Charges against Dr. Conrad Murry are finally expected this  Monday in the death of Michael Jackson.  As typical in high profile cases, there may already be unfair treatment of the good doctor.

It is anticipated that Dr. Murray will be charged with involuntary manslaughter surrounding the pop stars death and his attorneys have been diligently working on a surrender deal with the L.A. County District Attorneys office. “Surrender” occurs when a defendant (usually through his attorneys) agrees to present himself to police in order to avoid arrest. Such agreements usually occur when there is a “low risk” defendant and typically (but not always) when there is a non-violent offense involved.  These surrender agreements are quite common and serve valuable functions. Among these are:

A. that it saves law enforcement valuable resources in locating and arresting an individual; and

B. providing the defendant to appear at a police station for booking and immediately arranging for bail–so as to avoid the humiliation of arrest and time in jail.

It appears that negotiations between Dr. Murray’s attorneys and the DA’s office broke down because of the DA’s belief that allowing a surrender would appear  as “special treatment.”  However, with no criminal record, no risk of flight, and the relatively minor charges anticipated, Dr. Murray squarely fits into the typical scenario where such surrender is appropriate. To say nothing of the fact that the Dr. has allegedly cooperated throughout the entire investigation.

The DA’s office apparent zeal to parade Dr. Murray in handcuffs rather than to offer a surrender option is perhaps another example of its overreaching and questionable judgment in another high profile case.

A Judge ruled today that Roman Polanski must return to Los Angeles for sentencing rather than be sentenced in absentia. This ruling will likely be appealed further. And since Mr. Polanski is comfortably resting in his vacation home in the Swiss Alps, it is doubtful that he will return anytime soon pending the appeal of this ruling and his extradition in general.

It is never wise to speak to the police about a crime.  This man took it even one step further:  Pot Grower Calls Police.

A California appellate court rejected Polanski’s bid to dismiss his case earlier this week, but suggested ways the parties can resolve the matter. The court also noted the serious misconduct by the prosecutor and the judge dating back to the 1970’s case.

It is possible, of course, that some deal between Polanski’s lawyers and the Los Angeles D.A.’s office is reached short of Polanski’s extradition to the U.S. (the appellate court in fact suggested a possible way).  However, the D.A.’s office will wait to hear from the Swiss about extradition and will likely not offer any deal unless Polanski returns.  If the Swiss deny extradition, however, then a deal with a sentence in absentia is much more likely.

Peter Berlin discusses Tiger Woods legal issues and extortion scenarios with Eonline!

Now Tiger Woods may have his share of family and PR headaches to deal with in the coming weeks, but one thing that he wont have is much of  a legal headache.

As had been reported, Tiger will not face criminal charges stemming from the accident and disturbance at his home. The reason? He kept his mouth shut, plain and simple. Woods refused to speak to police about the incident (as is his right to do) and in the process eliminated the possibility of making any incriminating statements.  No one knows what exactly happened, but the story given doesn’t quite add up. However, this is not the point. If the police want to take a statement or conduct an interview in such a situation there is usually one reason: “they don’t have enough evidence to charge a crime and/or they want to extract a confession.”  Given this, nothing that Mr. Woods  said would have helped him, only hurt.

The inclination to make any statement to police or officials is often misguided. I see this not only with clients that come to me but also in high profile cases (Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby to name a few) where individuals are already represented by counsel.

In this instance, Mr. Woods likely received some good and prompt advice… and he made the right choice.

Roman Polanski may be free on bail soon. It will be interesting to see whether he will continue to fight extradition or work out a deal with the LA District Attorneys office to resolve the matter. Apparently, Mr. Polanski’s European lawyers have differences with their US counterparts on various issues and strategy and it remains to be seen what exactly will happen.

Next time someone inquires how I can defend an “[alleged] drunk driver?” …in part, consider this recent news story of a cop manufacturing over 200 DUI arrests and making extra money as a result.  This conduct is cropping up in many places.

Fake DUI Arrests.

Mel Gibson’s 2006 conviction for DUI was expunged today by a Los Angeles Judge.

Expungements are available for many offenses when one completes the terms of probation and otherwise stays out of trouble.  However, an expungement is not entirely what most people think either.  It does not permanently erase your record of conviction and the police and the DA’s office certainly have a record of it.  If one is charged with a subsequent offense, the prior arrest and conviction will show up even though it was expunged.

So what is an expungement good for? Well,  in many situations you can legitimately treat that conviction as though it never occurred.  For example,  an expungement aids in applying for employment or to college.  If a conviction has been expunged, one generally (but not always) does not have to list such a conviction on a job or school application.

So even though a new job or school attendance is hardly Mr. Gibson’s worry, expungements do serve a useful and necessary function for most people.

After his arrest this week, Roman Polanski is expected to fight extradition from Switzerland to the United States where he pled guilty to unlawful sex with a 13 year old girl in 1977.

Many seem to be puzzled why, after so many years, has the LA County District Attorney’s office bothered with this now?  The answer seems to be pretty clear: Polanski, through his lawyers, red-flagged himself when he petitioned an appeals court to dismiss his case earlier this year. By doing so, even though instances of judicial misconduct were noted, he put himself back on the radar map.

But Polanksi’s dilemma is not so much of whether his conviction can be set-aside or his plea withdrawn. The judicial misconduct at the time appears present and he deserves to have this opportunity.  Rather,  it lies in the fact that he willfully fled and became a fugitive.  Courts’ do not like when their orders are disobeyed and when one fails to appear for proceedings.  So if he is extradited, Mr. Polanski’s problem is not so much whether he can get a new trial, or withdraw his previous plea…but in explaining why he shouldn’t be punished (as most defendants are) for going awol for the better part of 30 years.