what Vik Monder can do for your case today, call to schedule your free consultation at 619-405-0063 or visit our website by clicking San Diego Criminal Lawyer

Monder Law Group - News

Tijuana Councilman Money Laundering Criminal Case Understanding a White-Collar Criminal Offense in San Diego

Luis Torres Santillan was arrested in December of 2016 at the border of California and Mexico and charged with ten counts of money laundering. Torres is Tijuana Councilman, which he served sixteen days on before he was arrested, and he has a home in Coronado.  He is dual citizenship and he is the general manager of “Productos Diamond,” a family operated Tijuana business that imports rice, beans and lentils from different parts of the world and sells them in Mexico. The Deputy District attorney said he was not allowed to say much about the case, but, he did say “investigators believe that proceeds from illegal activity are being smuggled from Mexico into the United States, and then deposited into banks in the United States and then wired back into Mexico.” In a more recent interview, he made a statement “alleging that Torres opened a shell company in San Diego, Towers Trading and Transport, Inc., whose U.S. bank accounts were used to launder funds that were the proceeds of drug trafficking. Also, between July 2015 and July 2016, their organization made 18 deposits on behalf of Torres totaling about $675,000.” It is also noted that money was being deposited in American banks and then instantly being transferred back to Mexico. Originally the bail amount was set at $5 million but it was reduced and Torres is currently out on bail after his hearing on January 3^rd. San Diego attorney, Anthony Colombo, is representing Torres. There are twelve suspects in this case.

The relevant statute for money laundering is California Penal Code §186, which became effective more recently in October of 2011. It is longer more comprehensive statute that states, Any person who conducts or attempts to conduct a transaction or more than one transaction within a seven-day period involving a monetary instrument or instruments of a total value exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), or a total value exceeding twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) within a 30-day period, through one or more financial institutions (1) with the specific intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on of any criminal activity, or (2) knowing that the monetary instrument represents the proceeds of, or is derived directly or indirectly from the proceeds of, criminal activity, is guilty of the crime of money laundering. The aggregation periods do not create an obligation for financial institutions to record, report, create, or implement tracking systems or otherwise monitor transactions involving monetary instruments in any time period.

Cal. Penal Code. § 186.10. Based on the limited facts given in the article it would seem as if section (1) and (2) would be applicable to Torres the case because the prosecution alleges the money stems from drug trafficking. In addition, it involves sending money to United States banks and then Mexico banks. The elements that are required to prove money laundering are as follows, (1) Conducting, or attempting to conduct a transaction through a financial institution. (2) The amount must be five thousand dollars or more in a seven-day span or twenty-five thousand in a thirty-day span. And (3) The defendant intended to promote criminal activity with the financial transaction, or knew the funds involved in the transaction came from criminal activity. Thus, money laundering has three elements, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The first applicable element is, conducting, or attempting to conduct a transaction through a financial institution. A financial institution essentially means a bank. Transaction entails, making a deposit, withdrawing money, initiating an electronic or wire transfer, exchanging money into foreign currency, or writing a check. Here, the facts state that the Defendant, Torres, would collect money in Mexico and “smuggle” it across the United States border to deposit in a United States bank to then transfer it back to a Mexico bank. It was also said that the evidence shows that Torres made eighteen deposits from July 2015 to July 2017. Because Torres used banks and made deposits he has fulfilled this element. In addition, because Torres made eighteen deposits in one year it shows that he used a finical institution regularly. However, it seems as if almost anyone would fulfill this element because most people use banks to keep their money protected or for their investments. In addition, writing a check could even count for this element, so theoretically everyone could fulfill this requirement. Also, Torres was not making deposits every day, it was more like once every three weeks which does not seem like out of the ordinary. Thus, because Torres used a finical institution the first element is fulfilled.

The second element amount must be five thousand dollars or more in a seven-day span or twenty-five thousand in a thirty-day span. This applies to the certain minimum amount of money; the amount must be equal to, or greater than the requirement, also, it can be multiple transactions, it does not have to be one lump sum. Here, the facts state that the eighteen deposits grand total was about $675,000. Because the requirement is twenty-five thousand in a thirty-day span, this element is fulfilled since there is no way it can be less than the required amount since it is such a large sum of money. The monthly average would be about fifty-six thousand dollars which are over double the requirement according to the law. Thus, the second element required for money laundering would be fulfilled.

The last element the prosecution would have to prove is that the defendant intended to promote criminal activity with the financial transaction, or knew the funds involved in the transaction came from criminal activity. The legal definition of money laundering has specific intent or knowledge as one of its key elements. This means that you are not guilty of money laundering if you unknowingly initiated a banking transaction that turned out to be connected with a crime. Cal. Penal Code. § 186.10. Here, the prosecution would have to show that Torres knew the funds involved in the transaction came from criminal activity. Because there is nothing showing that this is present this is the prosecution’s weakest element. Thus, lack of intent is Torres’s best defense.

An applicable defense to money laundering would state that Torres did not intend to promote or support crime activity or using the money for these transactions that originally came from criminal activity. This very possible because he has a high position in a company that deals with a lot of money daily. In addition, it is possible that Torres does not know exactly where the money is coming from because he is not the owner of the company or necessarily involved with that aspect of the company. If the drug trafficking allegations are true. It would seem very reasonable that a person in his position just signs off on checks as they come across his table. If we looked at the outside circumstances it was said that Torres comes from a prominent Tijuana family and has no criminal history at 37 years old. It would seem odd for a man with an affluent background and no criminal history to be laundering money that stems from drug smuggling. Thus, Torres’s lack of intent to promote criminal activity is a relevant defense, which would not fulfill the third element.

The penalty one faces for money laundering is more diverse sentence than most crimes, because it is what known as a “wobbler.” This means that the crime can be considered a misdemeanor or felony. If money laundering is charged as a misdemeanor, the potential penalties include; up to one year in county jail; and/or a fine of up to one thousand dollars. However, a felony sentence can result of four years in state prison, and a $250,000 fine or twice the money laundered but not exceeding $500,000. Cal. Penal Code. § 186.10. (c).  In Torres’s situation, he is charged with ten counts money laundering. This would be the felony charge.

Thus, money laundering has three applicable elements and Torres’s best defense would be his lack of intent.

If you have questions regarding white-collar criminal charges in San Diego County, please feel free to contact San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer Vik Monder at 619-405-0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney

Monder Law Group - News

What to know if you are arrested for Domestic Violence in San Diego

There are only a few top domestic violence attorneys in San Diego and Vik Monder is one of them. Getting an attorney earlier on in your case will make all the difference trying to get your criminal charges dropped. The prosecution’s office in San Diego will move forward with charges pretty quickly. It is essential to make sure you start putting together a defense as soon as possible. The investigation stages of the defense must move faster than the prosecution’s case-in-chief.

 What should you do if you are falsely accused of Domestic Violence in San Diego?

There are many defenses and the most common one used is self-defense. Often times the credibility of the complaining witness is at stake so if there is any way to make that person look untruthful or biased that would be the way you shape the minds of the jurors and tilt the scales in your favor. This requires strategic negotiations with the persecution’s office to show holes in their case-in-chief in an attempt to get the case dismissed before going through a long trial process. Being able to attack the case before it starts is one of the greatest strengths of a domestic violence lawyer in San Diego.

Why should I hire a domestic violence lawyer in San Diego?

There are often times your case will become difficult such as communications with the opposing party or spouse, which becomes problematic to handle on your own or with a public defender who does not care about your case. The sooner you get an attorney involved with your case, the sooner you can avoid a conviction.

There are many penalties if you do not hire adequate representation for your case:

The penalty phase of a domestic violence charge can either be a felony or misdemeanor on your record for the rest of your life. Depending if there are prior offenses or prior bad acts from previous incidents when officers took a report will increase your penalties on any subsequent case. Also, often times the prosecution will add other charges in addition to domestic violence, which can range from stalking to criminal threats if you are charged with a felony. Custody time ranges for these types of offenses. However, if you are potentially faced with the possibility of jail time it is important to argue for alternatives to custody or formal probation.  

The most common type of punishment is a 52-week domestic violence class. Probation will last only for 3 years and you can terminate probation within one year and a half as long as there are no new violations. In order to avoid jail time or a conviction the most important thing to do is put a mitigation packet together that will shed a positive light on your character and put you in the best possible light.  That is why it is extremely important to hire a lawyer within 48 hours from your arrest.

If you have questions about your domestic violence case, please feel free to contact domestic violence lawyer Vik Monder at 619-405-0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

Monder Law Group - News

Stages of a Domestic Violence Case in San Diego

There are four stages to a domestic violence case in San Diego. The first stage is the arrest and bail; the second stage is the pre-file; the third stage is the arraignment and pre-trial hearings and the fourth is the actual trial phase.

 The First Stage in every Domestic Violence Case in San Diego starts with the Arrest and Bail:

The moment when law enforcement is called to an incident of domestic violence someone will be arrested. It is mandated by the police department for public safety purposes that someone has to go to jail. The goal of the officer is to determine who is the dominant aggressor during the investigation. Often times the officers will refer to this as the welfare check.

The Second Stage in every Domestic Violence Case in San Diego is referred to as the Pre-File:

After bond has been posted this is when you will need to start putting together a mitigation packet for the prosecutor and a judge. While the prosecutor is building a case against you it is your opportunity to try and get the case reduced or dismissed through mitigation. The sooner your attorney gets an opportunity to start putting the mitigation together and discussing your case with the issuing attorney at the district attorney office, the better off you are in getting the case dismissed.

The Third Stage in every Domestic Violence Case in San Diego is referred to as the Pretrial Hearings:

After the arraignment stage and during the time prior to trial you will be working on negotiations and getting the discovery in your case. Often times during the negotiations your attorney will be able to advocate in front of a judge beyond closed doors on your behalf. This is where discussions will be had about the evidence in your case and whether or not it is even admissible at the trial stage. At the initial hearing you will want to address the protective order in your case and argue for a no negative contact order so that the judge can see that you and the complaining witness are doing better. It is often difficult to get the prosecutor to put you in jail when the victim is now an agreeable defense witness.

The Fourth Stage in every Domestic Violence Case in San Diego is referred to as the Trial Stage:

The trial stage only occurs 1% out of 99% of cases in all of San Diego criminal cases. This is often the most difficult and stressful part of the criminal case if you find yourself in this position. The reason being that the trial stage has the most exposure in terms of sentence and evidence in your case. It is often difficult to anticipate what a witness may say on the stand. However, if you have a favorable complaining witness by the time trial comes around, and then it may be in your best effort to push trial. There may not be a conviction if the victim or complaining witness does not testify against you or recants their statements. Often times the prosecution will try and rebut the complaining witness through experts who will testify as to what is known as battered women syndrome. It is your criminal defense attorney’s job to make sure none of this evidence is entered in at the trial stage.

Domestic violence cases are the hardest cases for the prosecution to prove because it often times requires the victim to be cooperative with the prosecution throughout the entire case. Often times victims have a change of heart or upset how drawn out the criminal process is at times.

Restraining orders can be in affect even after the case is over. It is important to hire an experienced restraining order attorney in San Diego who understands the importance of getting these restraining orders dropped at an early stage in your case. Restraining orders will have a dire affect on your job and life if you are a gun owner or going through a divorce.

If you have questions about the criminal process in dealing with a domestic violence case please feel free to contact San Diego Domestic Violence Attorney Vik Monder at 619-405-0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Attorney

Monder Law Group - News

San Diego gun law case potentially headed to U.S. Supreme Court

A court case from 2009 which argued against requiring a reason, or good cause, in order to receive a concealed carry permit continues to make ripples seven years later. While the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to decide whether or not to hear their case, Edward Peruta and gun owners across the country are anxious to finally have a decision on this common but controversial set of laws. The San Diego County initiated the request on Thursday, continuing a long battle supported by many San Diego residents and gun owners nationwide.

San Diego County is not alone in the process of making concealed carry permits available on a limited basis. A small number of states, or more appropriately, counties within those states enforce a “May issue” jurisdiction where good cause is necessary. These choices are generally decided by the county Sheriff or the police department. Good cause can be broadly defined as an additional reason beyond just standard self-defense, of which everyone is entitled to. Additional CCW requirements include having a good moral character and additional safety training. In this case, the San Diego Sheriff’s office denied a licensing application due to the primary plaintiff’s failure to show cause.

Good cause has frequently been a source of contention as some counties have very lax enforcement of what denotes good cause, making it very easy to obtain a CCW. While others fall in stark contrast to the ease of rural counties, where denial is very common unless you can show one of the very few accepted examples of good cause. Typically jobs with a high level of danger such as transporting large sums from location to location easily qualify. All in all, approval often remains up to the whims of the Sheriff or Police Department and can’t usually be contested. The judges themselves are seemingly torn on the constitutionality of the subject as court decisions on Peruta’s case have had it’s share of flip flops. The original ruling by a federal judge in 2010 was not in favor of Peruta and his fellow plaintiffs. However, this was eventually overturned four years later with a 2-1 vote in the Ninth circuit. This small victory resulted in a surge of CCW approvals, now that the only requirements were a good moral character, sufficient firearms training and the standard background check.

Victory for the plaintiffs would appear to be short lived. While San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore had zero interest at all in appealing the case, California’s Attorney General did and exercised the appeal on his behalf. With this, an en banc session was granted. En banc is essentially a rehearing of arguments in front of a much larger panel of judges, as opposed to the small three judge panel that ruled on the appeal originally. After a long and grueling year of addressing all the arguments, the reversal was overturned in a 7-4 split of the 11 judge panel. The argument of the Attorney General’s office was as follows: “California seeks to strike a sensible balance between recognizing and accommodating both individual rights and reasonable gun use and implementing the State’s legislative judgment that unrestricted carrying of handguns in cities, towns, or other populated areas makes the public less safe.”

The dissenting opinions of the four judges varied, but were joint in their disagreement with the overall ruling. As originally reported by the Washington Post, the primary dissenting argument pointed to the California’s ban on open carry. With concealed carry also so heavily restricted as to be typically denied to the general public, there was a clear conflict with the overall right to bear arms, clearly an infringement. There was a push for a reversal of current trends, instead allowing open carry to be heavily restricted while concealed carry would become relatively easy to obtain under a licensing system dubbed more fair. This is a small battle in what has seemingly been an endless war in the gun rights debate. The right to bear arms is accepted and naturally required by our constitution, but arguments will forever exist based on how far restriction and regulation can limit this constitutional right. With such decisions left to states, counties and even the whims of the local sheriff there is likely no end in sight without a series of United States Supreme Court rulings.

Peruta eventually tried in vain to obtain an appeal in front of the en banc panel but was unsuccessful, ushering the case to where it is today. With the petition filed to be heard by the United States Supreme Court, there is much to be desired with regards to the confidence of its acceptance. Since its 2008 ruling that the 2nd Amendment includes a right for individuals to have guns at their residence for self-defense, the Supreme Court has consistently avoided tackling major gun rights battles. It may naturally be hard to argue that the 2nd Amendment also includes carrying concealed weapons but the incoming presidential transition may give more hope to advocates for gun rights. Based on political affiliations and stated intention, Donald Trump is all but guaranteed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice pick who will be fervently supportive of the 2nd Amendment. The only question remaining is will it be in time for this petition, and will it influence the glaring history of avoidance with regard to gun-related arguments.

The San Diego Tribune reported that 2,463 concealed carry permit applications without a good cause reason filed prior to the en banc reversal were accepted but immediately placed on hold and will remain on hold pending a law change. Elsewhere in Orange County, the reaction to the previous 9th court decision was far more swift, with many CCW permits issued as opposed to applications under review. Naturally, this was halted after the reversal, but it does mean for those in Orange County who applied during the period, no cause was needed to obtain their permit. Now for San Diego and many other counties, CCW permits lacking an approved reason of necessity are destined to remain in limbo for an unknown duration.

Self-defense is a right that everyone is entitled to and few things are more frustrating than facing charges that will limit your future ability to defend yourself. Criminal defense attorney Vik Monder represents the people of San Diego County and the surrounding area in these cases and more. The Monder Law Group tackles charges of illegal possession of weapons, assault with a deadly weapon and other associated charges that not only threaten to impact your freedom but your right to protection as well. If your personal freedom or gun ownership rights are threatened by a pending felony or criminal case, contact Vik Monder at 619-405-0063 as soon as possible. Success in such serious cases can be time dependent and we wish to provide you the best defense possible.

Monder Law Group - News

Chief Keef Robbery & Assault Criminal Case – Understanding the Elements of a Crime

Hip-Hop artist Keith Cozart, with the stage name Chief Keef, was arrested on January 18^th for alleged robbery and assault on his former Music producer Ramsey The Great. This took place at Ramsey’s house in Los Angeles. Cozart allegedly broke into the home with other accomplices and held Ramsey at gunpoint with AK-47. Ramsey alleges that he was robbed of money, a Rolex, watch and other valuables. In addition, Ramsey states that he was hit with the butt of the gun wielded by Cozart. Cozart, along with two others, were arrested at his home in Tarzana by the LAPD with no struggle.

Robbery in California is defined as, “The felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 211 (West). By looking at the California Criminal Jury Instructions, it is seen that this crime is broken down into five key elements.  (1) The defendant took property that was not (his/her) own; (2) The property was taken from another person’s possession and immediate presence; (3) The property was taken against that person’s will; (4) The defendant used force or fear to take the property or to prevent the person from resisting; AND (5) When the defendant used force or fear to take the property, (he/she) intended to deprive the owner of it permanently/ [or] to remove it from the owner’s possession for so extended a period of time that the owner would be deprived of a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property. The prosecution is going to have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Cozart completed all five of these elements in order to convict him of the robbery. Also, there are two degrees of robbery, first and second. Therefore, there are five elements that need to be fulfilled to be convicted of robbery.

In addition to the robbery charge, Cozart is looking at an assault with a firearm charge, which is defined as, “Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a firearm shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not less than six months and not exceed one year, or by both a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment. Cal. Pen. Code.” § 245. Also, California law defines an “assault” as an unlawful attempt to commit a violent injury on someone else—coupled with the present ability to do so. Cal Pen. §240. Once again looking to the California Jury instructions as an outline for elemental breakdown it shows us that there are four, (1) The defendant did an act with (a deadly weapon/a firearm/a semiautomatic firearm/a machine gun/an assault weapon/a .50 BMG rifle) that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to a person; (2) The defendant did that act willfully; (3) When the defendant acted, (he/she) was aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that (his/ her) act by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to someone; AND, (4) When the defendant acted, (he/she) had the present ability to apply force (likely to produce great bodily injury/with a deadly weapon/with a firearm/with a semiautomatic firearm/with a machine gun/with an assault weapon/with a .50 BMG rifle) to a person. Thus, there are four elements that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Cozart on assault with a firearm.

The defendant took property that was not his own. A person takes something when he or she gains possession of it and moves it some distance. Pen. Code §211. Here, Cozart took a Rolex watch and money from Ramsey The Great. Because Cozart gained possession of the items and moved them he would fulfill this element. This is not an element that would be much at issue given the facts because it is evident that it was completed. Unless facts came out that showed that Cozart did not take these items this element is set. Thus, Cozart did take property that was not his own.

The property was taken from another person’s possession and immediate presence. A person does not have to actually hold or touch something to possess it. It is enough if the person has control over it or the right to control it), either personally or through another person. Pen. Code §211. Here, because Ramsey was in the home it would be enough to show that he had possession of the items, it is not required that he actually had the items in his hands. In fact, one must not necessarily even own the items, this would be applicable with a store clerk who is robbed. In addition, because Ramsey was home and his items were taken this would count as being in his immediate presence since there was not a distance and he present at the time. Thus, the property was taken while in another person’s possession and immediate presence.

The property was taken against that person’s will. An act is done against a person’s will if that person does not consent to the act. In order to consent, a person must act freely and voluntarily and know the nature of the act Pen Code §211. Here, Ramsey did not consent to freely to the taking of his property, we can tell because he got hit in the face with the butt of a gun multiple times. This would suggest that he was not allowing the taking of his property. Because there was not consent given by Ramsey the property was taken against his will. Thus, Cozart did take the property against the owner’s will.

The defendant used force or fear to take the property or to prevent the person from resisting. Force, for purposes of robbery law, means physical force. And fear means fear of injury, to either; the victim’s self, a family member of the victim, the victim’s property, or, someone else present during the incident. Pen. Code §211. Here, because Cozart beat Ramsey while in the house it would show that there was a physical force. In addition, because Cozart had an AK-47 there would be a fear for one’s life because they could have easily been killed in that situation. These acts would encourage someone to give the property over to the one who was robbing them. Since there was a force and a fear both the acts were completed even though only one was needed. Thus, Cozart used force and fear to take the property.

When the defendant used force or fear to take the property, (he/she) intended to deprive the owner of it permanently/ [or] to remove it from the owner’s possession for so extended a period of time that the owner would be deprived of a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property. Pen. Code §211. Here, because this is the intent element the Defendants mental state is what shall be examined. Because Cozart ran into the house with a gun and took Ramsey’s valuables, it is safe to infer that he had the mental state to deprive the owner. It is distinguishable then, when one takes another person’s phone in an emergency situation then hands it back. Because Ramsey was left without the property he was deprived of it. The facts are unclear where the property is as of now, but, going the one day without it is long enough to qualify for an extended period of time. Thus, Cozart intended to deprive the owner of their property for an extended period of time.

Moreover, there are two different degrees of robbery in California, first degree and second degree. It is so stated in Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 212.5  “That every robbery which is perpetrated in an inhabited dwelling house or trailer coach, as defined in the Vehicle Code, or the inhabited portion of any other building, is a robbery of the first degree.” Because Cozart allegedly committed the robbery in the Dwelling of Ramsey, he would qualify for first-degree robbery. If he was found guilty of all five elements. Thus, Cozart could qualify for first-degree robbery.

With regard to the assault with a deadly weapon, the first thing we look at is, whether the defendant did an act with a deadly weapon. If the weapon is an assault rifle or a machine gun it directly fulfills the element that the force would likely produce great bodily harm because of the weapons nature. Cal Pen. §245(a)1. Here, because Cozart had an AK-47 with him during the alleged robbery he had a machine gun which would show an application of force to a reasonable person. Also, because of the nature of this weapon, it is inferred that it would directly act as a force to a person. Thus, the first element is fulfilled.

The defendant did that act willfully. Willfully means the defendant acted with a purpose, it is not necessary that someone gets hurt or that they break the law. Cal Pen. §245(a)1. Here, because Cozart broke into and went in the home and pointed the gun at Ramsey it shows that he did act with a purpose. No one was shot during the course of the robbery, however, that does not matter because a person need not be harmed by gunshot to show that Cozart acted willfully. Thus, the second element would be completed.

When the defendant acted, he was aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that his act by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force to someone. Cal Pen. §245(a)1. Here, Cozart would be aware that his actions would apply force to Ramsey because he pointed the gun at him and hit him with the gun causing injury.  A reasonable person would be aware that this is showing force to another. In addition, Cozart was not alone, because there Ramsey was outnumbered in people and weapons it would be evident that Cozart would know his actions would make a reasonable person would result in an application of force. Thus, the third element of assault is established.

When the defendant acted, he had the present ability to apply force. This can also be shown by the defendant having a firearm, machine gun, or a semiautomatic firearm. Cal Pen. §245(a)1. Here, as said before because Cozart had a gun he would have present ability to apply the force. Thus, the fourth element is satisfied.

This defense is not relevant to the facts given in the article but if the defendant acted in self-defense or defense of another the jury would receive a fifth element which is, the defendant did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else. If the defendant had acted in self-defense or defense of another, it would act as a defense to the assault charge. However, one can only use this defense if they reasonably believed that they or someone else was in danger of an unlawful touching or physical harm. Cal Pen. §245(a)1.

Therefore, because of the limited facts that are disclosed in the article, it would seem as if there would be a prima facie case against Cozart for first-degree robbery and assault with a firearm.

If you have questions about the criminal process here in San Diego, feel free to contact experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Vik Monder at 619-405-0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Lawyer

Monder Law Group - News

Driver accused of fatal DUI pleads from hospital bed

Alexandria Bayne swiftly discovered the treatment for her injuries would not prevent her arraignment for the fatal head-on collision that took place in 4S Ranch on December 17th. Bayne is alleged to have had a blood-alcohol level at .33 percent at the time of the crash, over four times more than the legal limit. Bayne was driving on the wrong side of the road which is said to have been the cause of the crash that killed a mother of a 4-year old child. In a depressing turn of events, the victim was a nurse who worked for the very same health system that is now treating Bayne for her significant injuries in the crash that killed her. The victim, Sarita Shakya, died at the scene and is survived by her husband and young daughter.

Bayne’s case already looks grim with an extensive DUI history including a 2005 San Diego County conviction and a 2008 Los Angeles County conviction as reported by NBC San Diego. Additionally, Deputy District Attorney Cally Bright reported that the accused spent the entire day drinking including before and after driving her own children multiple locations. According to CBS 8, Bayne was arraigned at the hospital and is now facing 25 years to life in convicted. Her bail is set at an extremely high $3 million dollars likely based on the seriousness of her charges. Bayne not only faces charges relating to the time of her crash but also felony child endangerment charges for the alleged transportation of her children to and from a restaurant while under the influence of alcohol.

She has pleaded not guilty to all of her charges. It is assumed that one or more future court hearings may also take place at the hospital due to the extent of her personal injuries. While there has been no further information or updates regarding her condition, the fact that her arraignment took place within the hospital while she was confined to a bed gives some indication of her limits at this time. Her readiness hearing is scheduled to take place mid-January. Alexandria’s charges include:

• Murder
• Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated
• Felony child endangerment
• Driving on the wrong side of a divided highway causing death
• DUI causing injury

Driving on the wrong side of a divided highway is not a charge most people are accustomed to hearing or seeing. A major requirement for conviction on this charge is willful failure to drive on the correct side of the road. Inadvertent incidences or accidental loss of control would not qualify for a conviction in this case as they are not willful in nature. Causing death or injury such as in this case can raise this offense to felony level. As a misdemeanor, this offense can carry a maximum of one year in a county jail. When charged as a felony, the convicted party faces up to three years in prison. The driver is not required to directly cause injury or death in order to face conviction. A driver who willfully drives on the wrong side of the road, causing another driver to swerve in avoidance and cause an injury or death is liable for indirectly causing that injury or death.

Felony child endangerment in this case is a result of the potential for injury or death to Bayne’s own children due to allegedly driving her children around while intoxicated. While there were no children in the car at the time of the fatal crash, prosecutors are using evidence and reports of her day of drinking in its entirety to convict. Traditionally a wobbler, prosecutors have opted for felony level charges in this case, and in multiple counts. Bayne can face up to six years in prison for each count she is ultimately convicted of.

Gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is an extremely serious felony that is only dwarfed by the murder charge in this case. Proving gross negligence is mandatory for conviction, meaning simple negligence is not enough for this charge to stick. An uncaring attitude despite knowing the risks is unlikely to be hard to prove as the defendant has a history of DUI offenses. This charge carries with it a stiff penalty of four to 10 years in prison. Sentencing adaptions, however, can drastically increase the total sentence up to life in prison. Individuals who have at least two prior DUI convictions, such as Bayne, can potentially face from 15 years to life in prison. Additionally, via the Watson murder rule, this charge could be upgraded to second degree murder which also will incur a penalty of 15 years to life in prison.

The murder charge in this case was unspecified, but as there is no report of premeditation or a deliberate act of killing it can be safely assumed this is a second-degree murder charge. As mentioned above, a second-degree murder conviction in the state of California carries with it a penalty of 15 years to life in prison. Based upon the circumstances Bayne can receive this penalty from either this murder charge or the gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated charge if utilizing enhancements, or both.

Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol happens frequently despite the stiff penalties associated with the crime. Most individuals are generally aware that minor punishments such as a license suspension and DUI school classes occur, but fail to realize the potential long term impact and expense. In this example, previous DUI convictions have the potential to add on a life sentence to a crime that would otherwise carry only four to 10 years upon conviction. While the seriousness of these alleged crimes may warrant such heavy handed punishment, the same cannot always be said of the average person facing a DUI charge. When charged with a DUI, the very first step should be to secure a criminal lawyer for your case immediately. Time is of the essence and simply taking the charge as it stands is never in your favor. Dismissal, acquittal, plea deals and alternative sentencing are all options that can lessen the burden of DUI, especially for first time charges.

Criminal defense attorney Vik Monder specializes in DUI and related charges. Whether you are facing a basic, non-injurious DUI charge or one involving serious death or injury, Vik Monder is the attorney for you. Serious charges such as the ones mentioned in this story can cause you to spend a lifetime in jail at the mercy of the parole board. However, whether large or small proper representation matters when your freedom and livelihood are at stake. At Monder Law we deliver results and can help prevent you from serving unnecessary and undeserved jail time. Never be left in the dark about what your prospective lawyer can and will do for your case, we will work with you every step of the way. If you are in need of a defense attorney for any crime, contact Vik Monder for your free consultation at 619-405-0063 or visit our website San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney.

Monder Law Group - News

Daycare Employee Charged with Child Molestation in Southern California

Understanding Sex Crimes in California under Penal Code § 288

Defendant Jacob Blas was arrested in January of 2017 for repeatedly molesting a child who is under ten years old. This alleged act occurred at the Defendants Parents Daycare business located in Lake Elsinore. The Defendant is currently being held at the Southwest Detention center in Murrieta, Ca. The Sheriff’s investigation showed evidence that the child was molested in the Defendants care. It was said by the sheriff’s office that the Defendant began the acts on her when she was six years old. The investigation started when there was a criminal complaint filed against the Defendant. The current bail is set at $5 million.

The Defendant, in this case, is looking at getting charged with California Penal code §288 (a) which states,

Except as provided in subdivision (i), any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years. (b)(1) Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a) by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 5, 8, or 10 years.

With the statute listed above the charge for §288(a) essentially breaks down to two elements, which are; (1) the touching of a child’s body, (2) with sexual intent. For the defendant to be found guilty under the statute the prosecution must prove both of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Courts have ruled throughout the state that the touching of the child is constructive. This means that the Defendant does not have to touch the victim in order to fulfill the element, but instead, the required touching can be done by the child. “This would be further explained in without touching the child, compelled the child to remove her own clothing was guilty of violating section 288. Violation of section 288 requires the defendant to either touch the body of a child or willfully cause a child to touch her own body, the defendant’s body, or the body of someone else.” People v. Lopez (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1220. Because of this rule, the defendant would not be able to use the defense that they never actually touched the victim, but instead, the victim had actually done the action of touching themselves or even removing their own clothes. Id.185. Thus, the act element of this crime can be interpreted pretty broadly.

The court also requires that the touching committed was with sexual intent. This includes “the intent to arouse, appeal to or gratify the lust of the child or the accused. People v. Villagran (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 880, 891. The proof of one’s mental state during an act can be hard to prove because one has to show what the defendant was thinking at that time. However, the intent can be inferred from the circumstances. This would go to the jury and they can look to the relationship of the parties and any coercion that could be seen by the surrounding circumstances. In regards to Defendant Blas, this would be important because of his role with the alleged victim. Because the Defendant worked at the daycare and was more of an authority figure to the child, this would all be taken into account when the jury looked into the situation. It is possible that Prosecution shows since the Defendant was in charge of the child that he was in control, and could take advantage of the situation and commit the alleged acts. Therefore, the mental state of sexual intent can look to all of the surrounding circumstances can be looked at while considering this element.

Even though the elements are broad, there would still be applicable defenses for the Defendant. One way would be to question the accuser’s credibility. This would be applicable in the Blas case because even though there was an investigation there were not any facts showing that there was a witness to the claims. As motioned the Prosecution would possibly argue that the Defendant was in a position of power over the child which would seem like he could try to take advantage of the child. However, it could also be possible that the Defendant had disciplined the child for appropriate reasons and the child in return made false allegations of the defendant out of anger or to ensure that she would not be disciplined again. Or that the child did not like going to this daycare and thought this would stop them from going. Because social media and television today children are usually exposed to sexual matters at a younger age, giving them knowledge and the resources to be able to make things up. With this in mind it may be able to show that all the facts that are alleged by the child are not necessarily true.  Another way question the credibility would be looking for other victims. In this situation if the Defendant was truly doing this it would be reasonable to believe that there would be other victims.  This is especially true because of his job being at a day care. It is possible that it would seem odd to the jury if this child was the only victim out of multiple children that attended the day care. This may question the alleged victim and raise a flag in one’s mind.

In addition to questioning one’s credibility, the defense may be able to show an alternative motive. This could be a parent or trusted adult, who prods a child and convinces that these acts happened for an alternate motive. Because the Defendant in this case family owns the daycare where he worked there may be a finical motive of a third party installing to the idea to the alleged victim. With a limited knowledge of facts, it would be hard to say if this is applicable to the certain situation, but very well could be a possibility.

The punishment for conviction of §288(a) can vary in certain circumstances. However, the statute does give a guideline stating that this felony is punishable by three, six, or eight years in state prison. In addition to the prison sentence, the court may impose an additional fine that may not exceed $10,000 of a person who is convicted of §288(a). There can be a difference in the sentencing though when the facts are taken into in consideration. California Penal Code, §288(c)(1) states,

Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a) with the intent described in that subdivision, and the victim is a child of 14 or 15 years, and that person is at least 10 years older than the child, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year. In determining whether the person is at least 10 years older than the child, the difference in age shall be measured from the birth date of the person to the birth date of the child.

Even though this does apply to the Defendant, in this case, it demonstrates the contrast in sentencing. How it factors in not only the child’s age but also the defendant’s age.

Therefore, under California Penal code §288(a) there are two major elements, a variety of defenses to the charges, and punishment can differ depending on different circumstances.

If you have any question about child abuse in San Diego County, feel free to contact San Diego Criminal Defense Attorney Vik Monder at 619-405-0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

Monder Law Group - News

The Suge Knight Case and Understanding What it Means to Have the Choice of Criminal Defense Counsel of Your Choosing

Marion “Suge” Knight is known for being a West Coast Hip-Hop mogul, and the CEO of “Death Row Records.” Knight has been sent to prison multiple times for crimes from the possession of drugs to aggravated assault. Knight has most recently been arrested for a murder charge. He allegedly tried to run two men down in his vehicle in a parking lot of a fast food restaurant, one man was killed, and the other was seriously injured. Knight turned himself in the next morning and has been in the Los Angeles jail since January 2015. The bail for Knight has been set at a staggering $10 million, which was reduced from $25 million, the trial has been delayed multiple times and is now currently set for May of 2017. During the course of two years, Knight has changed his choice of counsel six times. He has had famous defense attorneys Thomas Measerau, Stephan Schwatz represent him, and now currently his legal team is Antoine D. Williams, Jamal Tooson, and Jeremy Lessem.

Currently, Knight is on his sixth Attorney, in late April he retained the law firm of Lessem, Newstat & Tooson, LLP. The law firm is located in Southern California and have vast experience in criminal trials. It has been speculated that Knight is stalling his trial date, or trying to get an unfair advantage over the prosecution by changing his counsel multiple times over the past two years, however, it is embedded in the United States Constitution that one has the right to change a counsel as Knight has practiced. When the California Supreme Court first interpreted the sixth amendment of the Constitution they stated that, “ A Trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to substitute new counsel without giving the defendant opportunity to state specific examples of allegedly inadequate representation deprived the defendant of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.” People v. Marsden 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970).  Because of this case, there was now an outline provided on how the California Supreme Court would handle a defendant discharging their counsel. However, there would be a more descriptive guide on the reasoning of the courts on this right, and how it should be adopted from now on. “Right to counsel of choice, including right to discharge retained counsel, furthers dual goals of due process: ensuring reliability of guilt-determining process by reducing to minimum the possibility that innocent person will be punished, and protecting ideal of human individuality by affirming state’s duty to refrain from unreasonable interference with defendant’s desire to defend himself in whatever manner he deems best.” People v. Ortiz 51 Cal.3d 975 (1990). Because Knight wishes “defends himself in whatever manner he deems best,” he is allowed to change his counsel as he wishes to do so. This case analogizes the right to dismiss counsel is the same as the right to counsel.  So, with Knight changing his counsel multiple times over the two year span of his time in jail it is looked at on similar right as him exercising his right of choice of attorney.

However, the law differentiates between a defendant who has retained an attorney themselves and one who had one appointed to them by the court. “[An] indigent criminal defendant who is seeking to substitute one appointed attorney for another must demonstrate either that first appointed attorney is providing inadequate representation, or that he and attorney are embroiled in irreconcilable conflict.” People v. Ortiz 51 Cal.3d 975 (1990). Because of the need to show an inadequate representation, this puts a higher burden on a defendant with appointed counsel than one who retained their own.

This is different from Knights case because he has a retained counsel, in which he sought out and hired himself.  Because all of Knights attorneys in which he had dismissed have all been retained the Ortiz case standard above, stating that defendant “must demonstrate either that first appointed attorney is providing inadequate representation…or irreconcilable conflict,” would not apply to Knight. 

Because the right to discharge retained counsel is broader than the right to discharge appointed counsel, a Marsden-type hearing at which the court determines whether counsel is providing adequate representation or is tangled in irreconcilable differences with the defendant is an inappropriate vehicle in which to consider [the defendant’s] complaints against his retained counsel. Instead, under the applicable test for retained counsel, the court should “balance the defendant’s interest in new counsel against the disruption, if any, flowing from the substitution.” (People v. Lara, supra, 86 Cal.App.4th at p. 153, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 201.) In so doing, the court “must exercise its discretion reasonably: ‘a myopic insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay can render the right to defend with counsel an empty formality.

People v. Keshishian 162 Cal.App.4th 425 (2008). Because of the broader scope for retained counsel Knight would not have to show any signs of inadequate counsel, instead, it would be up to the court to exercise discretion.   In Keshishian, the court decided that they would not permit the change of counsel for the defendant. However, this was a very different situation from Knights, because the Defendant in Keshishian wanted to change their counsel last minute which would delay the start date of trial, and offered the statement that they “lost confidence” in their attorney. Because Knights request to change counsel was not last minute, this change should be allowed since it would fall in a reasonable time. Also, Knights trial date has been delayed mostly by his current health issues, not from a change of counsel which is a common misconception of the delay in trial date. Thus, because of the reasons above, Knight was acting within his constitutional rights with changing his retained counsel.

After the court, has approved the change the next step could be problematic for the defendant and the new counsel. Although in one case the evidence was ordered to be given to the new counsel that day, if the Defendant is unsure of who his new counsel is or cannot finance one then, “[Defendant] offers no barrier to appointment of previously discharged counsel: appointment of counsel is properly in the discretion of the court and frequently, as here, it may be a more efficient use of both time and money to appoint the attorney who represented the defendant in an earlier proceeding than to begin again with a new attorney.” People v. Ortiz 51 Cal.3d 975, (1990). The court looks to keep the trial and timeline as close as possible to the original set, even if means bringing in an attorney that is familiar with the case. The specifics of Knights case are unclear but, he has had one defense attorney who remained on counsel but was no longer the leading attorney. This could be because the attorney may be able to smooth over the transition, or possibly been an easier pitch to the court when he brought on the new counsel.

An issue of confidentiality may arise after the attorney is dismissed, especially in Knights situation. Because Knight is charged with murder and he hired multiple attorneys, one would assume that all the talks that occurred were confidential accordingly,

 If a privilege is claimed on the ground that the matter sought to be disclosed is a communication made in confidence in the course of the lawyer-client, lawyer referral service-client, physician-patient, psychotherapist-patient, clergy-penitent, marital or domestic partnership, sexual assault counselor-victim, domestic violence counselor-victim, or human trafficking caseworker-victim relationship, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish that the communication was not confidential.

Evid. Code, § 917. But, this is different from the code above because Knight would be a former client. So even though there was a privilege or confidence would it still be applicable once the attorney is dismissed. “After severing the relationship with the former client, the attorney may not do anything which will injuriously affect the former client in any matter in which attorney formerly represented client nor may attorney at any time use against former client knowledge or information acquired by virtue of the attorney-client relationship.” Earl Scheib, Inc. v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County 253 Cal.App.2d 703 (1967). However, even though Knight is a former client to his past attorneys, none of the information given to them can be used against him. Thus, the privilege still stands even after the relationship has ended.

Therefore, changing counsel can vary depending on appointed or retained counsel, and procedure and evidence protocol can alternate after the substitution of counsel.

If you have questions about choosing the best criminal defense attorney for your criminal case in San Diego, feel free to contact San Diego Criminal Lawyer Vik Monder at 619-405-0063 or visit San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer

Monder Law Group - News

Dead end caffeine DUI case dropped against Fairfield California man

With the jury trial date that had been set for January 11th, the Solano County District Attorney dropped the misdemeanor DUI charge Joseph Schwab was saddled with in 2015. What started out as a typical drive home, ended up as something more when a California Alcoholic Beverage Control agent in an unmarked car claimed Schwab cut off her vehicle. The agent further reported he then proceeded to drive recklessly, including weaving in and out of traffic, a clear danger to other motorists. Nothing of note was found inside his vehicle, and toxicology tests only revealed caffeine levels. Despite this, prosecutors originally were determined to proceed. As a result of the ensuing national media attention the DA’s office appeared on the defensive, indicated by their press release after the DUI charge was dismissed.

Solano County prosecutors have stuck to their guns regarding the reason for the charge, despite the media explosion over 18 months after the occurrence of the alleged crime. The delay was due to a ten month long attempt for dismissal of charges that ultimately failed as the case proceeded on to trial scheduling in June 2016. The DA’s office insists the case itself was never about caffeine, and the arresting officer had a hefty compilation of observed behavior that significantly impacted their original decision to proceed with the case. Naturally they were forced to relent in what would have been an uphill battle of prosecution when the majority of evidence remained in Schwab’s favor.

Schwab’s original breathalyzer testing results were reportedly 0%, without even the slightest hint of blood alcohol level to be found in his system. Following that, standard blood testing was performed post-arrest, once again resulting in a toxicology report that was negative for all tested substances with the exception of caffeine. Despite this, Schwab was still booked into county jail, business as usual for many DUI arrests. Desperation testing at an additional lab, across the country in Pennsylvania, confirmed those same results. It would appear that media spotlight pressure played a large part in the dropping of the case against the defendant as even with zero chemical proof the DA’s office was intent on surging toward seeking a conviction. No new evidence had been revealed since that time, but understandably, the attention the case has received so close to trial date has turned it around.

In all fairness to DA’s office, they are correct that DUI is not about what substance you are under the influence of, but instead about the danger you present with your reckless and impaired driving. This is the reason individuals can be convicted of a DUI for normal, legal medications such as Benadryl or cough medicines. In that respect, it would neither be impossible or illegal to proceed forward with a case against a reckless driver with only caffeine in his or her system. However, proving said impairment is likely to be hard, not to mention the array of skeptic specialists likely to line up for the defense against the unheard of assertion. Forensic toxicologist Edwin Smith is one of those specialists, asserting that caffeine is most likely to improve driving ability if it affects it at all.

The question remains, was Schwab destined for a DUI conviction if his case hadn’t reached critical mass in the media? It is possible but improbable. The chemical testing evidence is regarded very heavily in many DUI cases, and in this example the prosecution essentially provided the defense an advantage with the negative reports. That said, officer testimony and observations still count for something and are genuinely trusted indisputably unless evidence to the contrary can be found. DUI with drugs is very subjective in nature, giving individual observations greater importance. It was alleged that Schwab was quite combative during the duration of the traffic stop, and his field sobriety test performance was not up to par for passing. Arresting officers need to make decisions based on their own observations and this combined with his alleged erratic driving is sufficient to make the determination.

In all likelihood, the charge would never have stood, provided the defendant hired a knowledgeable and experienced DUI defense attorney. The implications of a conviction for the majority of drivers who zip around daily under the influence of coffee, soda or other caffeinated substances would certainly prove interesting. Ultimately the pursuit of charges was not deemed worth it given the circumstances of the case. According to ABC 7 News, in her recent press release, Solano County District Attorney Krishna Abrams said: “After further consideration, without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive, we do not believe we can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt”. That statement indicates a belief that there was possibly additional drug use that could not be detected by a standard toxicology result. Even if this were the case, at over 18 months after the original occurrence it would not be worth the time or effort to pursue the theory, especially for only a misdemeanor charge.

If convicted of a misdemeanor DUI, Schwab would be facing an assortment of penalties both criminal and otherwise. While first time DUI penalties are rarely steep, depending on your choice of career they can have far-reaching effects. Typically, the minimum penalties for a first time misdemeanor DUI include:

• $1,800 in penalties, including necessary DUI assessments
• Informal probation for three to five years
• Three months of DUI school at the cost of $500, paid by you
• Six months of administrative license suspension via the DMV
• Up to six months in county jail

Alternative sentencing can be an option, especially for first-time offenders and those with no other problematic history. This result is only likely to occur with a defense attorney who will represent you effectively, which is far less likely when settling for the services of a public defender. When your criminal record and potentially your freedom is on the line, hiring professional representation could keep you out of jail and even get your charges dismissed. Very few DUI charged defendants can garner the national media attention gained by this case, which no doubt impacted it’s dismissal. However, every individual can work to secure themselves a skilled DUI defense attorney who will fight to achieve the same result, especially in cases of such unjust charges.

Criminal defense attorney Vik Monder has the skills necessary to win your case. With countless DUI victories under his belt, his expertise is unmatched when it comes to finding the weaknesses in the evidence against you. With Vik Monder you will always receive only the finest representation, an attorney unafraid to challenge false statements by officers and to retain expert witnesses in your defense. If you are in need of a criminal defense attorney for your DUI or other criminal case, contact Vik Monder for your free consultation at 619-405-0063 or visit our website at San Diego Criminal Lawyer