If you or a friend has been injured by an E-cigarette or some other defective product, or has incurred damages from a personal injury incident, please call the office for a consultation about your rights and access to medical treatment.

Osuna & Dotson Law Firm
2067 W. Whittier Blvd.
La Habra, CA 90631
Tel. 888-657-5648
Fax. 866-598-2429

Ever wonder about your rights in a same-sex marriage or a domestic partnership? Feel free to call and schedule a family law consultation.

See prior posts for same sex marriage summaries for Washington and California.

The law takes effect June 7, but opponents are already mounting challenges on multiple fronts. Opponents planned to file a challenge Monday that could put the law on hold pending the outcome of a November vote. Separately, an initiative was filed at the beginning of the session that opponents of gay marriage say could lead to the new law being overturned.

CALIFORNIA SAME SEX MARRIAGE – PROPOSITION 8 UPDATE:

Last week, a federal appeals court struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year. The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot  measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Proposition 8 have vowed to appeal.

This ruling is narrow and likely to be limited to California. “Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said. The ruling upheld a decision by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who struck down the ballot measure in 2010 after holding an unprecedented trial on the nature of sexual orientation and the history of marriage.

Ever wonder about your rights in a same-sex marriage or a domestic partnership? Feel free to call and schedule a family law consultation.

Un juez mexicano encontró culpable a Jiménez y sentenció al ciudadano estadounidense a tres años en prisión por los cargos, la máxima sentencia permitida para menores de edad en el Estado de Morelos, México.

Ya que los crímenes que cometió Jiménez acontecieron dentro de la jurisdicción mexicana, se puede decir que este niño-asesino casi salió con lo suyo, sobre todo porque recibirá crédito por el tiempo que ha estado encarcelado desde diciembre en espera para su juicio.  Le faltan tan sólo dos años y cinco meses de reclusión.  Si se hubiese celebrado su juicio en los Estados Unidos, el fin de la historia de Jiménez pudo haber sido muy diferente, tal vez resultadando en cadena perpetua. Durante décadas, en los tribunales norteamericanos, ha sido un tema muy contravertido y delicado el castigo para jóvenes que cometan crímenes punibles por la pena de muerte.  En el 2005, en una decisión de cinco a favor y cuatro en contra, la Suprema Corte estadounidense dictaminó en el caso de Roper versus Simmons que era inconstitucional sentenciar a los menores de edad a la pena de muerte, citando a la octava enmienda de la Constitución que prohíbe castigos inusuales y crueles. [543 US 551 (2005)] Recientemente en el 2010, el caso de Graham versus Florida estableció que el sentenciar a menores de edad a cadena perpetua sin posibilidad de libertad preparatoria (parole en inglés) es inconstitucional en casos que no involucren el homicidio. [No, 08-7412 (20100].

Los individuos afiliados con partidos políticos conservadores aseverarán que si Jiménez sabía que le pagaban por ser sicario, y él luego confesó haber cometido sus crímenes, el menor no debió recibir una sentencia tan leve en ningún país por el simple hecho de su joven edad (Vean los comentarios en página web del 27 de junio del 2011) En muchos cases penales internacionales, el estado y la capacidad mentales de delincuente juegan un papel clave en el momento de determinar y administrar el castigo apropiado para el delito. La sociedad considera que los menores de edad no son plenamente capaces de tomar decisiones bien pensadas y racionales para ellos mismos, a diferencia de la forma que un adulto tomaría una decisión. Por lo tanto existe una edad legal para votar, hacer el servicio militar, prestar servicio como jurado o solicitar una tarjeta de crédito. Si no se le confía al menor el tomar decisiones adultas, es imposible hacerle responsable al mismo grado que a un adulto. En los tribunales penales, el razonamiento no es si el menor sabía lo que hacia, ya que la manera de razonar de un menor sigue siendo inmadura e incompleta.

Desde luego, los fallos de los casos Graham y Roper no pondrán fin al tema de los menores de edad y la pena de muerte.  Por el momento, el castigo de Jiménez será el enfrentar a su propio remordimiento y tener que vivir con la memoria de sus transgresiones por el resto de su vida.

Por Tiana Towns

Editado por el Lic. Juan Dotson

Traducido por Rachael Sills

A local Mexican court found Lugo guilty and sentenced the United States citizen to 3 years in prison for his charges, the maximum sentence for juveniles in Morelos, a state outside Mexico City.

Because Lugo’s crimes took place in the jurisdiction of Mexico, it is safe to say that this “boy killer” got off easy especially since he will be credited for the time he has already spent in jail since December awaiting trial; he only has 2 years and 5 months left to serve. Had this trial taken place in the United States then Lugo’s story may have ended very differently, perhaps resulting in a life sentence.  Punishment for juveniles for capital crimes has been a very controversial and sensitive subject in US courts for decades. In 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in Roper v. Simmons that it was unconstitutional to sentence minors to the death penalty, citing the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.  [543 U.S. 551 (2005)]  And just recently in 2010, Graham v. Florida established that sentencing minors to life imprisonment without parole is unconstitutional for non-homicide cases.  [No. 08-7412 (2010)].

Conservatives have argued that if Lugo knew he was being paid to be an assassin, and later confessed to killing people, then the minor should not receive a light sentence.  (I.e., see comments on website, July 27, 2011)  In many international criminal cases, the state of mind and mental capacity of the offender plays a huge role in the court’s determination and administration of the proper punishment for the crime.  Society considers minors not fully capable of making thoughtful, rational decisions adults make for themselves, hence the minimum age to vote, join the military, be on a jury, or apply for a credit card.  If the minor cannot be trusted to make adult decisions, then it impossible to hold him to the standard of adult responsibility.  For criminal courts, the reasoning is not whether the minor knew what he was doing because his reasoning is still immature and incomplete.

Graham and Roper will certainly not be the last decisions dealing with minors and capital punishment. For now, Lugo’s life-long punishment will be facing his own conscience and living with his transgressions.

By Tiana Towns

Edited by Juan Dotson

In January 2011, the police arrested my client and set bail at $100k.  At that time, I advised the family to not put up the bail and wait until we see a judge.  First, I informed them that I may be able to convince a judge to reduce the bail at the client’s arraignment (first hearing). Secondly, I advised them that they would not be able to recover the bail premium (over $7000) even if the case is decided in client’s favor.

At the second hearing, my office convinced the judge to release the client on home detention  (cannot leave home except for work or school) in lieu of jail. From then, we continued to investigate the case (with assistance of Star Investigations) by interviewing family members, friends of the family, and school officials to gather information about the accuser.

Today, on the day of trial, the District Attorney attempted to add an additional sex charge (lewd act on a minor, a felony) and asked us if we can still proceed. Since the Law Office of Juan F. Dotson anticipated the new charge, we were prepared and informed the court: “Ready for trial, object to any delay.”  The prosecution announced they were not ready to proceed, so the judge dismissed the case without prejudice. This means that the charges can be reinstated at a later date at the arraignment stage.  The client would not be re-arrested.

All smiles leaving court after my client's juvenile case was dismissed on the day of trial. Prosecution has a right to re-file charges.

For now, this means another victory for the Law Office of Juan F. Dotson and this young man can finally get out of the house and enjoy the beautiful California sunshine!

#CaseyAnthony has been in and out of custody since July 16, 2008 on various charges such providing false statements, child neglect, obstruction of a criminal investigation, and then murder, once she was indicted on October 18, 2008.   It is possible she may be released from custody on July 7, 2011—the date of her sentencing–since she is only facing misdemeanors.

Caylee and her mother Casey Anthony. Dotson defense trial analysis

This case received national publicity since the disappearance of Caylee in June2008—largely because of the strange facts that surfaced after the two-year old’s disappearance.  The grandparents last saw Caylee when she left with her mother on June 16, 2008.  Casey Anthony reportedly told her parents they couldn’t see Caylee because there was no time to meet given her busy work assignment in Tampa.  Caylee’s grandmother reported Caylee missing on a 911 call after she and the tow attendant (releasing the impounded vehicle) noticed a strong smell coming from the trunk of her daughter’s car.  Both later testified they believed the odor to be that of a decomposing body.

During the missing child’s investigation, Casey Anthony provided several inconsistent and misleading statements to law enforcement, which partly led to her subsequent arrests and increased suspicion of foul play regarding the disappearance of her daughter.  At first, Casey Anthony claimed Caylee’s nanny (never existed) kidnapped her.  Lies about her work and whereabouts continued to ignite the media’s palate.  Caylee’s remains were found in a wooded area near the Anthony’s on December 11, 12, & 15.

As it turns out, the shifting point in the trial may have been the defense lawyering involved in highlighting that the cause of Caylee’s death remained unknown.  Defense called a forensic expert—forensic anthropologist Dr. William Rodriguez, with the U.S. Department of Defense Armed Forces Medical Examiner’s Office—to rebut the evidence that Caylee Anthony was suffocated by duct tape placed over her nose and mouth.

Despite this uncertainty in the cause of death, many members of the public believe the criminal justice system is unfair, since this “pretty white girl” got away with murder and lying about the circumstances leading up to her arrest.   This is a clear example of Jay-Z’s complaint in Guilty Until Proven Innocent, a song featuring R-Kelly, whom was also acquitted of child pornography charges despite being found guilty in the eyes of the public–”Try to charge me but I’m not guilty.”

After Casey Anthony’s criminal proceedings terminate, she will be defending a defamation suit filed by a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez (named of alleged kidnapping babysitter).  Ms. Gonzalez is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for willfully damaging her reputation.  This civil trial is set for August 29, 2011.

Law Office of Juan F. Dotson
445 S. Figueroa, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel./Fax. (888) 471-1377

trial attorney Juan Dotson on Casey Anthony's jury trial

Lesson learned for client–no more drinking and driving.  If you find yourself making a bad judgment after drinking alcohol, please call my Law Office for a consultation.  A call within 10 days of your DUI arrest can help you extend your privilege to drive until your case is litigated.

Law Office of Juan F. Dotson
445 S. Figueroa, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel./Fax. (888) 471-1377

Juan F. Dotson, Attorney at Law

The Law Office took over the case, reassessed the client’s needs, and prepared a new petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy prior to the bank’s second attempt to foreclose on debtor’s 4,000 sq ft home.  After successfully moving the court to impose and extend an automatic stay (automatic stays are only mandatory for original filings, not re-filed cases), the Law Office convinced the court to strip the second mortgage (lien avoidance motion, aka LAM).  Thus, once the debtor completes his 5 year payment plan, the debt owed on his 2nd mortgage will be discharged along with other unsecured debt totaling over $30,000.  Debtor can stop worrying about losing his home or creditors’ harassing mailings and calls.