Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

Homeless Outreach Court, a "collaborative court" run by Orange County Superior Court Judge Wendy S. Lindley, offers resources and services to homeless people who find themselves in criminal trouble as an alternative to jail or traditional probation. Lindley, who also runs the Combat Veterans' Court in Orange County, dismisses tickets and citations if defendants can complete a series of services and perform community service. Orange County has anywhere from five thousand to eight thousand homeless people living on the streets every night, according to the Orange County Register. The Homeless Outreach Court, with an active load of about nine hundred cases, offers a good service but still barely scratches the surface of the problem. It also relies on the continued criminalization of, essentially, the fact of being homeless, even if the intent is to get help for people.

The most common alleged offense that lands people in Homeless Outreach Court is "camping," a low-level misdemeanor offense that simply consists of sleeping in a public place. The OC Register article looks at the Santa Ana Civic Center, long a gathering place for homeless people after dark. Police have increased their patrols of the facility in recent months, and the number of tickets issued for illegal camping has increased as well. One ticket carries a maximum penalty of $500, which few people would have the resources to pay. Further offenses could lead to jail time.

Advocates for the homeless population in Orange County note the absurdity of ticketing a person for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go. The Homeless Outreach Court, they argue, gives people an opportunity to access resources that can help get them on their feet. In order to be accepted into the program, a defendant must demonstrate a "willingness to change," such as to find a job and get off the streets, as well as to avoid drugs and alcohol. A public defender quoted by the OC Register calls the court "an incredibly intelligent way to deal with a very complex problem."

At least thirty percent of the defendants in Lindley's court are military veterans. A significant number of participants suffer from mental illness, substance abuse, and other conditions. The court clearly offers a way for them to obtain help that they might not have otherwise had, but it seems unfortunate that criminal laws are viewed as the best way to get people into a position where help is available. No evidence seems to exist indicating that "camping" homeless people pose any great threat to the public.

Continue reading "Homeless Outreach Court in Orange County Tries to Divert Homeless Defendants Out of the Criminal Justice System" »

Combat veterans from America's armed forces must deal with many challenges when they return home. Some have difficulties with depression, substance abuse, and criminal issues. A system of courts tailored to the needs of veterans has been growing around the country for several years, supported by judges and other officials who understand the unique concerns of veterans. The first such court started in Buffalo, New York in January 2008. Orange County started its own court soon afterwards. Nationwide, there are currently more than ninety courts serving veterans who meet certain criteria, namely a willingness to put in some work to get their lives on track.

Superior Court Judge Wendy Lindley started Orange County's court, the Combat Veterans Court, specifically for veterans of combat situations. According to the Los Angeles Times, she designed the court to take "war's psychic wounds" into account and provide treatments customized to each individual defendant. Most veterans courts follow the model established by drug courts around the country, which offer an opportunity for defendants to obtain rehabilitation services and addiction treatment in a supervised setting. Judge Lindley reportedly started Orange County's veterans court after a young veteran on her drug court docket who was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder died from a drug overdose.

Participation in the court is voluntary for defendants. Any type of criminal offense except murder is eligible for inclusion. Only fifty defendants may participate in the court at any time, in order to ensure each one can receive individual attention. Defendants in Lindley's courts are reportedly called "participants" rather than "defendants."

Orange County's veterans court began with five participants. It is currently full. The program reportedly grew by forty-one percent between 2010 and 2011. If participants meet the judge's requirements to complete the program, their charges can be dropped. The judge's mantra is reportedly "no alcohol, no drugs, no bad friends." The program has twenty-one "graduates," none of whom have had any subsequent arrests.

One participant in the Orange County program shared his experience with reporters. He served in Iraq as a mortarman during the invasion in 2003, and he returned to the U.S. in 2005. Arrested multiple times on drug charges, he began Lindley's program with what is known as "Phase 1:" checking into an inpatient treatment facility. Phase 2 involved getting his own apartment and demonstrating financial independence and responsibility. He is now in Phase 3, "stabilization and mentoring." He should begin Phase 4, the final stage before graduation, this month.

All of the participants in Judge Lindley's court reportedly suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition that affects many veterans returning from overseas deployments. Many also face other war-related problems such as traumatic brain injuries.

Continue reading "Orange County's Combat Veterans Court Offers Treatment and Rehabilitation to Certain Defendants" »

A California state legislator has proposed a bill that would bar individuals convicted of certain violent offenses from attending professional sports events. The bill, known as the "Improving Personal Safety at Stadiums Act" and filed as AB 2464, would create a "Ban List" to be published online and distributed to stadiums and other sports venues. In a manner similar to a restraining order, a person on the list who tries to attend a sporting event could be charged with a misdemeanor. The bill has many critics, and it raises concerns about due process and other rights.

Mike Gatto, a Democratic Assemblyman from Los Angeles, introduced the legislation in part to respond to the beating of Bryan Stow last year. On opening day of the 2011 Major League Baseball season at Dodgers Stadium, San Francisco Giants fan Bryan Stow suffered a near-fatal beating at the hands of several Dodgers fans. Stow continues to recover from his injuries to this day. Gatto hopes that his bill will protect sports fans from this sort of violence.

The bill targets violent offenses such as assault with a deadly weapon, assault causing serious bodily injury, or robbery committed in or near a sports stadium, during or in close proximity to the time of a sporting event. This would include offenses that occur while tailgating, while watching a game, and while entering or leaving an event. It would cover major league baseball, basketball, football, hockey, and soccer teams, starting in July 2013. Each sports team covered by the law would have to pay $10,000 towards creating a ban list and establishing a "rewards fund" for witnesses that come forward.

Judges would have authority under the bill's provisions to place a "violent offender" on the ban list for as long as five years for a first offense. Second and third offenses could trigger ten- and twenty-five-year bans respectively. The bill also allows judges to extend prison terms through sentencing enhancements. Attempting to attend an event while on the ban list would constitute a misdemeanor offense with a potential jail sentence of up to one year and a $10,000 fine.

Continue reading "Proposed California Bill Would Ban "Violent" Fans from Sporting Events" »

A man charged with marijuana possession and DUI appeared in an Illinois court and, after leaving the court, was charged with contempt. According to reports, as the defendant was taking his seat in court, a Sheriff's deputy noted he spit. The defendant, however, contends his spitting was accidental.

A couple of code sections address contempt in California: Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1209 et. seq. and Penal Code Section 166. As far as actions in a courtroom, P.C. 166(a)(1) states, in part: "disorderly, contemptuous or insolent behavior in the immediate view of the court and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due its authority..." This language, although somewhat vague, gives a good idea as to what contemptuous conduct is.

Courts are necessarily very contentious places. Emotions often run high. It has generally been this attorney's experience that courthouses which handle divorce cases are usually more susceptible to explosive outbursts and courtroom violence. Although many criminal defendants are charged with violent offenses, and some individuals face extensive incarceration, this author has seen very few contemptuous acts in criminal court.

Regardless of the type of case, a court is required to enforce its rules of decorum and not allow any individual to interfere with the smooth operation of justice. Contempt can be caused by many types of behavior: yelling, slamming a door, failure to follow the court's instruction and the like.

Courts in California are also generally very busy places. Experienced attorneys and court personnel familiar with a court's procedure help to move along the judicial process. A judge, who is faced with 100 plus cases and a full courtroom of attorneys and defendants, does not have time to entertain any shenanigans which will most certainly bring the judicial process to a halt. Courts deserve respect and, if an individual does not give it voluntarily, it will be enforced by the courts.

Since the beginning of 2010, all Orange County in-custody cases are being heard in the newly established courtroom at the Central Men's Jail known as CJ1. The Central and Harbor Justice Centers first made the transition in October 2009 while the North and West Justice Centers followed in November 2009.

This policy applies to all misdemeanor and felony cases in which the defendant is in-custody, includIng assault and battery, drunk driving, drug offenses, theft, fraud, sex offenses, domestic violence and hit and run, to name but a few. Proceedings not heard in CJ1 include continued arraignments, felony probation violations, arraignments on informations, PC 1000 and PC 1210 violations and Anaheim video arraignments.

The courtroom is fully staffed with a judge, Deputy District Attorneys, clerks and detention release officers. It also provides access to the court proceedings via a public viewing area.

As to whether this new system will ultimately help or hurt the criminal defendant or
assist in more efficient court operations...only time will tell.