Arzili Criminal Defense Lawyers Blog

July 6, 2010

How to Spot Fake Attorney Reviews on Google and Yahoo!

As if finding a good attorney wasn’t difficult enough already, with the advent of internet advertising, the consumer now has to deal with one more obstacle: fake reviews. Unscrupulous attorneys are paying companies to write them reviews. Not only is it bad business, its downright unethical. In fact, the New York Attorney General recently sued a a business and was able to get damages based on the listing of fake reviews. Reviews on the internet are advertising gold. For businesses, feedback from a customer is perceived as authentic and trustworthy. I take great pride in my law practice. When i am able to secure a great result for a client, I always ask them if they would be so kind to write about it. I find that its the most compelling information for potential clients to have. Unfortunately, some unscrupulous attorneys do not play by the rules. Sites like Avvo are very good and making sure reviews are authentic and safeguarding the process. Google Local (or google maps) and Yahoo Local are open to abuse. Review mills are now big business and write bogus reviews for lawyers on google maps and yahoo. Here’s how to spot them: 1) do a google search for an attorney in your city for example “DUI lawyers in Montebello” 2) look at the local listings that come up with multiple reviews. Click on the reviewers name. this should show you other reviews that person has written. Once you see their other reviews, you’ll know its all a scam. Some reviewers write 5 reviews in a SINGLE DAY in 5 different States. Clutch repair in Arizona, Therapist in New York, Photographer in Wyoming and finally, local DUI lawyer in Los Angeles, all on the same day. Be a wise consumer and don’t take reviews at face value. Because if you don’t take a minute to do your research, you may be taken for a ride. Best of Luck

Here’s a link to the NY Times article on the Attorney General’s crackdown:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/technology/internet/15lift.html

April 3, 2010

An Attorney must advise his client of all the possible consequences of his choices in court.

When you are facing Criminal Charges in Los Angeles, it is important to hire an experienced Criminal Defense Attorney who knows how to protect your rights and advise you of the consequences of what happens in court. I’ve represented clients in Los Angeles Criminal Courts for over a decade and firmly believe that every client needs to fully aware of their options and legal consequences before making decisions that may change their life. This recent U.S. Supreme Court decision further echoes my beliefs. If you are looking for a an experienced and aggressive Criminal Defense Lawyer in Los Angeles, please contact us for a free consultation.
Defense attorneys have a fundamental obligation to tell their immigrant clients they face possible deportation when pleading guilty to certain crimes, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The 7-2 ruling was closely watched by the Justice Department and a number of immigrant rights groups.

“The severity of deportation — the equivalent of banishment or exile — only underscores how critical it is for counsel to inform her noncitizen client that he faces a risk of deportation,” said Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the opinion for the court.

“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant — whether a citizen or not — is left to the ‘mercies of incompetent counsel.’ To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation,” he wrote.

The high court’s conclusions affirm that constitutional guarantees of “effective assistance of counsel” extend to legal advice for noncitizens.

The appeal involves Jose Padilla, a Vietnam-era veteran living in Kentucky but originally from Honduras. He had been a resident of the United States for more than 40 years, but never applied for citizenship. He was arrested in his tractor-trailer and charged with transporting and trafficking marijuana, an “aggravated felony” under federal law.

He pleaded guilty in 2001, and said his lawyer assured him he “did not have to worry about immigration status since he had been in the country so long,” according to court records.

But the fact that the crime was an aggravated felony meant he would automatically be sent back to Honduras after serving his jail sentence. A state court said he could not withdraw his guilty plea, and that lawyers have no obligation to inform defendants on immigration.

Padilla is not related to a convicted terrorist conspirator and “enemy combatant” with the same name, who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks. That defendant is now in a federal prison serving a life term.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia already mandate that immigrant defendants be given the right extended by the high court. Stevens noted previous plea deals are not likely to be affected by the Supreme Court ruling.

Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts agreed in this case that Padilla’s lawyer misled her client on the consequences of a guilty plea. But they said that, in general, defense attorneys cannot be forced to have a “mastery of immigration law” in service to their clients.

“A criminal defense attorney should not be required to provide advice on immigration law, a complex specialty that generally lies outside the scope of a criminal defense attorney’s expertise,” Alito wrote.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas disagreed entirely with the majority, saying the Constitution does not guarantee “accurate advice” to criminal defendants, immigrants or citizens alike.

Immigrant rights groups hailed the ruling as one of fundamental fairness.

“Even though most immigrants’ primary concern is their ability to stay in the U.S., they often plead guilty unaware that the result would be permanent exile from their families and communities,” said Michelle Fei, co-director of the Immigrant Defense Project. “We’re thrilled that the Supreme Court has recognized that deportation is an extreme penalty and that noncitizens have a constitutional right to legal advice about the consequences of pleading guilty.”

The case is Padilla v. Kentucky (08-651).

March 22, 2010

Running for 20 years. Client can finally stop and breathe.

Nearly 20 years ago, my client fled los angeles after finding out he had a felony warrant for his arrest.  He was young and foolish and had gotten himself into some bad company and some serious trouble.  His warrant was for the sale of narcotics and could have landed him some serious prison time.   So he ran.    He ran far away and started a new life. 

He changed his ways.  Got an education and a career.  Raised a family and became a productive member of society and his community.   But all along, in the back of his mind, he knew that he was still running and a  brush with the law would devastate his life and take it all away.   He  was wrong for getting caught up in the crime and also for running away but he couldnt run anymore.

He contacted my office to help him with this 20 year old felony warrant.  And just so you know, the people that tell you that warrants just get wiped out automatically after some years are lying to you.   I made some calls and the warrant was active and in the systems.  My client wanted to resolve all of this and knew there was a likelihood that he would go directly to jail and stay there. 

We were able to secure a bail for his warrant and posted it and then came the day in court.   Our client had flown in expecting to go into jail and full of jittery nerves but still willing to take responsibility for the actions.

Fortunately we were able to have his felony case dismissed entirely on that court date.  He flew back to his life and family and finally had a chance to stop and breathe as he is no longer running from the law.    I wish him the best of luck.

Best Regards,

Anthony A. Arzili

March 2, 2010

Vital Tips for those arrested for Domestic Violence

If you are arrested for Domestic Violence,  you not only face the possiblity of losing your freedom, you also face the likelihood of being precluded from  your house and your family.    Those arrested for Domestic Violence face and incredible burden not usually handed out for misdemeanors.  Unlike many other crimes, If you are arrested for a Domestic Violence charge, you will likely be ordered to move out of your residence, (even if you have legal right to live there).   This Protective Order can also preclude you from having any contact with your girlfriend, wife or mother of your child. 

Once you appear in court, the prosecutors always request a “stay-away” protective order which will make it a crime for you to return back to your home.  It will also make it a separate crime to attempt to contact the alleged victim.  In 12 years, i’ve seen many people attempt to sidestep or ignore the court’s rules, only to be locked up and brought back to court.   Handling the protective order properly is not only key to keeping yourself out of jail, its also important to resolving your underlying domestic violence charge.

An experienced domestic violence attorney can arrange for the protective order to be lifted or modified to allow for safe and non-abusive contact.  Please be advised that your alleged victim is key in having the order lifted or modified, but you cannot contact the alleged victim yourself.  This would be directly against the court’s order.  Only your attorney can contact the alleged victim. 

In certain cases, I give my client’s an option of taking some voluntary anger management classes to assist in reducing tensions and showing the court that it is safe to let the parties stay together.  Some see this as a admission of guilt, but I disagree.  Most judges agree that to maintain a safe and hospitable environment while charges are pending, some counseling is necessary.

Finally, my advice to most people in this unfortunate circumstance is not try to handle any of this yourself, because emotions will likely make you overreact.   Leave this serious situation to a professional criminal defense attorney that handled domestic violence cases.

For a free consultation, feel free to contact me at anthonyarzili@gmail.com   562 907-4448

Best of Luck,

 

Anthony Arzili

January 12, 2010

Doctor sentenced to prison for road rage

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , — labestdefense @ 12:40 am

A doctor convicted of assaulting two bicyclists by slamming on his car brakes after a confrontation on a narrow Brentwood road was sentenced today to five years in prison.

Christopher Thompson, wearing dark blue jail scrubs, wept as he apologized to the injured cyclists shortly before he was sentenced.

“I would like to apologize deeply, profoundly from the bottom of my heart,” he told them, his right hand cuffed to a court chair.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Scott T. Millington called the case a “wake-up call” to motorists and cyclists and urged local government to provide riders with more bike lanes. He said he believed that Thompson had shown a lack of remorse during the case and that the victims were particularly vulnerable while riding their bicycles.

The case against Thompson, 60, has drawn close scrutiny from bicycle riders around the country, many of whom viewed the outcome as a test of the justice system’s commitment to protecting cyclists.

Millington said he did not take into account more than 270 e-mails and letters from cyclists that were filed with the court urging a tough sentence.

The July 4, 2008, crash also highlighted simmering tensions between cyclists and residents along Mandeville Canyon Road, the winding five-mile residential street where the crash took place.

One cyclist was flung face-first into the rear window of Thompson’s red Infiniti, breaking his front teeth and nose and cutting his face. The other cyclist slammed into the sidewalk and suffered a separated shoulder.

At his sentencing hearing at the county’s airport branch court, Thompson cited the Bible in urging cyclists and residents of Mandeville Canyon to try to resolve their differences peacefully.

“If my incident shows anything it’s that confrontation leads to an escalation of hostilities,” Thompson said.

Thompson, a former emergency room physician who described the crash as a terrible accident, testified during his trial last year that he and other Mandeville Canyon residents were upset that some cyclists rode dangerously and acted disrespectfully toward residents and motorists along the street, a popular route for bike riders.

On the day of the crash, Thompson said he was driving down the road on his way to work when several cyclists swore at him and flipped him off as he called on them to ride single file. He said he stopped his car to take a photo to identify the riders and never intended to hurt anyone.
But the cyclists said the doctor was acting aggressively from the start. They said he honked loudly from behind them and passed by dangerously close as they moved to ride single file before he pulled in front and braked hard.

A police officer told jurors that shortly after the crash that Thompson said he slammed on his brakes in front of the riders to “teach them a lesson.”

Prosecutors said Thompson had a history of run-ins with bike riders, including a similar episode four months before the crash when two cyclists told police that the doctor tried to run them off the road and braked suddenly in front of them. Neither of the riders was injured.

Jurors convicted Thompson in November of mayhem; assault with a deadly weapon, his car; battery with serious injury; and reckless driving causing injury.

January 2, 2010

New Laws for 2010 for those arrested for DUI

Hello,

California continues to crack down on those arrested for DUI by ratcheting up penalties.

2 new laws that will go into effect in 2010 deal with those convicted of Drunk Driving/DUI in Los Angeles County.  One of the laws is a pilot program that seeks to have those convicted of first offense DUI be forced to install an ignition interlock device in each car that they have access to.

The ignition interlock devices (IID) are to be purchased by those convicted of DUI and each time the driver starts the car, he needs to blow into the device to show there is no alcohol in his system.  Details of the pilot program have not been released yet, but it is clear that avoiding a DUI conviction is now more important than ever.  Hiring an experienced DUI lawyer can help improve the chances of reducing or removing any penalties for your DUI arrest.

The second law that will go into effect has to do with 2nd or 3rd time offender and their ability to get a restricted license.   This also deals with the (IID) device and will be monitored through the DMV.

If you have questions about your recent DUI arrest, feel free to contact me at anthonyarzili@gmail.com or our office at 562-907-4448 for a free consultation.

Best of Luck and Happy New Year,

Anthony A. Arzili

LA DUI Attorney

December 9, 2009

DUI Tests, To take or not take?

Handling DUI cases for over a decade, you will hear all sorts of bad advice that has led well-meaning people into trouble.

This article is designed to shed some light on some common myths and misconceptions of the law associated with a DUI arrest and DUI Tests.

Most people realize that if you are licensed to drive in california, you must submit to a chemical test if the officer suspects you are DUI.  If you do not, your license is suspended for at least 1 year.  

What most people don’t realize is which tests are actually the mandatory tests and which ones can they politely decline to take.   As simply as can be said, the only DUI test that you are mandated to take is a blood or breath test (at the station).   You do not have to take a breath test at the scene (commonly called a Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device).    So the basic rule is, blood at clinic or breath at station is the only mandated test you have to take.

What if the officer wants me to do a “walk the line” test or “raise one leg and count to 30″ ?

I can count on one hand how many police reports i have read where the officer found someone’s field sobriety tests to be “satisfactory.”  Maybe, thats because by the time a report gets to me someone is arrested.  But the truth of the matter is most of the tests are pretty hard to do, even when someone is sober and in their own living room, let alone after a drink and on the side of a the freeway at 2 in the morning.

Therefore, any physical tests at the scene of your DUI stop are not only discretionary but also pretty subjective.    If you feel that you physically cannot do any of the tests, you should politely decline without giving a reason.   If you give a reason, it will be highlighted and displayed on the reports and for goodness sake please don’t say: “I couldnt do these tests even if i was sober”

The one other tests that you should always refuse is the PAS test.  This is the small device that is usually used at the scene as a breathalyzer.  Do not confuse this with the chemical test at the station which is mandatory.  The small PAS device is considered an investigatory tool and is not mandated by any california law.  If you feel that you may be over the limit, pass on this test and take the chemical test at the station.

The other question I am asked is whether someone should take the blood or breath test.  There is no clear answer here, but some factors make the breath test a better option.   A breathalizer machine needs to be calibrated and tested regularly.  It also needs to be used in a certain fashion to produce accurate results.  With that being said, the breathalizer allows your DUI attorney to attack not only how the test was done, but the machine itself.   The blood test can be retested but is generally perceived as a more infallible test.

If you do refuse the mandatory tests, the punishment is harsh.  1 year suspension and no chance of any restricted driving (to and from work). 

The harsh penalties are even more reason to make sure you have an experience DUI and DMV attorney that has handled hundreds of DUI hearings.

If you have any questions regarding your DUI arrest, feel free to contact us at 562 907-4448 or at LABestDefense@gmail.com

Best Regards,

Anthony A. Arzili

Los Angeles DUI Attorney

July 26, 2009

Do’s and Dont’s of appearing in court.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , — labestdefense @ 5:00 pm

While most of us probably see these tips as common sense, too often I see people seal their fate but making bonehead mistakes in court.  Here are some important ones to remember:

 1) Dress for court:  Most judges will not say anything but will see inappropriate attire as a sign of disrespect for the court.    No shorts, no tank tops, no flip flops and definitely don’t show off your tattoos.  You don’t appear in court often (hopefully) so make an effort.  Dress shirt, tie and slacks says i respect this court and the law.  For women, a blouse and slacks and nothing low-cut or sleeveless.  If you choose to wear a skirt or dress, it should reach knee level.  A suit is optional but personally I think its a bit too much. 

2) Leave your kids at home: Theres a common misconception that judges will see those little faces looking at their daddy in cuffs and that will pull on their heart strings and somehow help you.  More often than not, its actually the opposite effect.  Most Judges or Prosecutors don’t believe that a court of law is a place for kids.  Also, they will see you as irresponsible for subjecting your kids to see their father/mother in handcuffs.   I empathize with people who may not have child care but there is no excuse for having your children sit through a hearing where they may hear things they soon wont forget.

3) Be on time.   Its common place for you to sit and wait for your attorney to call your case and talk to you.  But if your attorney is waiting for your to arrive, thats bad news.   Most judges have a radar that quickly picks up a client that is tardy.  Please take into consideration that most court have lines to enter and then metal detectors to go through.  Downtown courts have such long lines and parking issues that it may take you almost 45 mintues to get into your department after you arrive at the courthouse parking lot.

4) Be Courteous to all.  From the minute you get out of your car, be on your best behavior.  Too often I hear defendants in the elevator speaking in an inappropriate fashion about someone in court such as the prosecutor, defense attorney or judge.  You don’t know who else is in that elevator with you.   For the most part, people will treat you the way they are treated by you.  Noone wants to go the extra mile for someone who is being abusive or obnoxious. 

June 26, 2009

Shocking Arrest of Former Detective on Cold Case

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — labestdefense @ 1:40 am

Shortly after she sat down at her desk on the third floor of LAPD headquarters Friday morning, Det. Stephanie Lazarus was told a suspect in the basement jail had information on one of her cases. The 25-year police veteran went quickly downstairs.

As Lazarus removed her firearm to pass through security, she unknowingly walked into a trap. There was no suspect — only questions about a terrible secret police believe she has been harboring for more than two decades.

Now disarmed, Lazarus, 49, was confronted by homicide detectives and arrested on suspicion of the 1986 slaying of a woman who had married Lazarus’ ex-boyfriend. The dramatic break in the decades-old case sent shock waves through the tight-knit LAPD community, marking one of the few times in the department’s history that one of its own officers has been accused of murder.

“It’s painful,” LAPD Chief William J. Bratton said. “But murder is also very painful.”

Calling it an apparent “crime of passion,” Deputy Chief Charlie Beck said Lazarus allegedly beat and fatally shot Sherri Rae Rasmussen, a 29-year-old hospital nursing director, two years after joining the department.

Three months after they were married, Rasmussen’s husband returned to their Van Nuys condominium on the evening of Feb. 24, 1986, to discover his wife’s badly beaten body on the floor in the living room. She had been shot several times, Beck said.

Days after the slaying, two men robbed another woman in the area at gunpoint. Homicide detectives suspected that the pair had also killed Rasmussen when she came upon them burglarizing her home, according to news reports from the time. Rasmussen’s parents, newspapers reported, offered a $10,000 reward for the men’s capture.

The search for the men led nowhere. Like thousands of other homicides from the period, the case remained open and collected dust on storage shelves as detectives struggled to keep pace with L.A.’s dramatic surge in violent crimes.

But with homicides in the city falling to historic lows, LAPD detectives have had unusual freedom in recent months to revisit cold cases. Detectives returned to the Rasmussen killing in February, testing blood or saliva samples from the crime scene and thought to have been from the killer. The DNA tests showed that the attacker was a woman, disproving the theory that Rasmussen had been killed by a man.

Detectives scoured the original case file for mention of any women who could have been overlooked during the investigation. Beck said they found a reference to Lazarus, who was known at the time to have had a romantic relationship with the victim’s husband, John Ruetten. Ruetten allegedly broke off the relationship and soon after became involved with Rasmussen, said sources familiar with the investigation who were not authorized to speak publicly.

With suspicion falling on an LAPD cop, the case took on sensitive and explosive tones inside the department. To minimize the chances that word of the reopened investigation would leak, only a small circle of detectives and high-ranking officials were made aware of it. Last week, an undercover officer surreptitiously trailed Lazarus as she did errands, waiting until she discarded a plastic utensil or other object with her saliva on it, police sources said.

The DNA in her saliva was compared with the DNA evidence collected from the murder scene. The genetic code in the samples matched conclusively, police said.

Lazarus was not pursued as a suspect at the time of Rasmussen’s slaying, according to Beck. The two homicide detectives originally assigned to the case have retired and had not yet been contacted by police, he added. Beck declined to say why the detectives did not look more closely at Lazarus as a possible suspect.

Asked at an afternoon news conference whether Lazarus had been either deliberately or mistakenly overlooked because she was a cop, Beck said: “I don’t know the answer to that at this point.” Reached at his home in Arizona, Rasmussen’s father, Nels E. Rasmussen Jr., indicated that he believes so. “We are not surprised that the arrest was made,” he said.

One of the original detectives in the case, Lyle Mayer, said he never interviewed Lazarus in the course of his investigation and continued to believe the burglary theory until his retirement in 1991.

Police officials declined to comment on whether they believe anyone else was involved in the killing. Lazarus was being held without bail and could not be reached for comment.

Officers responded with shock as news of the arrest spread through the department.

“Never in my wildest imagination would I ever think she could do something like this,” said one longtime officer, who socialized frequently with Lazarus. “We drank beers. She was always quick to give you a hug or tell a joke.” The officer spoke on condition of anonymity. Lazarus’ current partner, Det. Don Hrycyk, refused to comment.

Lazarus joined the department in 1983, a year after she graduated from UCLA with a degree in sociology, LAPD and university records show. After several years as a rank-and-file patrol officer, she was promoted to detective and, in 2006, landed a high-profile assignment with Hrycyk tracking stolen artwork and forgeries. There are references in department publications to Lazarus earning public commendation for her work.

She hardly shunned the spotlight. In a recent LA Weekly profile, Lazarus joked that all she knew about art was that it “hangs on the wall” and that “after working here and seeing all the phony art, I said, ‘I can do that.’ ” Lazarus, who according to police has a young daughter and recently married another LAPD detective, told the newspaper that she had started taking oil-painting classes and had first become interested in art when she visited Europe as a teenager. Last year, she gave interviews after helping capture two men convicted of a string of art thefts in the Wilshire area and in Beverly Hills.

Until her death, Rasmussen was director of critical-care nursing at Glendale Adventist Medical Center. Her slaying stunned colleagues, who referred to her as a vital member of the staff, according to news reports. On the day she was killed, she had reportedly stayed home from work after straining her back in an aerobics class. In an article about the family’s reward, her father said Rasmussen had entered college at 16 and had taught for a period at UCLA.

“It’s safe to say we have some closure,” said Ruetten, the victim’s husband, when reached at his home in San Diego. “It’s been a horrible thing to go through it all again.”

andrew.blankstein@latimes.com

Article by LA Times

Chris Brown Sentence, fair or not fair?

Filed under: Uncategorized — labestdefense @ 1:32 am

There has been some hand-wringing over a judge’s decision to sentence singer Chris Brown to six months of “community labor” — but no time behind bars — after he pleaded guilty to felony assault on ex-girlfriend Rihanna.

But was the sentence too lenient? Several legal experts said the sentence appears to be in line with what other first-time offenders who plead guilty to the same crime would receive.

Dmitry Gorin, a former deputy district attorney who handled domestic violence cases, said the plea bargain “was not unreasonable.” 

“We have a first time offender here and he is getting 180 days’ hard labor and five years’ probation. That is not a light sentence for someone who’s not been convicted before,” Gorin, adding he has negotiated similar pleas.

He said one must keep in mind that if Brown were to serve time in the L.A. County Jail,  he would serve only a fraction of his sentence because of jail overcrowding.

“I have had clients want to do the jail time when they know the jails are overcrowded and then won’t serve anything like the sentence,” he said. 

Stan Goldman, a Loyola Law School professor, said he believes Brown’s defense team walked away with a good deal for their client. He said he has typically seen such defendants given a choice of 30 days in jail or 90 days with Caltrans cleaning up the freeway. 

In 1988, Christian Slater was sentenced to 90 days for beating his girlfriend and fighting with police, who responded to a brawl at a Wilshire Boulevard condominium in August 2007. He pleaded no contest to battering a female companion and a police officer and being under the influence of a controlled substance. 

A judge declined to allow him to serve the time in a treatment facility. Slater instead did the time in a La Verne police jail. There he worked as a janitor and did other manual help.

Similarly “24″ star Kiefer Sutherland pleaded no contest to a single DUI count last year and was sentenced to 48 days in jail for that offense and violating the probation terms of his 2004 DUI conviction. He served his time in Glendale Police Department jail and did janitorial work.

Paris Hilton was famously sentenced to 45 days in jail for violation of the terms of her probation by driving on a suspended license. She ended up serving 23 days despite the sheriff releasing her at one point. Upon learning of the release the judge ordered a tearful Hilton back to jail.

In the Brown case, Sandi Gibbons, a district attorney’s spokeswoman, said the plea bargain is not special treatment and is what a first time offender in such cases can receive. 

She said Brown will also be on probation five years and will have to attend anger management classes. She added that Rihanna approved of the plea. 

Article By LA Times: 

– Richard Winton

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress