Legal Blog

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.

After an approximately two-week court hearing in Inglewood Juvenile Courthouse, a 17-year-old Spolin Law P.C. client facing homicide charges has been found “fit” to remain in juvenile court. While she could have faced life in prison in adult court, in juvenile court her maximum period of confinement is now eight years.

When a minor is charged with a crime, the prosecutor may petition the juvenile court to transfer the case to adult court. The vast majority of minors facing homicide charges end up transferred to adult court, where a finding of guilt routinely results in a lifetime behind bars. Minors kept in juvenile court are confined in Juvenile Hall, which must release them by the age of 25. While adult court is focused on retribution and punishment, juvenile court focuses on rehabilitation, and the educational and extracurricular activities offered in Juvenile Hall reflect this.

The minor was represented by Aaron Spolin throughout the proceeding. Further details of the case and applicable legal defenses cannot be disclosed due to the strict confidentiality rules associated with juvenile court. After the minor is arraigned in the juvenile court, the case will proceed to the pre-trial phase.

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.

Earthjustice, purportedly the largest nonprofit environmental law organization in the nation, is representing a historically African American West Oakland community in a case that claims their civil rights have been violated by the City and Port of Oakland. For more than a decade, the City and Port of Oakland have allowed for numerous expansions in pollution-emitting activities. In response, the citizens of Oakland have described their experiences in decreasing health due to increased diesel emissions. The Pacific Institute, in conjunction with the Coalition for West Oakland Revitalization, found in a recent report that Oakland has diesel emissions 90 times higher than the California average.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a pillar civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or nationality, the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project has filed a complaint in opposition to the city’s systemic neglect of its residents’ well-being. As 80% of West Oakland city is populated with minorities, the Project alleges that the community is suffering at the hands of racial discrimination from the City and Port. Margaret Gordon, a team member on the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project and community member for over 20 years, recalls how difficult and unjust it is to live with toxic pollution. The community’s struggle due to the City and Port’s approval for industrial expansion has increased unhealthy vapors that infiltrate both the lungs and homes of community residence. Yana Garcia, an attorney who focuses on environmental justice issues with Earthjustice, states that the City and Port have, “consistently ignored federal protections against discrimination,” and adds how the city’s administration does not plague other parts of Oakland, where the [racial] demographics are different.

The US National Library of Medicine lists in a 2001 medical journal how an “association between different levels of air pollution and various health outcomes including mortality, exacerbation of asthma, chronic bronchitis, respiratory tract infections, heart disease, and stroke” have been correlated. The seniors and children in the West Oakland community have experienced “gasping asthma attacks.” The residents have been reported twice as likely to be sent to the emergency room than the Alameda country average. A release from the Alameda County Department of Public Health notes that the residents of West Oakland can expect to live nine years less than those in other parts of Oakland. This does not sit well with the community.

The City and Port of Oakland receive federal funds. This means that Earthjustice can use Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, a section that declares that “any agency receiving federal money cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin.” Because the City any and Port allegedly utilize these grants to fund projects that increase dangerous health hazards for the community, Earthjustice argues that the City and Port have a responsibility and obligation to ensure the safety and equal opportunity between Oakland districts. The complaint has been sent to the Department of Transportation as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If Earthjustice’s complaint is accepted, a full-scale investigation into the City and Port of Oakland’s engagements will be examined. The EPA determines if a complaint warrants an investigation within 20 days, with 180 to reach a conclusion. If the City and Port of Oakland are found to have committed the acts outlined in the complaint, the administration is given a chance to fix the issue. If the city’s administration chooses not to, the EPA has the ability to withhold federal funds. The withholding of federal funding does not equate to factories having to shut down. If they have the financial means, these factories have the chance to continue their operations, no matter the pollution emissions. Additionally, a possible conflict of interest between Earthjustice and their submitted complaint to the EPA may warrant more obstacles. With a political shift and a transitioning EPA, there may not be as much tenacity within the EPA to resolve the issue as there once was in previous years. Whether the political climate will affect this specific case is unknown. Nonetheless, Earthjustice highlights that communities with complaints under Title VI have been awaiting a response for more than a decade.

In October of 2016, Prologis, a major developer, was given permission by the City and Port to build an Oakland Army Base warehouse. What they did not include in their plan was an air quality improvement strategy. The community apparently expects 55 truck docks and 78 truck trailer stalls. The amount of construction vehicles that number of parking stalls amounts to is unknown. Presumptively, the West Oakland community can expect a drastic increase in the poor quality of air with the addition of this new project. Even if the EPA accepts West Oakland’s complaint, with viable evidence against the construction of the Army Base warehouse, the EPA has never formally reported a violation of civil rights in the plethora of cases they’ve investigated. It is with this information that Earthjustice has made the additional move of simultaneously filing cases with the federal courts in California.

While there are laws to protect the environment, there are limitations inherent in the organizations tasked with enforcing these laws. Although California is at the forefront of environment protectionist laws, and Earthjustice is doing everything in its organizational power to defend the City of Oakland’s community, advocates argue that time is of the essence. With an increase in hospital visits in conjunction with an increase in construction and pollution-emitting activities, there is no resolution in sight. It will be up to Earthjustice and their push in the federal courts to yield results. In utilizing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect a community comprised of 49% African Americans, 17% Latinos, and 13% Asians, one may see how Earthjustice has a suitable case that may even be powerful enough to reach the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the health of the community is expected to continue its decline. The daunting odds and difficult path ahead will not stop West Oakland’s citizens and activist organizations from pressing forward in the fight for an improved quality of life.

Talk to a Los Angeles Civil Rights 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 Daily News covered a story about Kevin Shaw, President of Pierce College’s Young Americans for Liberty, who claims that last fall he was banned from passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution on his college campus. Pierce College’s Woodland Hills Campus has designated free speech zones; Shaw reports the space is about the size of three parking spots. Shaw filed a lawsuit against Pierce College’s Woodland Hills campus on Tuesday, March 28^th, with the claim that the college has infringed on his civil right to freedom of speech. The Los Angeles Community College District has a rule that asserts its colleges are forums of public speech only in the selected areas. Shaw has voiced his disdain for the rule, claiming that other students feel the rule is “arbitrary.” The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a group dedicated to defending the rights of students on college campuses, is on Shaw’s side. The foundation’s litigation director announced that public campuses are not allowed to limit students’ freedom of speech to tiny spaces. Pierce College allegedly had no further comments on the lawsuit.

Tinker v. Des Moines is a landmark United States Supreme Court case presiding over the function of freedom of speech in public schools. After the Vietnam War, many public schools designated freedom of speech to small zones in an attempt to limit protests. When two Des Moines, Iowa students wore black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam war, they were suspended. The first ruling in a U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the school, concluding that the armbands would disrupt student learning. After losing in a U.S. Court of Appeals, the students went directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ruling 7-2 in the favor of the students, the Supreme Court stated that students had free rights, and do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Justice Fortas, Tinker v. Des Moines). In other cases, such as Morse v. Frederick, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that school officials have the right to prohibit students’ freedom of speech when encouraging illegal activities. After Tinker, two categories for the rights to freedom of speech have arisen regarding public schools. The first is that students have their right to freedom of speech, but secondly, school officials have the right to limit the speech if it is promoting illegal activities. Whether the court rules that Shaw’s activity in passing out U.S. Constitutions promotes illegal activities is unknown. However, many college campuses have reportedly been redefining their rules on freedom of speech, and expanding speech zones.

Public institutions, especially higher academic institutions, take great pride in their diversity. In an academic environment in conjunction with a multitude of different political influences, there is bound to be some sort of chafing of ideals between communities. Free expression protects these communities when adding opposing views into the intellectual atmosphere a college campus provides. Nonetheless, The Washington Post’s, In Defense of Free Speech, reported that around 40% of millennials, the student body majority on college campuses, “favor government restrictions on offensive speech” (Petri, 2015).

There will be no punishment in the court ruling in favor of Pierce College or Shaw. The court’s conclusion on Shaw verses Pierce College could have the ability to outline other public institutions and its relationship to freedom of speech in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Until then, Shaw plans on not provoking the situation until the court makes a conclusion.

Talk to a Los Angeles Civil Rights 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.

On Sunday, March 19, Manhattan Beach Patch reported a hit-and-run outside Los Angeles International Airport around 9 am. The 41-year old man who was suspected of the hit-and-run allegedly had a loaded handgun inside his Chevy Avalanche, along with a 12-year-old child. Safety precautions led officers to remove the suspect from his vehicle, where he is described as becoming aggressive towards the officers and trying to jump back into his car. Officers then pushed the suspect to the ground, where he was taken into custody. The 12-year-old child who was in the vehicle said that there was a loaded handgun in the car. Police later reported they had found a loaded Glock semi-automatic pistol in the suspect’s center console. The suspect was booked under charges of possession of a stolen firearm, outstanding warrants, child endangerment, and resisting arrest.

California Penal Code section 25605 outlines rules relating to possessing a handgun. The Penal Code states a handgun may in certain circumstances be possessed by a legal resident over the age of 18, so long as the handgun stays within that person’s place of residence, business, or private property (California Penal Code § 25605). It is illegal to openly carry guns unless one has obtained the proper license to carry a concealed weapon. Obtaining concealed weapon licenses in California is extremely difficult. One of the many requirements is outlined in Penal Code section 31645, which necessitates a passing score on a firearms and safety test. However, one is not permitted to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon if they are deemed lacking in moral character, or have no special purpose to carry a weapon. Whether the alleged hit-and-run suspect had a license to carry a concealed weapon is unclear. However, the fact that he was arrested outside terminal 2 of LAX indicates that he violated the restrictions that prohibit weapons in school zones, buildings housing governing officials, polling places, and public transit facilities. LAX being a public transit facility, carrying a weapon in its vicinity is illegal.

The courts do not take gun laws lightly, and California has a reputation for forcefully enforcing gun law violators. Prosecutors routinely offer uncompromising plea deals to those charged with weapons offenses, and courts are loath to undercut these offers. The result for those with illegal firearms can amount to significant jail or prison time as well as substantial fines.

California Penal Code 273a defines child endangerment as, essentially, putting a child through physical or mental pain, allowing the injury to a child under the adult’s supervision, or placing a child in a dangerous situation. This penal code is different from child abuse, as it allows for punishment even if a child doesn’t directly suffer injury. Child endangerment prosecutions can be initiated as either a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the case. A misdemeanor results in up to one year in county jail, whereas a felony results in up to six years in a state prison. It is common that if proof arises where a child is placed in a situation with risk of great harm, the suspect will be charged with a felony. The suspect has yet to have a court hearing, but due to the circumstances of the situation, it will not be surprising if he is charged with a felony. Endangering a 12-year-old child with a loaded Glock outside the terminal of one of America’s business airports has the potential to involve significant jail or prison time. Nonetheless, as with all criminal cases reported in the news, there may be more to the story than law enforcement has reported. For example, there is a possibility that the suspect may have been lawfully carrying a firearm and simply forgot that it was inside his vehicle when he entered the vicinity of the airport. However, we will have to save any discussion of possible defenses for another day or, perhaps, another blog post.

Talk to a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney

Aaron Spolin, a former prosecutor, and award-winning criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles, 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 criminal defense attorneys from Spolin Law P.C. are pleased to announce a successful civil rights outcome for a client whose property was taken by the Covina Police Department, located in Los Angeles County.

In late 2016, the Covina Police Department (CPD) impounded a vehicle belonging to a Spolin Law P.C. client. The vehicle also contained over eight thousand and three hundred dollars ($8,300) of the client’s property. While the CPD eventually returned the vehicle, they refused to return any of the property. The CPD claimed that the property was needed for an ongoing investigation into an individual who had no relationship with the Spolin Law P.C. client.

Spolin Law P.C. filed a legal motion in Los Angeles County Superior Court requesting a judicial order for the Covina Police Department to return all property to the client. The motion was opposed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.

The Superior Court then conducted a hearing that spanned two days and during which multiple witnesses testified. A Deputy District Attorney from the DA’s Office argued that, while there was no current known link between the property and any criminal activity, such a link may eventually be discovered; thus, the property should remain in law enforcement custody indefinitely. Attorney Aaron Spolin cited the legal and factual bases entitling his client to the property’s full and immediate return.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge granted Spolin Law P.C.’s motion and ordered the full and immediate return of the property in question. As directed by the judge’s order, the Covina Police Department released the property to the client on the following day.

Talk to a Los Angeles Civil Rights Attorney

Aaron Spolin, a former prosecutor, and award-winning Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer, 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.

Riverside Police arrested a man who is accused of killing a pit bull dog. However, as the Los Angeles Times reported, the Pit Bull was attacking—and eventually killed—the accused man’s poodle. Read the below analysis for a discussion of “defense of others” and animal abuse laws.

The poodle was on his owner’s property when the pit bull attacked. After the pit bull clamped his jaws around the poodle’s body, it took three neighbors to unhinge the aggressor dog’s jaws and release the poodle. According to witnesses, it appeared that the poodle was dead at that time. Authorities then report that the poodle owner (e.g., the defendant), killed the pit bull either at the end of or directly after the dog fight. (Los Angeles Times). On the suspicion of felony animal cruelty, the poodle owner was arrested. He was released on Christmas when he posted bail. Whether the pit bull bit the accused when he was trying to unhinge the pit bull’s jaw is unclear. However, the accusation that the poodle was already dead before the pit bull was killed is a key factor in why this case is alleged to be animal cruelty.

Penal Code section 597, California’s animal abuse law, has very strict guidelines that outline what qualifies as animal abuse, and provide specific details to determine the severity of the case. These particulars determine whether the case is to be treated as a misdemeanor or felony. The Penal Code (PC) states that any person who, “maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal” is subject to state imprisonment and/or $20,000 in fines if found guilty as a misdemeanor. (PC § 597) However, if the severity of the animal cruelty case warrants a felony, the punishment is subject to two to three years in prison. Additionally, Penal Code section 12022 conditions that the use of a deadly weapon in the case may add an additional year to the sentence (PC § 12022). The accused was arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty because he reportedly violated Penal Code section 597 by intentionally killing the pit bull with a dangerous weapon. If the accused killed the pit bull after his own dog was already dead, and the accused knew that own dog was no longer in danger, that would preclude the affirmative defense of “defense of others.”

If evidence arises showing that the accused acted in defense of his dog while he thought the dog was still alive, then the nature of the case would shift. Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions 3470 outlines the particulars of “self-defense”/“defense of others” and how it could be applicable to this case. The Judicial Council instructs that if the defendant reasonably believed the defense of another was needed to protect against immediate danger, then the defendant may use proportional force to act against the attacker. If future evidence establishes that the accused attacked the pit bull out of “defense of others” for the poodle while the poodle was still alive or appeared to be alive, then there may be a viable justification. If a jury accepts a “defense of others” argument, then the accused must be found not guilty of that crime.

California self-defense law was shaped by the 2005 court case People v. Lee, which held that “the defendant must actually and reasonably believe in the need to defend, the belief must be objectively reasonable, and the fear must be of imminent danger to life or great bodily injury” (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). If one feels his or her life is in immediate danger, human or animal, they have the right for self-defense. Another legal defense that often pertains to animal cruelty cases are accidents. California Penal Code 26 positions accidents as a viable legal defense if the crime was not committed intentionally (PC § 26).

Law enforcement authorities are currently conducting an autopsy of the pit bull dog. Depending on whether the accused has a criminal record, he could face significant time in state prison if found guilty. The severity of this type of case can result in hefty fines, if not a considerable amount of jail time even if the case is reduced to a misdemeanor. This case demonstrates the seriousness with which law enforcement take animal abuse cases as well as the limitations of “self-defense” and “defense of others” arguments.

Talk to a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney

Aaron Spolin, a former prosecutor, and award-winning Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer, 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.