Legal Blog

According to crime statistics compiled by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), property crimes and violent crimes increased during 2017. Yet the number of homicides and instances of gun violence decreased during that period, a development that the LAPD attributes to its computer statistics and community-focused policing strategy.

Known as COMPSTAT, the LAPD’s policing model is supposed to “put police officers back in the business of actually proactively fighting crime rather than just reacting to it,” according to the department’s website. Another cornerstone of this strategy is to hold police managers “directly accountable for combating the crime in their assigned area,” while giving them the autonomy to develop their own, local tactics.

If you’re facing charges for a violent crime, contact a Los Angeles violent crimes attorney or staff member from Spolin Law P.C. at (310) 424-5816 to schedule a free case consultation today.

Has a New LAPD Strategy Helped Curb the Murder Rate?

Last year’s six percent decline in the murder rate was welcome news, since the rate was on the rise during 2015 and 2016. But since 2010, murder rates across Los Angeles — and in most other parts of California — have remained generally stable according to research by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.

Murder rates in LA began steadily decreasing after the 1990s, when the yearly murder rate could reach past 1,000. The decrease continued until around 2010, when the murder rate stabilized between 200 and 300 yearly victims. The number of murders has remained stable despite many reforms to the California criminal justice system and law enforcement strategies over the last seven years.

Against this backdrop, there were significant local variations in crime rates. Communities of color tended to fare worse — especially when it comes to murders. For example, blacks make up only eight percent of Los Angeles citizens, but accounted for 36 percent of its murder victims in 2017.

According to Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice research fellow Mike Males, these facts show that law and order reforms may not cause significant changes to crime rates. Instead, long-term trends, as well as local or short-term variations, might result from socio-economic factors and the local activities of gangs.

Property Crimes and Violent Crimes Are Still on the Rise Despite New Strategy

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck stated that COMPSTAT, with its “data-driven community-focused strategies, expanding community trust, and relentless follow-up,” was partly responsible for the decrease in shootings and homicides. The LAPD now relies on data to predict where crimes might occur, and focus their resources in those areas.

But if this new policing strategy is succeeding, why have property crimes increased for three years in a row? In 2017, the LAPD recorded 95,495 property crimes – 6,007 more than in 2015. As for violent crime, it’s been increasing for four years now. There were 28,481 incidents of violent crime in 2017, versus 24,596 in 2015. Robberies and aggravated assaults led the increase – although this could be due to efforts by the LAPD to more accurately report these crimes.

Charged with a Crime? Contact a Criminal Defense Lawyer Today

Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Aaron Spolin is a former prosecutor who knows how the criminal justice system works. If you are facing criminal charges, his experience and advocacy can help you get the best outcome possible under your circumstances. Contact Spolin Law P.C. today at (310) 424-5816 for a free consultation about how we might defend your case.

Internet fraud is a broad term that encompasses many different offenses, some of which may be prosecuted under either California or federal law. Fundamentally, fraud consists in using deception to get someone else to give you something of value. So any time you use the internet to complete such a scheme, you have committed internet fraud.

Internet fraud is a growing problem in the United States and the state of California. As the amount of business conducted over the internet increases, so does the amount of fraud. The problem reached such proportions that in 2011, the California Attorney General created an “eCrime Unit” dedicated to the investigation and prosecution of internet fraud and other cybercrimes.

If you are being investigated by the eCrime Unit or another law enforcement agency, you need an experienced fraud attorney on your side. Call Spolin Law P.C. today at (310) 424-5816 to find out how we can help you.

Internet Fraud Can Take Many Forms

New fraud schemes are constantly emerging as our technology and habits evolve. Some of the more established forms of internet fraud include:

• Phishing — When you impersonate a company or bank employee over email to get a customer to give up account details, you have committed phishing. Phishing is usually a form of identity theft punishable by fines and/or one to three years behind bars under California Penal Code section 530.5.
• Spam — Most spam is just junk mail. But some messages may contain links to harmful malware that can enable thieves to access your computer. Messages that contain viruses tend to offer free credit report checks, low-interest loans, free dating services, and sweepstakes winnings. When the malware is used to obtain credit card numbers and personal identifying information, this type of fraud is also prosecuted under California Penal Code section 530.5.
• Credit card fraud — Reputable online retailers do not save your data unless you give them your permission. But untrustworthy retail websites may save your credit card number and billing address, and then make charges to your account. Credit card fraud might also be achieved through phishing, such as when a person pretending to be an employee of your credit card company asks for you to confirm your PIN and account number. Credit card fraud may be charged under California Penal Code section 484e, which calls for fines and/or prison terms of between one and three years.
• Hacking — California Penal Code section 502 prohibits many forms of accessing computers and their data without the owner’s permission. Depending on the circumstances, the offense is punishable by fines alone or by up to three years in prison. In many cases, hacking is facilitated by deception. For example, the hacker may obtain passwords through phishing, or may even gain physical access to the target computer. These actions may entail further criminal penalties.
• Non-delivery of merchandise — On auction websites like eBay, you may encounter scams where a seller fails to deliver the product you paid for. Your efforts to contact the seller will fail, and you may be unable to get your money back. Alternatively, you may receive a product of lower value, or a counterfeit item, which is punishable under California Penal Code section 350.

The Penalties for Internet Fraud Under Federal Law Are Harsher

In general, the cost of defending against federal charges — and the potential penalties — are higher than with state charges. Federal laws against internet fraud are different than California laws because in many cases, you do not have to actually complete the fraudulent scheme to be convicted. A mere attempt to commit internet fraud may be sufficient for you to face crippling fines, and the possibility of prison sentences ranging up to 20 years in the most serious cases.

Contact a Los Angeles Internet Fraud Attorney Today

As a former prosecutor, Los Angeles fraud defense attorney Aaron Spolin is well-positioned to help you counter your internet fraud charges. Do not plead guilty to your charges before speaking with a lawyer, as there may be evidence to show that you acted without criminal intent. Call Spolin Law P.C. today at (310) 424-5816 for a free consultation about the possible defenses that may apply to your case.

White-collar crimes, in general, are non-violent crimes committed with the purpose of achieving financial gain. Although they are non-violent, they can result in serious penalties. If you are being investigated for or charged with a white-collar crime, contact our experienced criminal defense attorneys or staff members at Spolin Law P.C. today. Call us at (310) 424-5816 to find out how we can help you.

Some of the most common white-collar crimes include…

Fraud

Fraud is essentially committing a deceitful act for money. There are different types of fraud, including:

• Securities fraud — Securities fraud includes insider trading, which is where a person uses confidential information about a brand or company to buy or sell stock in the stock market. Corporations can also commit securities fraud if they knowingly issue false or misleading public statements about the company’s financial health and prospects in order to attract investors.
• Insurance fraud — Insurance fraud is a scheme to collect on an insurance policy. When committing insurance fraud, you may end up committing another crime alongside it. For example, burning down a building for the insurance money would add an arson charge to insurance fraud.
• Business or corporate fraud — Business fraud is different from securities fraud because these businesses aren’t just making false statements; they’re doctoring financial documents as well. Falsified financial statements usually swell profits and hide losses, and they can be used to hide illegal transactions as well. Business fraud can also be used to describe illegal kickbacks to executives or misuse of company funds or property.
• Ponzi Schemes — By now, most people are familiar with Bernie Madoff, the executive who orchestrated the largest Ponzi scheme in history. A Ponzi scheme is spearheaded by a fake enterprise used to attract investors. The business promises to pay their investors back with funds the business earns. In reality, it does pay back some early investors, using the money collected from newer investors. Mr. Madoff spent nearly 20 years relieving thousands of people of tens of billions of dollars.

Embezzlement

Embezzlement is taking money from a person or company where you are employed. Employees figure out a way to tap into the company’s funds and direct some of that money to their own bank accounts.

Embezzlement is also a white-collar crime often committed by politicians. It seems like every election the public hears of those in political offices using campaign funds to pay for their own personal expenses like mortgage payments or gifts for their spouses.

Tax Evasion

Tax evasion, or avoiding paying taxes owed, can be accomplished in a number of ways. Sometimes a company falsifies their tax returns, or they hide property or assets to make it look like they have less taxable obligations. Sometimes, they simply decide not to pay any taxes owed.

Money Laundering

Money laundering takes money earned from a disreputable source and makes it look like it has a legitimate background. Chances are you’re already committed a crime by acquiring “dirty money” in the first place. Laundering money helps people avoid paying taxes or facing criminal prosecution for the funds.

How a White Collar Crimes Lawyer Can Help

White-collar crimes don’t typically end in bloodshed, but the court does not see them as victimless crimes. On the contrary, because these crimes have the ability to take an entire business down, causing hard-working employees to lose their jobs and pensions, they are taken very seriously. If you’re facing charges for a white-collar crime, it may be in your best interest to get help from a criminal defense lawyer. The attorneys at Spolin Law P.C. have extensive experience representing people who have been hit with criminal charges. We give your case undivided attention and fight for your best possible outcome.

Contact us today at (310) 424-5816 to schedule a consultation.

California’s Three Strikes Law was introduced in 1994 as a way of dealing with certain repeat felony offenders. The state’s criminal justice system considers repeat offenders to be challenging to deal with, since they can be difficult to reform. The Three Strikes Law significantly extends prison terms with the idea that offenders will work to modify their behavior to avoid spending so much time behind bars.

“Strikers,” as these offenders are known, are also taken off the streets for a longer period of time, which puts citizens at ease.

The California Three Strikes law only applies to certain offenders, but it can be significantly higher penalties. If you’ve been charged with a crime and are concerned about getting a strike, contact Spolin Law P.C. today at (310) 424-5816.

Composition of the Three Strikes Law

The Three Strikes Law is so named because its core regulation puts three-time offenders already convicted of multiple serious felonies in prison for a minimum of 25 years to life. Not every felony has to be serious; for example, if you were convicted previously of a serious and a non-serious felony, and you’re sentenced for a third, serious felony, your prison term may still be dictated by the Three Strikes Law.

But there’s more to the law than just “three strikes and you’re out.” Other important factors to keep in mind include:

• “Two Strikes.” If you have previously been convicted of a serious felony offense, and you are sentenced for a second felony (whether serious or not), your sentence may be twice as long as the legal timeframe for the new conviction.
• Consecutive sentences required. The law requires that sentences for multiple felony offenses run consecutively, instead of concurrently. The number of felony convictions that can be added to a consecutive sentence is limitless.
• Time period between felonies not considered. It doesn’t matter if your previous felony conviction is a year old or 25 years old. The amount of time that has passed in between felony convictions is not taken into consideration.
• No probation, no suspension. You will not be eligible for probation, nor will you be able to receive a suspended sentence.
• A limit on credits. Anyone serving under the Three Strikes Law may only reduce their time in prison by one-fifth through work or education credits, whereas other prisoners may reduce time by up to one-half.
• Proposition 36. In 2012, California voters amended the Three Strikes Law in two ways. (1) The third strike must be a violent or serious felony (previously, offenders could be sentenced under the law even if their new felony was not serious). (2) Strikers could petition to have their sentence downgraded to Two Strikes if they qualify under the amendment.

What Is Considered a “Serious Felony”?

It’s important to understand what is considered a violent or serious felony offense, since these felonies affect strikers. Examples of these offenses include:

• Violent Felony Offenses — Murder, robbery, rape, other types of violent sexual assault.
• Serious Felony Offense — Serious felonies include all the same offenses under violent felonies, but also include a whole host of other crimes, such as assault with the intent to commit robbery or attempted murder.

Contact a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer

Even with the amendments, the Three Strikes Law can spell serious trouble for anyone who is facing multiple felony charges. If you are in need of help with your felony charges, you should contact the experienced criminal defense attorneys or staff members at Spolin Law P.C.. Our team of highly qualified attorneys work hard to provide the best defense for our clients. Contact us today at (310) 424-5816.

Earlier today Spolin Law P.C. secured the dismissals of two separate cases in Van Nuys Courthouse.

The client had been charged with two drug-related crimes in 2014. At that time she had pled guilty on both cases, was granted probation, and had agreed to come back to court regularly for court-ordered updates. However, she then left the state of California without the court’s permission, seeking a better life for herself in Nevada. Because she had left California and did not show up in court on her check-in dates, the court had ordered a bench warrant for her arrest. A bench warrant is a warrant seeking a person’s arrest due to a failure to come to court.

Since that time — and despite the warrants — the client had rebuilt her life in Nevada. She opened a successful business and started a halfway house to help others recovering from drug addiction. She had turned her life around; nonetheless, she still worried about the open warrants.

The client hired Spolin Law P.C. to represent her on these cases. While the client remained in Nevada, attorney Aaron Spolin represented her in Van Nuys Superior Court. Mr. Spolin presented to the judge a number of documents showing the client’s successful rehabilitation and argued for the judge to not only remove the warrants but also to dismiss the two underlying cases. This client had proven that she overcame her addiction and deserved the chance to start over with a clean criminal record.

After considering the documents presented and hearing the arguments, the judge granted Mr. Spolin’s request. He “quashed” the warrants and dismissed both cases. Under the law used for the dismissals, the former convictions will now be completely removed from the client’s record. As Penal Code section 1210.1(e)(1) states: “the arrest and the conviction shall be deemed never to have occurred.”

The client, who remained outside of California throughout Spolin Law P.C.’s representation, is now free of these former convictions and associated bench warrants.

If you’re accused or charged with a crime in California, call one of our Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers or staff members at (310) 424-5816.

The California Supreme Court sided with a Spolin Law client earlier this month, effectively saving the client from a potential 50-year-to-life sentence.

Spolin Law represented the client throughout the appeals court process. Earlier this year, attorney Aaron Spolin had won the client’s matter in the California Court of Appeal. When the prosecutor appealed the Court of Appeal’s ruling, the California Supreme Court sided with the Spolin Law client by denying the prosecutor’s petition for further review and thereby settling the matter in the client’s favor.

This is the conclusion of a months-long appellate battle that began when Spolin Law won a hearing in May, which situated the client in juvenile court for a double-murder trial involving elements of self-defense.

After Mr. Spolin won the hearing that would allow the client to be retained in juvenile court, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office appealed the finding to the California Court of Appeal. They argued that the lower-court judge had abused her discretion in ruling for the Spolin Law client and had improperly applied the law. In the defense response, Mr. Spolin argued that the lower court had ruled properly due to (1) new changes in the law enacted by Proposition 57, (2) the intent of the recent proposition coupled with clear legislative intent, and (3) the client’s lack of sophistication, prior trauma, clean record, and ability to be rehabilitated.

To view the table of contents outlining Spolin Law’s appellate arguments, click here.

After Spolin Law won in the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court effectively sided with the Spolin Law client by rejecting the prosecution’s attempt to overturn the lower court’s finding. Because the California Supreme Court is the highest court with regard to California law, there is no further court to which the prosecution can appeal. Therefore, this appellate issue is finally and permanently resolved in favor of the Spolin Law client.

Earlier today the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Spolin Law P.C. on an appeal that will have lasting positive effects on one of the firm’s clients.

Background

A Spolin Law client was accused of a homicide crime based on a killing that occurred when the 17-year-old female client was confronted by an adult gang member. The prosecution filed a motion seeking to move the case to adult court. Aaron Spolin, representing the minor, opposed the motion. After an approximately two-week hearing, the juvenile court judge ruled in favor of the Spolin Law client and found her “fit” for juvenile court.

The ruling was significant because the client would have faced a maximum sentence of life in prison in adult court. Instead, now in juvenile court, the client faces a maximum sentence of seven years in a juvenile rehabilitative facility. Juvenile court is also focused primarily on rehabilitation.

To read about the original juvenile judge’s decision, click here: “Minor Charged with Homicide Crime Found ‘Fit’ for Juvenile Court.”

Appeal

The prosecution appealed the judge’s decision to the California Court of Appeal. Specifically, they filed a “petition for a writ of mandate” asking the court to overturn the original juvenile judge’s decision. Prosecution appeals are extremely rare because juveniles charged with homicide crimes are almost always sent to adult court; this case was a rare exception.

The Court of Appeal was faced with two legal issues.

1. What effect did the recent Proposition 57 have on how juveniles should be evaluated in deciding whether to send them to adult court?
2. Did the juvenile court judge “abuse her discretion” in keeping the minor in juvenile court?

The prosecution argued that Proposition 57 (passed by California voters in November of 2016) did not change the criteria for evaluating minors and that the juvenile court judge, in this case, had abused her discretion. Spolin Law’s opposition brief argued that Proposition 57 had substantively changed the law in key areas and that the judge’s decision was supported by the defense evidence presented.

The stakes were high for the Spolin Law client. If the prosecution had won the appeal, the client would have been sent to adult court where she would have faced a maximum sentence of life in prison (instead of the current juvenile court maximum of effectively seven years).

Announcing their decision this morning, the California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Spolin Law client. They denied the prosecution’s petition and are allowing the case to proceed in juvenile court. This means that the client will remain in juvenile court.

Given the circumstances of the case and the unique background of the client, this was an eminently fair outcome. The client will now be in the juvenile court system, which has a primary focus on rehabilitation.

(Update 1/1/2019: The prosecution ended up appealing this issue to the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court eventually denied the prosecution’s petition and thereby effectively ruled in favor of the Spolin Law client. To read about the subsequent events in this case, read the updated article posted here.)

On July 20, 2017, Senators Kamala Harris (CA-D) and Rand Paul (KY-R) announced that they had teamed up to write a bipartisan bill on bail reform. Bail systems across the country have been subjects of contention for many years. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the Constitution prohibits “punishing a person for his poverty,” many U.S. states currently have policies in place which keep those who cannot afford bail in jail for extended periods of time before their trial. Oftentimes, the amount of bail money required greatly exceeds the means of an average American citizen – even for petty crimes, like shoplifting. Those who are wealthy, however, are able to avoid pretrial incarceration, even if they pose greater flight risks for more severe crimes. Additionally, Senators Harris and Rand highlight some of the other consequences of our current bail system in their article, such as the disparate impact on black and Latino defendants, many of whom are required to pay significantly larger sums for bail. In order to solve this problem, the senators have introduced the Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act. Under the bill, each state would receive a grant from the Department of Justice, in order to “carry out the most effective policies, tailored for its needs.” In return, the states will have to provide better data collection on the pretrial process, as well as progress reports, in order to ensure that the practices are not discriminatory in nature.

These senators are not the only legislators who have attempted to overhaul the bail system. In Maryland, the Court of Appeals determined that it is unconstitutional to hold a defendant in jail for no reason other than an inability to afford bail. While this does not eliminate the use of money bail, it does make it necessary to first take into account the individual flight risk. In Texas, the State Supreme Court determined that money bail should only be used in the “narrowest of cases” for people charged with misdemeanors. Instead, judges can order supervision tools, such as GPS monitoring or drug testing. In the California State Legislature, Assembly Bill 42 has been proposed, which would end the use of money bail schedules, instead of requiring the use of pretrial services agencies. This has been met with opposition from Republican lawmakers, however, who have asserted that the state would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to reimburse counties for establishing these new pretrial services. In addition to Republican lawmakers, several interest groups, such as bail bond agents, have been staunchly opposed to the measures passing across the country. In New Jersey, where voters supported a measure which nearly eliminated cash bail, bail bondsmen are planning to sue Gov. Chris Christie.

California is in particular need of a solution, as the state’s median bail rate is five times higher than that of the rest of the country. The Human Rights Watch has analyzed California data and has found many troubling statistics. Over 63 percent of prisoners in county jails have not been sentenced, but are serving time because they cannot afford to pay bail. Racial disparities are common as well – for example, black people are nine times as likely to suffer pretrial incarceration than white people in San Francisco. This standard of pretrial incarceration is costing the Californian taxpayer, as well. According to Human Rights Watch analysis from 2014-2015, California spent $37.5 million in six counties jailing people whose cases were dismissed or never filed. Of the almost 1.5 million felony arrests in California from 2011-2015, 459,847 were not guilty of a crime. Currently, most defendants rely on bail bondsmen to be released. The system allows defendants to pay bail in one of three ways: They can pay the full amount, 10 percent of the actual bail amount, or they can schedule a payment plan in order to get out of detention. The bail bond payment is not refundable, however – even if the case is dismissed. These numbers make a compelling argument for why bail reform must be pushed forward.

While some lawmakers may be troubled by the initial cost of implementing pretrial service agencies, the eventual savings should lead to long-term benefits. By incorporating a model for pretrial risk assessment, we can better identify those who pose an actual flight risk, as well as a danger to others, and allow the rest to go free. GPS monitoring could also be incorporated as an alternative measure, in order to allow those who pose no real threat to continue caring for their families and paying their bills. Senator Harris and Senator Rand have come up with a promising alternative to the controversial bail system. The Pretrial Safety and Integrity Act allows each state to tailor its system as it sees fit, whether that be by implementing a risk assessment model or limiting pretrial incarceration to felons. This bill is the right step in the direction of eliminating discriminatory practices and unconstitutionally expensive bail.

Talk to a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer

Aaron Spolin, a former prosecutor, and award-winning Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, has a track record of success handling violent crime cases. He has been on the winning side of hundreds of cases. To receive a 100% free and confidential consultation from an attorney or staff member today, please call this number: (310) 424-5816.

Los Angeles County maintains a “schedule” (i.e., a list) of the amount of bail recommended for various criminal charges. You can use these lists to look up how much bail your judge will likely offer. You should also know that bail is not always set at the amount listed in the schedule; sometimes the judge will set a higher or lower bail amount and may offer “OR release” without bail. Spolin Law P.C.’s Complete Guide to Bail explains how bail is set and how to fight for a lower bail amount.

Los Angeles County Felony Bail Schedule PDF:

Los Angeles County Felony Bail Schedule

Los Angeles County Misdemeanor and Infraction Bail Schedule PDF:

Los Angeles County Infraction and Misdemeanor Bail Schedule

Talk to a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer

Aaron Spolin, a former prosecutor, and award-winning Los Angeles criminal defense attorney, has a track record of success handling violent crime cases. He has been on the winning side of hundreds of cases. To receive a 100% free and confidential consultation from an attorney or staff member today, please call this number: (310) 424-5816.

The Los Angeles Times discussed Spolin Law P.C.’s advocacy for a former client in an article published on May 31, 2017.

The article, featured on the front page of the newspaper and continued on page A9, described criminal proceedings initiated against a former Spolin Law P.C. client. The newspaper described accusations against the client levied by law enforcement, what occurred at the client’s arraignment, and Aaron Spolin’s in-court advocacy. Mr. Spolin’s goal in the representation of this client was to ensure that the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” was upheld and that the client’s Constitutional rights were protected.

Due to the sensitive nature of the case and the client’s privacy interest, more information cannot be shared at this time. A back-issue of the full May 31, 2017 Los Angeles Times can be ordered at the LA Times Store.

Contacting Spolin Law P.C.

Spolin Law P.C. provides free consultations on criminal cases. To speak with an attorney or staff member at Spolin Law P.C., call us at (310) 424-5816 or email contact@spolinlaw.com.