Finding the right criminal defense attorney in the Bay Area is vital when facing vehicular manslaughter charges. Consider the two following stories and how having the right legal team can make a difference.
In April of 2011, 23-year-old Deeanna Mauer died after a rear-end, multi-car collision on the I-405 left the young woman completely brain dead. Both Mauer, who was driving a 2006 Hyundai, and the vehicle in front of her, a 2006 Porsche, had slowed due to traffic conditions on the highway, according to California Highway Patrol officials. The driver of a 2006 Toyota Prius, Jorene Nicolas, failed to stop and rear-ended Mauer, who rear-ended the 2006 Porsche. After the accident, both the Toyota Prius and Mauer’s Hyundai wound up colliding with the center divider. After being transported to UCI Medical Center in Orange, California, Mauer was pronounced dead the same day, just before 6 p.m.
If you were injured during the course of an automotive accident and were not at fault, you may be considering the benefits of hiring a personal injury attorney in the San Francisco Bay Area. While it is entirely possible to receive a fair settlement from an auto insurance company without the retention of a personal injury attorney, below are three major reasons why hiring a personal injury attorney in the San Francisco Bay Area may be to your benefit:
There are various methods of finding a great criminal defense attorney in San Francisco, including:
Bar Associations – In California, you can contact your local county bar association for more information about attorney referrals using what is known as a “Lawyer Referral Service” or “Lawyer Referral & Information Service”. These services are provided free of charge and offer referrals based upon your individual legal needs, making the process of finding a criminal attorney in San Francisco easier.
Referrals – Personal referrals from family members, friends or acquaintances may offer some feasible San Francisco criminal defense attorney options. If you or someone you know already has an attorney that specializes in another area of law (such as civil litigation, personal injury or an area of criminal defense that does not include your present predicament), you can ask if they have any referrals for attorneys specializing in the area of law that your matter involves. Additionally, contacting your county’s public defender may also yield referral results, as public defender offices are sometimes willing to offer applicable San Francisco criminal defense attorney referrals.
Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Jorge Rodriguez-Chomat in Florida has incited equal parts criticism and praise in the media after sentencing Penelope Soto, 18, to 30 days in jail for contempt during a bond hearing due to the teen’s behavior in court.
Soto, charged with possession of the prescription drug Xanax, was asked to respond to Judge Rodriguez-Chomat’s questions regarding her jewelry to determine whether she would be able to afford bail. Apparently finding the line of questioning amusing, Soto began to laugh when Judge Rodriguez-Chomat asked her how much her jewelry was worth.
Bay Area Criminal Defense attorney Michael Cardoza appeared recently on NBC News with Jodi Hernandez to discuss the recent situation at a local high school. Head football coach Chris Cerbone of St. Patrick St. Vincent High School in Vallejo, California has been fired and five students expelled after school officials and the Sacramento Diocese began investigating a hazing incident involving members of the school’s junior varsity and varsity football teams. While details of the actual hazing, which occurred before the Christmas break, have not been released, the school announced on Friday, January 25, that the decision had been made to terminate Cerbone from his position. Principal Mary Ellen Ryan announced the school’s decision, noting that Cerbone had been fired because he “had ultimate responsibility for supervising the students during the time the inappropriate behavior took place.”
Attorney Michael Cardoza, who practices in the San Francisco Bay Area and is the founder of the Cardoza Law Offices, weighed in on the issue with Jodi Hernandez of NBC News on Monday night:
“California voters have an opportunity to make much needed changes in the three-strikes law. The problem, critics say, is that California’s law has swept up many nonviolent offenders along with violent ones. They cite offenders who have been sentenced to 25-years-to-life for stealing videos or even, in one case, a slice of pepperoni pizza.
Proposition 36, which will appear on the California ballot this November, would require that a third-strike felony be serious or violent. The proposition also would allow the resentencing of third-strike inmates who got 25-years-to-life for minor felonies. The revision would bring California’s law in line with three-strikes laws in 26 other states
Proposition 34, titled by election officials as “Death Penalty. Initiative Statute”,
If the state’s voters approve it, Proposition 34 will eliminate the death penalty and replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Specifically, Proposition 34 will:
- Repeal the death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
- Apply retroactively to persons already sentenced to death.
- Require persons found guilty of murder to work while in prison, with their wages to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them.
- Create a $100 million fund to be distributed to law enforcement agencies to help solve more homicide and rape cases.
Michael Cardoza, of the Cardoza Law Offices, a well-known and respected criminal attorney in the bay area, has recognized a problem with legal cases of late. With the recent surge of overturned convictions based upon genetic marker evidence, it is becoming obvious that eye-witness testimony regarding identification is extremely unreliable. Yet, the Supreme Court recently declined to extend constitutional safeguards against the use of some eyewitness testimony at criminal trials. In Perry v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not require a special judicial inquiry into the potential unreliability of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases when there has been no police misconduct. If the police have not created a suggestive environment for when the identification takes place, it is up to the jury to decide how much weight to give to the identification and furthermore, up to the defense attorney to discredit the identification. This is easier said than done. Juries place a disproportionate amount of faith in the identifications anyway. Furthermore, obtaining an expert to discredit the eyewitness identification is frequently an expensive prospect. Although judges may try to warn juries about the many factors that produce inaccurate ones, it is not sufficient, especially when a defendant’s liberty is at stake.