The San Diego County Public Defender’s, together with private criminal defense lawyers and local veterans groups, is reportedly putting together a legislative proposal for the diversion of criminal cases for combat veterans. The Penal Code already provides for alternative sentencing for combat veterans suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance abuse, or psychological problems stemming from “serving in a combat theatre in the United States Military.” The new proposal would go much further in allowing for the diversion of criminal charges for qualifying veterans in the same way that diversion operates for non-violent drug possession offenses. Typically, a diversion qualified drug defendant pleads guilty and sentencing is deferred while the defendant is ordered to complete a treatment program and stay out of trouble for at least 18 months. After successful diversion, the guilty plea is withdrawn and the “arrest is deemed never to have occurred.” Combat veterans who suffer from the above mentioned problems would be allowed diversion in a wide range of cases, from petty theft and burglary to domestic violence. The San Diego criminal justice system has accommodated Vietnam veterans subject to minor prosecutions in the annual Stand Down Court. Accommodating all combat veterans for a broader range of cases is the stated goal of the defense bar. To succeed, the proposal would likely need the support of Office of the District Attorney and law enforcement groups. Hopefully all parties can agree that diversion for combat veterans is in the interests of justice.
Posts Tagged ‘Sentencing’
Roman Polanski has a Fighting Chance and Nothing to Lose
The man famous for his Hollywood movies, murdered wife, and life as a fugitive may be extradited from Switzerland to a Los Angeles, California courtroom. Polanski faces sentencing in a felony sex case over three decades old. He fled the United States jurisdiction after he pleaded guilty and before the sentencing hearing. He has a few options, however.
His lawyer’s first option will be to move to dismiss his case. The misconduct of his judge and a prosecutor in his case provides ample ammunition for a dismissal in the interests of justice.
He may also move to withdraw his plea. The law provides that a criminal defendant may withdraw his or her guilty plea for “good cause.” Good cause is an elastic concept, one that will almost certainly embrace the broken promises made by the judge and the other misconduct pervading his prosecution. Withdrawing his plea has some risks, most obviously that he would face charges substantially more serious charges than the one he is now facing (charges that will carry mandatory prison time – no probation). On the other hand, his attorney may calculate that the D.A. does not have sufficient evidence anymore to prosecute the case to verdict. Polanski would then be in even a better position than he is now – no conviction on his record.
Polanski’s last option is to face the sentencing squarely. Other Los Angeles judges have made favorable findings in his case, even in his absence. Polanski’s attorney can without doubt demonstrate an abundance of reasons that favor probation both as to the offense and the offender. An astute criminal lawyer may conclude, therefore, that the risk of a state prison sentence is very remote, and the likelihood of probation, and credit for time served, is very high.
The prosecution may elect to file a felony charge for failing to appear in court, but this will likely be defeated by their own failure for many years to make any real attempt to bring him to justice.
The battle is far from over, but Polanski is unlikely to suffer any further punishment in this case.
