Archives : Criminal Attorney

Jodi Arias’ Defense Attorneys’ Motions Denied

 
Jodi Arias’ defense attorneys filed a motion for a mistrial after a witness and longtime childhood friend of Arias, Patricia Womack, told defense attorneys that she was withdrawing her offer to testify because she was being threatened. Ms. Arias’ Criminal Defense Attorneys Kirk Nurmi and Co-counsel Jennifer Willmott also filed a motion to withdraw, which may be explained by the fact that there is a conflict between them and their client. Defense attorneys are arguing to save Arias’ life after a jury found her guilty on May 8, 2013 of first degree murder of her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander.  However, Arias gave an interview to KSAX-TV right after her conviction stating “she preferred death over life in prison.”  Judge Sherry Stephens denied both motions at the hearing on Monday May 18, 2013.

Thirty year old Alexander was found dead in his Mesa Arizona home in 2008, with a gun shot in the head, stabbed nearly 30 times and his throat slit. Arias, 32, said she killed Alexander, her secret lover, in self-defense.  During the four month trial, Arias’ defense team argued that Travis Alexander was a sexual deviant and womanizer who forced Arias to act in self-defense in his death. After more than 15 hours of deliberation, the jury reached a verdict indicating that it rejected the self-defense claim and the defense psychologist Richard Samuels’ diagnosis that Arias suffered from PTSD and acute stress disorder.

The jury that convicted Arias declared that she was eligible for the death penalty. Arias is expected to testify at her sentencing hearing this week. Her testimony could depend on whether the jury will decide to impose the death penalty or life in prison for the death of Alexander. Alexander’s family testified in open court about the emotional devastation the murder has caused them. Darryl Brewer, an ex-boyfriend of Arias, is expected to testify on her behalf at the sentencing hearing and may be her only witness if family or other friends do not decide to testify.

Judge Sherry Stephens instructed jurors they could consider a number of mitigating facts when deciding what sentence to impose such as Arias’ character, background, lack of a prior criminal record, abusive childhood and that she is a talented artist.   Under Arizona law, if the jury cannot reach a unanimous decision on sentencing, they will be dismissed and a new jury would be selected to hear arguments and determine the sentence. If the second jury panel is unable to reach a decision, then it would be up to the Judge to impose the sentence.

The jury began its third day of deliberations on whether to sentence the defendant to death.  There is a possibility that prosecutors may retry the penalty phase of the case if the jury is deadlocked.  The district attorney’s office of Maricopa County, Arizona will have to weigh whether the time and resources of finding a new jury, setting new court dates, and trying to reach a death sentence, which could take months, are a good option if the jury can’t reach a unanimous decision.

Fighting Arizona Murder Charges

In Arizona, a murder conviction could mean long prison sentences including life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty, fines and having to pay restitution to the victim’s family.  If you are facing Arizona charges of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter, aggravated assault or other related offenses, the assistance of an experienced Arizona criminal defense attorney is necessary to help you fight these serious charges. The attorney will be able to raise strong defenses on your behalf such as self-defense, defense of others, accident, not guilty by reason of insanity, diminished capacity, negligence and other defenses to try and get your charges reduced to a lesser crime, get you a plea bargain or get the case dismissed.

Supreme Court Decides Burglary Case

Supreme Court to Decide Whether ACCA Applies in California Burglary Case Descamps v. United States

On Monday, January 7, 2013, the United State Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Descamps v. United States case. The case concerns whether a Congressional mandate regarding federal sentence enhancements for prior burglary convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) applies in the underlying case. In the Descamps case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the District Court was correct in holding that Descamps’ three prior violent felony convictions were applied correctly under ACCA.

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), requires a minimum 15 year imprisonment for repeat offenders who have been convicted of an unlawful possession of a firearm and violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).  Section 924(e)(1) only applies to defendants with three prior state or federal convictions for felonies or serious drug offenses  Under Section 924e)(2)(B) violent felonies are those that either(1) involve threat or physical force against another person; (2) involve burglary, arson or extortion, or a similar type offense; or (3) involve a serious drug offense punishable by 10 years imprisonment.

 

Descamps v. United States Case

In the underlying case, the petitioner, Matthew Descamps, had five prior felony convictions. He was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)*.  This statute prohibits a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year to possess, ship/transport, or receive any firearm or ammunition. The specific issue in the case is whether Decamps’ prior guilty plea burglary conviction for violating California Penal Code Section 459 qualifies under the generic burglary definition the Supreme Court Case used in Taylor v. United States as “an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime.”  Under California Penal Code Section 459, burglary is defined as when a “person . . . enters [various structures] . . . with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony.”

The criminal attorney for petitioner Decamps argued that Decamps’ burglary conviction for violating  California Penal Code Section 459 simply requires that someone enter a structure with the intent to commit a crime, which could easily fit the definition of a shoplifter, and does not meet the “unlawful or unprivileged” entry required by the ACCA burglary definition. Therefore, Mr. Johnson argued that a conviction under the ACCA does not apply.

The Supreme Court justices appeared to be more receptive to the government’s argument looking to the residual clauses of the ACCA, which also adds “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another”. The attorney for the government, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Benjamin J. Horwich, argued that the government was only relying on the burglary clause under the ACCA and not the residual clause, and that the federal sentencing courts should start by looking at the elements of the state conviction and the elements of the generic federal offense under the ACCA to achieve greater sentencing equity.

Many Defendants in other cases have raised a number of constitutional challenges to Section 924(e) such as Congress lacked the constitutional authority to enact this Section and that Section 924(e) is a violation of the Second, Fifth, Six and Eight Amendments, although with not much success. To what degree the Supreme Court may decide to qualify prior convictions for categorical inclusion under ACCA for lower courts to apply remains unknown for now until the Court makes their ruling.

 

Hiring a California Criminal Defense Attorney

Facing burglary charges in California should be taken seriously, especially if you have prior felony convictions. If convicted, you could face federal sentencing enhancements under ACCA if you were in possession of a firearm during the burglary. Hiring the right attorney to defend you will improve the outcome of your case. At Imhoff & Associates-Criminal Attorneys, we have years of experience successfully defending clients facing burglary and firearm offenses. Your Imhoff criminal defense attorney will help you fight your charges by mounting a vigorous defense on your behalf.  In consideration of your specific burglary case circumstances, we will work to get the best case outcome possibly through negotiating with the prosecutor to get your charges reduced to a lesser crime, negotiating for you alternative sentencing such as community service or probation and/or including getting your charges dropped.  Contact Imhoff & Associates for a free case evaluation.

*In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has three previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of this title for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than fifteen years, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person with respect to the conviction under section 922(g).

NFL Saints’ Bounty Scandal

NFL rules prevent that any bonus or award be offered to players directly or indirectly for personal fouls or injuries intentionally inflicted against opposing players. Gregg Williams, assistant coach of the Saints, who left after 36-32 playoff defeat to the San Francisco 49 team, to become the St. Louis Ram’s defensive coordinator, was suspended indefinitely by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell for violating the pay to injure bounty rule. Assistant coach Williams was allegedly heard on an audio tape offering his team bonuses to injure opposing players on the San Francisco 49 team, including running back Frank Gore, quarterback Alex Smith, wideout Michael Crabtree and backup receiver Kyle Williams. Williams’ speech was delivered less than two months before the Saints’ bounty scandal became public and was revealed to Yahoo! Sports by Sean Pamphilon, who had access to the team’s functions during the 2011 season.

The NFL has also decided to uphold its discipline ruling of Sean Payton, the former New Orleans Saints coach, who has been suspended for the entire 2012 season, general manager  Mickey Loomis, who has been suspended for eight games and assistant coach Joe Vitt, who has been suspended for six games regarding the New Orleans Saints’ “bounty program”. The NFL Players Association has retained the international law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski to represent the union in the “bounty” program matter and to work with the NFLPA lawyers in assisting the players who were allegedly involved with representation in the “bounty” program. The League is still deciding whether 27 players who were involved in the bounty program which was in place during the 2009 to 2011 seasons will also be disciplined.

Possible Criminal Charges

While players could face criminal charges relating to this bounty program, a majority of legal scholars agree that it would be rare for prosecutors to charge players for on field acts since sport leagues generally have the authority to police themselves, and cases are tough for prosecutors to prove that football injuries were caused by an accidental assault or battery. However, players could be charged with conspiracy to commit assault and battery under state or federal laws if it can be established that the Saints were conducting a criminal activity by enticing players to injure others for money.

According to the NFL investigation, the Saints bounty system included payouts of $1,500 for “knockouts” and $1,000 for “cart-offs.” There was also alleged evidence of a $10,000 bounty on Brett Favre and a $5,000 bounty on Aaron Rodgers. Therefore, players could also be charged with tax evasion regarding the alleged payouts if they received the money and never declare it on their tax returns. However, since Favre and Rodgers were never knocked out even though they were targeted there would be no tax evasion charges regarding bounties on them.

Hire a Criminal Defense Attorney

If you have been charged with an assault or battery case or conspiracy to commit an assault and/or battery or are facing other criminal charges, you should contact a criminal defense attorney to defend your rights. The attorney can vigorously build a strong defense on your behalf, negotiate with prosecutors to reduce your charges or get you community service, probation or your charges suspended.

No Charges to be Held Against Imhoff and Associates Client Wrongfully Accused of Child Molestation

With the help of the Imhoff and Associates Criminal Defense law firm, the potential sex crime case against Luis Galicia, a San Diego resident wrongfully convicted of child molestation, has been officially closed with no charges re-filed.  The Prefile case successful outcome presents a tremendous victory for Galicia and his family.

San Diego, CA, March 05, 2012 – Prosecutors in San Diego announced on February 22, 2012 that no charges would be pressed against Imhoff & Associates client Luis Galicia, who had been wrongfully convicted of child molestation (San Diego County case #SCN242198).  Defense lawyer Shannon Dorvall of the Imhoff & Associates law firm successfully reversed the conviction, presenting a tremendous victory for the law firm. With the announcement, the Galicia Family can now put the nearly four-year ordeal behind them.

On November 23, 2011 Shannon Dorvall secured Galicia’s release from Corcoran State Prison in California and had the sex crime case conviction overturned by the San Diego County Superior Court.  Following a jury trial, which was handled by a different law firm, Galicia was convicted of the sexual molestation of his sister (San Diego County case #SCN242198).  Child molestation is a serious sex crime and Galicia was sentenced to serve two “15 to life” sentences and a lifetime registration as a sex offender.

Following the conviction of the sexual molestation case, Imhoff & Associates was approached by the Galicia family for help in filing an appeal. The criminal defense law firm filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District (D056214) seeking to have the Galicia’s sex crime case overturned.  During the course of waiting for the court to rule and at the criminal law firm’s guidance, the family had the sister examined by two other doctors, who disagreed with the state’s doctor’s testimony and asserted that the sister’s hymen was intact, therefore she had never had sex.

The San Diego County District Attorney’s Office agreed to review the case and requested assistance from the Children’s Hospital, who reviewed the trial photos and examined the sister. The hospital corroborated the family’s newly acquired evidence, lending further credence to Galicia’s defense.

Criminal attorney Shannon Dorvall filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District (D060586) who then ordered a hearing.  At the hearing, the District Attorney confirmed the invalidity of the evidence presented at the original trial.  The court granted Dorvall’s motion, the sexual molestation conviction was overturned and the court ordered Galicia released from prison.

Ms. Dorvall commented, “We are grateful that this nightmare is over.  It is unfortunate my client was ever charged in the first place, and it was a terrible injustice that he had to spend four long years in prison for a crime he did not commit.  We have said all along that the facts showed my client was innocent, that the facts could not be ignored.  The facts were presented and the truth has prevailed.  We are grateful for the support of so many family and friends who never doubted my client.  Now, it is time to begin to heal and time to regain his life.  I hope this sends a loud and clear message to prosecutors everywhere that the injustice of a wrongful prosecution should never happen again.”

Imhoff and Associates joins Galicia’s family in celebrating this triumph, and believes that no other family should have to suffer such an ordeal. To learn more about Imhoff & Associates Criminal Defense Law Firm, visit http://www.criminalattorney.com or call 1-888-726-0574.

Univision San Diego’s coverage of the case can be viewed at http://www.univisionsandiego.com/noticia/2012/02/22/341228-luis-galicia-es-hombre-libre.html.

About Imhoff & Associates
Imhoff & Associates is one of the largest criminal defense firms in the country, with outstanding attorneys located in various states across the nation. The firm is dedicated to providing excellent quality legal representation, and is open late nights and on weekends. Visit http://www.criminalattorney.com or call 1-888-726-0574 for more information.

For more information regarding Appeals Click Here

Imhoff & Associates Criminal Attorneys Secure Reduced Charge and Sentence for Parents Accused of Child Abuse

Through the efforts of Shannon Dorvall and Christopher Parkhurst, criminal attorneys from Imhoff & Associates, a young parent was convicted of misdemeanor child endangerment instead of the initial felony child abuse charge.

Sonora, CA- Lacinda Mathiesen-Dunne, a young parent initially accused of felony child abuse, received a misdemeanor child endangerment charge instead, thanks to the hard work of her criminal attorneys, Shannon Dorvall and Christopher Parkhurst from Imhoff & Associates (Case number CRF32050).

According to court transcripts filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Tuolumne on 9/28/2011, she and her boy-friend (Steven Beenblossom) gave birth to premature twins in May of 2009. Their daughter, whose injuries revolve around this case, weighed less than two pounds and had an Apgar score of 1. Due to the low Apgar score at birth, the baby girl required special medical care and had pre-existing conditions, including chronic anemia, apnea, vitamin D deficiency, rickets, had difficulty tolerating feedings. The court transcripts also show that she also had severe nutritional deficiencies, as her twin took most of her nutrition while in the womb. Their daughter was discharged from the hospital on June 25, 2009.

Early in July of 2009, the couple took their prematurely born twin daughter to the doctor’s office for a swollen and tender right leg. According to court transcripts, the doctor who saw their daughter was not sure what was wrong with the child’s leg. He later testified that he had never seen anything like it but did not think the bone was broken. An x-ray was recommended by the doctor during their initial visit, which the parents did not obtain, the court documents showed.

A few days later, on July 7, 2009, the baby stopped breathing, and the parents resuscitated her by performing CPR. According to court documents, they immediately rushed her to the hospital after she started breathing again. The hospital seemed to immediately assume that some type of abuse had occurred when they found brain injuries and multiple fractures on the child. The state went on to have the couple’s parental rights terminated, and have the twins put up for adoption. The court transcripts showed that the couple was informed that they were no longer allowed to see the child, who was taken away almost immediately. They have not seen the child since that day. After being placed in foster care, the twins were adopted within a few months.

The mother then sought the assistance of criminal attorneys from Imhoff & Associates. Criminal defense attorneys Shannon Dorvall and Christopher Parkhurst had several doctors assess the case, all of whom agreed that the child’s various pre-existing medical problems were what caused the child’s injuries. At the trial, the couple’s criminal attorney, Parkhurst, pointed these out to the jury, and also argued that there were no external signs of abuse.

After five hours of deliberation, the jury found the mother not guilty of felony child abuse, and instead reduced the charge to misdemeanor child endangerment, as the parents were unable to secure the X-ray the first doctor recommended. This reduced charge means the jury did not believe the mother knowingly put her child in danger. Ms. Mathiesen-Dunne was sentenced to parenting classes, probation, and community service, instead of the District Attorney’s request for the maximum sentence of one year in jail.

Thanks to the efforts of Imhoff & Associates Criminal Attorneys, the parents can now try to get their children back.

For more information on the criminal defense attorneys at Imhoff & Associates, visit http://www.criminalattorney.com. Interested parties may also contact a criminal attorney at the firm by calling 1-888-726-0574.

About Imhoff & Associates
As one of the largest criminal defense firms in the country, Imhoff & Associates employs highly skilled criminal attorneys in various locations around the United States. The firm’s criminal defense attorneys handle a variety of cases, and are available 24/7 to assist clients with their legal needs. Visit http://www.criminalattorney.com or call 1-888-726-0574 to contact a criminal attorney from the firm.

White Collar Crime – Former Illinois Governor Corruption Case

If you are accused of federal public corruption, this is considered a serious crime. Public officials are especially held to a higher standard. When someone in public office is accused or arrested for public corruption while serving, the consequences are severe. You may be removed from office and face impeachment as well as face federal prison time and fines if you are convicted. It is also a crime under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, for someone to lie to federal government agents which includes knowingly and willfully making any materially false,   fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation or lying regarding about any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States. Many times innocent people are unaware that they may have committed a public corruption crime and/or they might get caught up in the sweep of a government investigation for corruption. The government takes these crimes serious and prosecutes them vigorously. Judges also hand down strict sentences. These matters should not be taken lightly.

Case Example

The recent trial and a conviction of former Governor of Illinois Rod R. Blagojevich is an example of a public official misusing power and participating in acts of political corruption. Blagojevich was found guilty, of which he was sentenced on December 8, 2011 in U.S. District Court by Judge James Zagel, to 14 years on 18 counts for public corruption. Although Blagojevich apologized and made a plea for leniency, his sentence was the second longest ever sentence in a federal court in Chicago for public corruption. The judge’s message for such a harsh sentence was that Blagojevich had a history of corruption while serving as Governor of the State of Illinois, including the discussion between the Governor and an aide for attempting to sell Obama’s senate seat and obtaining a $300,000 a year job from the Service Employees International Union for naming a candidate to fill the vacant seat after Obama was elected President of the United States, for illegal shakedowns for campaign cash and lying to federal agents. The judge stated that he believed Blagojevich had caused “…damage to the fabric of the State of Illinois… which cannot be easily repaired.”

Blagojevich’s claimed he was innocent, that his legal counsel never stopped him from committing any illegal actions and that he never intended there to be a “quid pro quo for the Senate seat.” Blagojevich was the first Governor of Illinois to be impeached and involuntarily removed from office. He is expected to start serving his sentence on March 15, 2012. His predecessor Governor George Ryan was also found guilty of public corruption and sentenced to a 6 ½ year prison term.  Under federal sentencing guidelines and rules, Blagojevich won’t be eligible for release until 2024, at which time he will be 67 years old.

Attorney Representation

While receiving political campaign contributions is legal, “depriving the public of honest service” is illegal. When there is evidence that a public official tries to seek something of value in return for an official action, that can be considered a public corruption offense. If you are suspected of political corruption or public corruption or you have been arrested for such an offense, it is imperative that you hire a white collar criminal defense attorney immediately to develop a legal strategy to defend you. What you say and do can have lasting and profound effect on your case, so before you speak to investigators, you should consult with your legal counsel. The attorney can assert your first amendment rights and other defenses to either prevent charges from being filed against you, get your case dismissed or get your charges reduced to a lesser charge by having you plea acceptance of responsibility or a plea for leniency.

Denver Bronco’s Moreno Arrested for DUI

Knowshon Moreno, the Denver Bronco’s running back, was arrested on February 1, 2012, and charged with DUI, failing to have insurance and careless driving when he was pulled over by Denver police. According to a report by Denver television station KDVR-31, Moreno was driving a Bentley with personalized license plates “SAUCED” at approximately 70 miles an hour on Interstate 25 near Quincy Avenue and Union Avenue in a 65 mph area, which currently is a construction zone and has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Moreno failed breath and field sobriety tests and was taken to a detox facility. He is scheduled to be arraigned on March 2, 2012.
Moreno was the 12th NFL draft pick in 2009 and has been experiencing a disappointing season before taking off a year for a torn ACL injury sustained during the November 13th game in Kansas City. He lost his tailback job earlier in the season to Willis McGahee. The Broncos made a statement acknowledging Moreno’s arrest and stating that the organization is taking the arrest seriously and monitoring it closely while the matter is under investigation.

Colorado DUI/DWAI Laws

Under Colorado DUI Statute C.R.S.A 42-4-1301, when a person is arrested in Colorado for DUI or DWAI, it is considered a misdemeanor offense, with a maximum one year jail sentence, unless the case involves a vehicular manslaughter or assault charge and/or other circumstances surrounding the arrest. You can also face a maximum fine of $1,000. In addition, you may have to pay restitution to any victims that were injured by you. If you are convicted of related charges, then more time could be added to your sentence. Factors taken into consideration by the judge include:
• How many other DUI arrests you have had
• Your BAC level
• Whether you were driving in a reckless manner
• Your attitude towards the arresting officer
• Whether there was an accident and injuries to other persons
• Whether you are remorseful
When considering how to charge you, the district attorney does not need to present any blood alcohol evidence. You could be convicted upon the arresting officer’s testimony that the officer either observed you driving in a manner that suggested you were driving under the influence such as swerving and/or that the officer smelled alcohol on your breath. Or you could be convicted based upon a breath and/or blood alcohol test showing your BAC was over the legal limit of 0.08. If convicted, you can also face the suspension of your driver’s license by the Colorado Department of Motor vehicles.

Hiring a DUI Attorney

Facing DUI/DWAI charges in Colorado is a serious matter requiring the representation of a Colorado DUI/DWAI attorney. It is recommended that you contact a Colorado DUI attorney immediately upon your arrest to defend you. Imhoff & Associates – Criminal Attorneys specialize in defending clients charged with DUI and DWAI offenses. Your attorney can raise such defenses as your fourth amendment unreasonable search and seizure rights were violated, the blood alcohol test or breath test machine was not working properly, the person who gave the test did not follow proper procedures or made an error or your blood alcohol sample was not handled properly or misplaced. Your attorney may be able to get your charges reduced to a lesser crime, get you community service, probation, attendance in an alcohol treatment program or get your case dismissed.

Arizona Immigration Law

When Arizona passed legislation in 2010 cracking down on illegal immigration in its state and giving state law enforcement the police powers to detain and question suspected illegal immigrants and require legal immigrants to carry their immigration status papers with them, it erupted a host of other states such as Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Utah and Alabama to pass similar legislation. It also brought a pouring of outrage from civil rights and other groups against Arizona’s measures to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to work and live in the state.  Proponents of the new Arizona law S.B. 1070, as amended by H.B. 2162, were hopeful that it would cut down and save the state millions of dollars in costs of government health care and education benefits as well as prison costs by reducing the number of illegal immigrants in the state.

Challenges to the New Arizona Immigration Law
The Obama Administration challenged Arizona’s immigration law and won an order blocking the key provisions in the District and Appeals Courts. Arizona has asked the United States Supreme Court to hear their appeal of these decisions, and the Court has agreed to hear the case in 2012. Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the Court’s decision to take the case and most likely will not be part of the hearing or final ruling. The Justice Department has also sued to block enforcement in other states, and immigrant groups have also sued to stop the enforcement as well. The Obama Administration’s position is that only the federal government has the jurisdiction to set immigration policies and that states that pass laws that conflict with the federal government’s immigration policy cannot enforce their own laws.

While border states like Arizona do have legitimate concerns about illegal drugs and drug cartel related crimes spilling over into the state and creating homeland security issues, ordinary law abiding legal resident aliens and innocent U.S. citizens may be caught up in the unfortunate consequences of the frustrations between local law enforcement and U.S. Border Patrols in attempting to enforce against serious border crimes such as gun running, murder, drug trafficking, human trafficking and prevention of illegal immigration.

Fines and Penalties
If you are found guilty of breaking the Arizona law and have been convicted of entering the U.S. illegally, whether or not you are found guilty of human trafficking, you are subject to paying a minimum $500 for the first violation or at least $1,000 for any subsequent violations and/or jail time of a minimum six months and will be turned over to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency or U.S. Border Patrol for further processing and/or deportation.   If you are convicted of human trafficking, you may convicted of a class 1 misdemeanor and subject to a minimum fine of $1,000, unless there are 10 or more illegal aliens, then you may be convicted of a class 6 felony, with a fine of at least $1,000 for each alien involved and/or subject to jail time of a minimum six months as well as being turned over to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency or U.S. Border Patrol.

Legal Representation
If you have been stopped or questioned by Arizona police and accused of committing a crime while you are living here in the United States as a legal resident or in the process of obtaining a green card, you will need the advice of a Arizona criminal defense attorney to defend you. The Arizona attorney can challenge the arrest as unlawful and unconstitutional because it interferes with your civil rights and/or may be in violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection guarantee and prohibition against unreasonable seizures and may assert other legal defenses depending on the type of crime you are accused of to get the case dropped and the charges dismissed.

Pennsylvania Child Sex Abuse Laws and Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal

Sex crimes of all nature, especially child sex abuse crimes, are considered very serious crimes in Pennsylvania. Under Pennsylvania Statutes Sections 3121-3130, you could be charged with the most serious felony crimes of rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, sexual assault, institutional sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, or misdemeanor charges for indecent assault, indecent exposure, sexual intercourse with an animal or conduct relating to sex offenders. Prosecutors vigorously try these cases and courts are harsh on sentencing convicted sex offenders involving sex crimes against children. Prison sentences for the most serious sex felony crime convictions are lengthy ranging from maximum minimum 10 year sentences to 40 years for crimes involving rape and multiple deviate sexual intercourse charges involving minors, especially minors under 13 years of age and fines up to $100,000. Convicted sex offenders must register on the state sex offender registry after serving their sentences, which could affect where you can live and may affect other aspects of your life such as employment. Even if you are not accused of these offenses, you can still be charged with failing to report serious sex crimes to law enforcement and also be subject to perjury charges if you lie under oath about not having knowledge of such crimes.

Case Example

Former Penn State football defensive coordinator and assistant football coach Gerald “Jerry” Sandusky was arrested on November 5, 2011, accused of child sex abuse crimes involving eight boys over a time span of approximately 10 years. He was released on a $100,000 bond after the arraignment on 40 criminal counts according to the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General. Charges include seven felony counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, corruption of minors, endangering the welfare of a child, indecent assault, unlawful contact with a minor, single counts of aggravated indecent assault and attempted indecent assault. Sandusky is facing up to 20 years in prison for the seven felony counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse alone besides additional sentences for other charges if he is convicted. Mr. Sandusky denies the charges. Penn State athletic director Tim Curley, 57, and the University’s vice president for finance and business as well as having responsibility for overseeing the University Police Department, Gary Schultz, 62, have been charged with perjury and failing to report information they had regarding the sex abuse allegations.

At one time, Mr. Sandusky was considered to be a likely replacement for the legendary Joe Paterno, Penn State’s head coach position, prior to his retirement in 1999. After retiring from Penn State, Mr. Sandusky continued his work with at-risk-children through his non-profit organization Second Mile, which he founded in 1977. All of the victims in the case are alleged to have initially come into contact with Mr. Sandusky through his Second Mile organization. In 1999, Mr. Sandusky was banned from the Clinton County school district after the mother of an approximate 11 or 12 year old boy at the time reported to the high school that her son received expensive gifts and trips to sporting events and reported to her that he had been sexually assaulted by Mr. Sandusky during an overnight stay at his house. These charges triggered the State’s investigation into Mr. Sandusky’s current alleged sexual abuse charges.

Other allegations by a graduate assistant, Mr. Kelly, took place in 2002 when he reported that he saw Mr. Sandusky sexually assaulting a naked boy approximately 10 years old in a locker room of the Lasch Football Building located on the campus. He and his father reported the incident to Mr. Paterno, who then reported it to Mr. Curley, but it was not reported to any law enforcement agencies or Child Protective Service Agencies as required under Pennsylvania Law. Mr. Paterno has not been charged with any wrongdoing in the case according to prosecutors. Mr. Curley testified that he banned Mr. Sandusky from bringing any children onto the campus and that he reported the matter to Penn State President Graham Spanier. Mr. Sandusky was no longer coaching at Penn State during this time.

On November 9, 2011, Joe Paterno announced he was retiring at the end of the season, but the University made the decision to ask Paterno and President Spanier to leave effectively immediately, naming defensive coordinator Tom Bradley as the interim coach and provost Rodney Erickson as interim University President. With such a major scandal for a school that has maintained one of the most pristine images in college sports and one of four major schools that have never been found guilty of any major violations by the NCAA, this is a devastating blow. With the school’s reputation at stake, the University has hired their own investigator, former FBI director Louis Freeh, to conduct an independent investigation regarding the Sandusky child sex abuse allegations.

Hire an Attorney

If you are accused or charged with Pennsylvania sex crimes involving minors or other related sex offenses, these are very serious charges and require the assistance of a Pennsylvania Criminal Sexual Offense Attorney to defend you. The attorney understands the Pennsylvania laws and can aggressively defend you by interviewing witnesses and may be able to convince authorities and prosecutors to drop or dismiss charges against you, or in some cases, avoid charges from being filed against you if were falsely accused. The attorney may also be able to get charges filed against you reduced to a lesser crime such as indecent exposure or get you community service or probation.

Imhoff & Associates Secures Release of Wrongfully Convicted Client Luis Galicia and Dismissal of Child Molestation Case

 

 

San Diego (California) – Defense Attorney Shannon Dorvall of the Imhoff & Associates Law Firm, one of the largest multi-jurisdictional criminal defense firms, escorted her client Luis Galicia into the arms of his loving family upon his release after successfully getting her client’s case dismissed by the First District Court of Appeals on November 23, 2011. Luis served four years after a trial court convicted him for sexual molestation of his sister. At the original trial, the state’s doctor testified that she believed that his sister had been forcibly raped, despite the testimony of the doctor for the defense, who stated he disagreed with the state’s evidence. Even though his sister recanted her testimony and said that the charges were not true, the trial jury convicted Luis Galicia, and the sentence handed down was two 15 to life sentences.

The family hired the Imhoff firm to file an appeal on Luis’ behalf. While awaiting the Judge’s response in the appeal case, the family took his sister to two doctors who examined her and disagreed with the state’s doctor, both stating that his sister’s hymen was intact and that she had never had sex. The Imhoff firm also filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus on Luis Galicia’s behalf with the First District Court of Appeals, who agreed to order a hearing, and the Imhoff firm was also successful in obtaining the cooperation of the San Diego District Attorney’s Office to review the new medical evidence. The District Attorney agreed to have the Children’s Hospital also review the trial photos and examine the girl, and they agreed also that she had never had sex. The District Attorney testified at the hearing that the trial evidence was nonsense. The Judge ordered the case dismissed and the release of Mr. Galicia.

The Imhoff firm believes that no family should have to endure the ordeal that the Galicia family has gone through. Unfortunately, innocent people can be accused of all sorts of crimes they have not committed. If a person is arrested or charged with a sex crime, these are serious charges and can ruin a person’s reputation and life as well as destroy their family’s lives. Imhoff & Associates believes in justice and that all persons are innocent until proved otherwise. That is why the Imhoff legal defense team vigorously defends their clients by specializing in the most innovative legal services defense strategies and treats their clients with the utmost dignity and respect.  The firm’s outstanding and skilled defense attorneys work diligently and creatively to offer the highest level of service to our clients and uphold the principles and standards upon which this firm was founded by providing service to clients with members of the firm available 24/7.

Click Here for more information regarding Appeals

Visit www.criminalattorney.com or dial 888-726-0574 to schedule an appointment today.