Public Defender Investigator Network

A court rejected a bias claim lobbed by the San Francisco District Attorney against a judge overseeing evidence issues in the crime lab scandal, ending prosecutors’ efforts to remove the judge from the case.

The San Francisco District Attorney’s office claimed San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo could not fairly preside over narcotics cases being challenged due to possible evidence tampering because she is married to a defense attorney who handled one federal case involving the San Francisco crime lab.

In his Wednesday ruling, Monterey Superior Court Judge Thomas W. Wills wrote that Massullo’s marriage plays no role in her ability to oversee narcotics cases in which evidence may have been compromised by theft and misconduct by crime lab employees.

The San Francisco District Attorney’s office attempted to get Massullo disqualified less than a month after she issued a scathing May 17 ruling against prosecutors. In her 26-page ruling, which compelled the disclosure of crime lab-related documents in 60 narcotics cases, Massullo detailed a systematic withholding by prosecutors of evidence exposing problems in the crime lab and among SFPD employees. Defense attorneys and their clients are entitled to the material under Brady v. Maryland.

Read more…

Clients of public defenders see their lawyers from a different perspective from those in the legal system — and many are dissatisfied with the public defenders’ service.

Angela Rodriguez, 27, Boyertown, said her attorney advocated for her best interests but didn’t spend enough time with her.

The charge of attempted possession of a controlled substance was her first offense, and her attorney recommended she participate in the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program. ARD allows first-time offenders to clear their records after serving probation.

“I never had any contact with him except when it was time for the hearing,” she said. “That was the only time I ever really saw him or talked to him.”

James Manning, 29, Reading, said his public defender didn’t listen to him and rushed through his hearing for charges of forgery, theft by deception, receiving stolen property and possessing instruments of crime.

“I got three years probation,” Manning said. “The people that were pressing charges against me didn’t show up but he continued anyway.”

Manning said he only had five minutes of his lawyer’s time before the hearing.

Read more…

Many people are unaware of what the difference between a private criminal lawyer and a public attorney is. The explanation is rather straightforward. A public defender is the legal representation that is provided to a person who is unable to afford one. The public defender is thus charged to protect the interests of the clients while being paid by the government. But before a public defender is awarded to the accused individual, an eligibility test is carried out involving an assessment of a person’s assets and income. Although public lawyers come freely, many people question the devotion and dedication that a client will get from such representation.

Public defenders are very effective as criminal lawyers. Like most lawyers they handle a wide range of cases during the day. Again, just like most attorneys, they tend to specialize in different areas. Some choose to specialize in attending to personal injury cases or they may opt instead to focus on drunk driving charges as found with DUI lawyers. Because of their close and frequent relationship with the court rooms, most public defenders develop an understanding and decent rapport with the local court and judges. This can be of great benefit to their clients.

However, despite all these benefits, hiring a private attorney is still a far better idea if this option is within a person’s ability. Private attorneys are far more likely to work harder at providing you with a credible defense. Although they are undoubtedly more expensive than publicly appointed representation, most people who hire private attorneys find that they end up having lighter fines or shorter jail sentences. This is because of the increased effort put into a person’s by private attorneys.

Read more…

While much of the talk about the city declaring bankruptcy has faded, at least one downtown law firm continues to look at it as a potential source of business.

Latham and Watkins, one of the premier firms in the region, has prepared a 46-page Power Point presentation outlining the possibilities and limits of a city going bankrupt and citing examples of jurisdictions that have gone into and come out of bankruptcy.

Attorneys with the firm met last week with Controller Wendy Greuel. She said she had not requested the meeting and had no comments about what was told her.

The firm’s paper details the legal requirements and what can or cannot be accomplished under bankruptcy.

However, missing from the presentation was the most important point to elected officials – the political fallout.

In nearly all cases where a jurisdiction has declared bankruptcy, its politicians have been voted out of office in the next election.

For some Los Angeles city officials, the troubled transition to Google’s Gmail has not been worth the cost.

With several officials threatening to withhold their support for the complete transition to the system, a number of Google competitors are salivating at the prospect of taking over the Los Angeles city e-mail system.

It is expected to come to a head this week, when the full City Council gets a report on whether Google is willing to pick up what could be hundreds of thousands in extra costs incurred when the city was unable to transfer over completely to Gmail.

Councilmen Paul Koretz, Bernard Parks and Dennis Zine said they will oppose any further dealings with Google unless it picks up the costs associated with running two e-mail systems.

“If this was a car, the company would have given us a warranty and fixed it,” Zine said. “We haven’t even driven this off the lot and it’s broken down and I am not hearing they will help.”

Read more…