Blog Jay Leiderman Law

Author Archives: Jay Leiderman

On 20 July 2000, the state court of appeal for the Fourth District announced its opinion in People v. Giardino, 82 Cal.App.4th 454 (2000), holding that Penal Code section “261(a)(3) proscribes sexual intercourse with a person who is not capable of giving consent because of intoxication.” Id. at 462.[1] Thus, it was perfectly clear as […]

A Petitioner is entitled to competent privately retained counsel on Habeas Corpus. (In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 780)  In addition to that, here, the ineffective assistance of counsel has denied the petitioner access to the courts.  The ineffective assistance of counsel claimed denied petitioner actual access to courts including the trial court, the […]

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 Jay Leiderman on Russia Today Discussing DDoS as Protest Speech Demanding the right to digitally protest: Hacktivists petition the White House to legalize DDoS  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idJbKusVBBc#t=14  Another wonderful article by Andy Panda Blake accompanied this RT story on DDoS as protected speech.  The title is above, here is the unabridged text.  Thanks […]

A client that is seeking to flee the jurisdiction must be advised of the consequences of flight — including being tried, convicted and sentenced in absentia and losing all appellate rights under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.  See In re Ivker, BD-2004-034 (Mass. 2004): “While helping a client concoct perjurious testimony is a direct fraud on […]

The probation report filed in this case was correct that petitioner was entitled to the actual credits in the amount of 743 days for the days he spent at home under house arrest, wearing an ankle monitor, during his pre-trial confinement. In People v. Anaya (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 608, the court stated that “Section 1203.016 […]