"... outgoing and friendly..." H.A.
January 6th, 2010
Domestic Violence arrests are on the increase. As any experienced police officer knows, the holidays bring a rise in family violence calls. And, California law encourages an arrest of all suspected Domestic Violence offenders, and requires an arrest if probable cause exists to support an arrest.
Domestic Violence has the highest repeat rate of any crime. Many victims, although willing to make a report of Domestic Violence, legitimately or otherwise, in a rage of anger, refuse to give evidence against a partner in a criminal prosecution.
Conviction for a Domestic Violence or a Domestic Violence related offense can have very serious consequences for even the first time offender including jail time, long term formal probation, long term anger management counseling, a presumption against custody in Family Court child custody proceedings, a criminal record, and other consequences. In order to minimize the consequences of a Domestic Violence arrest contact Bernard P. Bray (408) 292-9700.
Once filed, Domestic Violence cases are aggressively prosecuted in California and you should only be represented by an experienced attorney prepared to fight your case. I have 26 years of experience handling Domestic Violence cases. They are difficult cases oftentimes presenting many complex issues. However, there is a lot that an attorney can do for a client and their family brought into court facing a Domestic Violence case.
Domestic Violence and Domestic Violence related charges can result from even the simple use of any type of force on the person of a spouse, significant other, child, or one with whom an accused has been involved in a dating relationship. If you or a loved one have been arrested for Domestic Violence, protect yourself to the fullest extent possible, contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney Bernard P. Bray and learn your options before you go to court. It can make all the difference in the outcome of your case.
January 6th, 2010
It is not unusual for persons still in denial following an arrest to proceed to court alone under the mistaken impression that they do not need a lawyer at their first court appearance, or that they can handle it themselves. They could not be more mistaken. Unaware of potential legal consequences and pitfalls, it is a 50-50 proposition, that appearing at a first court appearance in a criminal case without a lawyer is going to result in a bad decision, and that same may ultimately have an impact on the outcome of a case.
A first court appearance on a criminal charge is what is known as an arraignment. At the time of an arraignment one accused of a crime is provided with notice of the charges, notice of their constitutional rights, and is usually expected to immediately make certain decisions as to how some logistical matters will be handled, such as if they intend to assert their right to a speedy trial, enter a plea or defer same, or make any special requests, such as a bail reduction or a release on their own recognizance.
The situation is extremely stressful, in particular for an in custody arrestee, and arrestees not represented by a lawyer. People oftentimes go into court thinking they are going to be given the opportunity to explain what brought them to their current circumstances, only getting, at most, a brief one sided dialogue with a Judge, and then its over. In Santa Clara County in custody arrestees on misdemeanor cases are often brought before a Superior Court Judge and offered the opportunity right at the gate, to plead guilty, and get out of jail. Under such circumstances even factually innocent people, faced with the prospect of job loss, home loss, the further hardship to family members that incarceration entails, sometimes jump at the chance to immediately plead guilty, and get out of the horror of jail, not even realizing that they perhaps would have otherwise been entitled to a bail reduction or own recognizance release, that would have given them the opportunity to get out of jail pending trial, and adequately prepare an appropriate defense.
One has the right to be represented by an attorney at their arraignment in court, and one is best advised to take advantage of that right. Everyone should agree that if you have been seriously injured in an accident, one is ill advised to refuse the ambulance ride to the hospital. Similarly, if one is faced with something as potentially life compromising as the consequences of a criminal charge one should seek out the professional help of an experienced criminal defense lawyer. The San Jose Mercury News recently reported that in a recent study of 246 random resisting arrest cases in Santa Clara County, at least 47% of the persons represented by an attorney were able to avoid conviction on the charged offense, as opposed to 10% of those without an attorney.
If you or a loved one have been arrested, protect yourself to the fullest extent possible, contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney Bernard P. Bray and learn your options before you go to court. It can make all the difference in the outcome of your case.
December 29th, 2009
California law allows employers to inquire of potential employees their criminal histories that have resulted in conviction, or of pending charges for which a potential employee is out on bail or his own recognizance pending trial.
Inquires about arrests and detentions, that did not result in conviction, are prohibited, including convictions for certain marijuana related offenses more than two years old, inquiries about convictions that have been expunged, sealed, or eradicated, and inquires about certain misdemeanor convictions for which probation has been completed, or otherwise discharged, and the case dismissed.
Notwithstanding these laws affording employment seekers some protection from the disclosure of improper arrests, I am often contacted by persons complaining about lost employment opportunities because an employer has become aware of an otherwise, not subject not to disclosure, arrest that was dismissed or for which they successfully completed a diversion program, or for which they obtained an expungement after successfully completing probation.
While the law provides damages for an arrest background inquiry that results in actual damages, or a nominal recovery for such a violation, the costs involved in pursuing same may be prohibitive.
The problem with arrest histories is that they are publicly accessible and often times end up in court files that are also publicly accessible, notwithstanding the ultimate outcome in any particular case. This information will get picked up in even the simplest of background checks.
The only meaningful way to protect oneself from the potentially catastrophic lifelong untoward consequences of an arrest is to vigorously defend oneself from the outset.
If you or a loved one has been arrested, protect yourself to the fullest extent possible, contact San Jose Criminal Defense Attorney Bernard P. Bray and learn your options. It can make all the difference in the outcome of your case.
October 25th, 2009
Celebrity and entertainment website TMZ.com recently posted pictures depicting California’s First Lady Maria Shriver twice breaking California’s law against using a hand held cell phone while driving.
Marie Shriver’s husband Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed off in 2008 on the law that requires all California drivers to use hands free mobile phones while driving.
The law is one that many, not just Governor Schwarzenegger’s wife, have more honored in the breach than in the observance. Is a law that is more often broken than observed really a good law at all? California drivers can do just about anything else possible, and legally, while driving.
There does not appear to be a ground swell for support for changing the law prohibiting cell phone use while driving. Governor Schwarzenegger promised swift action in response to his wife’s law violations, and the California First lady has apologized.
If you or someone you know has questions regarding criminal justice issues please contact San Jose DUI Lawyer Bernard P. Bray.
October 21st, 2009
Six year old first grader Zachary Christie was recently suspended from Downes Elementary School in Newark Delaware for bringing a camping eating utensil to school. He was initially faced with the prospect of a 45 day commitment to reform school for his transgression.
In previous blog entries I addressed the Milpitas California High School Official’s decision to bar from high school graduation ceremonies a student who had broken up an on school campus fight in the name of maintaining the integrity of the school district’s zero tolerance policy on campus violence, and the United States Supreme Court’s decision of early this year in Safford School District v. Redding, where the court deemed unreasonable a strip search of a 13 year old girl alleged to have been in possession of ibuprofen.
Enough of zero tolerance yet? The Newark Delaware School District Board voted to amend the district’s zero tolerance policy allowing for a less draconian punishment for Zachary of three to five days of suspension, rather than the initially indicated reform school commitment. To accommodate Zachary the amendment to the policy was made retroactive to the beginning of the school year.
Are schools really moving forward? Is this a signal of the beginning of the end of zero judgment, zero tolerance for school culture in the United States?
If you or someone you know has questions regarding criminal justice issues and youth please contact the San Jose Juvenile Lawyers at the Law Offices of Bernard P. Bray.
