The Ham Sandwich: An Indictment
January 13, 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 213-668-7569 to get ahead of the issue.
A client facing serious felony charges avoided prison time and a felony record thanks to a strong defense strategy.
If you were recently arrested for DUI in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, or anywhere in Southern California, you are likely dealing with two separate cases at once
Being arrested for DUI is one of the most stressful experiences a person can face.
Earlier this year, attorney Christopher Lucero secured a significant victory for a client facing extremely serious charges, including attempted murder and assault.
Think a couple drinks is fine? Discover 5 dangerous DUI myths in California that can lead to license suspension, fines, and jail. Former DA turned DUI defense attorney Christopher Lucero debunks them.
In felony cases, the difference between a life sentence and a fixed term can turn on preparation, timing, and the willingness of both sides to engage in negotiation.
The California State Assembly recently passed Assembly Bill 366 which would mandate the installation of Ignition Interlock Devices for all persons convicted of driving under the influence, including first-time offenders. An Ignition Interlock Device prevents a car from starting unless and until the driver blows into the device with no detectable amount of alcohol on his or her breath. The devices' manufacturers would be required to adopt a specified fee schedule for the costs of the device, relative to and commensurate with, the convicted driver's income. Interestingly, the Ignition Interlock Device provider is responsible for absorbing the remaining costs not paid by the convicted driver. The mandatory installation of an Ignition Interlock Device and its concomitant costs to even first-time DUI convictions is a hefty penalty that drivers should be aware of. If passed in the Senate, which should be expected, the law could go into effect as early as January of 2026. Contact our office at 213-668-7569 to discuss how to handle your DUI matter.
The California State Assembly recently voted on and passed AB-1231, "The Safer Communities Through Opportunity Act". The bill must still pass through the Senate, but, if signed into law, would offer defendants charged with felonies the opportunity to enter into a term of diversion. Upon successful completion of the term of diversion, the defendant's case would be dismissed and the arrest for the alleged felony offense would be deemed to have never occurred. The maximum length of felony diversion is twenty-four months from the date of admission. The Court would impose certain requirement upon the defendant, which would be expected to be satisfied. If not satisfied, the Court may reinitiate criminal proceedings. Certain enumerated offenses are excluded from eligibility into diversion, including, but not limited to, offenses that would require the defendant to register per section 290 of the Penal Code, felony DUI, and felony domestic violence. As it stands, only felonies that are punishable by up to three years' imprisonment are eligible for diversion. The law could go into effect as early as January, 2026. If you are facing a felony charge and interested in diversion for your felony matter, contact our office to discuss.
In California, defendants charged with misdemeanors may file a motion for what is colloquially referred to as "judicial diversion". Beginning in 2021, judicial diversion permitted bench officers to divert misdemeanor cases. In so doing, the judge will require the defendant to complete several tasks over a specified period of time. Upon completion of the terms, the judge is required to dismiss the case; the dismissal will happen even if the District Attorney or other prosecuting agency disagrees or objects. Judicial diversion provides great benefits to defendants as they do not have to plead guilty or no contest to any crime. Certain misdemeanors are precluded from judicial diversion, including: 1. domestic violence charges; 2. any charge requiring the defendant to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290; and 3. driving under the influence. Judges are not required to grant a defendant's motion for judicial diversion. In the event such a motion is granted, however, the maximum term length is two years from the date of admission. If you are facing misdemeanor charges, contact our office today to discuss a possible grant of judicial diversion.
In civil matters, Requests for Admissions are a form of written discovery that require the responding party to admit or deny certain facts that are pertinent to the lawsuit. The party propounding the Requests for Admissions may serve them by way of e-mail (assuming the parties agree to this form of service) or U.S. Mail. If the responding party has an attorney, the subject discovery must be served on the party's attorney. Within thirty (30) days of service of the Requests for Admissions, the responding party must serve written responses under oath. If the responding party fails to respond within the thirty-day timeline, the Court may deem the matters contained in the Requests for Admissions admitted. This has severe impacts on the party as it may preclude the party from offering certain defenses or evidence favorable to them, or cause them to lose the lawsuit, altogether. As the issues involved and information sought in Requests for Admissions are particularly sensitive, you must have an attorney assist with this form of discovery.