Did the Prosecutor Threaten Perjury If Defendant Testifies?

It is not uncommon for a prosecutor to express surprise when defense counsel advises the prosecution that defendant will testify at trial. Most just say “O.K.” and no more. Some, particularly younger prosecutors or those with a large emotional investment in the case, may say “Well, that is his right” or “Well, that will be interesting.” We have never had a prosecutor warn that if the testimony is a certain way, he will be prosecuted for perjury. However, what if the prosecutor threatens this? To find out, please click on the following link.

 
https://www.greghillassociates.com/did-the-prosecutor-threaten-perjury-if-defendant-testifies.html

 

Pitchess Data – Brady Alerts Are Permissible Again

In something of a “watershed” ruling, the California Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement agencies may alert a prosecutor that an officer has impeachment material in his personnel file when that officer is involved in one or more cases being prosecuted. The listing of such officers so impeachable is called a “Brady listing” and was previously only shared by law enforcement if a judge granted a Pitchess motion. Why is this significant? To read a short article about this, please click on the following link.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/pitchess-data-brady-alerts-are-permissible-again.html

 

AB109, Realignment and Felony Imprisonment in County Jail

In the eight years since AB109 came into effect, a great deal of ignorance and misinformation persists about what crimes are affected by realignment, allowing one convicted of certain felonies (almost 600 actually) to serve a state prison sentence in local county jail. Our office has written a short article that attempts to summarize the provisions of Penal Code § 1170(h)(3) that permits a “16, 2 or 3” year state prison sentence to be served in county jail unless it is a serious felony, violent felony or requires registration under Penal Code § 290. To read our short summary, please click on the following link.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/ab109-realignment-felony-imprisonment-in-county-jail.html

 

Why Is Credibility Important in a Criminal Case?

A client’s credibility is not just an intangible thing that one must do one’s best to maintain and preserve. It is something the jury is instructed to evaluate. Jury instructions direct the men and women of the jury to consider a party’s or witness’ credibility and advise jurors that they have discretion to disregard everything a witness or party says as untrue if they find him or her untrue in one aspect of testimony. In other words, it is graded by jurors and can be determinative on a finding of guilt or innocence. To read more about why credibility must be maintained and how to maintain it, please click on the following link.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/why-is-credibility-important-in-a-criminal-case.html

 

A Lenient View of Mental Health Diversion

In evaluating a defendant for mental health diversion, a judge must decide if defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. What is unreasonable risk? If a person has two DUI convictions, does that person pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety? Some judges may find this is so. What if the person is accused of committing criminal threats or domestic violence? Is public safety considered the same way as in a bail review motion under Penal Code § 1275? To read a summary of an appellate court decision that interpreted posing an unreasonable risk of danger the way we think most defendants would like (meaning they would then be eligible for mental health diversion), please click on the following link.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/a-lenient-view-of-mental-health-diversion.html

 

Can Mental Health Diversion Be Sought After Sentencing?

No is the answer to the rhetorical question posed in the title of this blog post. Once a person is convicted, even if the conviction in on appeal, a convicted person cannot then seek resentencing under Penal Code § 1001.36, the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeal recently held in an indecent exposure case following a conviction. The court of appeal decision emphasized that such a program is intended as an early disposition option and not meant to be used as a second alternative if a jury disagrees on the merits of a defense. To read more about the case that led to this ruling, please click on the following link.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/can-mental-health-diversion-be-sought-after-sentencing.html

 

What Is Officer-Induced Confusion in a DUI Admonition?

Officer-induced confusion excuses a DUI driver’s refusal to submit to a breath, blood or urine test. It takes place when three requirements are met. First, the officer must create confusion in the mind of the DUI suspect as to what his legal obligations are to submit to a breath or blood test and the legal consequences are of refusing to submit to such a test. Second – and this is the most difficult part – the officer must acknowledge that he confused the driver (the driver cannot solely claim this). Third, the officer must have failed to clarify or correct the confusion he created. To read more about this excuse to a refusal, please click on the following link.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/what-is-officer-induced-confusion-in-a-dui-admonition.html

 

What Is the Antiquity Defense to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)?

Under federal law, the definition of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) does not include an antique gun. An antique gun is any firearm manufactured before 1898. What if defendant thought a gun was manufactured before 1898, but defendant was incorrect or the seller misrepresented the age of the gun (claiming it was older than it really was). This issue came up in a recent reported decision and the court rejected such a defense. To read about his opinion, please click on the following link.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/what-is-the-antiquity-defense-to-18-u-s-c-922-g.html

 

Restitution: Is Some Factual Nexus to Conduct Enough?

Unfortunately, yes is the answer to the question posed in the title to this blog post. However, this apparently new standard, a loosening of the disciplined, defense-friendly Luis M. standard of “some rational relationship to actual costs,” should be understood for its facts so that anyone facing a restitution hearing can factually distinguish “the some factual nexus” standard (Hurtado is the case name) so that victims do not enjoy an unfair windfall. To read more about this looser standard, please click on the following link.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/restitution-is-some-factual-nexus-to-conduct-enough.html

 

Does a DUI Affect DACA Eligibility? Immigration Bond?

A conviction for DUI makes one ineligible for DACA, even if it is just a first-time DUI with a low blood alcohol content (BAC) and no injuries. This is because DACA benefits are restricted to those who demonstrate an ability to obey the law. A conviction for DUI can also cause revocation of a non-immigrant visa. Lastly, it can make one ineligible for an immigration bond. To read more about the very serious immigration consequences of even a simple misdemeanor DUI conviction, please click on the following link.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/does-a-dui-affect-daca-eligibility-immigration-bond.html