Blog Jay Leiderman Law

Jay Leiderman quoted in the Daily Dot 25 August 2016.  Jay is a frequent commentator in various forms of media.  He is regarded as an expert in the computer fraud and abuse act (CFAA) codified at 18 USC 1030.

Here’s how much prison time the Leslie Jones hackers could face if they’re caught (Jay Leiderman quoted)
Dell Cameron — Aug 25 at 2:38PM | Last updated Aug 25 at 2:38PM

Jay Leiderman quoted

Comedian Leslie Jones starred in the remake of Ghostbusters and is part of the Saturday Night Live cast. She has been the target of a lot of racial hate and trolling in recent months and now her website has been hacked.

Jay Leiderman quoted: Here, Jay gives an opinion as to what charges hackers might face if they are arrested and convicted of hacking SNL/Ghostbusters star Leslie Jones.  Some pertinent quotes:

Jay Leiderman, a California-based attorney known as the “hacktivist advocate” for his work defending online activists, told the Daily Dot that, if caught, the criminal hackers could “theoretically” face more than 30 years in prison.


“Whomever did the hack could likely have liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,” said Leiderman, who also worked on one of the Celebgate cases, which involved the theft and unauthorized publication of hundreds of celebrity nude photos.

If this can be construed as a hate crime, the punishment will be increased by one year


Since Jones’ private information was among the data stolen, the government may also pursue identity theft charges—which, according to Leiderman, “carries a two-year mandatory minimum and 15-year maximum because one of the documents involved is a US passport.”


“If this can be construed as a hate crime, the punishment will be increased by one year,” the lawyer added, emphasizing his assessment was based on a cursory review of publicly available details.

Read the full story here.

Jay Leiderman quoted

“Hacktivist’s Advocate” and California State Bar Certified Criminal Law Specialist Jay Leiderman


twitter Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

Avoid the pitfalls of hiring the wrong attorney; learn how to hire a great criminal defense lawyer

Encountering the criminal justice system can be one of the most challenging and stressful periods of your life.  Selecting the right criminal defense lawyer for yourself or a friend or family member can be one of the most difficult parts of any criminal investigation, arrest or charges. Likewise, it stands out as easily the most vital. It is important that you locate a skillful and respectable lawyer whom you can trust to work with during. There are a few things to consider when searching for a lawyer.  After reading these 7 tips, you should be ready to hire a great criminal defense lawyer!

hire a great criminal defense attorney

Navigating the maze of lawyers available to hire for a criminal case can be tricky



  1. Be Cautious about “Top Search Results” and Flashy Marketing

Many internet marketing companies tell lawyers that they will “guarantee their website to be on the first page of Google.”

An internet search simply won’t do.  Lawyers today pay for something called “SEO” or Search Engine Optimization.  What SEO does is it tricks the Google ranking program, known as its algorithm, into putting their site at or near first.  It is the same as when lawyers used to name their practices AAA Legal Services just so that they could be at the front of the Yellow Pages.  Whether a lawyer’s page comes up high in a google search tells you nothing about their skill.  In fact, if they need to push their website up in search results – watch out!   They may not have the skill or reputation to get clients any other way!

Try not to be attracted by garish promoting plans or guarantees of some achievement. In fact, criminal defense lawyers are prohibited by ethics rules from guaranteeing any result.  Be suspicious of any lawyer who ensures you a particular result in a criminal case.  Consider this: In Ventura, California, if you plead guilty to a DUI, you get one of the two charges dismissed.  In fact, some lawyers advertise that they GUARANTEE they can get a charge dismissed for you.  Well of course they can!  You could get the charge dismissed by representing yourself!  Accordingly, be wary of guarantees.  A lawyer’s work and effort should speak for itself.

Be careful about lawyers who need a lot of cash in advance to handle a case just through beginning procedures.  Fees should be laid out in advance and are required to be in writing if the total value of the contract is expected to exceed $1,000.00.  A lawyer is required to give you a copy of this contract.

Don’t just use Google to search for “criminal defense lawyers” or “criminal lawyers” or “medical marijuana defense attorneys in Ventura.”  Once you find a few that you may be interested in calling, google their names separately.  Does more than their website show up?  Do you see State Bar Discipline?  Are their positive or negative reviews?  Is there even MORE advertising?

Legal cases often attract media attention.  Typically any lawyer that has practiced for a few years will have some newspaper articles about his or her cases.  Read them.  Winning or losing is not necessarily important, it is how strong the defense was.  Some cases have confessions, video evidence and strong witnesses.  So look in the article for how hard the defense fought, or if they were creative, or whether they got a good sentence for the client.

After a full internet search, you should have cut through much of the flash and are ready to dive into the substance.  You’ve now completed the first step in how to hire a great criminal defense lawyer.

   2.  Specialist Agencies/Bar affiliations

First, you can look for a lawyer who practices in the particular field that you need.  There are Criminal Law Specialists, as certified by the State Bar of California’s Board of Legal Specialization.  These lawyers have passed an additional test and have been subject to review by Judges, prosecutors, their peers and a review panel.  Often you will determine that this is the best attorney for you, as they are backed by the State Bar.

Some lawyers handle all manner of cases and only do criminal defense sometimes.  Sometimes, a lawyer will say he or she  represents criminal defendants but has not handled a criminal case in years – – or ever!

If you are accused of a wrongdoing that could end up with you having a criminal record, you require somebody who is an accomplished and legitimate master of the courtroom. There are a few ways you can start your quest for the lawyer who will best address your issues. As mentioned above, you can go to the State Bar website and search for Certified Specialists in your area.  You can also call the local bar associations and ask for referrals to trusted counsel.

Often the best way to find a lawyer is to request a referral from someone that has used one in the past and was satisfied with the work that attorney performed.

You’ve now completed the second step in how to hire a great criminal defense lawyer.

     3. Excellent Communication Skills

Developing an attorney client relationship is the most critical part of defending your case as it progresses through the court system.  This point is simple: Does your lawyer listen to you?  Did the lawyer answer all of your questions at the first meeting?  Did he or she take time to explain how legal proceedings work and what to expect when you show up for court?  Did you discuss strategy or goals?  Will you be able to speak with the attorney, and not his or her staff, when you have a question?  How long can you expect it to take for the attorney to call you back?

Did you leave the meeting feeling rushed or were you made to feel as though your case was already important to the attorney?

Hire a great criminal defense attorney

Perhaps most importantly – will the attorney be in court for every one of your court dates, or will he or she send a “stand in”?  Will the attorney assign the case to a junior associate and not work on your case?

Moreover, do you feel as though the attorney can reasonably communicate your needs and wants to the prosecutor and judge?  Can he or she be forceful when needed and gentle when needed?

Does the attorney appear ethical?  Believe it or not, some attorneys ask clients to fabricate witnesses and testimony.  If a lawyer is willing to be dishonest with the court, the lawyer is willing to be dishonest with you.

You’ve now completed the third step in how to hire a great criminal defense lawyer.

     4.  The Lawyer’s Experience 

Some lawyers specialize in particular areas of criminal defense.  For example, some lawyers handle DUI cases exclusively.  This is great if you have a DUI, but isn’t helpful if you have an assault case.

Ask the lawyer who you are interviewing what their experience is.  Discuss other cases they have handled and what the results were.  Have they ever tried a murder case all the way through jury verdict?  That will tell you a lot about the lawyer’s experience right there.  When a lawyer has handled a murder case from beginning to end, that lawyer will often possess all the skills necessary to go to court on your case.

When was the last jury trial the lawyer did?  How many cases has the lawyer ever handled?  How many cases do they handle at any one time?  A lawyer that takes too many cases at any one time cannot give you enough attention.

You’ve now completed the fourth step in how to hire a great criminal defense lawyer.

  1. Potential expenses the case

The expense of a lawyer should be determined by how complex a case is. Lawyers will ordinarily request a retainer upfront.  It is important to ask what the fee covers and what it does not cover.  Most felony retainers, for example, cover the period from arraignment to a preliminary hearing and a second contract with a second retainer is often needed for the period from the preliminary hearing through trial.   Criminal case are ordinarily charged by a flat fee, meaning that there is no hourly charge.  Be careful, as some lawyers charge an initial flat fee and then try to charge an hourly fee thereafter.  This will add great expense to the case.

Some lawyers charge a fee from the beginning of the case to the beginning of trial or even through trial.  This is the standard for misdemeanor cases, but it tends to be a great bonus if you can secure that contract in a felony case.  It shows that the lawyer has a commitment to the case that will endure past the initial stages.

Perhaps the most important thing to note is this: Lawyers that advertise heavily and are much cheaper than other lawyers tend to have so many cases that they cannot spend enough time on your case, nor can they give your case the attention it deserves.  Beware of this.  In law, as in other areas, you get what you pay for.  Your criminal defense lawyer may be the most important expenditure of money you ever make.  Cutting corners on costs may cost you more in terms of your freedom than the money savings is worth.

You’ve now completed the first step in how to hire a great criminal defense lawyer.

  1. The Consultation Process

It is best to have a face to face meeting to figure out whether you feel comfortable with the lawyer. Meet the legal counselor and see if you can trust in his or her abilities.  Ask about a plan for your case.  Discuss your goals.  It is always wise to meet with more than one lawyer to ensure you are selecting the best one for you.

Hiire a great criminal defense attorney

One thing that is important to look out for is a lawyer that oversells himself or herself.  Some lawyers claim to be ex-District Attorneys and profess to have a special relationship with the prosecution.  First, this implies that special “favors” are done behind the scenes.  This simply isn’t the case.  Moreover, it is a direct statement that prosecutors are “crooked.”  They can lost their jobs by doing “favors” for lawyers.  Simply put, no one gets special treatment simply because of an out of court friendship with a prosecutor.

Worse yet, some lawyers claim that because they know the judges that they will get you a special deal.  Once again, this implies that judges are “crooked” and that they are willing to risk their careers to do a favor on every case just because they know  an attorney.  That simply isn’t the case.

Additionally, once a lawyer has been around a courthouse long enough, they know all the judges and prosecutors anyway.  The idea that judges would do one person a favor isn’t well taken in that if judges and prosecutors do a favor for one person they are likely to do it for everyone they have come to know well over the years.  Accordingly, taking this to its logical conclusion, judges and prosecutors would be doing favors on every case for everyone that they are friends with.  That is a ridiculous idea.  It simply isn’t true.

Beware of someone that claims that they will get special favors.

Another thing to consider is that ex-prosecutors used to try to lock defendants up.  Lawyers that have been defense attorneys their whole careers have never worked to incarcerate individuals accused of crimes. Why would you hire someone who at one time worked hard to jail someone for the very crime for which you or your loved one is now being accused? Is that person one who believes in you and your case? Do they truly care about your rights? Did they care about them when they used to tell the judge to lock someone just like you up?

You’ve now completed the sixth step in how to hire a great criminal defense lawyer.

  1. Make sure to impart your data to Lawyer

Once you tell your lawyer what you believe the facts are in your particular case, ask the lawyer how he or she would approach your case.  Together, you should try to find out as much information as you can to gain the best result.  This will often mean gathering witnesses and documents, as well as other data.  Is your lawyer familiar with changing technology?  Many cases today can be won by using computers and technology to prove a defendant not guilty of a crime.  Using technology is often part of developing a creative defense that may win your case.

The more data you can offer a criminal defense attorney, the more precisely the legal counselor can offer to speak to you.

In a nutshell it is safe to say make an effort not to rush the choice of a lawyer. Find the best attorney you can.  Give yourself an opportunity to think about your choices. You ought to feel comfortable with the lawyer’s experience, reputation and your ability to communicate with him or her. That way you can be confident that your lawyer can get you the best result for your case.



Rachel Stinson Dubai Legal Blog tips for selecting criminal defense attorneys lawyers

Blogger Rachel Stinson

About The Author

Rachel Stinson has always had a knack for writing, food, fashion, and travel. Blogging has combined all four for her with an added bonus of bringing her enthusiastic audiences. Lately she has been working with Dubai law firms where she expresses her opinions in an unhesitating, engaging manner for all types of legal matters about Law Firms in Dubai like AlHanaee, for example.  This is her first foray into blogging about American lawyers, and she has partnered with Jay Leiderman Law to bring the reader helpful information about how to select the right criminal lawyer.


(Photo credits: Shutterstock)

twitter Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail


Count 17, if not dismissed for want of overt action, should be dismissed on the alternative basis that the prosecutor failed to present evidence on the element of specific intent.  Count 17 alleges a conspiracy to assault with a firearm in violation of Penal Code § 245(a)(2).[1]  (Indictment at p. 9.)  It is hard to conceive of the target crime being possible without the procurement of a gun, this being an assault with a firearm charge and all, but it was charged this way and an indictment was handed down nonetheless.

Conspiracy, a specific intent crime, requires proof “not only that the conspirators intended to agree but also that they intended to commit the elements of the offense.”  (People v. Horn (1974) 12 Cal.3d 290, 296.)  The elements of assault[2] are: the defendant (1) willfully committed an act which by its nature would probably and directly result in the application of physical force on another person; (2) the defendant was aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that as a direct, natural and probable result physical force would be applied to another person; and (3) at the time the act was committed, the person committing the act had the present ability to apply physical force to the person of another.[3]  (See People v. Miller (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 653, 662-663.)  Further, when the charge is assault with a firearm, the prosecution must also prove that a foreseeable consequence of the act is the infliction of great bodily injury on the subject of the assault.  (People v. Cook (2002) 91 Cal.App.4th 910, 920.)


Mexican Mafia

Attorney Jay Leiderman is one of the few California State Bar Certified Criminal Specialists.


At best, the evidence demonstrates that the defendants agreed to issue a conditional threat to De Los Santos: pay up, or we hurt you.  While some conditional threats are punishable as assaults, the class of such threats is narrow.  Imposing assault liability for making a conditional threat requires that “[1] the condition imposed must be performed immediately, [2] the defendant has no right to impose the condition, [3] the intent is to immediately enforce performance by violence and [4] defendant places himself in a position to do so and proceeds as far as is then necessary.”  (People v. Stanfield (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1161 [citing People v. McCoy (1944) 25 Cal.2d 177, which upheld an assault conviction where defendant held a knife to victim’s throat and threatened to use it if victim made noise].)  To further impose conspiracy assault liability for an agreement to issue a conditional threat requires evidence that the co-conspirators had the specific intent to meet these four requirements.  (Horn, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 296.)  Here, the People have presented no such evidence.  Whatever agreement the defendants had, it cannot be punished as a conspiracy to assault with a firearm.  Count 17 must be dismissed.

[1] That subsection reads: “Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a firearm shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not less than six months and not exceeding one year, or by both a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment.”  (Penal Code § 245(a)(2).)

[2] “An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.”  (Penal Code § 240.)

[3] CALCRIM 875 largely harmonizes this statement, though it uses slightly different verbiage.

[4] Evidence was adduced that “toy” was code for a gun.


Mexican Mafia

Shackles may only be used after a showing of manifest necessity


twitter Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail


In California, the crime of conspiracy has four elements: “(1) an agreement between two or more people, (2) who have the specific intent to agree or conspire to commit an offense, (3) the specific intent to commit that offense, and (4) an overt act committed by one or more of the parties to the agreement for the purpose of carrying out the object of the conspiracy.”  (People v. Vu (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1024 [quoting People v. Morante (1999) 20 Cal.4th 403, 416]; Penal Code §§ 182, 184.)  Moreover, the overt acts must be “expressly alleged in the indictment.”  (Penal Code § 182(b).)  An overt act is “an act showing that the conspiracy has gone beyond the state of a mere meeting of the minds . . . and that action between conspirators as such has begun.”  (People v. Sullivan (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 510, 524.)

In this case, sixteen of the alleged Mexican Mafia conspiracies allege overt acts that are not, in fact, overt acts.  Penal Code § 184 provides the requirement that the People prove an overt act beyond agreement.[1] Indeed, the People’s grand jury instructions recognized this: as the prosecutor correctly told the grand jury, “An overt act must be more than the act of agreeing or planning to commit the crime, but it does not have to be a criminal act itself.”  (GJT p. 659:26-27.)  Yet surprisingly, the Indictment repeatedly mischaracterizes mere discussion and agreement as overt acts capable of supporting a conspiracy charge.

All of these counts suffer from the same deficiency: none of them expressly allege any overt acts beyond agreement or planning.  (Id. at pp. 5-7, 9-11, 14-15.)  They should be set aside.


Mexican Mafia

The black hand is one of the key symbols of the Mexican Mafia prison gang.


Moreover, the People’s failure to present any evidence of overt acts on most of these counts also violates the corpus delicti rule.  This rule requires a prosecution to prove “that a crime actually occurred—by evidence other than the defendant’s own out-of-court statements.”  (People v. Herrera (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1200.)  The rule “reflects the . . . fear that confessions may be the result of either improper police activity or the mental instability of the accused, and the recognition that juries are likely to accept confessions uncritically.”  (Jones v. Superior Court (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 390, 397)  “In other words, as historically applied, the rule requires corroboration of the defendant’s extrajudicial utterances insofar as they indicate a crime was committed, and forces the People to supply, as part of their burden of proof in every criminal prosecution, some evidence of the corpus delicti aside from, or in addition to, such statements.”  (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1178 [emphasis in original]; see also Herrera, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th 1191 [the corpus delicti rule applies to preliminary hearings and § 995 motions, not just trials and convictions].)  This independent evidence “need only be ‘a slight or prima facie showing’ permitting an inference of injury, loss, or harm from a criminal agency, after which the defendant’s statements may be considered to strengthen the case on all issues.”  (Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1181; see also People v. Cobb (1955) 45 Cal.2d 158, 161 [“All that need be shown by independent evidence . . . is that a crime has been committed by someone.”].)

The People have no such independent evidence—none at all—as both the grand jury proceedings and Mexican Mafia Indictment demonstrate.  The overwhelming bulk of the presentation to the grand jury consisted purely of intercepted phone conversations.  And the “overt acts” alleged in the conspiracy counts are just small parts of these preparatory conversations, repeated in the Indictment.  They are hardly acts at all.  The People neither presented evidence nor alleged anyone ever performed an actual overt act in furtherance of these conspiracies.  The only evidence the grand jury heard were “extrajudicial utterances” intercepted by wiretaps.  Thus, with respect to Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 18, 19, 21, 30, 31 and 32, not only did the People fail to satisfy Penal Code § 184’s requirement that a conspiracy conviction must be supported by evidence of an overt act, they also failed to corroborate the defendants’ out-of -court statements as required by the corpus delicti rule.  These counts must be dismissed.

[1] “No agreement amounts to a conspiracy, unless some act, beside such agreement, be done within this state to effect the object thereof, by one or more of the parties to such agreement and the trial of cases of conspiracy may be had in any county in which any such act be done.”  (Penal Code § 184 [emphasis added].)

[2] Counsel wishes to point out that this instruction to carjack someone was, in context, an obvious joke.  To find it included in the Indictment as a serious allegation is, to say the least, frustrating.



Mexican Mafia

Attorney Jay Leiderman is one of the few California State Bar Certified Criminal Law Speialists. Pictured here: Jay gives one of his many radio interviews


twitter Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail


In People v. Hernandez, (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 940, the defendant testified in his Assault with a deadly weapon trial.  He was in custody.  The bailiff took up a position standing directly behind the defendant while the defendant was testifying.  When defense counsel objected, the court overruled that objection, saying that was the court’s practice in every case, no matter how trivial.  The judge refused to even give a jury instruction admonishing the jury not to convict based on this.

Defense counsel urged that having an armed court officer positioned behind appellant not just when he was seated at counsel table but also while he testified “is akin to having him shackled in front of the jury.” The court disagreed, stating, “[a]nd, also, it’s a [section] 245 [violation] with a very bad injury. I was actually afraid you were going to have him stand up and point to something, and he would get really close to a juror. No, the deputy will sit back there. He’s not shackled, nothing.”

Id. at 953.

Analogizing this to shackling, they rule, “When an armed guard escorts a defendant to and from the stand and remains closely behind him during his entire testimony, it is difficult to avoid inferring that the court or some other well informed law enforcement authority sees a ‘need to separate a defendant from the community at large’ or views the defendant as dangerous.”  Absent a specific showing of a need to do this for courtroom security, the judge can’t permit this.

In Estelle v. Williams, the court held unconstitutional the practice of forcing a defendant to wear prison clothing when appearing before the jury, explaining that “the constant reminder of the accused’s condition implicit in such distinctive, identifiable attire may affect a juror’s judgment” and “furthers no essential state policy.” (Estelle v. Williams, supra, 425 U.S. at pp. 504-505.) Courts have similarly recognized that a defendant may be prejudiced if required to appear before the jury with visible physical restraints. (Deck v. Missouri (2005) 544 U.S. 622, 630-631, 635 [161 L.Ed.2d 953, 125 S.Ct. 2007] (Deck); Illinois v. Allen (1970) 397 U.S. 337, 344 [25 L.Ed.2d 353, 90 S.Ct. 1057] (Allen); People v. Duran (1976) 16 Cal.3d 282, 290-291 [127 Cal.Rptr. 618, 545 P.2d 1322] (Duran).) “Visible shackling undermines the presumption of innocence and the related fairness of the factfinding process,” because it “suggests to the jury that the justice system itself sees a `need to separate a defendant from the community at large.'” (Deck, at p. 630, citing Estelle v. Williams, at p. 503, and quoting Holbrook, supra, 475 U.S. at p. 569.) It also diminishes the defendant’s right to counsel by interfering with his or her “`ability to communicate'” with counsel and the “ability to participate in his own defense, say, by freely choosing whether to take the witness stand on his own behalf.” (Deck, at p. 631, quoting Allen, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 344.) Use of visible physical restraints undermines the dignity of the courtroom, which “includes the respectful treatment of defendants.” (Deck, at pp. 631-632.) Additionally, “[s]hackles may affect a defendant’s mental state during trial” by causing the defendant to “`feel confused, frustrated, or embarrassed, thus impairing his mental faculties.'” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 846 [72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673], quoting Spain v. Rushen (9th Cir. 1989) 883 F.2d 712, 722.)

drug crimes medical marijuana murder homicide

Jay Leiderman lectures on criminal law issues

Courts have recognized, however, that use of physical restraints is sometimes necessary and that “in certain extreme situations, `binding and gagging might possibly be the fairest and most reasonable way to handle’ a particularly obstreperous and disruptive defendant.” (Holbrook, supra, 475 U.S. at p. 568, quoting Allen, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 344; see Deck, supra, 544 U.S. at p. 632.) Due to the “possible prejudice in the minds of the jurors, the affront to human dignity, the disrespect for the entire judicial system which is incident to unjustifiable use of physical restraints, as well as the effect such restraints have upon a defendant’s decision to take the stand, … a defendant cannot be subjected to physical restraints of any kind in the courtroom while in the jury’s presence, unless there is a showing of a manifest need for such restraints.” (Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at pp. 290-291.) “[D]ue process does not permit the use of visible restraints if the trial court has not taken account 955*955 of the circumstances of the particular case.” (Deck, at p. 632.) When visible physical restraints are used, the trial court has a duty to instruct the jury sua sponte that the “restraints should have no bearing on the determination of the defendant’s guilt.” (Duran, at pp. 291-292.)

Id at 955-56.

In this situation, where appellant’s credibility was a major factor in the trial, the deck was severely stacked against him. Unlike any other witness, appellant was escorted to and from the witness stand by an armed law enforcement officer who remained to guard him during his testimony, and who stood or sat immediately behind him when he was not testifying. The court told the jury nothing about how to interpret this close monitoring and so it was free to draw the obvious inferences that the court viewed him as potentially dangerous and he was therefore likely to have committed the charged assault. Indeed, the prejudice from the procedure could have affected jurors entirely without their awareness. (See Holbrook, supra, 475 U.S. at p. 570 [“Even though a practice may be inherently prejudicial, jurors will not necessarily be fully conscious of the effect it will have on their attitude toward the accused.”].)

Id. at 965.  [this portion applied to my case, described below] Here, though there may well be another witness that takes the stand guarded by armed Sheriffs, that witness, Rene Enriquez, a self-styled “kingpin” of the Mexican Mafia turned informant, is serving a double life sentence for multiple murders.  The inference will be that defendant is dangerous to the point of Enriquez, and that he warrants the same type of security as a double murderer.  Defendant has behaved perfectly at every court date and there is no reason to shackle him or have guards stand behind him while he testifies.  Accordingly, to have guards stand behind defendant would impinge upon his constitutional right to testify in his own defense.


This is from a court motion written by Attorney Jay Leiderman in a case involving Mexican Mafia defendants and street and prison gang extortion, drug trafficing, robbery and attempted murder (homicide) allegations.


The case was the largest ever prosecution in the history of Ventura County.  Jay Leiderman represented the lead defendant.  His client faced 34 life terms and over a thousand years in prison.  He was sentenced to 27 years after pleading in the middle of a jury trial.

This post does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute legal advice.  Moreover, the law changes over time.  Always consult an attorney before determining what motion s to file and what the current law is as to any particular topic.

Criminal defense attorney and author Jay Leiderman, a California State Bar Certified Criminal Law Specialist can be contacted through the contact page of this website:


twitter Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail