Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Law Offices of Mary Frances Prevost
297 followers
297 followers
About
Law Offices of Mary Frances Prevost's posts

Post is pinned.Post has attachment
San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer Mary Prevost Makes No Apologies for Defending  Criminals

I cannot tell you how tired I am representing people accused of crime. Many lie to us; many enter into payment contracts they have no intent of ever honoring; some physically injure us; judges generally look down their noses at us; and prosecutors generally withheld evidence from us. I;'m sick of the power play. I'm sick of dealing with judges and prosecutors who promised that seeking justice - not merely obtaining convictions - was the rule of law and turning around and ignoring that legal requirement because once in power, it all goes down the drain.

I've known judges and prosecutors who have broken the law with impunity. I've seen them scoff at more qualified lawyers who have succeeded at much higher levels than they have, achieved. I've seen prominent criminal defense lawyer be disparaged by the tiny-minded former prosecutors on the bench judging the client not on the legal standards of the day, but harming them because "that's the way we always do it." 

Clarence Darrow put it best: 

“To be an effective criminal defense counsel, an attorney must be prepared to be demanding, outrageous, irreverent, blasphemous, a rogue, a renegade, and a hated, isolated, and lonely person - few love a spokesman for the despised and the damned.”

And so, to all of the tiny minded former prosecutors on the bench that got their billet from political contributions rather than on merit, and to the prosecutors who were beaten ad abused and bullied as kids who now have found their power - kids I would have defended even way back then - fuck you.  Outrageous enough? I think Clarence would have loved that. 

+Anonymous  #anonymous   #policebrutality  +COPBLOCK NOMAD +CopwatchNews USA +Copwatch Armed Response +California Civil Rights Law Group +CIVILRIGHTSAGENDA-COM By M. Kita Williams  #civilrights   #sandiegocriminaldefense  

Post has attachment
California Combat Vets with PTSD Now Able to Get DUI Diversion

A couple weeks ago in VanVleck (D069893), the California Court of Appeal ruled that the misdemeanor diversion statute for veterans suffering from mental health issues as a result of their service (PC 1001.80) is NOT available for DUIs.

THIS California Court of Appeal says that the VanVleck C/A is totally wrong. They note the language banning staying or suspending DUI sentences in VC 23640. The VanVleck C/A said that specific statutes control over general, and the ban is specific. This C/A agrees with the specific versus general rule, but which statute is specific and which one is general can be argued both ways, so that's a wash. They do note that 1001.80 was enacted later in time. This C/A also finds that the legislative history supports our position.

Since there is a split in the courts of appeal, this one may go to the California Supreme Court. I suspect it will be decided on behalf of our Veterans. Until then, we have a good argument for DUI diversion for our vets who came home with PTSD.

See, Hopkins v. Superior Court; B270503; 9/1/16; C/A 2nd, Div. 4
Photo

Post has attachment
California Combat Vets with PTSD Now Able to Get DUI Diversion

A couple weeks ago in VanVleck (D069893), the California Court of Appeal ruled that the misdemeanor diversion statute for veterans suffering from mental health issues as a result of their service (PC 1001.80) is NOT available for DUIs.

THIS California Court of Appeal says that the VanVleck C/A is totally wrong. They note the language banning staying or suspending DUI sentences in VC 23640. The VanVleck C/A said that specific statutes control over general, and the ban is specific. This C/A agrees with the specific versus general rule, but which statute is specific and which one is general can be argued both ways, so that's a wash. They do note that 1001.80 was enacted later in time. This C/A also finds that the legislative history supports our position.

Since there is a split in the courts of appeal, this one may go to the California Supreme Court. I suspect it will be decided on behalf of our Veterans. Until then, we have a good argument for DUI diversion for our vets who came home with PTSD.

See, Hopkins v. Superior Court; B270503; 9/1/16; C/A 2nd, Div. 4
Photo

Post has attachment
California Combat Vets with PTSD Now Able to Get DUI Diversion

A couple weeks ago in VanVleck (D069893), the California Court of Appeal ruled that the misdemeanor diversion statute for veterans suffering from mental health issues as a result of their service (PC 1001.80) is NOT available for DUIs.

THIS California Court of Appeal says that the VanVleck C/A is totally wrong. They note the language banning staying or suspending DUI sentences in VC 23640. The VanVleck C/A said that specific statutes control over general, and the ban is specific. This C/A agrees with the specific versus general rule, but which statute is specific and which one is general can be argued both ways, so that's a wash. They do note that 1001.80 was enacted later in time. This C/A also finds that the legislative history supports our position.

Since there is a split in the courts of appeal, this one may go to the California Supreme Court. I suspect it will be decided on behalf of our Veterans. Until then, we have a good argument for DUI diversion for our vets who came home with PTSD.

See, Hopkins v. Superior Court; B270503; 9/1/16; C/A 2nd, Div. 4
Photo

California Combat Vets with PTSD Now Able to Get DUI Diversion

A couple weeks ago in VanVleck (D069893), the California Court of Appeal ruled that the misdemeanor diversion statute for veterans suffering from mental health issues as a result of their service (PC 1001.80) is NOT available for DUIs.

THIS California Court of Appeal says that the VanVleck C/A is totally wrong. They note the language banning staying or suspending DUI sentences in VC 23640. The VanVleck C/A said that specific statutes control over general, and the ban is specific. This C/A agrees with the specific versus general rule, but which statute is specific and which one is general can be argued both ways, so that's a wash. They do note that 1001.80 was enacted later in time. This C/A also finds that the legislative history supports our position.

Since there is a split in the courts of appeal, this one may go to the California Supreme Court. I suspect it will be decided on behalf of our Veterans. Until then, we have a good argument for DUI diversion for our vets who came home with PTSD.

See, Hopkins v. Superior Court; B270503; 9/1/16; C/A 2nd, Div. 4

Post has attachment
California Combat Vets with PTSD Now Able to Get DUI Diversion

A couple weeks ago in VanVleck (D069893), the California Court of Appeal ruled that the misdemeanor diversion statute for veterans suffering from mental health issues as a result of their service (PC 1001.80) is NOT available for DUIs.

THIS California Court of Appeal says that the VanVleck C/A is totally wrong. They note the language banning staying or suspending DUI sentences in VC 23640. The VanVleck C/A said that specific statutes control over general, and the ban is specific. This C/A agrees with the specific versus general rule, but which statute is specific and which one is general can be argued both ways, so that's a wash. They do note that 1001.80 was enacted later in time. This C/A also finds that the legislative history supports our position.

Since there is a split in the courts of appeal, this one may go to the California Supreme Court. I suspect it will be decided on behalf of our Veterans. Until then, we have a good argument for DUI diversion for our vets who came home with PTSD.

See, Hopkins v. Superior Court; B270503; 9/1/16; C/A 2nd, Div. 4
Photo

Post has attachment
California Combat Vets with PTSD Now Able to Get San Diego DUI Diversion

A couple weeks ago in VanVleck (D069893), the California Court of Appeal ruled that the misdemeanor diversion statute for veterans suffering from mental health issues as a result of their service (PC 1001.80) is NOT available for DUIs.

THIS California Court of Appeal says that the VanVleck C/A is totally wrong. They note the language banning staying or suspending DUI sentences in VC 23640. The VanVleck C/A said that specific statutes control over general, and the ban is specific. This C/A agrees with the specific versus general rule, but which statute is specific and which one is general can be argued both ways, so that's a wash. They do note that 1001.80 was enacted later in time. This C/A also finds that the legislative history supports our position.

Since there is a split in the courts of appeal, this one may go to the California Supreme Court. I suspect it will be decided on behalf of our Veterans. Until then, we have a good argument for DUI diversion for our vets who came home with PTSD.

See, Hopkins v. Superior Court; B270503; 9/1/16; C/A 2nd, Div. 4
Photo

California Combat Vets with PTSD Now Able to Get San Diego DUI Diversion

A couple weeks ago in VanVleck (D069893), the California Court of Appeal ruled that the misdemeanor diversion statute for veterans suffering from mental health issues as a result of their service (PC 1001.80) is NOT available for DUIs.

THIS California Court of Appeal says that the VanVleck C/A is totally wrong. They note the language banning staying or suspending DUI sentences in VC 23640. The VanVleck C/A said that specific statutes control over general, and the ban is specific. This C/A agrees with the specific versus general rule, but which statute is specific and which one is general can be argued both ways, so that's a wash. They do note that 1001.80 was enacted later in time. This C/A also finds that the legislative history supports our position.

Since there is a split in the courts of appeal, this one may go to the California Supreme Court. I suspect it will be decided on behalf of our Veterans. Until then, we have a good argument for DUI diversion for our vets who came home with PTSD.

See, Hopkins v. Superior Court; B270503; 9/1/16; C/A 2nd, Div. 4

California Combat Vets with PTSD Now Able to Get San Diego DUI Diversion

A couple weeks ago in VanVleck (D069893), the California Court of Appeal ruled that the misdemeanor diversion statute for veterans suffering from mental health issues as a result of their service (PC 1001.80) is NOT available for DUIs.

THIS California Court of Appeal says that the VanVleck C/A is totally wrong. They note the language banning staying or suspending DUI sentences in VC 23640. The VanVleck C/A said that specific statutes control over general, and the ban is specific. This C/A agrees with the specific versus general rule, but which statute is specific and which one is general can be argued both ways, so that's a wash. They do note that 1001.80 was enacted later in time. This C/A also finds that the legislative history supports our position.

Since there is a split in the courts of appeal, this one may go to the California Supreme Court. I suspect it will be decided on behalf of our Veterans. Until then, we have a good argument for DUI diversion for our vets who came home with PTSD.

See, Hopkins v. Superior Court; B270503; 9/1/16; C/A 2nd, Div. 4

Post has attachment
Wait while more posts are being loaded