Sonoma County Domestic Violence where victims are men
The following is an excerpt from a recent Press Democrat article printed on July 5, 2009.
The trial for Bret Matz, 47, of Monte Rio is nearing opening arguments. He is accused of beating to death his 46-year-old partner, Robert Guess, with a lamp on Jan. 2.
A preliminary hearing is set to be held Wednesday for Sheyna Douprea, 24, accused of stabbing to death her boyfriend, Daniel Mooney, 46, in his Healdsburg apartment Dec. 14.
The third killing, the death of Conrad Wright, 68, apparently at the hands of his 59-year-old wife, Ruby, in their Santa Rosa home April 10, ended with the suicide of Ruby Wright after she was released on bail pending court proceedings.
The cases also raise questions because both Guess and Mooney had sought restraining orders against their alleged abusers, but abandoned the process in the months before their deaths.
According to state law enforcement statistics, roughly 80 percent of domestic violence homicide victims are females.
In 2004, the most recent statistics available from the Department of Justice, Sonoma County law enforcement officers responded to 2,045 calls reporting domestic violence. From those calls, 718 arrests were made, 550 of which were men and 168 were women.
The only domestic violence homicide that year involved a Richmond man who shot his ex-girlfriend. He was sentenced to 50-years-to-life in prison.
The Douprea and Matz cases also share two other characteristics that are common to domestic abuse situations, according to court documents and testimony. Both couples had a history of domestic violence, and alcohol and drugs were involved.
The fact that both Mooney and Guess dropped efforts to seek protection is also troubling, said men’s advocate Joe Manthey of Petaluma.
“Domestic violence is an underreported crime, especially when men are victims,” he said. “Men are much less likely to call the police. There absolutely is a shame attached to it. No man, including myself, wants to admit that he got beat up, especially by a woman.”
California self-defense and martial arts training
With the ever-rising popularity of MMA (Mixed-martial arts) it is likely that more and more criminal cases will be prosecuted in which the victims and/or perpetrators will have had some level of training. It is important to understand that, to quote self-defense expert Animal MacYoung, “The problem with self-defense training is 1) that it doesn’t work and 2) that it does work”.
I am not trying to be funny when I say that, and neither was he. The psychology of self-defense is an enormous, complex area and the law is as well. All the training in the world will not protect you from facing criminal charges if you have committed acts construed as criminal by the police and DA’s.
First, it is a myth that a trained martial artist must be registered as a deadly weapon, or for that matter, that their hands and feet are considered deadly weapons. Yet martial arts training in California is taken into account when the question of self-defense is raised.
You are allowed to physically defend yourself with only that amount of force that is reasonably necessary to do so. If a drunk at a bar grabs your girlfriend, you are not allowed to “ground and pound” them like an MMA fighter. Once the engagement breaks off, you are not allowed to continue it, and you are not allowed to escalate the matter further. If a highly-trained fighter is in a confrontation with a drunken car mechanic who can barely stand up, it’s going to be difficult for you to argue self-defense. That is why, on the continuum of self-defense acts, someone with training is a lot better off staying out of trouble.
A good example of clearly felony assault is the case of Bobby Joe Blythe a former martial arts instructor who recently posted a video of one of his students attacking and seriously injuring a man who appears mentally disturbed.
The point at which the victim says “You got it” is where the perpetrator has no claim to self-defense whatsoever. This is important to understand. If the fight is over, then it is over.
What is the burden of proof in a restraining order case?
In a criminal case it is well known that the burden of proof for the prosecution is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. While we need not go into great detail here, suffice to say that the judge or jury need to be really certain that a person has committed a crime in order to convict them. Not so with a restraining order. A restraining order case isn’t really a civil case and it isn’t really a criminal case either. Because it involves the restraint of liberty (meaning that an individual with a restraining order granted against them winds up on CLETS, or California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, which is not a good thing) it is deemed a “quasi-criminal” case.
Because the victims of domestic violence are so numerous, and because these victims are likely to continue to be victimized by the perpetrator, who is usually a family member, spouse, or significant other, the burden of proof is lower in California Domestic Violence Restraining Order cases.
Domestic Violence Restraining orders, often referred somewhat inaccurately as “TRO”s (Temporary Restraining Order) comes under the Family Code Section 6200. While 6200 is silent on the issue of what the burden of proof is, the California Civil Code states that unless otherwise stated, the burden of proof is by the preponderance of the evidence.
This is the lowest standard of proof and means that a judge sitting as a trier of fact need only believe that it is more likely than not that the victim is telling the truth.
This is good if you are an actual victim of domestic violence. This is bad if you are falsely accused of domestic violence, because it can literally be your word against their word. Without a skilled attorney who can impeach the credibility of the other party, perpetrators and false accusers can win.
The extraordinary thing is, that despite the fact that you could lose your job, lose your kids, and your life could be totally ruined, you still might go in there and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. To say that this is a bad idea is like saying the titanic had some issues with leaks.
If you are facing a TRO, call an attorney immediately and make an appointment.
Sonoma County DMV hearings and DUI
If you have been arrested in Sonoma County for DUI, you will almost certainly be charged with the crime of driving under the influence, and your name forwarded to the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
Thus, your case will go forward in two different avenues, the criminal court and the administrative arm of the DMV that deals with these matters.
Your license is a privilege, not a right. That means that the laws and standards are vastly different. Most importantly, YOU HAVE ONLY TEN DAYS TO REQUEST A DMV HEARING BEFORE YOUR LICENSE IS SUSPENDED AUTOMATICALLY. Yes, you read that correctly. Ten days.
The following is an excerpt from the California Department of Motor Vehicles Website which you can find here.
“How is the DMV hearing different from the court trial for DUI?
The DMV hearing is an administrative proceeding regarding your driving privilege and the circumstances surrounding the arrest, not whether you are innocent or guilty of a criminal act. Only the following issues will be discussed:
If you took a blood or breath or (if applicable) a urine test:
* Did the peace officer have reasonable cause to believe you were driving a motor vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code Section 23140 , 23152 , or 23153 ?
* Were you placed under lawful arrest?
* Were you driving a motor vehicle when you had 0.08% or more by weight of alcohol in your blood?
If you refused or failed to complete a blood, breath test, or (if applicable) a urine test:
* Did the peace officer have reasonable cause to believe you were driving a motor vehicle in violation of Vehicle Code Section 23140 , 23152 , or, 23153 ?
* Were you placed under lawful arrest?
* Were you told that if you refused to submit to or failed to complete a test of your blood, breath, or (when applicable) urine, your driving privilege would be suspended for one year or revoked for two or three years?
* Did you refuse to submit to or failed to complete a blood or breath test, or (if applicable) a urine test after being requested to do so by a peace officer?”
Only an attorney is qualified to sort out all of the issues in this situation by examining the police report and any other evidence. Having your license suspended can be extremely damaging to your life. If you are a professional driver, then that makes it that much more important to get legal help.
Background checks on lawyers
Clients looking for an attorney should start first at the state bar website. You can search here by clicking the link on “Attorney Search” in the upper right hand corner of the page. The information provided will give you their contact information, how long they have been practicing, and perhaps where they went to school.
Just because an attorney has been disciplined doesn’t mean they cannot practice law. The State Bar of California is actually very lenient to those who have already been admitted to the bar. They are normally given multiple chances to keep their license.
However, on occasion, a person may not make the cut.
A good example is Sonoma County District Attorney Brooke Halsey Jr., who was suspended by the State Bar of California for prosecutorial misconduct.
“January 12, 2007
BROOKE POWELL HALSEY JR. [#142330], 44, of Tiburon was suspended for four years, stayed, placed on five years of probation with an actual three-year suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation and was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Jan. 12, 2007.
While prosecuting a prominent physician in Sonoma for murder, Halsey, who was a deputy district attorney, dismissed the charges after evidence came to light that a key witness had been extensively coached. The State Bar Court found that he committed six acts of misconduct.
He violated California law by withholding, prior to trial, impeaching evidence and evidence favorable to the defense, committing acts of moral turpitude, and he improperly suppressed evidence, made multiple misrepresentations to the court and sought to mislead a judge.
In another matter, he intervened in the case of a casual acquaintance who was charged with violating the Fish and Game Code while hunting for wild pigs. Although it was not his case, Halsey evaluated the matter on his own and had it dismissed without informing anyone in his office. The court found that he had a conflict in the case because of a prior relationship with the defendant.
In mitigation, Halsey presented 17 character witnesses who testified to his integrity. He has no prior discipline record and he has performed extensive community service.”
See the full decision here.
In Sonoma County, don’t rent to Section 8 tenants.
It may seem like a good idea initially. You have a rental property. You know the government offers programs that helps people pay their rent. You may feel liked doing the right thing and helping someone out who is down on their luck. In Sonoma County, renting to a Section 8 tenant can cost you thousands upon thousands of dollars because if they stop paying, then suddenly you have a whole separate area of Unlawful Detainer law. While most residential evictions are controlled by California law, Section 8 is a vast, complex web of federal and state law which provides a whole different set of regulations.
Frankly, I do not do evictions for Section 8 housing and I don’t advise anyone to rent to someone who needs Section 8. In Sonoma County, there are attorneys who know this area of law very well and can take a tenant’s case if they think they can recover attorney’s fees from the landlord. I can refer you to an attorney who is willing to handle a Section 8 eviction.
Whatever you think of them personally, they claim they are standing up for tenants and preserving their rights, and you can end up on the short end of the stick if it isn’t handled properly.
