A study conducted by Stanford professor John Donohue finds no difference between inmates on death row, and other violent offenders who have been sentenced to life. Professor Donohue confirms what Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers have believed for long - that the death penalty, as administered in states like California, is arbitrary, and is not necessarily meant to punish the worst criminals.

The study was meant to explore the implementation of the death penalty in the state of Connecticut, and considered data between 1973 and 2007. During this time, there were 4,686 murders committed in the state of Connecticut. Out of these, 205 cases were eligible for the death penalty, and 138 of these were charged with capital felony. Out of these, 92 were convicted of a capital felony, and then proceeded to a death penalty sentencing hearing. Out of these, 9 received a sustained death sentence, and one prisoner was executed in 2005.

The study concludes that Connecticut’s record of handling cases that are eligible for the death penalty is representative of an unsound criminal justice policy that does not pose any deterrent. The death penalty is meant to deal with extremely violent criminals, and the death penalty as applied in several states across the country, including California, doesn't fulfill that objective at all. Professor Donohue concludes that the death penalty as applied in most cases, has nothing to do with the way that the case turns out, and is completely arbitrary.

The report also confirms that there's much discrimination in the death penalty process. For instance, the death penalty is much more likely to be meted out to blacks convicted of killing whites. There are harsh lessons in this report for California, which remains one of those states in the country that continue to impose the death penalty.

An Orange County judge presiding over the trial involving a fatal accident that killed Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim baseball player Nick Adenhart and two others, has ruled that defense attorneys cannot bring evidence that the driver of the car in which Adenhart was traveling, was also intoxicated.

It's not a tactic that Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers are unfamiliar with, but lawyers for Andrew Gallo who is on trial for triple murder, have not been successful using it.  The judge has ruled that the evidence is irrelevant to the trial.  Nick Adenhart and his friends Henry Pearson and Courtney Stewart, were driving back home after a stunning season debut by Adenhart.  Just a few hours before the crash, he had pitched six scoreless innings in Anaheim, and was going out to celebrate.  Near an intersection, their vehicle was struck by a car being driven by 22-year-old Andrew Gallo.

Gallo's attorney has argued that the woman who had been driving Nick Adenhart on the night of the accident in 2009, had been driving drunk, and might even have run a red light.  One toxicology test had shown that the driver, 20-year-old Courtney Stewart had been driving with a blood alcohol level of .06, while another test showed her level to be .16.  The legally allowed limit for drivers below the age of 21 is .05.

Gallo, on the other hand, had been driving with a blood alcohol level that was several times the legally allowed limit when he crashed into Adenhart’s car at the intersection.  The news received national media coverage, especially since Nick Adenhart had just pitched a fantastic innings in his season debut.   Gallo's pleading not guilty to charges of triple murder. 

Later in the week, the judge will also consider whether an interview of Gallo by police at the accident site, can be used as evidence.  Photos and videos are currently banned at the trial.

Everyone knows that Los Angeles County has a lot of violent crimes which occur: murder, gang-related shootings, assault with a deadly weapon, arson, and hit and run incidents, but the story of Ben Matthew Martin hits on an important issue: the connection between class strife, poverty, homelessness, and violent crime.  

Mr. Ben Martin, a former barber, pleaded guilty to murder stemming from the death of a homeless man who he allegedly doused with gasoline and set on fire.  The victim was mentally ill, homeless, and suffered from severe depression, but known among the local community as a nice person.  Mr. Martin allegedly had a serious problem with the homeless community and harbored lots of resentment towards homeless persons who loitered near his barber shop.  Mr. Martin had previously been seen by his co-workers shouting and sometimes striking homeless people.  On one particular occasion, a co-worker observed Mr. Martin chasing the victim down the street, striking him with towels, and kicking him while yelling at him.  When the owner of the barbershop learned of the incident, he fired him.  Three months later, Mr. Martin then returned to the barbershop area, allegedly looking for the victim, with gasoline and a flare.  Mr. Martin allegedly doused the victim in gasoline and set him on fire causing his death.

It is ironic because as a criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles, I have had the occasion to work with clients who suffer from some form of mental illness, or who at one point in their life may have been homeless, and the prosecutors and judges always seem to be concerned that somehow mental illness and/or poverty equals violence.  This sad story shows quite the opposite.  It is not the homeless, and the mentally ill who we need to be concerned about for bursts of senseless violence but rather the working and middle class persons who may resent the homeless and/or mentally ill and are caving under the economic pressures of our modern world.