Experienced Attorneys Upland - Accident Injury Divorce Family Law

1-855-LOMG-911Free Consultation
  • Workers Compensation
  • Personal Injury
    • Why You Need an Injury Attorney
    • Car Accident
    • Motorcycle Accident
    • Soft Tissue Injuries
    • Dog Bites
    • Death and Injury
  • Family Law
    • Before Filing for Divorce
    • Divorce Basics
    • Divorce Strategy
    • Child Custody
    • Child Support
    • Division of Property
    • Domestic Violence
  • Criminal Defense
    • Driving Crimes
      • DUI Laws
      • DUI Drugs
      • Unlicensed Drivers
      • Suspended License
      • Evading Arrest
      • Hit Run
      • Vehicular Manslaughter
    • Assault – Battery
    • Domestic Violence
    • Drug Crimes
    • Theft, Robbery, Burglary
    • Sex Crimes
    • Criminal Fraud
  • Bankruptcy
    • Bankruptcy Basics
    • Chapter 7
    • Chapter 13
    • Common Bankruptcy Questions
    • Do I Qualify For Bankruptcy
    • Will I Lose My Property?
  • About
    • Our Core Values
    • Other Practice Areas
      • Workers Compensation
      • Civil Litigation
      • Business Litigation
      • Bad Faith Insurance
      • Employment Law
      • Social Security
      • Special Education
      • Insurance Bad Faith
      • Wildfire Damage
      • Fire Insurance Claims
      • Discrimination and Sexual Harassment
    • Tell Us How We Did
    • Our Attorneys
      • Marc E. Grossman
    • Locations Served
      • Alta Loma
      • Chino
      • Chino Hills
      • Claremont
      • Corona
      • Diamond Bar
      • Fontana
      • Glendora
      • Mira Loma
      • Montclair
      • Ontario
      • Palm Desert
      • Pomona
      • Rancho Cucamonga
      • Riverside
      • San Bernardino
      • San Dimas
      • Upland
      • Van Nuys
    • Articles and Information
    • Testimonials
  • Contact
Home > Archives for Criminal Defense

Aug 30 2015

Who Can I Talk To About My Criminal Case

Remain Silent

The most basic concept underlying the lawyer-client relationship is that lawyer-client interactions are privileged, or private. This suggests that legal representatives cannot reveal a criminal clients’ oral or written statements (nor attorneys’ own statements to clients) to anybody, including prosecutors, companies, friends, or family members, without their client’s permission. It does not matter whether defendants admit their guilt or insist on their innocence; Attorney-client interactions are confidential. Both court-appointed legal representatives and private defense attorneys are similarly bound to preserve client confidences.

Beyond the attorney-client relationship, you can compromise the privilege or your “right to remain silent” by doing any of the following:

1. Speaking in a Public Location

Suppose you discuss your criminal case with your lawyer in a restaurant, loud enough for other diners to overhear the conversation. Can they testify to exactly what you stated? Yes. Lawyer-client communications are personal only if they are made in a context where it would be affordable to expect that they would remain confidential (Katz v. U.S., U.S. Sup. Ct. 1967). A defendant who speaks to an attorney in such a loud voice that others overhear exactly what is said has no reasonable expectation of personal privacy and hence waives (gives up) the opportunity. Likewise, individuals who discuss their cases on mobile phone in public locations run the risk of losing confidentiality.

2.Jailhouse Conversations by means of Phone

Jailhouse discussions between the accused and their criminal lawyers are thought about confidential, as long as the conversation takes place in a private area of the jail and the attorney and defendant do not speak so loudly that jailers or other prisoners can overhear exactly what is said.

Exactly what about phone conversations, either in person (speaking on phones, separated by a glass partition) or using a pay phone? Defendants must be really mindful not to allow jailers and even other criminal prisoners to overhear exactly what they say on the telephone. These people occasionally eavesdrop, in person or on the telephone, and after that declare that they had the ability to overhear incriminating info due to the fact that the accused spoke in a loud voice. (Criminal inmates often aim to curry favor with district attorneys through such techniques.) If a judge thinks them, the opportunity is lost and a jailer or other prisoner can testify to an offender’s remarks.

In some cases, jailers warn an alleged criminal that phone calls are or might be monitored. That warning alone might indicate that telephone call between prisoners and their legal representatives may not be privileged. If a jailer monitors a call and overhears a prisoner make a destructive admission to the prisoner’s legal representative, the jailer can most likely affirm to the offender’s statement in court. Losing Your Right to Confidentiality: Welcoming Others to be Present.

For completely reasonable factors, the accused criminal often desire their father and mothers, partners, or buddies to be present when they seek advice from their attorneys. Does that mean that the discussion will not be thought about private?

The legal representative can keep the benefit by encouraging a judge that it was necessary to include the unfamiliar person in the conversation. If the 3rd party can shed light on the case or otherwise assist the criminal lawyer establish a method, that person’s presence would not damage the privacy of the discussion.

3. Sharing the Conversation with Others Later on.

A blabbermouth criminal accused of a crime waive (give up) the confidentiality of lawyer-client interactions when they divulge those statements to somebody else (aside from a spouse, since a different benefit exists for spousal communications; most states also acknowledge a priest-penitent privilege). The accused have no expectation of privacy in discussions they reveal to others.

The Bottom Line.

The only person that you should discuss your criminal case with is your criminal attorney. You must also be mindful of your surroundings and circumstances so that you do not inadvertently divulge damaging information about your case to third parties. You should not tell your friends or family about your criminal case either.

Written by M. Grossman · Categorized: Criminal Defense, Front Page Content, Uncategorized

Aug 29 2015

Hit By a Car Crossing the Street Who is at Fault

Who Is at Fault When a Pedestrian is Hit by a Car Crossing the Street?

When a pedestrian is hit by a car crossing the street it is not always the driver who is at fault. Laws of negligence will usually determine who is at when a pedestrian is hit by a car crossing the street. Negligence usually rests on the question of reasonableness. This is to say, was the person crossing the street acting as a reasonable person would when he was hit by a car crossing the street. For example, it could be said that a reasonable person would not in the exercise of normal prudence, cross a four lane, busy road in the middle of the street at night but, instead, a reasonable person would have used the lighted crosswalk at the corner. Conversely, a driver of a motor vehicle has a duty to use reasonable care when operating his vehicle and to operate it in a manner so as not to endanger pedestrians. For example, a reasonable driver would not send text messages on a busy four lane road while his vehicle was in motion. Instead, a reasonable driver would not use a cell phone while driving. In many cases, both the driver and pedestrian can be partially at fault. So, you must analyze both parties behavior immediately before the accident occurred to determine fault when a pedestrian is struck crossing the street. It is not usually cut and dried. You will likely need the assistance of an experienced personal injury attorney to help you determine fault if you are hit by a car crossing the street.
An experienced personal injury attorney will look at the same things that a judge will look at to determine who is at fault when a pedestrian is hit by a car crossing the street. The following are some of the things that may be examined to determine fault in a pedestrian vs. motor vehicle accident.

Police Reports and Insurance Company Findings

The police will take statements from the driver, pedestrian, and witnesses to determine who was at fault. They may make a conclusive finding on the spot or conduct a detailed investigation to make the finding later.
The police report will show which party the investigating officer determined to be at fault.  However, the police findings are not conclusive and they are subject to being challenged by both the insurance companies and your attorney. Insurance adjusters conduct their own investigations and they may determine something far different than that of the police. This can place you in a odd position where your insurance company may conclude you are at fault and the police may determine that you were not or vise versa. Only an experienced personal injury lawyer can sort out these kinds of messes and insure that you both get compensated for damages and protect your rights against any charges or citations that the police may issue.

Insurance Coverage for Pedestrian Accidents

Injured pedestrians will typically be covered by their health and disability insurance policies, or worker’s compensation coverage, if the accident occurs on the job. They may also be covered under one or more auto insurance policies.

Payment Under Auto Liability Insurance

An injured pedestrian should typically file a claim against the driver’s or vehicle owner’s insurance policy. California requires all vehicle owners to carry liability insurance to cover personal injuries to third parties and damage to third parties’ property. However, if and how much you can recover depends on who’s at fault and the policy limits of the insured. It may be necessary for your personal injury attorney to file a lawsuit against the other party so that a judge can assist you to determine fault. If litigation becomes necessary, payment for your injuries will be delayed until after the litigation has been resolved.

Why You Need a Personal Injury Lawyer.

Insurance companies have teams of lawyers all dedicated to making sure you get the smallest possible award. If this isn’t enough to make you call a personal injury attorney consider this: if you do not agree to the settlement amount offered by the insurance company, you will need to file a lawsuit to get what you deserve. While the litigation is pending, you will still likely need medical treatment and transportation, your personal injury attorney can help to arrange this for you. Also consider that you will not only be taking on an insurance company but also the guy who hit you. Very few people have the knowledge and ability to successfully navigate a personal injury lawsuit without the assistance of a lawyer.

Written by M. Grossman · Categorized: Car Accidents, Criminal Defense, DUI, Front Page Content, Motorcycle Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Wrongful Death

Jul 29 2014

Murderer’s Release After 21 Years Seen Saturday

A Calabasas man convicted of the 1985 murder of a high school classmate who had revealed the killer’s homosexuality is expected to be paroled this week after 21 years in custody.

Robert Rosenkrantz was sentenced as an 18-year-old to an indefinite term of 17 years to life. He was told that he would be eligible for parole after nine years, and he conducted himself as what courts called a model prisoner.

But as his parole was blocked repeatedly, he eventually became a symbol of California’s turn against rehabilitation, at least regarding murderers.

State authorities displayed a deep reluctance to release murderers, regardless of what they had done to rehabilitate themselves.

Rosenkrantz’s break came this summer when Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Wesley noted that, in denying the inmate release, parole authorities repeatedly cited the gravity of the original offense, “the circumstances of which can never change.”

The judge ruled that continued reliance on the original offense “runs contrary to the rehabilitative goals espoused by the prison system” and violated Rosenkrantz’s rights.

Read the whole story>>>

Written by M. Grossman · Categorized: Criminal Defense, NEWS, Uncategorized · Tagged: calabasas, gay, murder, Murderer's Release, Robert Rosenkrantz

Jul 29 2014

Outed gay killer to be freed today

More than two decades after he was convicted of the cold-blooded second-degree murder of a 17-year-old Calabasas High School classmate who outed him as a homosexual, Robert Rosenkrantz is set to be paroled today from prison.

Rosenkrantz, 39, who was recommended for parole in May, will be released from the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Opispo.

“His family is overjoyed to have him home,” said Donald Miller, a former prisoner and expert on parole law who has been working with Rosenkrantz’s family on the case. “He has been on the verge of being released three or four times and he has been deemed not a risk for years now.” Read the whole story>>>

Written by M. Grossman · Categorized: Criminal Defense, NEWS, Uncategorized · Tagged: calabasas, gay killer, murder, Robert Rosenkrantz

Jul 29 2014

Claremont Settles Lawsuit in Fatal Police Shooting

The city of Claremont has agreed to pay $450,000 to settle a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the family of a teenager who was shot and killed four years ago by two police officers.

According to the terms of the settlement, the money will be divided among Irvin Landrum Jr.’s mother and his two children, a 5-year-old son and 4-year-old daughter.

The settlement involved no admission of guilt by the city. It closes the books on a shooting that prompted numerous protests and prayer vigils.

“I think it has been a very painful and long process for everyone,” said Sandra Baldonado, Claremont’s mayor pro tem. “It’s hard to say there is a silver lining in a tragedy like this.”

The settlement comes just one month after City Manager Glenn Southard rescinded awards given to the officers involved. The employee of the year awards had been granted 11 months after the shooting; officials cited officers’ professionalism under pressure.

Some in the community considered the awards insensitive. Southard said he rescinded the awards in the best interests of the city. Read the whole story>>>

Written by M. Grossman · Categorized: Criminal Defense, NEWS, Uncategorized · Tagged: claremont, Irvin Landrum Jr., murder, settlement

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Next Page »

Request a Call or Free Consultation

We will take the time to answer all of your legal questions. Free. No Obligation. No Pressure. Just Answers.

    Office Address: 100 N Euclid Ave #201,
    Upland, CA 91786

    Phone: Main Office Phone #: (909) 608-7426
    Workers Comp Phone #: (855) 566-4911
    New Client Hotline: 855-LOMG-911

    Email: [email protected]

    Marc Grossman on Social Media

    Locations We Serve:

    Alta Loma, Claremont, Chino, Chino Hills, Corona, Diamond Bar, Fontana, Glendora, La Verne, Mira Loma, Montclair, Ontario, Palm Desert, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Dimas, Upland, Van Nuys

    Copyright © 2026 Law Offices of Marc Grossman, LLP  lDisclaimerlPrivacy policylAdvantage Attorney Marketing & Cloud Solutions