San Francisco & Bay Area Criminal Defense Lawyers

The California First Appellate District held that the brief exclusion of a defendant's family members from the courtroom during jury voire dire did not violate his constitutional right to a public trial. Mr. Bui was charged with multiple felonies, and had a jury trial. His family members came to courtroom during jury selection and seated themselves among the spectators, in close proximity to the prospective jurors. The court ordered them removed. The Court affirmed the judgment, finding that the family members were only excluded for 40 minutes, and thus, this brief exclusion was "de minimus." The case is People v. Bui , April 6, 2010, A119404

In this case, the California Court of Appeal held that the case Melendez-Diaz did not alter the California rule that an in-court witness may rely on laboratory notes and reports, even if prepared by a different individual, to support the witness's expert opinion. Melendez-Diaz held that the admission of a written document to establish laboratory results violates the Sixth Amendment. (Melendez-Diaz, supra, 557 U.S. at p. ___ [129 S.Ct. at p. 2532]. However, the California Court of Appeal concluded that the scenario in Bowman - where a criminalist other than the one who did the testing - gave expert testimony on the chemical testing of the suspected methamphetamine -- does not violate a defendant's confrontation rights. The case is: People v. Bowman , 10 CDOS 3656 (CA 5th).

In United States v. Song Ja Cha , the Ninth Circuit held that a 26-hour seizure of a home before a search warrant was executed was unreasonable. As a result, the suppression of evidence was warranted. The case is: United States v. Song Ja Cha , __ F.3d __, 2010 WL 775238 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2010)

Last week, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Maryland v. Shatzer . Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, which six other Justices joined in full. Justice Thomas concurred in part and concurred in the judgment; Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment. The Court held that a fourteen-day break in custodial interrogation ends the Edwards v. Arizona rule which states that once a suspect invokes his Miranda rights, any subsequent waiver of the right triggered by a police request is deemed involuntary and is the result of coercion. In reversing the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the Court concluded that Shatzer’s return to his normal pre-interrogation life in the general prison population for a period of two-and-one-half years before re-interrogation constituted a sufficient break in custody enable him to voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. Therefore, the Edwards case did not require that Shatzer’s re-interrogation statements be suppressed, and the Court remanded the case ...

In United States v. Norwood , Mr. Norwood was tried in 2009 for possession of crack cocaine for distribution. At trial, the government introduced an affidavit by a state employee claiming there were no wage records for Norwood (as a large amount of cash was found in his home and car). “[T]he court admitted her affidavit as circumstantial evidence that Norwood had no legal source for the large amounts of cash that were found on his person and in his car.” Id. at *2. The Ninth upheld the conviction. See 555 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded the Ninth’s opinion in light of its decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts , 129 S. Ct 2527 (2009). This Norwood decision is the Ninth’s decision on remand. Norwood alleged that his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers was violated when the district court admitted into evidence a written affidavit without requiring the affiant to testify on the stand. The Court noted that the Government concede...

A federal appeals court last week threw out the 22-year prison sentence imposed in 2005 on Ahmed Ressam, known as the Millennium Bomber, who plotted to set off explosives at Los Angeles International Airport on New Year’s Eve in 1999. The court said the sentence was too light. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said Mr. Ressam did not deserve the “substantial reduction” in his sentence from the minimum of 65 years in federal sentencing guidelines because he backed out of his agreement to cooperate with investigators. The court also called for a new trial judge to consider the next sentence, because the federal judge who issued the original decision had already once declined to increase Mr. Ressam’s prison term. Ressam was detained in Washington state in December 1999 when he tried to smuggle explosives into the U.S. on a ferry from Canada that he intended to use at the Los Angeles airport. After his arrest, Ressam agreed to cooperate wi...

On February 1, 2010, the California Supreme Court allowed four registered sex offenders to challenge a state law prohibiting them from residing within 2000 feet of schools, parks, and other places children gather such as churches and playgrounds. The state law, known as “Jessica’s law” was passed by California voters when it appeared on the ballot in 2006 as Proposition 83. By a 5-2 vote, the Court agreed that most other of the provisions of Jessica’s Law were constitutional, including a section allowing the residency requirement to be applied retroactively to offenders convicted before the law was approved by the voters in 2006. This ruling means that all sex offender parolees will have to abide by Jessica’s Law until the residency issue is resolved. Among the strongest arguments on behalf of the parolees is that implementation of the law is impossible in urban areas, such as San Francisco, where most residential areas are within 2000 feet of a park, school, playground, church or othe...