Orange County Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Lawyers must continue their formal legal training no matter how long they have been practicing law. The California State Bar Association requires lawyers to attend Continuing Legal Education (CLE) classes and monitors or audits lawyers' records to ensure they have attended the necessary number of hours. This is true even for lawyers, like me, who teach other lawyers about how to defend driving under the influence cases.

CLE is important for two reasons. First, lawyers have to keep up on changes in the law and there isn't any better way than to attend classes taught by experts in their field. Second, CLE is a great way to continue to be energized about the practice of law. It's exciting to attend a conference and talk to other lawyers about how they are defending their cases. Attending the conference and listening to other defense lawyers is one thing but discussing your particularly difficult cases with other defense attorneys in a consultation is really exciting. It's like having a law firm of the best of the best working together to put a winning strategy in action.

I recently attended the Capital Case Defense Seminar. Nearly 1000 other criminal defense lawyers were brought together to learn, discuss, and work towards eliminating the death penalty in California. During the conference Barry Scheck gave a very informative talk on Forensic Evidence. Of course, Barry Scheck has worked tirelessly through The Innocence Project to free many wrongfully convicted innocent defendants. Finding out how he helped to free an innocent man after 26 years of imprisonment in Texas was inspiring. Listening to him speak makes me want to be a better lawyer.

I left the seminar a better, more informed lawyer, but more importantly I felt rejuvenated in my profession. I am even more determined to uphold the highest standards of our profession and our mission to protect our clients from the government. It reinforced my pride in being a criminal defense lawyer and a Certified Specialist in Criminal Law.

DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It is the genetic material found in nearly every cell in the human body. It is as unique to each person as a fingerprint, and can be used to exclude a suspect in a crime, or indicate that the person is guilty.

DNA can be found at a crime scene through many things; bodily fluids, hair, skin cells. It can be obtained from almost any source, a hat, a drinking glass, a hair left at the scene. Since it is found in virtually all human cells, any cell left behind at the crime scene that is found by the police, can be examined.

Forensic scientists speak in their own language. A suspect can be either excluded or not excluded. If the person cannot be excluded, then the scientist usually says there is an astronomically high probability it is someone beside you. In other words, the scientist might say something like there is a one in one trillion chance the DNA belonged to someone OTHER than you. For all practical purposes this means the DNA belongs to you.

What if there is no DNA left behind at the crime scene? That would neither help nor hurt. Since there isn't any DNA pointing to someone else, it is simply not considered.

But what if there is DNA found at the scene, but it excludes the suspect? The answer depends on where the DNA is found and the totality of the circumstances. Let's say there is a crime where the perpetrator was seen wearing a hat. And the hat was left behind at the scene. The hat is analyzed and DNA is found on the hat but it excludes the defendant in the case. You would think this would be the end of it and the defendant would be released. Not so fast. The scientist will testify that it is possible to wear the hat and not leave behind any DNA. Therefore, the defendant could have borrowed the hat from someone else (which would explain the DNA belonging to someone else), worn the hat at the crime and simply not left behind any DNA on the hat. In order to win the case, the defense lawyer might have to provide additional information. DNA is only one part of the evidence presented in court and does not necessarily determine the outcome of the case by itself.