Reasonable Doubt and its Intricacies

Lucero, PC • Jan 03, 2023

Before a criminal Defendant can be found guilty, the prosecutor must have convinced the fact-finder at trial that the Defendant is guilty “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”. The “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” standard is the highest standard of proof in the American legal system. In civil matters, for example, the standard of proof for the Plaintiff is “By a Preponderance of the Evidence”; in other words, more likely than not.


How is “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” defined?

To be convicted of a criminal charge, the prosecutor must have eliminated every single reasonable doubt in the mind of the fact-finder, and must have done so with respect to every element of every count charged. This is, no doubt, no easy task. The California jury instructions on “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” define it as proof that leaves the fact-finder with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. Typically, it is argued as being proof that leaves the fact-finder believing that they have gotten to the correct conclusion of guilt such that they will never question that decision for the rest of their lives. Again, no easy feat. It is the defense attorney’s job to bring to light whatever doubts there are in the case at trial.


Contact a Pomona Criminal Defense Attorney Today!

If you have a criminal trial coming up, you need an attorney that knows how to expose doubts in your case. Contact Lucero, PC at 213-668-7569 to get started in your case preparation. It is our honor and privilege to be your voice in Court.

Most people are aware that a felony conviction is accompanied by a firearm restriction that lasts for life.

By Lucero, PC • 17 Oct, 2024
Most people are aware that a felony conviction is accompanied by a firearm restriction that lasts for life. What is less well-known, however, is that many misdemeanor convictions also carry with them a firearm restriction. For example, if an individual were convicted of violating Penal Code section 242 – Battery, they would be prohibited from possessing and owning a firearm for ten years. This is due to the conviction’s being classified as a “violent misdemeanor” and the firearm restriction remains even though a battery has no factual nexus to firearms. What is more, even where there is no physical violence involved, a ten-year firearm restriction will be imposed. A person convicted of violating Penal Code section 422 – Criminal Threats will also find themselves unable to possess a firearm for ten years, even though there was no physical violence! A lifetime firearm restriction may result if a defendant is convicted of violating Penal Code section 273.5 – Corporal Injury to a Spouse or Cohabitant, even if conviction is for a misdemeanor violation of that statute. Clearly, the Legislature has taken the approach that any crimes of violence should be taken seriously enough to restrict a person’s right to own and possess firearms, notwithstanding the Second Amendment’s guarantees. If you are concerned about preserving your right to own and possess firearms because of a criminal case, contact our office at (213) 668-7779 to begin your path to preserving your rights.

"Zero Tolerance" policy

By Lucero, PC • 09 Oct, 2024
California has adopted a "Zero Tolerance" policy for dealing with persons under the age of 21 drinking and driving. For example, Vehicle Code section 23136 creates a civil penalty for any person under 21 years of age who drive a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .01% or greater. Violating section 23136 will result in the suspension of the underaged person's driver's license for one year for the first offense. Multiple offenses result in lengthened suspensions. Persons under 21 years of age can be criminally prosecuted if they drive with a blood alcohol content of .05% or more. While only an infraction, any violation of the "Underage DUI" law will result in a mandatory one-year suspension of the driver's license, concomitant fines, and participation in a DUI class if the driver is over the age of 18. Perhaps worse, persons under the age of 21 who drink and drive can still be prosecuted for violations of the adult DUI statutes, typically subsections (a) and (b) of section 23152 of the Vehicle Code, ie, driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a blood alcohol content of .08% or more. In short, there are numerous avenues by which a driver under the age of 21 can create problems for him or herself by drinking and driving. From civil penalties to criminal and administrative punishment, it is no laughing matter. If you are under the age of 21 and facing consequences from drinking and driving, contact our office at  213-668-7569  to get your defense started.

Guilty of a DUI?

By Lucero, PC • 23 Sep, 2024
Even if a jury is convinced you are guilty of a DUI, the necessity defense may negate a prosecutor's ability to obtain a conviction against you. In California, the necessity defense applies if: (1) the defendant acted in an emergency to prevent harm to himself or another; (2) the defendant had no other legal alternative than to commit whatever illegal act they committed; and (3) the defendant believed that act was necessary to prevent the purported harm. The necessity defense applies to DUI cases in many circumstances, such as, driving while under the influence to prevent their child from being taken, or to prevent harm to a loved one who was in danger at the time. The evidence required to establish a necessity defense is complicated and arduous; so, it is very important you retain the services of an experienced trial attorney to properly tell the story to the jury. If the jury is convinced that a person's actions were necessary to prevent the purported harm, unless the prosecutor can dispel that belief, they must find that person not guilty. If you have a DUI or other criminal case where you believe the necessity defense applies, contact our office immediately so we can preserve your future. Contact our office at:  213-668-7569  to schedule a consultation.

"The worst voice you can hear in court is your own"

By Lucero, PC • 23 Sep, 2024
It is often said that "The worst voice you can hear in court is your own." The evidentiary rules in California permit admissions of a party to the lawsuit if offered into evidence by the opposing party. That means that a prosecutor can use just about any statement a defendant makes at trial, assuming it is relevant to the issues of the case. Even if the defendant is not being interrogated by law enforcement at the time the statement is made, the prosecutor can use their statements as evidence of guilt. That means that any off-color remark can and will be used against the defendant at trial. A defendant's statements can also be utilized by a prosecutor when they are made to an informant, such as is done in a Perkins operation. A Perkins operation is executed when law enforcement places an informant into custody with the defendant with the intent of eliciting incriminating statements that will later be used at trial. Anything the defendant says to the Perkins informant is fair game. As one can imagine, those statements are not typically helpful for the defense. If you have concerns about things you have said for your criminal case, contact our office to get you the protection you need.

Investigation for Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

By Lucero, PC • 23 Sep, 2024
During an investigation for Driving Under the Influence (DUI), more often than not, an officer will ask they subject they are investigating whether they will subject themselves to blowing into a device called a Preliminary Alcohol Screening Device, "PAS" for short. What most people do not know, nor do most officers communicate it, is that the "PAS" is completely, 100% voluntary, and there is absolutely no penalty, be it administrative or legal, in not submitting to the Preliminary Alcohol Screening Test. This begs the question then, why do people do it? Well, persons being investigated for DUI are usually nervous, unaware they can refuse to submit to the test, and want to "play ball" in the hopes that the officer will appreciate their cooperation. It is not all that often that an officer, without probing, volunteers to the person being investigated that the PAS test is voluntary. A PAS test cannot be compelled by the officer and the person submitting to it must consent to it. The usual interaction goes something like this: Officer: "Would you mind blowing into this machine so I can know if you've been drinking?" Driver: "No, I don't mind." What the driver doesn't know here is that he or she is well within their right to refuse this test. Ultimately, if a case is filed against the driver, he may have just helped the prosecutor secure a conviction. If you need help with your DUI case, contact our office immediately to discuss your options.

DUI Checkpoints

By Lucero, PC • 23 Sep, 2024
Checkpoints are often used by law enforcement to enforce Driving Under the Influence laws. In the context of everyday life, a law enforcement officer is not permitted to just stop and detain a person without first having probable cause to believe that person has committed a crime, save for few delineated exceptions. Because police officers cannot just stop people without probable cause, one would think checkpoints are illegal, but they're not. The Supreme Court for the State of California has previously ruled checkpoints do, in fact, pass Constitutional muster assuming the prosecution can establish that the checkpoint's procedures, placement, and advance publicity satisfy certain factors. The method of challenging a DUI checkpoint is by filing a motion to suppress which would then require the prosecutor to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the warrantless detention (ie., the checkpoint stop) was permissible and Constitutional. This is no easy feat. It often requires multiple witnesses, documents, and a morning's long hearing. It is imperative that you understand your rights if you are cited or arrested after having been stopped during a checkpoint. Contact our office today at  213-668-7569  to ensure you are protected.

"Not Guilty" Plea to Felony: Preliminary Hearing

By Lucero, PC • 23 Sep, 2024
After entering a "Not Guilty" plea to felony charges, the first time the government's case will be tested is at the preliminary hearing, also known as the preliminary examination in some jurisdictions. At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution must convince the judge overseeing the hearing that the defendant is guilty of the charges alleged against him by the standard of probable cause. In theory, that means the judge must be convinced that facts were presented at the hearing that would lead a person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe the guilt of the defendant. In practice, however, this standard will usually be satisfied as long as the prosecution presents a warm body to say what they need them to say. In short, probable cause is a very low standard and the government usually succeeds in having the defendant held to answer. This is entirely different than the standard of proof required to obtain a guilty verdict at trial, which is the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Because it is the first time anyone will see the evidence in the case, it is very important the defense attorney present a compelling case at the preliminary hearing for the purpose of improving their client's position at the bargaining table. If your preliminary hearing is upcoming, call our office at  213-668-7569  to get your defense started.

After An Arrest

By Lucero, PC • 23 Sep, 2024
After an arrest law enforcement may only continue questioning a suspect if they obtain the arrestee's consent. To obtain their consent, the law enforcement officers must admonish the arrestee of his or her "Miranda" rights, which include, but are not limited to, the right to an attorney before an after questioning. Should the arrestee elect to speak with the officers after having been so admonished, it is colloquially referred to as the arrestee's "Mirandized" statement. In most instances, at least some of the "Mirandized" statement will be admissible at trial. In other instances, however, law enforcement actions taken after the "Miranda" admonition will render the statement involuntary. If the judge presiding over the trial deems the "Mirandized" statement involuntary, the prosecution is barred from using any of its contents at trial. This includes its use for impeachment purposes - a major blow for the prosecution if the arrestee-defendant elects to testify. In order to make such a finding that a Mirandized statement was involuntary, judges usually look to whether the police engaged in coercive activity which includes "psychological coercion" and other activity that "offends the community's sense of fair play and decency". The lack of a bright line rule makes this topic hard to navigate. A skilled attorney is absolutely essential to giving you the tools you need to protect your rights. Contact our office at  213-668-7569  to discuss your Miranda statement.

The Ham Sandwich: An Indictment

13 Jan, 2023
In 1985, Sol Wachtler, then the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the State of New York, famously opined that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if asked to do so. This statement was itself an indictment on how easily prosecutors were able to obtain indictments from the grand jury. In theory, the grand jury system was put in place for the protection of individual citizens against unwarranted and unsupported prosecutions. Justice Wachtler apparently believed the protection insufficient for its stated purpose. Justice Wachtler's true gripe has to do with the standard of proof required to obtain the indictment: Probable Cause. How is Probable Cause Achieved? Probable Cause will be achieved so long as the prosecutor is able to convince the grand jury that facts exist such that a reasonable person would believe a crime has been committed and that the Defendant committed the crime. In practice, this standard will bet met so long as the prosecutor can present at least one witness to testify to the alleged incident and establish the perpetrator as being the Defendant. Indeed, this is not a high burden to meet. Hence, even a ham sandwich is susceptible to being indicted and prosecuted. Contact an Experienced Pomona Criminal Defense Attorney If you have concerns about a criminal matter, contact our office at  213-668-7779  to get ahead of the issue.

Complaint, Indictment, Information – What's the Diff?

By Lucero, PC • 04 Jan, 2023
In California, there are three types of accusatory criminal filings: Complaint Indictment Information  What is a Complaint? A Complaint is a document filed with a court indicating that on a date certain, the Defendant committed a crime. The prosecution can file a Complaint without any input from any other entity, so long as they have a good faith belief that the charges contained in the Complaint are supported by “Probable Cause”. Probable Cause and Filing an Information “Probable Cause” serves as a litmus test for the provability of a criminal charge lodged against a Defendant. It can be defined as supported by facts that lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has occurred. After the Complaint is filed, the test of Probable Cause is given before a magistrate at a Preliminary Hearing. There is no jury at the Preliminary Hearing, just a judge. If the prosecution convinces a judge that there is Probable Cause to support the charges, the prosecution must then file an “Information”. What is an Indictment? An indictment, on the other hand, is not decided to be filed by the prosecution, but rather the grand jury. The prosecution will present evidence to the grand jury in attempts to convince them that the Defendant committed certain crimes, again by the standard of Probable Cause. If the prosecution succeeds, the grand jury will issue the Indictment. If any criminal filing has been made against you, call our Pomona office at  213-668-7779  to get working on your defense.
More Posts
Share by: