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But Polanksi’s dilemma is not so much of whether his conviction can be set-aside or his plea withdrawn.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.

I have posted ad nauseum about the often incorrect perception that celebrities “get off” easy when accused of criminal wrongdoing. It is rather funny to be an advocate for a group that is quite capable of taking care of their own interests. However, more and more we are seeing a blatant double standard applied to celebrity wrong doing then that of the average citizen.  The bottom line is that the law should be blind to issues of race, gender, religion, status, and yes…celebrity.

More often than not, the public’s first introduction to a particular crime occurs when a celebrity is accused of improper conduct. Hearing of the violation and the maximum penalty for such an offense, the public cries foul if a celebrity is given probation or community service. The perception is: “wow…only a celebrity with money and fame could get off like that!”  For those of us that represent people daily for such violations, however, these supposedly lenient sentences are common and even likely for an average person.

Take Plaxico Burress.  He carries a handgun into a nightclub (inside his waistband and without a holster) and accidentally proceeds to shoot himself in the foot (no pun intended).  His gun is unregistered and his Florida concealed weapons permit has expired (not that it would make much difference).  Sentence: 2 years in prison. If one was an average person with no criminal record, no history of violence and no specific intent to do harm,  do you think they would face a two year prison term? Doubtful…

First, the fact the New York City passed an arcane gun law which provides a mandatory minimum 3 1/2 year prison term for an unregistered firearm is in and of itself absurd. Mind you, these are not otherwise illegal weapons. So the statute makes otherwise law abiding citizens automatic criminals if they forget, are unaware or  fail to register a firearm in New York.

Second, yes Burress did illegally carry a concealed weapon. But when was the last time you heard the Mayor of NYC sound off that the book must be thrown at an average person for such a criminal violation? Well, since a celebrity is involved Michael Bloomberg did just that. Besides, what business is it of the Mayor to advise or comment on criminal prosecutions? He isn’t the District Attorney, nor is he a judge. What he managed to do, however,  is send a message to the DA and the Judge as to what is expected. Hardly proper or fair.

The stupidity of Burress’ conduct is clear. His negligence is even clearer.  However, there is no intent (either alleged or offered) that his conduct was anything but accidental. In California for instance, carrying a concealed firearm is generally a misdemeanor. Someone who has no criminal record would likely receive probation and community service. Given similar facts as with the Burress case, perhaps a jail term….maybe.  But two years of Prison? No way.  Moreover,  what purpose does it serve to have Burress in prison for two years? Wouldn’t say a 6 month Jail sentence and hundreds of hours of community service better fit the crime?

Although it is crucial that our legal system protects the “little guy,” it is just as important to note when there is a severe swing of unfair, politically motivated and biased handling of cases related to any group. Burress is another example of a justice system,  that far to often… is anything but blind.

Lawyers are not always perfect. Neither are clients.  This gem is a few years old…but worth watching nonetheless as you approach the 1:10 mark.

DOVER, Kan. Sept 13— Two newlyweds held hostage in their eastern Kansas home on Saturday escaped unharmed when the man holding them captive fell asleep — after they gave him pillows and a blanket, authorities and family members said. (Read full story here).

State legislature’s and law enforcements zeal to stop as many suspected drivers for DUI has resulted in a gradual erosion of basic constitutional rights and protections.  Many client’s come to me surprised to hear that certain rights they always heard about do not apply in DUI cases. For example, when you are arrested on suspicion of DUI, handcuffed in the police car and on your away to the station for a breath or blood test you are not entitled to:

– have Miranda rights read to you;

– an attorney prior to submitting to the tests;

– refuse a blood or breath test without consequences (a.k.a. offering potentially incriminating evidence against yourself).

And there are others. As much as these rights are a staple of our criminal justice system they do not apply in a DUI arrest.

Pretty bad, you say? Well things get much worse. Some states are now training their police officers in the use of syringes to effectuate forced blood draws to those who refuse to submit to a breath test. Consider the following:

BOISE, Idaho (AP) Sept 13 — When police officer Darryll Dowell is on patrol in the southwestern Idaho city of Nampa, he’ll pull up at a stoplight and usually start casing the vehicle. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver’s arms, as he tries to search for a plump, bouncy vein.

“I was looking at people’s arms and hands, thinking, ‘I could draw from that,’” Dowell said. It’s all part of training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months to draw blood from those suspected of drunken or drugged driving. The federal program’s aim is to determine if blood draws by cops can be an effective tool against drunk drivers and aid in their prosecution.

So if the thought of a cop with a flashlight scares you, wait till your approached with a needle.  Cant get much worse you may think? Well then consider this gem of police conduct…how about  forced catheterization for a urine sample:

LAWRENCEBURG, Ind. Sept. 3– An Indiana man has filed a lawsuit claiming that police forcibly withdrew blood and urine from his body during a drunken driving arrest, WLWT-TV reported.

According to the suit, police arrested Jamie Lockard, 53, on suspicion of drunken driving in March.

A Breathalyzer test showed he was under the legal limit, but Officer Brian Miller doubted the findings.

Lockard and his attorney claim in the suit that police took him to Dearborn County Hospital and forced him to submit to a urine and blood test.

Police said they obtained a warrant, but Lockard’s attorney said his client was shackled to a gurney and had a catheter inserted against his will. (Read the full article here).

Hardly an isolated case …see this

In California, other than providing your ID and vehicle registration you are not obligated to make any statements to the police if stopped. You are not required to answer where you were going or what you were doing. You are also not obligated to take any field sobriety tests (e.g. walk the straight line); nor are you required to take the Preliminary Alcohol Screening test “PAS” if you are over the age of 21 (a small breathalyzer machine administered at the scene of the stop). You are, however, statutorily obligated to take the actual blood or breath test at a regulated facility (usually a police station) if you are detained on suspicion of DUI.

With the nasty wildfire spreading throughout the Los Angeles area, the search into its origin has now turned into homicide investigation.

California has a relatively complex set of laws relating to arson, with serious penalties that depend on many factors. Among them are:

* whether the crime was against property or a person;

* whether a structure was inhabited;

* whether great bodily harm resulted;

* whether the perpetrator willfully and maliciously set the fire;

* extent of the damage caused.

As the article above states, fire destroys evidence but also preserves it. Arson investigators can often pinpoint the origin of such a blaze and determine its cause.

Someone who intentionally sets such a forest fire will at the very least face a charge of Aggravated Arson (willfully setting a fire of any residence, structure or forest likely to cause injury or causing damage in excess of a specified amount Cal. Penal Code § 451.5(a)). In and of itself, this charge carries a prison term of 10 years to life. Now that there has been loss of life, however, even greater charges and penalties are assured.

File this one under the Cops need attorneys too file:

Cop busy breaking the law

New York City, New York. September 2 – Instead of upholding the law, one cop was busy breaking it. Now, he’s paying the price.A former New York City Police Officer was convicted of armed bank robbery and related charges, federal authorities announced Tuesday.

In a press release, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York said Christian Torres, pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery, one count of bank larceny, and one count of conspiring to commit bank robbery.Torres, 23, will be sentenced on November 6. He faces a maximum term of 30 years in prison (Click here to read the full article).

Policemen and women are chosen from the general population. Obviously, it is not surprising that some may engage in criminal activity or improper behavior just as some from the general population. While this in no way may reflect that majority of the men and women in blue, it should be considered when police are accused of abuse, excessive force or otherwise improper behavior. Cops are people too– and sometimes they are not the model of honesty that they are portrayed to be.

So Chris Brown has decided to do a media tour and gave an interview to Larry King. He is now a bit frustrated about the news coverage of his answers (read: I don’t remember hitting Rihanna), which has yet to air. However, he apparently issued an apology via the song Cry No More.

Well welcome to the real world Mr. Brown. The fact is that one’s legal interests don’t always jive with ones business or public relation interests. Rarely, will someone be able to rehabilitate their public image by giving an interview after a plea deal and then squirming through the details. (Hugh Grant-a notable exception some years back).

Now, maybe it’s true that Brown answered Larry King’s question the first three times he asked them. But who ever said the media is going to focus on the 3 out of 4 times you got it right? The bottom line Chris Brown: if you think your case was difficult, then wait till you have to swim through the media shark tank. It’s too early! Take a deep breath, relax, and stop the interviews-with your attorney by your side or without. Besides, your talent is the best image rehabilitation you have. So get into the recording studio-not the Television studio.