Hypothetical Questions in California Decided

Darren Chaker reports in People v. Vang, Hypothetical questions posed to an expert must be based on the evidence; the questioner is not required to "disguise" the fact that such a question is based on the case evidence. Appellant and his codefendants were convicted of assault by means of force likely to inflict great bodily injury. The jury also found a gang enhancement true (Pen. Code, §186.22 subd. (b)(1)). Relying on People v. Killebrew (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 644, the Court of Appeal found the prosecutor is prohibited from asking hypothetical questions using facts which closely track the case evidence. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding a hypothetical question posed to an expert must be rooted in the case evidence. A hypothetical question which is not based on the evidence "is irrelevant and of no help to the jury." "To the extent that Killebrew . . . was correct in prohibiting expert testimony regarding whether the specific defendants acted for a gang reason," the problem is not that such an opinion embraces an ultimate issue in the case, but that an expert's opinion regarding the defendant's guilt is of no assistance to the trier of fact, which is competent to weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion regarding guilt or innocence. The use of hypothetical questions based on the case evidence do not improperly invade the province of the jury, which still must decide whether to credit the expert's opinion and determine whether the facts used to construct the hypothetical are the actual facts based on the evidence. The trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to pose hypothetical questions based on the case evidence. 
  

Texas Expunction

Darren Chaker notes that most people are not aware a simple citation (ticket) is construed as an arrest. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 533 U.S. 924,121 S. Ct. 2540.  In Texas, as with most states, only a person who was arrested may obtain expunction of his records, because an arrest is a threshold requirement under the expunction statute. Ex parte S.C. (App. 14 Dist. 2009) 305 S.W.3d 258. In T.C.R. v. Bell County District Attorney’sOffice, 305 S.W.3d 661, “as a matter of first impression, a person charged with a felony offense is eligible for expunction, subject to other requirements, where the charging instrument has been dismissed or quashed, and the limitations period for the offense has expired.” Likewise, Texas law expands expunction to include any arrest, thus misdemeanors are included.

Once an arrest is established, the next criteria a Petitioner must meet is to demonstrate the charge was dismissed. Texas expungement, also known as expunction, allows records to be permanently sealed by the court and physically destroyed by the court. It may not be a big issue with most people, however if you seek security clearance, are in a highly scrutinized profession, or simply want to deny being arrested on an employment application then petitioning the court to expunge records is critical.

Viewpoint Discrimination Strikes Down California Law

Darren Chaker of Beverly Hills, handled Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, that invalidated Penal Code section 148.6 on First Amendment grounds. While handling this case for seven of ten year life span, Darren overruled the California Supreme Court's unanimous decision in People v. Stanistreet, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 633. In short, it is a very rare occasion a minor misdemeanor is taken through the state and federal court system, and even rarer a unanimous state supreme court is overruled on such grounds.
  

When decided, Chaker v. Crogan was also used to strike down Nevada's analogous statute forcing the legislature to rewrite the law, and used as the backbone authority in Gibson v. City of Kirkland, 2009 WL 564703, (W.D.Wash. Mar 03, 2009). The case continues to be cited as a leading case on viewpoint discrimination.

ACLU Jason Staham and Darren Chaker

Darren Chaker and Jason Statham have been friends for years since Darren worked for an entertainment law firm. When ACLU (Los Angeles) Director Ramona Ripston asked Darren for assistance for an upcoming celbrity auction, he was able to obtain numerous items to assist the ALCU of Southern California after driving to a set location in San Diego and back to Los Angeles just in time for the auction. It is always a pleasure assisting organizations such as the ACLU who helps people which would otherwise not have a voice in the courts.

Darren Chaker Thanked by California Legislature

Darren Chaker was recently thanked for his participation on a potential privacy law. Enforcing existing privacy laws are important, but the introduction of additional privacy laws are significant too since technology evolves. This is why Assemblymember Henry Perea is sponsoring a cutting edge privacy law. Having nearly a decade in the legal field, including legal research, computer security, and similar history provides additional insight on California privacy law.