Sacramento Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The previous post described the process when someone is charged with a misdemeanor. Today's post reviews the process for a felony charge. Though the basic outline is the same, some important steps are added since felonies constitute more serious offenses and carry the possibility of state prison terms of 16 months or longer, a combination of probation plus up to one year in county jail, stiffer fines, and in extreme cases even the death penalty. Examples of felonies include drug possession and distribution, sexual assault, aggravated assault, felony DUI, grand theft, arson, and homicide.

The felony process:

Arrest: This occurs after law enforcement has sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. In some instances police will issue an arrest warrant after conducting an investigation. In others, police will make an arrest as a result of evidence that comes before them in the field; the incident reports are then submitted to the district attorney's office for filing of a criminal "complaint." In still other cases, the police do not make an arrest but instead submit the investigation to the district attorney's office, which will then request an arrest warrant after filing a complaint.

First Arraignment: The defendant is brought before a judge to hear the charges - in the form of the complaint - and to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Silence by the defendant is interpreted as a not guilty plea. The judge ensures that the defendant knows his/her constitutional rights, such as the right to legal counsel and trial by jury. If the defendant is in custody, bail is set.

Preliminary Hearing: This must occur within 10 court days of the first arraignment unless "time is waived" by the defense [see explanation below]. The preliminary hearing requires the judge to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to maintain the criminal charges against the defendant and continue to the trial phase. While the standard used at trial is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard at the "prelim" is probable cause. The prosecution calls witnesses and presents evidence in an attempt to convince the judge that there is good reason to believe that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed it. The defense attorney may cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses and call her own witnesses and present evidence to challenge the charges. There is no jury at the prelim; the judge makes the final ruling whether the case should move forward as a felony, be recharged as a misdemeanor, or be dismissed altogether.

Waiving time: The defense frequently waives time between the arraignment and the preliminary hearing, meaning that the prelim may be scheduled later than 10 court days after the arraignment. This gives the defense attorney time to conduct an investigation, gather information, and negotiate with the district attorney.

Second Arraignment: After the preliminary hearing the district attorney files what's called an Information. The defendant is again brought before the judge to be arraigned on the Information, to hear the charges, and to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.

Continue reading "Steps in the Criminal Justice Process: Felonies" »

Crimes are divided into three categories: infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies. (See our September 21 post for a detailed description of each of these.) Though each is dealt with according to the same general rules as it winds its way through the criminal justice system, more severe crimes follow a more complex and lengthy path.

Infractions like traffic tickets are pretty simple. Since no arrest is made, people cited for infractions can either pay the fine or contest the citation in court. Generally, defense lawyers and prosecutors are not involved. Instead, a judge handles review of the matter, determines whether the infraction was properly issued, and sets appropriate fines, if any are necessary.

Misdemeanors and felonies, because the potential penalties are more severe, involve more people and have more stages before a final decision - or verdict - is made. Today's post outlines the misdemeanor process. Our next post will review the felony process.

In each of these processes, a wide variety of people are involved: judges from the judicial branch of government; police/sheriff/CHP, prosecutors, and probation officers from the executive branch; defense attorneys; jurors. All play a different role as the allegation is reviewed and determination of guilt or innocence is made.

Misdemeanors - such as petty theft, reckless driving, first time DUI, simple assault and battery, possession of less than one once of marijuana, and under age drinking - carry penalties of up to one year in county jail, fines of up to $1000, counseling, and/or work project.

These are the stages in the misdemeanor process:

Arrest: This occurs after law enforcement has sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed. In some instances police will issue an arrest warrant after conducting an investigation; in others, police will make an arrest as a result of evidence that comes before them in the field (e.g., they see someone selling drugs or committing a battery). The incident reports are then submitted to the district attorney's office for filing of a criminal "complaint."

Arraignment: The defendant is brought before a judge to hear the charges - in the form of the complaint - and to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. Silence by the defendant is interpreted as a not guilty plea. The judge ensures that the defendant knows his/her constitutional rights, such as the right to legal counsel. Bail may be set, though misdemeanors generally have low bail requirements; often defendants are released on their own recognizance.

Continue reading "Steps in the Criminal Justice Process: Misdemeanors" »

As a follow-up to our October 9 post in which we explained the concept of reasonable doubt, today we look at reasonable suspicion. Though the words suspicion and doubt have related definitions in everyday usage, they have vastly different meanings and applications in criminal law when linked with the word reasonable.

Reasonable suspicion derives from the Fourth Amendment's right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and pertains to law enforcement's ability to detain, question, or frisk a suspected criminal. A police officer must have more than a hunch. The standard is that a reasonable person looking at all the evidence believes that it is likely that the suspect has committed, or will soon commit, a crime.

What does this mean in practical terms? Here are a few examples. A person could be briefly detained and questioned by police if she/he: matches the physical description of a suspect; is driving the same make and color car that was involved in a crime; is seen running from the vicinity of a crime; is walking down the street with a handgun; or is seen on a surveillance camera leaving a store just after goods were stolen.

Many rules exist that complicate the matter, particularly related to frisking of a suspect, since frisking constitutes such an extreme invasion of privacy. For example, police may frisk a person whose clothing shows bulges that look like hidden weapons. They may not, however, frisk people for the mere suspicion of possessing drugs.

The detention and questioning of suspects has become known as a Terry Stop, because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Terry v. Ohio (1968), in which the Court laid down the principles of reasonable suspicion. The key thing to keep in mind is that each situation is different. Reasonable suspicion derives from the complete set of circumstances that law enforcement personnel encounter. If you have questions about an instance in which you or someone you know was detained and questioned by the police, contact the Law Office of Nancy King.

Our next post will cover probable cause, the standard required for police to obtain a warrant, conduct a search, or make an arrest.

Reasonable doubt is one of those concepts we hear so often that it's easy to accept as a truth without considering its precise meaning. As a follow up to our September 29 post on presumption of innocence, today's post will explore what is meant by this fundamental principle of the American justice system.

Before jurors begin hearing testimony and seeing evidence in a criminal case, the judge gives them instructions on topics ranging from confidentiality to note taking to what to do if they have questions. In California, jurors hear this explanation of reasonable doubt: "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt."

Attempts have been made in recent years to clarify jury instructions, but this definition of reasonable doubt can still leave people outside the legal system scratching their heads. To gain a clear understanding, it's best to build backwards, first exploring what is meant by "doubt," then "reasonable," and finally "beyond." Before we do that, a reminder: the burden of proof in criminal proceedings is on the prosecution. Because of the presumption of innocence, the state has to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty. And the standard that must be met is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Doubt" in this context refers to uncertainty. If I doubt that someone committed a crime, I'm not convinced that he did it. The standard for determining guilt, though, isn't concerned with unreasonable, fanciful doubts. What we care about are "reasonable" doubts, plausible alternative explanations that keep a reasonable person from saying with certitude that a defendant is guilty.

Finally there is "beyond." Though in everyday language beyond might have a connotation of distance, in relation to reasonable doubt it really means "eliminating" or "excluding."

So when we say that the standard in a criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we mean that a reasonable person has looked at the evidence and is left with only one plausible explanation: the defendant did it. If that standard is not met, then a jury must acquit the defendant.

Continue reading "Reasonable Doubt" »