Friday, May 28, 2010

Santa Barbara News Press recap from current "Alleged Gang" Crime. Is the process even legal?

Are you aware the Carachure defendents could also be retired for the same crimes in Federal Court? Look at the bottom of this posting!

Has your defnse Attorney already informed you of this possability?

Santa Barbara News Press Story Thursday May 26, 2010

“Trial begins in case of four accused in fatal Stabbing”

Raul Junior Diaz Attorney Sam Eaton Allegedly hits victim with Tire Iron

Ruben Mize Attorney Joe Allen Allegedly Stabs Victim in Neck

Bryan Steven Medinilla Attorney James Crowder Allegedly stabs victim in stomach

Ricardo Manuel Nava Attorney Neil Levinson

Unnamed Informant in this story August 10th 2007

Wears a wire 04/01/2008

Informant already gave of information why the wire and why the delay

Emilio Mora co defendant had already taken a deal 19 years plus

Santa Barbara News Press Thursday May 27,2010

“Witness describes events in fatal stabbing of 16 year old “

Arrest made May 2008 for crime committed July 16th 2007

A pick up comes by takes the 4 accused defendants and Mr. Mora.

Mr. Mora and Mr. Raul Junior Diaz ride in bed of truck

First Mr. Mora Claims to see from bed of truck and claims B.S. Medinilla and Mr. Nava have knives in first column paragraph 7 of this story. Driver stays in truck 5 accused get out of vehicle. Mr. Mora shows police were knives were thrown, but there is no mention if they have been recovered or tested? Now in column 3 paragraph 5 Mr. Mora now claims Mr. Nava did not have a knife and contradicts his own testimony.

Santa Barbara Independent Crime week of May 20th-27th 2010

Four Stand Trial for Murder of Lorenzo Carachure

Mize faces 5 charges in the Carachure case Alone.

Carlos Diaz now mentioned as driver and has struck a deal.

Chris Diaz now mentioned as Robert Mize’s cousin and informant in the witness protection program.

Talk of a wire worn by informant but no mention of documentation stating wire was legal and turned in as supporting documentation. Mr. Chris Diaz also had a duel role in being an informant for Gator Role as well.. Which brings me to this question; If the R.I.C.O, act had already been established and this and Mr Nava’ prior plea deal for attempted murder fall under G.R. why is this not a federal case for some or all of these involved.. I mean we have being a “Soldier” under Gator Roll but not Murder?

Reference Material in regards to Ricardo Nava accepting a plea deal for a crime committed as a minor? “THE STORY READS “ Three Eastside gang members – Omar Ramos Erick Roman and Ricardo Nava- all pleaded guilty to attempted murder with a gang enhancement and were sentenced in Santa Barbara Superior Court on 1/25. Ramos was sentenced to twenty years, both for the aforementioned charges and for a gang strike. Roman received a total of 17 years 8 months and Nava’s sentencing will have him in prison for the rest of 19 years. According to prosecutor Hans Almgren the three attacked a rival Westside gang member on the 600 block of Del Monte Avenue on June 28th 2007” END OF INDEPENTDENT STORY

Now the reason I have taken the time to review just the first 2 days of court is this. With the Corruption and track record of our Santa Barbara District Attorney Office in regards to alleged Gang Crimes and our star witness Karen Adkins. Will she be available to testify to her Superior Court Documented charges of misconduct against the Santa Barbara Superior Court and district Attorney prosecutors. Having said that can we really trust the defense these defendants are receiving? Not one change of venue request? Resisting out side counsel to help in the defense of these defendants?. The constant and there is no other way to say this “FABRICATION” of any kind of data used in this county to distort the facts and false accusations made in the Media to lie to the public.

Defendants' Rights During a Court Trial: The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights promises fair treatment and constitutional rights for criminal defendants.

Right to Adequate Representation

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that both indigent defendants who are represented by appointed counsel and defendants who hire their own attorneys are entitled to adequate representation -- that is, to have a lawyer who does a reasonably good job at defending the defendant.

However, adequate representation is by no means perfect representation. Here are examples of claims that defendants have made to get their guilty verdicts thrown out but that appellate courts have rejected:

· the attorney failed to call favorable witnesses at trial

· the attorney failed to object to a judge's mistaken instructions to jurors concerning the burden of proof

· the attorney repeatedly advised a defendant who claimed innocence to plead guilty

· the attorney used cocaine during the time the representation took place, and

· the attorney represented the defendant while being suspended from the practice of law for failure to pay state bar dues.

On the other hand, circumstances can be sufficiently shocking to justify throwing out a guilty verdict based on an attorney's incompetence. Judges have ruled that the following claims justify a reversal of a guilty verdict:

· the attorney put a law student intern in charge of the defense and left the courtroom while the case was going on

· during closing arguments, the attorney acknowledged that the defendant was guilty of a lesser crime without first securing the defendant's approval of this tactic, and

· during voir dire (questioning of the jury), the attorney failed to challenge two potential jurors who said they would be bothered by the defendant's failure to testify

Inclosing I leave you with this thought. Are these and other defendants being set up for the same charges only in Federal Court based on the past R.I.C.O. act and Gator Roll. It can happen so please read below. Now if they have some type of plea deal in place was the defendant advised and protected from this happening?

Right Not to Be Placed in Double Jeopardy

Among the clauses of the Fifth Amendment is this well-known provision: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This provision, known as the double jeopardy clause, protects defendants from harassment by preventing them from being put on trial more than once for the same offense. Double jeopardy problems are unusual, because prosecutors usually want to wrap up all their charges at one time in the same case.

One important exception to the rule against double jeopardy is that defendants can properly be charged for the same conduct by different sovereigns. For example, a defendant may face charges in both federal and state court for the same conduct if some aspects of that conduct violated federal laws while other elements ran afoul of the laws of the state.

Furthermore, the double jeopardy clause forbids more than one criminal prosecution growing out of the same conduct. A defendant can be brought once to criminal court (by the government) and once to civil court (by members of the public) for the same offense.

For a comprehensive guide that answers your questions about every part of a criminal case, get The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by Paul Bergman and Sara J. Berman (Nolo).

I would like to post this but will wait for feed back from others.

No comments: