In the last couple of weeks, federal DEA agents, in conjunction with the United States Attorney’s Office have raided several homes and grow houses being used to produce medical marijuana for dispensaries. These raids fly in the face of the memo by Attorney General Eric Holder and the promises of the President not to raid marijuana operations that are in compliance with state law.

Individuals with no criminal records of been the targets of police surveillance, wire taps, and GPS units being placed on their vehicles after search warrants have been obtained. The targeted individuals in the recent raids are facing a possible mandatory minimum sentence of ten years because the raids netted more than one thousand plants. (See penalties in federal drug cases.)

It is hard to believe that the priority of the federal government is to go after marijuana growers, who try to comply with state law, when scarce resources could be used in fighting terrorism and in legislation to curb the illegal firearms trade.

Many individuals contact me per month for legal advice on how to start a marijuana dispensary. My advice, which is based more on common sense, is until the feds wise up and the President lives up to his word—don’t do it . It isn’t worth the legal bills to fight one of these cases if you are criminally charged and all of the stress this will cause in your life.

Shame on the United States government for spending taxpayer dollars this way. Almost one half of this country supports the full legalization of marijuana. In San Diego, the law makers have become the lawbreakers. They do everything they can to try to zone marijuana clinics, that were approved by the voters, out of the city and also to make permit costs to open these clinics unreasonably high.

This is not the kind of hope that most of us had in mind when we voted you in for two terms of office, Barack Obama. Shame on you for not reigning your overzealous prosecutors and DEA agents in and stopping all of this. We don’t need to make citizens who are trying to follow the law into criminals. Nor should we deny the many individuals who indisputably benefit from medical marijuana their medicine.

I often am contacted by individuals who wish

San Diego criminal defense attorneys Russell Babcock and Ryan Mardock are pleased to represent David Dadon in charges that he allegedly evaded income taxes and defrauded several students from the wages they allegedly earned while working at a college area restaurant.  While the charges against Mr. Dadon are serious, this law firm is truly perplexed why the District Attorney’s Office has targeted Mr. Dadon in an extensive media campaign for non-violent theft related charges.

After Mr. Dadon became aware of the warrant for his arrest, he immediately retained the services of this criminal defense law firm, which emphasizes complex fraud cases in both state and federal court.  Despite Mr. Dadon scheduling a court hearing and self-surrender date, the law enforcement agents chose to track him by his cell phone and arrest him before he had the chance to put in order the documents that could aid him in his defense.  This arrest was not necessary. Ironically, Mr. Dadon was arraigned on these charges in custody on the same date and time he had scheduled for his own court appearance.

Second, and even, more troubling, the District Attorney’s Office has gone to great lengths to run a media campaign to convince the public, and even potential jurors, of Mr. Dadon’s guilt.  District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis issued an extensive press release stating that David Dadon and his son  victimized more than 20 servers and cooks for over a two-year period at State Street Grill in the College area. The defendants allegedly refused to pay the workers after a week of work or offer them a wage that amounted to less than $5 per hour.

Ms. Dumanis continued:  ”The defendants in this case repeatedly took advantage of victims who were in desperate need of income and who accepted an offer to work during a `trainee period,”’ Dumanissaid. “The estimated loss in this case exceeds $350,000.  “The victims described working in excess of 40 hours per week and were never paid, Dumanis said, noting in addition, the Dadons took some of the tips the workers earned.

The Press Release by the SanDiego District Attorney’s Office violates the American Bar Association’s Standards:

Standard 3- 1.2 The Function of the Prosecutor reads:

(a) The office of prosecutor is charged with responsibility for prosecutions in its jurisdiction.

(b) The prosecutor is an administrator of justice, an advocate, and an officer of the court; the prosecutor must exercise sound discretion in the performance of his or her functions.

(c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.

The American Bar Association specifically advises prosecutors not to release statements such as the statement released regarding David Dadon:

Standard 3-1.4 Public Statements

(a) A prosecutor should not make or authorize the making of an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding.

The problem with Ms. Dumanis’s press release is that in this country everyone is presumed to be innocent.  There is nothing wrong with issuing an unbiased press release describing the arrest of Mr. Dadon and the charges against.  And once a defendant HAS PLED OR BEEN FOUND GUILTY by a jury, it is appropriate for a District Attorney’s Office to make a detailed statement regarding its opinion of a defendant’s guilt.

Slow down Bonnie!   Mr. Dadon was just arrested , has not been found guility and is  presumed to be innocent.  When I was a Deputy District Attorney in Alaska, press releases such as that issued by Ms. Dumanis were  strictly prohibited because they “poison the well”  and influence the public and potential jury pools.  And as a former prosecutor I had the social conscience to know that such press releases would be unfair and only serve to undermine justice.

The government has a legitimate interest in locating potential crime victims and informing the public of arrests.  But likewise, a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a fair trial .  The conduct of  the District Attorney’s Office eviscerates that right.

Regardless of whether Mr. Dadon is found  guilty or not guilty, the San Diego District Attorney has engaged in improper conduct by pre-judging Mr. Dadon and also influencing the public to do so.

Shame on the San Diego District Attorney’s for not following the well-recognized standards of the American Bar Association!

When R.H. hired San Diego Criminal defense lawyers Russell Babcock and Ryan Mardock, he told them that he wanted to go to trial. R.H. was charged with a conspiracy in the United States District Court Southern District (San Diego) to smuggle approximately ten pounds of methamphetamine into San Diego from Tijuana. An acquaintance of his, G.A. implicated him when G.A. was stopped with the methamphetamine in a car a couple of weeks earlier.
Federal defense lawyers, Russell Babcock and Ryan Mardock, successfully argued that the arrest of R.H. was unlawful because the search warrant contained false statements and was based purely on the uncorroborated word of G.A. The United States federal district court judge agreed and ruled that the United States Attorney could not use the statement of R.H. or the cellphone they seized from him in trial because they had been obtained without probable cause.
The day before trial, G.A. told the District Court Judge that he would not testify against R.H. despite being ordered to do so. Having no remaining evidence to use to convict R.H., the government dismissed his methamphetamine conspiracy case.
The flaw in many of the cases constructed by the prosecution is that they build their cases around the testimony of co-defendants, jailhouse informants, and cooperating witnesses. When I was a District Attorney, I was trained informants are inherently unreliable,their testimony should be used sparingly, and with great caution. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said regarding informants:

Criminal informants are cut from untrustworthy cloth and must be managed and carefully watched by the government and the courts to prevent them from falsely accusing the innocent, from manufacturing evidence against those under suspicion of crime, and from lying under oath in the courtroom. As Justice Jackson said forty years ago, “The use of informers, accessories, accomplices, false friends, or any of the other betrayals which are ‘dirty business’ may raise serious questions of credibility.” A prosecutor who does not appreciate the perils of using rewarded criminals as witnesses risks compromising the truth-seeking mission of our criminal justice system.

.
The prosecution’s case should always be built with solid and reliable evidence and trustworthy witnesses. Police officers should always independently investigate the case and not rely upon the words of informants who will say anything to receive a better sentence. A well-constructed case looks like this:

A well constructed case

A case built with informants, snitches and co-defendants looks like this:.

A weak criminal case

Unlike many law firms, at the Law Office of Russell Babcock, we never brow-beat or cajole clients to plead guilty simply to “get a good deal.” Here, the client decided to go to trial and his decision paid off.

Congratulations R.H. for gaining your freedom! May you now use it wisely.

US v. Flores oral argument

On February 5, 2013   federal defense attorney Russell Babcock argued what is probably the most important blind mule case in many years to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California.  Russell will reserve comment on the case until the the three judge panel has a chance to issue their written decision (opinion) in this matter.

  The court will decide for the entire Western United States the important questions of 1)  The propriety of government agents testifying as expert witnesses that blind mules don’t exist and 2) whether a defendant should be allowed to put on evidence of his financial means to show that he would not be predisposed to smuggle drugs for financial motives.  The first speaker in the argument is  San Diego criminal attorney Russell Babcock.

Arguing the case for the government is Assistant United States Attorney Mark Rehe.  The judge who is firing most of the questions at the attorneys is the Honorable Judge Clifton.  Also  participating in the decision will be Honorable Judges Trott and O’Scannlain.