Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

A mother and daughter reportedly made a shocking discovery after ordering sweet tea at a McDonald's restaurant in Simpsonville, South Carolina, and a teenage employee of the restaurant could spend years in prison as a result. They discovered phlegm floating in the tea after they took their order home from the restaurant on Saturday, April 14, 2012. Police arrested the employee who allegedly served them the tea and have charged him with a felony offense. Spitting in a customer's food is a common joke among restaurant employees, but the criminal case could have serious consequences here.

According to Greenville County sheriff's deputies, the mother and daughter ordered sweetened tea at the McDonald's drive-thru. They say that the women asked for new drinks after receiving the original order because the drinks were not sweet. An employee, 19 year-old Marvin D. Washington, Jr., handed them new cups, which they said were also not sweet. They decided to sweeten them at home rather than return to the restaurant again. When they got home and removed the lid of one of the cups, they say they found a "large deposit of phlegm" on top of the drink. The women reportedly called the police right away.

Local news station WYFF reported that police arrested Washington and charged him with "unlawful and malicious tampering with food." An arrest warrant reportedly stated that surveillance footage showed Washington leaning over the two cups before he filled them with tea.

Continue reading "Restaurant Employee Charged with Food Tampering, a Felony, After Phlegm Found in Tea" »

Orange County prosecutors have charged Elizabeth Barrett with a felony for allegedly assisting in the suicide of 86 year-old World War II veteran Jack Koency. Barrett, age 66, met Koency years ago. They apparently reconnected recently through a larger group that periodically gathers at a Starbucks. Koency reportedly lived in a retirement complex in Laguna Niguel close to Barrett's home.

According to prosecutors, on September 30, 2011, Barrett drove Koency around on several errands, including a visit to the Neptune Society, a cremation service. They then allegedly stopped at a store to buy yogurt, brandy, and heartburn medicine. Back at Koency's apartment, Barrett is accused of mixing a large number of crushed OxyContin pills, enough to make a lethal dose, into the yogurt. The heartburn medication was supposedly to counteract acid reflux that can be a side effect of taking large amounts of OxyContin. She then allegedly gave the yogurt to Koency, who died in his bedroom after eating it. She reportedly called 911 after putting Koency's service medals in her car, and told the 911 operator that she had found Koency dead.

Koency suffered from depression dating back to his military service, prosecutors say, but he was not bedridden or terminally ill. He had reportedly suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder in the past. Prosecutors claim that Koency wanted to commit suicide, and that Barrett presented herself as a "private social worker" and offered to help.

Prosecutors say that a motion-activated camera in Koency's apartment showed Barrett mixing the pills and yogurt and giving it to Koency. Although she initially denied giving Koency anything, when she learned about the video footage she reportedly admitted to mixing some medications into the yogurt at Koency's request. She told police that she did not know it was a lethal mixture.

While some states have passed legislation approving physician-assisted suicide in some situations, California has not. Assisting a person in the act of suicide is punishable as a felony in California, and is generally viewed as a homicide in and of itself.

Orange County prosecutors charged Barrett with one felony count of assisted suicide on Wednesday, March 28. Until she can be arraigned, she is being held in lieu of $25,000 bond. She faces up to three years in prison if convicted.

Barrett, through her attorney, claims that she did not know the pills she gave to Koency would kill him. She denies that Koency ever told her he wanted to kill himself, and that she did not intend to help him do so.

Continue reading "Orange County Woman Charged with Assisting in the Suicide of a World War II Veteran" »

An Orange County man has received a sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison for the death of nine month-old Isiah Prim-Ortiz. Alexander Lucas Barnes, age 20, was accused of killing Prim-Ortiz by smashing his head into a wall. A jury convicted Barnes based mostly on circumstantial evidence last year, and a judge issued the sentence in late February.

Prim-Ortiz was the son of Barnes' girlfriend. On October 6, 2009, according to prosecutors, Barnes was babysitting the child for the first time while the mother went to a nearby community college for class. At some point during the morning, Barnes hit Prim-Ortiz in the head to get him to stop crying. He reportedly then put the child down for a nap at approximately 1:00 p.m. Barnes' mother came home later and found that Prim-Ortiz was not breathing. The child was pronounced dead at the hospital at 4:00 p.m., with multiple skull fractures listed as the cause of death.

Santa Ana police arrested Barnes after conducting an investigation. Prosecutors charged Barnes with two felony counts, murder and child abuse. His trial began in October 2011 in a Santa Ana courtroom. Prosecutors had to rely on circumstantial evidence, since no one witnessed the alleged abuse. Medical evidence from the autopsy showed that Prim-Ortiz had numerous "linear fractures" on the right side of his skull and a 4½-inch fracture on the left side, with three serious skull fractures in total. Prosecutors also argued that Barnes was jealous of Prim-Ortiz's father, fearing the child could cause the parents to reunite.

The jury found Barnes guilty on November 3 of second degree murder and child abuse resulting in death, both felonies under California law. His sentencing, originally scheduled for January 13, took place on February 24. He received the maximum sentence allowed by law, twenty-five years to life in prison.

Continue reading "Orange County Man Gets 25 Years to Life in Prison for Death of Infant" »

A man robbed a TD Bank location in Titusville, Florida at about 12:30 p.m. on Sunday, January 29, 2012. Wearing a wig and sunglasses, he reportedly went up to a teller and passed a note that said "give me the money." He also gave the teller a bag, who filled it with $1,200 and a GPS tracking device. Witnesses reported that they did not see a weapon, and no one was injured. The man fled the scene, police said, in a custom-wheeled gold or silver SUV. Law enforcement enlisted the assistance of the public in identifying the robber. The subsequent course of events has been unusual.

Police arrested Johnny Lee Bell, a 43 year-old Orlando resident, on February 8 on warrants for grand theft and robbery. A search of his home reportedly turned up what police believe was his disguise worn during the robbery, as well as the getaway vehicle.

While holding Bell on $150,000 bond, Titusville police identified Bell's wife, Sharon Reynolds-Bell, as the likely accomplice who drove the SUV in which he left the bank. Reynolds-Bell works as a school bus dispatcher for the Orange County School District in Titusville. Police requested further assistance from the public on February 11, specifically identifying Reynolds-Bell as a suspect and asking anyone with information about the case to come forward. They arrested Reynolds-Bell for robbery but have not filed formal charges against her yet.

According to Orlando's WFTV news, "court records" show that Reynolds-Bell dropped Bell off at the bank, and that she waited for him while he robbed the bank and drove away with him when he came back out. WFTV also cites "court records" that say Reynolds-Bell admitted to participating in the robbery, although it is not clear when or to whom she made this admission.

Although Reynolds-Bell does not face a formal criminal charge in the robbery, she has entered a plea of not guilty. Her attorney maintains that she was not involved in any robbery and that police and prosecutors have been "overzealous" with the case.

Continue reading "School Bus Dispatcher Suspected as Bank Robbery Getaway Driver" »

Police arrested a man they suspect of killing four homeless men in Orange County on Friday, January 13 in Anaheim. Itzcoatl Ocampo, a 23 year-old former Marine, faces possible capital murder charges in connection with the killings. The case also includes an unusual implication of the news media, based on allegations that the fourth victim came to Ocampo's attention because of an interview the man gave to the Los Angeles Times. Ocampo's arraignment is currently scheduled for February 17.

Four homeless men have been stabbed to death in northern Orange County since the middle of December 2011. James McGillivray was stabbed to death at a shopping center in Placentia on December 20, followed by Jimmy Middaugh in Anaheim on December 27 and Dutch Smit in Yorba Linda on December 30. The fourth victim, John Berry, was killed on January 13 in Anaheim. All of the men had multiple stab wounds. Ocampo reportedly told police after his arrest that he spent several hours looking for Berry after the Los Angeles Times ran a story about the first three killings. The reporter included a quote from Berry saying he thought the killer was stalking him.

Multiple witnesses called 911 on the evening of January 13 to report Berry's murder in a Carl's, Jr. parking lot in Anaheim. Several bystanders chased Ocampo on foot until he ran into a perimeter set up by police responding to the emergency calls, and he was arrested. The Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs had offered a $5,000 reward for information leading to the alleged serial killer's arrest. On January 25, the union president presented the reward to Donny Hopkins, who reportedly chased Ocampo into the police perimeter.

According to Ocampo's father, Refugio Ocampo, Itzcoatl Ocampo served in the U.S. Marines from 2006 until his discharge in 2010. He served at least one tour in Iraq during that time. His father described him as "disillusioned" when he came home, and said his mood grew "even darker" when he lost his job and his home. His father is also homeless, having lost his job as a warehouse manager. Ocampo is reportedly now on a "psychological watch" in county jail, where he is being held without bond.

Continue reading "Accused Orange County Homeless Killer Arrested, Charged with Murder" »

A man accused of stalking a woman over a period of seventeen years was sentenced to more than twenty-six years in prison by a Seattle court on January 24. Prosecutors said it was the longest sentence in recent memory for a stalking offense. It apparently began in 1994, when Shaun Moul, now 31 years old, was in middle school. A girl saw him having difficulty with his homework in the library and offered to help him. She described him as an "outcast" and said she just wanted to be nice. Moul began following her. Over the years, prosecutors said, he wrote her more than one hundred letters. At times he allegedly threatened to kill her and at other times threatened to kill himself. He also contacted her family members to demand contact with her.

The woman had previously obtained restraining orders against Moul. After violating a no-contact order, he received an eight-year prison sentence in 2001 and served two years. He contacted the woman's sister after his release in order to make contact with the woman again.

Prosecutors charged Moul with stalking and violation of no-contact orders. He was convicted six months ago of two felony counts of stalking and nineteen violations of no-contact orders. Prosecutors requested twenty years in prison. His sentencing hearing was held last week.

At the sentencing hearing, the target of his stalking campaign had an opportunity to address him. She told him that she had no intention of ever being with him and asked that he never contact her or her family again. Moul did not oppose a long prison sentence, saying that he did not mind being confined for the remainder of his life. The court ordered a prison term of twenty-six and one-half years, which the chief prosecutor described as the longest sentence she had ever seen for stalking. His prior prison term likely played a role in the length of the sentence.

The story paints a chilling picture of a person obsessed with someone and willing to go to great lengths to maintain contact with that person. His actions appear to have been limited to threats made through repeated letters and other attempts at contact. If his actions ever turned to overt violence, media reports do not mention it. The long-term effect of his actions on his target and her family is undeniable, but it raises the question of what exactly constitutes the crime of "stalking."

Continue reading "Seventeen Years of Stalking Leads to Twenty-six-Year Prison Sentence" »

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder in her home on New Year's Eve, after a 911 operator reportedly told her to "do whatever you can do to protect yourself."

Sarah McKinley, an 18 year-old Blanchard, Oklahoma resident, was home alone with her 3 month-old child when two men, Justin Shane Martin and Dustin Louis Stewart, allegedly tried to break into her mobile home. McKinley's husband had died of lung cancer a few days earlier. Police suspect the two intruders were looking for her husband's pain medication, and may have been under the influence of pain medication at the time.

McKinley barricaded the door to the mobile home with a sofa and called 911, reportedly speaking in a whisper to the operator. The 911 operator dispatched a sheriff's deputy and also notified the Blanchard Police Department. McKinley had a 12-gauge shotgun and a pistol. Martin had been trying aggressively to get the door open, and he finally managed to use his shoulder to force it open. McKinley asked the operator if she should shoot Martin if he made it through the door, and that was when the operator advised her to protect herself. She shot and killed Martin, who was armed with a knife. Stewart almost immediately turned himself in to police. The ordeal lasted a total of twenty-one minutes.

Prosecutors announced on January 4 that they did not intend to file any criminal charges against McKinley, stating that an initial review suggested she had not violated any laws. Her actions seem to fall squarely within the legal principle of self-defense. A person placed in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury, who then takes reasonably necessary actions to protect themselves, is generally not criminally liable for homicide.

In this case, Martin had spent twenty or more minutes violently attempting to gain entry to the house. Evidence indicates that he and Stewart had been watching McKinley's house for some time. Someone had allegedly poisoned several of McKinley's dogs in the weeks leading up to the attack.

Under these circumstances, McKinley would have been justified in using force to defend herself and her infant son. Since Martin was armed, she could even use deadly force if necessary. Had prosecutors decided to charge her with manslaughter or another homicide-related offense, she still could claim self-defense as a defense to prosecution.

Continue reading "No Criminal Charge for Woman Told to Defend Herself by 911 Operator; Intruder's Accomplice Faces Murder Charge" »

A San Diego judge ruled last month that a man charged with the murder of his estranged wife and her male colleague is mentally fit to stand trial for the murders. Melchor Marabante, a 42 year-old registered nurse, underwent a medical examination after investigators told the court that he may have been under the influence of prescription drugs when the murders occurred. A doctor testified at a preliminary hearing that he treated Marabante for an overdose the morning of the killings. The doctor performing the medical examination for the court issued a written report to the judge stating that Marabante is presently capable of understanding the charges against him and of assisting his lawyer during trial. If convicted, Marabante faces the death penalty or life in prison.

Marabante worked as a licensed vocational nurse at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. His wife, Valerie Marabante, worked there as a registered nurse. The other alleged victim, Bernabe Villamar, also worked there as a licensed vocational nurse. The Marabantes married in April 2009 after a five-year relationship, and they separated in late January or early February 2011. About three weeks before her and Villamar's death, Valerie Marabante had filed for divorce and had Melchor served with papers.

On February 20, 2011, Marabante went to her apartment, reportedly because he suspected her of having an affair, and says he found Valerie and Villamar "kissing and hugging." He then allegedly broke into the house through a patio door and shot both of them to death, using a gun that his brother had previously taken away from him. Various media reports described Marabante's "troubled past." Several friends and members of Marabante's family, including two sons, have described his behavior around the time of the shootings. Friends report that Marabante said the medications he was taking made him feel "weird," and his son said that he thought his father was hallucinating. Marabante also allegedly told friends that he was angry with he wife, and that he wanted to hurt her, days before the shootings. After the shootings, Marabante's son and brother have both said that Marabante said he had done a "bad thing."

Continue reading "San Diego Man Accused of Murdering Two Deemed Mentally Competent to Stand Trial" »

Luis Rosales Rivera lived in a converted garage with Miguel Delacruz and another roommate in Stanton, California. According to Rivera's indictment and conviction, on the night of March 26, 2008, Rivera came home after a night out with friends to find both roommates asleep. He then killed Delacruz as he slept by hitting him multiple times with a four-pound sledgehammer and fled the scene. The other roommate woke up, found Delacruz's body, and told the homeowner, who was in the main house at the time. Delacruz's body was discovered after midnight in an alley, where the homeowner had apparently dragged it. The homeowner was not charged with any crime. Rivera reportedly spent the rest of the night drinking and dancing at a nightclub.

Rivera was arrested and charged with murder. He reportedly told police that he would commit the alleged crime again if he had a chance. At his trial, his attorney did not deny the prosecution's allegations that Rivera attacked Delacruz with the sledgehammer. He characterized Delacruz as a tyrant who subjected Rivera to humiliation and control. Rivera's attorney alleged that Delacruz had tried to stab Rivera at least once, urinated on him, insulted and belittled him and insulted him and his family. He also alleged that Delacruz controlled most aspects of life in the apartment, including forcing Rivera to clean the bathroom and restricting when he could watch the television. Rivera's lawyer claimed that Delacruz woke prior to the attack, and that Rivera killed him because he was afraid of him.

A jury in Orange County convicted Rivera of a single felony count of murder on October 12, 2011. The conviction included an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon. On December 9, a judge considered a statement from the victim's niece, and then sentenced Rivera to twenty-six years imprisonment. Orange County Superior Court Judge Steven Bromberg described Rivera's crime as "incredibly dangerous" and stated that, if released, he would pose a danger to the public.

At the sentencing hearing, Delacruz's niece, Rebecca Rodriguez, testified that Delacruz was well-regarded in the neighborhood. She stated that he had the nickname "Tio," the Spanish word for "uncle," among neighbors. Rivera and Delacruz both came from Ahuisculco, a small town in the Mexican state of Jalisco. Rodriguez said that Delacruz invited Rivera to live with him. The two lived together with the third roommate for about a year before the murder.

Continue reading "Orange County Man Convicted in Sledgehammer Killing" »

The trial of a man accused of murdering the University of North Carolina student body president in 2008 began on December 7, 2011 in Orange County Criminal Superior Court in Hillsborough. Laurence Alvin Lovette is charged with murder in the death of Eve Carson on March 5, 2008. Jury selection proceeded for a week and ended the afternoon of Tuesday, December 6. Lovette's alleged co-conspirator, Demario Atwater, previously pleaded guilty to both state and federal murder charges and received two consecutive life sentences. Lovette is charged with first-degree murder, kidnapping, larceny, armed robbery, and possession of stolen goods, all felonies. Because he was only 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense, he does not face the death penalty. If convicted of the murder charge, though, he could face life in prison.

Chapel Hill police found Carson's body after responding to 911 calls reporting a woman screaming and gunshots. Carson had been shot five times with two different guns and left in the middle of the street in a neighborhood near the UNC campus. Prosecutors allege that Lovette and Atwater kidnapped Carson and took her in her car to an ATM. They then allegedly made her withdraw $700, the maximum daily withdrawal amount. The two allegedly continued to use her ATM card after her body was found and withdrew another $700. Police arrested both Lovette and Atwater and charged them with her murder.

The Washington Post provided coverage of the opening statements to the jury. According to prosecutors, both physical evidence and witness testimony will connect the two defendants to the murder. They claim police found Lovette's DNA on the inside door of Carson's vehicle. ATM surveillance footage allegedly shows a man matching Lovette's Description using Carson's card. Friends of the two defendants, including Atwater's girlfriend, will apparently testify as to statements and actions of the two that connect them to the crime. Observers of the trial doubt that prosecutors will call Atwater as a witness.

Lovette's attorney has stated that, although her client knew Atwater, he was not there when the murder occurred. She also observes that many of the prosecution's witnesses have extensive criminal records, with potential motivation to lie. None of the forensic evidence touted by the prosecution, she notes, connects Lovette to the actual murder. Even if his DNA is inside the vehicle and he used the ATM card, that does not prove he committed the alleged crime. The prosecution is instead trying to use the heinous nature of the crime and the popularity of the victim as a means of inflaming the jury and hiding flaws in their case.

Continue reading "Trial Begins for Alleged Murder of North Carolina College Student" »

A Los Angeles jury convicted Dr. Conrad Murray, the personal doctor to pop star Michael Jackson, of involuntary manslaughter earlier today. The case involved allegations that Dr. Murray had given Jackson an excessive dose of anesthetic, causing his 2009 death. The jury issued its verdict after less than nine hours of deliberations. None of the jurors have spoken to the media yet, so it is not clear if they determined any specific actions of Dr. Murray, such as the actual administration of the drug, beyond his overall liability for Jackson's death. Dr. Murray's sentencing is scheduled for November 29, 2011.

Jackson died on June 25, 2009 while planning a comeback tour. The official cause of death was acute propofol intoxication. Propofol is an intravenously-administered sedative used in general anesthesia and milder sedation. Dr. Murray was giving it to Jackson for insomnia, although he did not have monitoring or resuscitation equipment at Jackson's home, according to prosecutors. Jackson suffered cardiac arrest the day of his death. Dr. Murray said that he found Jackson in bed, not breathing, and tried to administer CPR. Prosecutors said he waited 20 minutes to call 911 and did not tell responding paramedics that he had given Jackson propofol.

Dr. Murray's attorneys argued at trial that Jackson administered the propofol to himself when Dr. Murray was not present. Prosecutors argued that, under either their theory of the case or Dr. Murray's, he was guilty of involuntary manslaughter for failing to fulfill his legal and ethical duties as a physician. Failing to act can constitute involuntary manslaughter if a person had a legal obligation to act. In this situation, prosecutors argued, Dr. Murray had a duty as Jackson's doctor to monitor his care and to make sure Jackson received the correct dose of such a powerful drug. Whether Dr. Murray administered the propofol himself or allowed Jackson access to it without knowledge of how to use it, prosecutors argued he was criminally negligent. They further argued that he was criminally negligent in not immediately calling 911 and not fully informing rescue workers of Jackson's condition. The jury agreed with the prosecution's theory.

Continue reading "Doctor Convicted in 2009 Death of Michael Jackson" »

A core principle of the criminal justice system in America has long been the idea that, to be found guilty of a crime, a person must have awareness that they are doing something wrong. For fans of Latin, the idea is called mens rea, or "guilty mind," often phrased as "criminal intent." To convict someone of the most serious crimes, such as murder, prosecutors must prove that a person intended to commit the crime. For example, a murder conviction requires proof not only that the defendant killed someone, but that the defendant intended for the person to die. The less-severe crime of manslaughter involves a defendant who engaged in risky behavior, but did not specifically intend for the crime to happen. This is the difference between deliberately running someone over with a car and hitting someone accidentally while not watching the road. Both are crimes, but the intentional act is punished more severely under the law. The prosecutor has the burden of proving the defendant's state of mind when the crime allegedly occurred, and therefore the defendant's "criminal intent."

This does not always imply that a person must know that their action is illegal. Ignorance of the law is no defense, as another legal principle goes. A person must nevertheless have awareness of their actions (or inaction, in the case of not watching the road) leading up to an alleged crime.

Trends in federal criminal law suggest that the requirement of mens rea is changing, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal. Increasingly, federal prosecutors are seeking convictions for offenses that may not even seem criminal at face value, with implications for people all over the country.

The federal criminal code, which is established by the U.S. Congress and applies nationwide, has grown from about twenty crimes in the 1790's to over 4,500 today, with thousands more scattered through federal regulations. Many of these crimes relate to administrative matters, financial transactions, non-violent offenses, or restrictions placed on people with criminal records. Many can carry surprisingly harsh penalties.

The Journal gives an example of an Iowa man with a criminal record who, while working a construction job, found a .22 caliber bullet on a work site. He put the bullet in a box at his house, where police found it during a search several months later. While state prosecutors did not charge him, federal prosecutors contended possession of a single bullet violated federal statutes prohibiting firearm possession by convicted felons. He pleaded guilty to possessing a bullet and received a mandatory 15-year prison sentence. An appeals court affirmed the sentence but called it "extreme."

Continue reading "Growing List of Federal Crimes Leads to Lowering Standard of Proving Guilt" »

The families of two Orange County men, who died of overdoses, filed civil suits against a Los Angeles doctor who allegedly supplied individuals with narcotics. Ten drug deaths have been linked to this doctor's practice.

In a related case, an Orange County doctor pled guilty to selling tens of thousands unwarranted prescriptions for painkillers and narcotic drugs. Dr. Nazar Al-Bussam faces a maximum potential sentence of 200+ years in federal prison.

Prosecutors alleged Dr. Al-Bussam wrote over 50,000 prescriptions for painkillers between 2007 and 2010. Many of these sales were to undercover federal agents. These prescriptions were given without any examination or reason. Dr. Al-Bussam was making more than $100,000 per month at his two Los Angeles clinics and most of the money was cash.

Sentencing is set for October 2011. Defense attorneys say the plea is part of an effort to quickly get to the Appeals Court. The doctor's attorneys tried unsuccessfully to submit testimony on whether a doctor can legally prescribe drugs to treat a drug addict. This type of medicine, however, has been out of vogue for many years, especially in the context of this case.

The investigation of Dr. Al-Bussam began when federal records showed he was one of the top ten prescribers in Los Angeles. Subsequently, a number of drug dealers were found in possession of narcotics prescriptions which had been obtained through Dr. Al-Bussam's clinics.

As can clearly be seen from the preceding, the urge to acquire huge profits through the sale of illegal drugs can corrupt both the big and the small alike. However, it is much worse when the defendant is a doctor. Doctor Al-Bussam apparently has been a physician since 1975. It is hard to imagine that, after 36 years of the practice of medicine, he had not built up a significant and lucrative business. He definitely was not the same street-level seller trying to make ends meet. In addition to destroying his practice, his career and possibly his life, he also chose money over his Hippocratic Oath.

We are a long way off from ending the destruction caused by addictive narcotics. Maybe with fewer resources spent overseas, more money can be used to address this plague.

A man who worked as a manager at an Orange County fireworks company has pled guilty to stealing over $100,000 from his employer.

TNT Fireworks of Fullerton was the victim of the thefts. Nearly 200 fraudulent checks were written by the defendant, allegedly for city permits. The victim discovered the loss in 2008 during a review of the company's finances.

Part of the plea will be a prison sentence of approximately 2 years and restitution of over $100,000. The defendant will plead guilty to 5 felony counts.

The difficulty for a criminal defense attorney in representing an individual charged with this kind of crime is twofold. First, because these incidents occurred over a very long period of time, the amount of the theft is very high and there can be multiple felony counts involved. Second, because these thefts were committed by someone in a position of trust, embezzlement charges are typically involved and such charges can bring a very substantial amount of incarceration time.

Victims in these types of cases are understandably upset. The companies are often small businesses and the loss of $100,000+ can effectively destroy their day-to-day operations. When you couple all of this with the feeling of betrayal caused by what may have been a trusted employee, or even a friend, great care must be taken by the defense attorney.

Casey Anthony will soon go on trial in the death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylie. A WFTV reporter sat down with a legal expert to review possible defenses.

One defense could be the child's death was an accident. The problem with this defense, however, is the mother waited nearly one month to report something had happened to her daughter. Another problem is the way in which the body was found: duct taped and in a bag.

The expert also noted trying to convince a jury that someone else did it would be a tough sale because Casey Anthony had already blamed a person who does not exist.

A good criminal defense attorney prepares his defense before he goes to trial. This legal expert's discussion gives interesting insight into this process. Some cases go to trial because the plea offer is so high, even a loss in trial will not result in more jail or prison time. Most cases which go to trial, however, have genuine issues related to guilt or innocence.

A defense attorney who goes to trial in Orange County, California, be it in a case of DUI, theft, domestic violence or what have you, should first be familiar with the judge he/she will be in front of. A defense attorney's familiarity with the bench is generally a good indicator of his/her trial experience. Additionally, not all defenses work in all cases. Generally, a self-defense argument is of little value in a DUI case, for example.

In heinous, high-profile cases, with substantial negative publicity, presenting a defense can be much more difficult. A trial in front of a neutral jury is tough, but one in front of a negative jury is impossible.