Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

An Orange County man, 31 year-old Stephenson Choi Kim, received a sentence of life in prison on April 30, 2012, for a 2004 shooting that killed one person and wounded four. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty but dropped it in 2011 after the jury deadlocked on the issue. Jurors had found that the murder was committed as part of a "criminal street gang," a special circumstance alleged by prosecutors.

Prosecutors claimed that, on March 14, 2004, Kim and six other gang members were driving around Orange County in several cars, armed and looking for rival gangs. They stopped at the Fifth Wave Cafe in Cypress. Two of Kim's companions went inside, where they reportedly approached a table of seven people and asked if any of them belonged to a gang. One person told them that he used to belong to a gang, but not anymore. The two left the restaurant and told Kim what happened. Prosecutors said that Kim then entered the restaurant and fired repeatedly at the group with a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol. He shot 22 year-old Venus Hyun, whom prosecutors described as an "innocent bystander," in the back. He shot at six other people, hitting four of them, before exiting through the restaurant's back door. Another gang member had allegedly pulled a car around to the back of the restaurant to wait for Kim. Hyun died at the hospital, and the other four survived.

Continue reading "Man Gets Life Sentence for 2004 Orange County Murder" »

Orange County prosecutors have charged 31 year-old Shazer Fernando Limas with three counts of murder, alleging that Limas killed his girlfriend, Arlet Contreras, and their two sons in April and dumped their bodies. Contreras' body was found shortly after Limas' arrest, but the sons' bodies remain missing. Officially, the children, who are two years old and four months old, are only believed to be dead. The case quickly made headlines for its cinematic aspects, including a high-speed car chase on the freeway, but authorities admit that there are key details that they still do not know.

On Thursday, May 3, 2012, a cleaning crew at an Orange apartment complex reported finding blood stains on the carpet in an apartment unit recently leased to Limas and Contreras. Limas had vacated the apartment several days earlier. An officer spotted Limas in a Costa Mesa parking lot later that day, but Limas reportedly fled when police approached him. Limas led police on a chase on Interstate 5, causing the highway to be blocked for up to an hour. The chase ended when Limas' vehicle ran over a spike strip laid out by police, flattening his tires. Police took Limas into custody, where they have held him without bail ever since.

Continue reading "Orange County Man Charged with Murder for Allegedly Killing His Girlfriend and Their Two Sons" »

Five former New Orleans police officers received sentences ranging from six to sixty-five years in prison from a federal judge on April 4, 2012. The officers, Kenneth Bowen, Robert Gisevius, Robert Faulcon, Anthony Villavoso, and Arthur Kaufman, were charged with a variety of federal firearms and civil rights offenses related to shootings at a New Orleans bridge during Hurricane Katrina's aftermath in 2005. The case demonstrates two interesting aspects of criminal defense: it shows how federal prosecutors can step in when local law enforcement is compromised or implicated in a matter, and it shows that police misconduct can have a remedy.

Hurricane Katrina was the costliest natural disaster in United States history, and also one of the deadliest with nearly 2,000 victims along the Gulf coast. The hurricane made landfall in southeast Louisiana on August 29, 2005. The worst damage and loss of life occurred in New Orleans, where the failure of the levees flooded most of the city and many surrounding areas. A period of chaos followed, in which people struggled to get out of the city and crime was reportedly rampant.

On September 4, 2005, less than a week after the levees broke, four of the defendants, Bowen, Gisevius, Faulcon, and Villavaso, went to the Danziger Bridge in response to a report of officers taking fire. According to the complaint filed in federal court, the officers encountered six unarmed civilians on the east side of the bridge. The officers allegedly opened fire on the group with assault rifles, pistols, and shotguns, killing one person, James Brissette, and wounding four others. The officers then drove to the west end of the bridge, where they opened fire on two men. One man, Ronald Madison, was shot and killed, and the officers arrested the other for attempted murder of a police officer. A judge ordered his release three weeks later, with no charges ever filed against him.

The fifth defendant, Kaufman, was assigned to investigate the shootings later that same day. He submitted a report, co-authored with another officer, in May 2006 describing the matter as "solved." The Orleans Parish District Attorney investigated the matter between 2006 and 2008, making no findings as to any officer's culpability. They referred the matter to the FBI.

The officers were charged with violations of the victims' civil rights "under color of law," conspiracy to commit an offense, firearms violations, fraudulent statements, witness tampering, and falsification of records. Five other officers, all charged with offenses related to the alleged cover-up of the incident, pleaded guilty before trial. In August 2011, a jury convicted four defendants of civil rights, firearms, and conspiracy offenses, and convicted Kaufman of offenses related to covering up the incident.

Continue reading "Former Police Officers Sentenced in Post-Katrina Shooting Cases" »

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" »

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 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 shooting at an Orange County hair salon that left eight people dead and one injured has led to both criminal charges and a series of civil lawsuits for the accused gumman, presenting an issue for criminal defense attorneys about how our civil and criminal justice systems intersect. On October 12, 2011, Scott Dekraai allegedly walked into an upscale hair salon in Seal Beach, California and opened fire, shooting eight people and wounding one. Among the dead was Dekraai's ex-wife, Michelle Fournier, the alleged target of the shooting. Authorities say Dekraai targeted Fournier because of frustration over an ongoing custody dispute. Dekraai and Fournier have an eight year-old son who is now living with relatives.

Prosecutors charged Dekraai with eight counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, one count for each shooting victim, and have announced their intention to seek the death penalty. Dekraai supposedly gave a confession to police after his arrest. He is scheduled for arraignment on November 29. How he intends to plead is not yet known, but his purported confession to police does not obligate him to enter a guilty plea. Some news analysts have speculated about a possible insanity plea, given news reports of a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, but nothing is certain yet.

Dekraai is also now the defendant in two civil lawsuits for the wrongful death of two of the shooting victims, including Fournier. First, Fournier's parents filed suit seeking to freeze Dekraai's assets in order to obtain compensation for Dekraai and Fournier's son. Next, the husband of victim Christy Wilson filed suit on behalf of Wilson's estate, himself, and their three children, requesting compensation for medical and funeral bills and "loss of companionship."

In both cases, the plaintiffs seek monetary damages from Dekraai, unlike the criminal case, which seeks imprisonment or the death penalty. The civil plaintiffs face a lower burden of proof than criminal prosecutors, needing only to show by a preponderance of evidence, essentially meaning "more likely than not," that Dekraai caused Fournier's and Wilson's deaths. Prosecutors must prove guilt "beyond and reasonable doubt," meaning jurors must find no reasonable alternate to the prosecution's theory of the case.

Continue reading "Shooting in Orange County Hair Salon Presents both Criminal and Civil Legal Questions" »

The murder of Bill McLaughlin, a millionaire healthcare entrepreneur, in 1994 went unsolved for fifteen years. In a development straight out of a crime thriller, police arrested and charged two people with the murder in 2009: McLaughlin's girlfriend/fiancee, Nannette Johnston, and her ex-boyfriend Eric Naposki. Naposki, a former NFL player who played for the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts, was convicted of first-degree murder in July 2011 and awaits life in prison without parole. Johnston's trial is scheduled to begin later this month.

McLaughlin was an entrepreneur who invented a device used in medical labs to separate plasma from blood. The invention made him millions, and at the time of his death he was worth around $55 million. He met Johnston, twenty-five years his junior, through a magazine ad she had placed seeking an older, wealthy man. He offered her a life of luxury, taking her on trips around the world and providing her a considerable allowance. After one year of dating, even though family members would later say that they saw no real love between the two, McLaughlin proposed marriage. He also added Johnston to his will.

During the evening of December 15, 1994, someone entered McLaughlin's home in Newport Beach and shot him six times in the chest. Police in the affluent community had little experience investigating a murder, and the crime scene offered few clues. They looked at family members and business associates, ruling out many suspects. Johnston allegedly told investigators that she had attended her son's soccer game and then gone shopping, arriving home around 10 p.m., after McLaughlin was shot. Although she had receipts to show she had gone shopping, witnesses said she had been at the soccer game with someone else. That person turned out to be Naposki.

After the trail went cold, Johnston pleaded guilty to writing checks to herself from McLaughlin's bank account, including a $250,000 check on the day of his death. She spent a year in jail beginning in 1996 for that offense. New evidence obtained by police led them to Johnston and Naposki in 2009. Evidence in Naposki's trial indicated that he shot and killed McLaughlin after receiving a key to the house from Johnston. According to authorities, Johnston talked Naposki into the murder. She allegedly wanted to collect on a $1 million life insurance policy. She also stood to inherit about $150,000 from McLaughlin. Naposki continues to maintain his innocence, claiming so in a recent television interview.

Continue reading "Trial Set to Begin for 1994 Murder of Orange County Millionaire" »

The State of Texas may begin deporting foreign citizens serving time in Texas prisons. After having received assurances from federal officials that foreign citizens will actually be sent back to their home countries and not released back onto Texas streets, parole officials took the first steps to deport some of the 11,000 foreign nationals.

Under a recent law, the Parole Board can now approve parole for foreign nationals on the condition they are sent back to their country of origin. A snag in the past has been, sometimes, federal authorities released prison inmates onto Texas streets without the State of Texas knowing. This has been solved, however, by assurances that if an inmate is not deported, he/she will be handed back over to prison authorities.

One of the reasons for this type of action is the savings in tax dollars. A paper, circulated by State Senator Eddie Lucio, indicated the State could save nearly $100 million annually if 5,000 foreign-born citizens are deported.

The country of destination for most of these criminals would be Mexico. Of the 11,000 foreigners in prison, 8,500 are from Mexico.

Many different ideas have been put forward in order to solve the rising alien population in American prisons. Ideas have ranged from private prisons in Mexico to islands in the Caribbean. One problem is some countries will not take back their citizens.

A problem which could surface in this new scheme is the parolees simply return to Texas once they are released and deported. No doubt many of the 8,500 Mexican nationals crossed the Texas U.S. Border more than once. If a person is released early to Mexico, what is to stop them from re-crossing the border? Further, once they are discovered in this country, they will just be jailed again.

Rather than focus on low-risk offenders, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on violent or dangerous long-term prisoners? We could enter into negotiations with Mexico to allow Mexican nationals to serve their time in Mexico. It would be much cheaper, plus there may be some deterrence as well. Although some funds may be saved by decreasing parole costs for low-risk offenders, more money can be saved by reducing the cost of incarcerating long-term, high-risk offenders.

In the wake of the Casey Anthony verdict, people are beginning to question the criminal justice system. Although this is nothing new, especially after heinous high-profile trials, their thought processes are. When I was a young attorney, I never heard average citizens use the vocabulary of the law and law enforcement. Many people now, however, appear to have an in-depth knowledge of DNA, the police investigation process and criminal prosecution.

I believe the answer to this is that most people have at least earned a "bachelor's degree" in television criminal law. An average 18-year-old has probably watched over 10,000 hours of television in their lifetime. By most estimates, crime-related shows account for over 25 percent of all programming. When you add in news shows, a majority of which relate to crime, the percentage may be a third.

The media plays a very important role in how the criminal justice system is viewed by the average citizen. It is important to remember, however, that the media is a product placement medium. Although there are a number of in-depth, thought provoking discussions, these are in the minority. The television crime curriculum that most people are subjected to include those shows which focus on the lurid, the perverse and the sexually provocative.

While crime takes up a lion's share of television programming, it is not a true gauge of the amount of crime that actually exists in society. Most people probably cannot recall having actually seen a crime, notwithstanding their own speeding violations, in quite some time. If an alien from another world viewed our television shows for 10 years before coming to our planet, what do you think he would expect? Would it be true? -No.

Perhaps what is the most important feature of all these "crime" shows is the realism. After "Cops" appeared on television, people were shown the so-called nuts and bolts of police work. This involved investigations, pursuits and the like. Never were the officers shown going over the line or violating suspects' rights. However, often times, when a police officer goes over the line and violates a suspect's rights - always a guilty person and never an innocent one - the officer is cheered because he/she is not allowing some technicality, such as the Constitution, stand in the way of a "good bust".

This brings me to the main point of this blog. A little knowledge can be dangerous. A perfect example of this comes from law school. Students were tested on their reasoning powers twice during the first year. The first test was in the beginning and the second was at the end of the year. Invariably, the result of the second test was lower than the first. Students actually scored lower after being exposed to some law. Although students scored much higher the third time tested, after the second year, this result clearly shows that a little knowledge can be dangerous...and with the media, this is the only knowledge you get.

In a case which made the national headlines, the Casey Anthony murder trial has resulted in not guilty verdicts on all counts except those related to providing false statements to law enforcement. Casey Anthony was prosecuted for first degree murder in the death of her daughter Caylee Anthony. She was facing life in prison or even the death penalty.

The prosecution sought to prove Casey killed her daughter intentionally because the child put a crimp in her partying lifestyle. The defense countered the child accidentally drowned in the swimming pool. The defense also attributed Casey's erratic behavior and apparent lies to the grief over the loss of her child as well as sexual abuse sustained as a child.

This case was unique in the way Casey acted after the child's disappearance. She apparently partied as well as made numerous false and contradictory statements regarding the child's location. Further, two people who she claimed were with Caylee were proven to never have existed.

The problem with following a case like this is most of the evidence is reduced to a mere sound bite. The trial lasted over 30 days and involved many witnesses. The closing arguments alone were almost two days long. These jurors had to review and process a great deal of evidence before being sent out to deliberate. Since most people do not have 30 days to spend listening to testimony and taking notes, they look to television for guidance. This may not always be the best decision. Television is an entertainment medium. No parent in their right mind would place their five year old in front of it and expect him/her to get a balanced education.

Without seeing and hearing the complete testimony of all witnesses, a person loses a valuable tool in judgment regardless of the outcome. Many people are unhappy with the verdict. It is always important to remember, however, the jury is usually in a much better position to make a decision.

A senior federal judge and a professor of law have conducted a study regarding the cost of the death penalty. By reviewing all expenditures, state and federal, U.S. 9th Circuit Court Judge Alarcon and Professor Mitchell have concluded more than $4 billion has been spent since 1978 on capital punishment prosecutions in the State of California. This is more than $150 million a year. In addition, the study forecasts a death row population of 1000 by 2030.

In their report, "Executing the Will of the Voters: A Roadmap to Mend or End the California Legislature's Multi-Billion Dollar Death Penalty Debacle", the authors set forth a number of options to cure the problem. Each of the options has a financial price tag.

The first option is to continue on with the present system. This will cost an extra $85 million per year.

The second option would be to reduce the number of death penalty eligible offenses. This could save taxpayers over $50 million a year.

The final option is the complete abolition of the death penalty in California. This final option could save $200 million per year.

Although there are over 700 inmates on death row, only 13 have been executed since 1978. The delay between conviction and execution is now over 20 years. The death penalty is a sensitive topic in California. There are some individuals who, because of the heinous nature of their crimes, deserve the death penalty. Everyone knows who these types of criminals are. However, is it worth the cost to expand the number of special circumstances to 39 in order to widen the net being cast? Do we really need the death penalty for gang-on-gang shootings?

The problem with the death penalty is it no longer serves the function for which it was designed. How does anyone fear the death penalty when only 13 have been executed in 33 years? The average person in this state probably isn't even aware of all the crimes which are eligible for the death penalty.

A person on death row also has a few things which a person serving life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) does not. For one, he/she has his/her own cell. In many ways, death row is more comfortable than general population.

The big problem for many people is the belief that without the death penalty, these people would be back on the streets in 7 years. This is patently untrue. Life without parole means life without parole. Finally, the cost must be taken into consideration. This state is constantly in dire financial straits. Wouldn't this money be better spent on schools or roads?

The real problem with the death penalty issue is it is not going to change. Coupled with the above problems is the fact that we have a dysfunctional government in California. Also, no one wants to appear to be soft on crime. Hopefully, this report will begin a dialog. It is a small step in the right direction.

Two Chicago police officers have been charged with sexual assault while on duty. Officers Juan Vasquez and Paul Clavijo have been charged with sexually assaulting an intoxicated woman while on duty.

The case began, on March 30, 2011, when Officers Vasquez and Clavijo gave the alleged victim a ride home. The alleged victim attempted to enter the patrol vehicle's back seat but Officer Clavijo put her on his lap; whereupon, he sexually assaulted her. Upon arriving at the alleged victim's residence, both officers took turns sexually assaulting her. The alleged victim finally began pounding on the walls and screaming that she was being sexually assaulted. One officer was observed fleeing naked from the scene. Responding police officers found parts of one of the officer's uniform as well as his cell phone at the location. A subsequent test revealed the alleged victim had a blood alcohol level of .38 percent.

Attorneys representing the officers said the sexual act was voluntary, at which point prosecutors indicated a person with a blood alcohol level of .38 would be incapable of giving consent.

Discussion by The Law Office of Barney B. Gibbs:

The problem with charges against police officers is the great majority are false. People who are arrested and charged with crimes often have an incentive to falsely accuse police. Also, there are a great many people who hate the police and will use any opportunity to frame a police officer. However, just because there are many false claims, does not mean these claims should be ignored. It is important society be protected from dishonest police officers. Because of their powers, they are capable of doing great harm.

Charges against police officers, especially those committed on duty, must be considered among the most heinous. Not only has the officer committed a crime, he/she has also violated the trust society has in them. This loss of trust can adversely affect all police officers in the performance of their duty. Because many people believe there is a code of silence among police officers, none are to be trusted.

These two officers were put on administrative duties after they posted bail. At the very least, they should have been put on unpaid leave pending an investigation. Further, if it is proven they engaged in any sexual act on duty, with or without consent, they should be fired.

Public faith in the institution of justice is the basis of the democratic system. There was a time, not too long ago, that a majority of citizens of several large eastern cities believed their police were corrupt. The reason for this belief was that it was true! Police, by the nature of their jobs, stick together. Many would turn a blind eye to a fellow officer committing a crime, which would have involved an arrest had a citizen committed the act. Luckily, by and large, this is changing. However, police officers must be constantly vigilant in their understanding that their first duty is to justice and fairness.