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.

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But Polanksi’s dilemma is not so much of whether his conviction can be set-aside or his plea withdrawn.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

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

Today, the Los Angeles District Attorneys office filed two felony charges against Chris Brown for his recent altercation with Rihanna. While her cooperation remains to be seen, the DA’s office clearly took its time and was likely focusing on the severity and nature of the injuries, as well as issues of proof.  Because it is an informative case relating to domestic violance in california,  we will continue to follow developments as this case progresses.

Learning that a celebrity engaged in dumb or illegal conduct is not much news these days.  The recent story about super athlete Michael Phelps is no exception.

For those who aren’t in the know, Phelps was photographed at party taking a hit of what appears to be a “bong” –allegedly containing marijuana. Phelps didn’t help himself by making statements that can be used against him. But the mere fact that the Richland County (S.C) Sheriff is contemplating filing charges against Phelps raises a host of questions in and of itself.

Now, lets set aside issues of proof. Lets even set aside the issue of resources and the wisdom of investigating Mr. Phelps. Would the same sheriff consider investigating the case if your average citizen walked in with a similar photo of another average Joe.  Not a difficult one to answer…the police would laugh him out of the station.

Whether this type of prosecution is merely a publicity stunt by local law enforcement and prosecutors, or whether they truly believe they are making a statement, it demonstrates that contrary to popular belief, celebrities are sometimes treated unfairly by the legal system compared to your average person.

Not too long ago, Paris Hilton found herself in a similar position. In a case where an average person would have served a few days of jail at best, she served forty days based on nothing more than being a high profile celebrity.  In her case, the judge actually ordered her back to jail after the sherriff released her pursuant to guidelines governing all other inmates. If Phelps is actually charged, it will be another example of such treatment. Something we should consider before saying  how easily celebrities “beat the system” with their fame, money and power.

In recent years, with a rash of tragic incidents and certain hi-profile cases, the consequences and penalties for domestic violence have steadily increased. Police and prosecutors have vigorously pursued and prosecuted such cases. As a result, there has also been misinformation about the nature and circumstance surrounding such a charge.

In California , domestic violence is not only defined as an incident between a husband and wife.  California Penal Code Section 273.5, states that:

Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or he mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Depending on the nature and extent of the victim’s injuries, Domestic Violence may be charged as a felony or misdemeanor offense. In the case of a misdemeanor, one may face up to a year in county jail or prison, a fine of $2,000, or both, as well as fines and anger management programs.

Commonly, I see two misconceptions about a Domestic Violence charge:

First,  is the belief that if the victim recants or changes his/her original story, the charges will be dropped against the aggressor.   Say a husband and wife get into a physical altercation and the police are called. The wife tells the police that the husband punched and kicked her during an argument. The police subsequently conduct an investigation and arrest the husband.  The husband is charged with a domestic related battery and has a pending criminal case.  The husband and wife often reconcile but still have to deal with the criminal case.  The belief that the case will “go away” if the wife recants or changes her original complaint is common, but generally wrong.  Domestic Violence is aggressively prosecuted in California, even when the victim recants his or her story. There can be various reasons for this, including that: the prosecutor believes the first story is the accurate one; the prosecutor believes the victim was intimidated or is afraid of proceeding against the aggressor; the case can be established with independent witnesses or other evidence.  While having a recalcitrant victim may help a defendant in certain situations,  the case will not usually be dismissed simply as a result thereof.

Second, many believe that only men will be arrested and charged with Domestic Violence. It is true that the vast majority of domestic violence arrests are against men. It is also true that there is a bias by police and prosecutors that the woman must be the victim and the man the aggressor.  Having said that, women can and do get arrested for Domestic Violence. If the circumstances of the altercation (i.e. her demeanor at the scene; the nature of the injuries to the man) points to the woman, or if there are independent witnesses establishing her culpability, then she likely will be arrested and charged.

The bottom line remains that dealing with such a criminal charge can be complicated enough without the myths and misconceptions that seem to surround this area of law.