Irvine - Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo

Defense Lawyers Want Lid on DA’s Office in Irvine 11 Case

Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo — Mon, 16 May 2011 17:41:00 GMT

Defense attorneys have filed a motion that would limit the public statements given by the District Attorney’s office in regards to the on-going case against 11 UC Irvine students. The motion argues that chief of staff for Orange County District Attorney, Susan Kang Schroeder and Assistant D.A. Dan Wagner have made public statements that were “ethically irresponsible”. It is also argued that Mr. Wagner acted inappropriately by offering his personal opinion that the students were guilty. Ms. Kang Schroeder and Mr. Wagner have both expressed their disagreement with the motion. Later this month the motion will be heard, in addition to another motion requesting that the transcripts from the grand jury investigation be excluded from evidence in the eventual trial. On June 17 a motion to recuse the District Attorney’s office from the case will be heard. All eleven students are charged with one count of conspiracy to disturb a meeting and one count of disturbing a meeting. Both charges are misdemeanors that come with a six months jail sentence, or community service, probation or fines. See, Penal Code Sections 415, 415.5 and 416.

Irvine Parents Killed by Daughter’s Boyfriend

Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:54:00 GMT

Three men are going on trial for the deaths of two Irvine residents. The victims were the parents of a young woman who was dating one of the Defendants. Another daughter suffered serious injuries in the attack. The parents were found dead, their bodies showed evidence of being stabbed and beaten. The remains were found at a park in Irvine early in the morning; they had been set on fire. Officials explain that the victims were targeted by the boyfriend of the youngest member of the Dhanak family, who was unharmed and not at the house during the incident. Her parents had told her to end the relationship with Iftekhar Murtaza, who they did not approve of. Vitaliy Krasoperov, a friend of Mr. Murtaza, will go on trial for aiding and abetting, since according to prosecutors he participated in the planning and cover up of the incident. His defense attorney will argue that his client was at home recuperating from a motorcycle accident. He is being charged with conspiring to commit murder, two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, sentencing enhancements for multiple murders, murder during a commission of a burglary, and murder during a kidnapping. The third defendant, Charles Murphy is a long time friend of Murtaza and faces life in prison with out the possibility of parole for similar charges. Penal Code Sections 664-187.

High Stakes Attempted Murder Trial in Orange County

Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:12:00 GMT

A fight at an Irvine home sent one man to the hospital with a stab wound to the chest back in April of 2009. The victim was Andre Murillo, and on February 8, 2011, a trauma surgeon, Dr. Nastanski, testified at the preliminary hearing of Defendant Abdullah Wahadi. The defendant is charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. Dr. Nastanski explained that the cut had severed the outer layer of Mr. Murrillo’s heart and further explained that such a cut could cause bleeding into the chest which could have been fatal. Mr. Wahadi’s defense attorney asked the doctor about traces of marijuana and amphetamines in the victim’s blood. According to the Orange County Register the defense attorney asked Mr. Murillo about a previous incident involving him and his father. Specifically, whether or not Murillo pushed or head butted his father, which Murillo said “I don’t believe that happened”. An Irvine police officer testified as well, giving accounts from two of Mr. Murillo’s friends. Officer Flores described how one witness described seeing Wahadi punching Murillo several times, and on one occasion saw a knife. Also one witness said that the physical altercation occurred outside of the house, after an argument between the two inside the house. The article did not explain why the men had been arguing.

Generally questions about whether a victim was under the influence of drugs is only admissible where if the Defendant intends to claim self defense toward a drug crazed assailant-victim. Otherwise, such questions are usually irrelevant, not admissible and may not be asked. It is unclear what relevance asking the victim about an incident with his father since that would not appear to be relevant unless the Defendant was trying to show he was acting in self defense and the victim had a propensity for violence.

Mr. Wahadi’s only possible defenses to this case are that it simply did not happen or that he was acting in self defense or defense of others. Notably, self defense usually only permits like force with like force to be applied. So if Mr. Murillo was using his fist and Mr. Wahadi used a knife that may not qualify as self defense.

Irvine is generally considered one of the safest places in America and is consistently on top 10 lists for American cities with little crime. For such a serious crime to have been committed there has been a shock to the locals. If convicted Mr. Wahadi could face life in prison. See Penal Code Sections 664-187, 245(a) (1).

Irvine 11 are Charged by Orange County District Attorney

Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:17:00 GMT

Last year 11 students were detained by authorities after disrupting a speech by the Ambassador from Israel, Ambassador Oren, at the University of California, Irvine. These students, since referred to as the Irvine 11, have now been formally charged with the crime of disturbing the peace. The eleven students, some of whom attended the University of California at Irvine and others the University of California at Riverside, disrupted the Ambassador’s speech shouting anti-Israel messages or pro-Palestine messages. The Orange County District Attorney’s office deliberated over whether to charge them because of the free speech issues and probably also because a judicial prosecution will set a showdown for free speech issues. While Free Speech is a cornerstone of American Democracy it does not permit another individual to “shout down” another. Also, through precedent the United States Supreme Court has laid out certain time and place restrictions that limit free speech, mainly for practical reasons. For example, holding a noisy demonstration in the middle of the night in a sleepy town might cause a court to legally restrict such a demonstration despite the Free Speech argument.

So while the Orange County District Attorney’s decision to charge the Irvine 11 is controversial it appears to be supported by the law in this area and not an infringement of the 1st Amendment right to Free Speech. See, Penal Code Sections 415, 415.5, 416.

Robbery at Kohl’s in Orange County

Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:45:00 GMT

A second Orange County Kohl’s store was robbed in a period of just two days. The first Kohl’s robbery occurred in Cypress where the suspects are still at large. The first robbery involved two women who stole $520.00 worth of cologne and silver jewelry. The second robbery involved a man who used a weapon to steal jewelry from the Irvine Kohl’s. No gun, however, was ever recovered. Police utilized a “reverse 911 call” to warn Irvine residents to stay indoors as police searched for the suspect on the afternoon of February 25th. Two schools were also locked down. Police have now apprehended a suspect who they believe to be the one who carried out the armed robbery (Penal Code Sections 211 and 245(a) (1)). He was found walking in the courtyard of an apartment community in Irvine. No estimate of the stolen goods has yet been given.

Constitutional or Discourteous?

Law Offices of William W. Bruzzo — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:04:00 GMT

Last week Michael Oren gave a speech at University of California, Irvine in Orange County, California, describing the issues he faced as Israeli ambassador. His speech was interrupted multiple times from members of the audience that did not agree with him. A video posted online showed the interruptions occurring roughly every ten minutes. Professor Petracca of the Political Science department expresses his impatience with the outbursts and called out “Shame on you!” when he took the podium to control the ruckus caused by the interruptions. He told the audience that this behavior is not appropriate for University of California students. The spirit of the event as explained by Professor Petracca and Chancellor Drake was to provide a forum for an exchange of ideas and discussion on the Middle East situation. They said that a better way for the UCI Muslim Student Union (the group expressing their dissatisfaction with the speaker) to express their disagreement would be by presenting the ambassador with questions at the end of his talk. University officials were likely embarrassed by the students’ conduct. The MSU has put on its share of displays on campus denouncing Israeli occupation and their tactics and the tolls it takes on the Palestinian community. Indubitably the University would have preferred picketing outside the speaking venue. Yet it’s important to remember that a marginalized group may feel that working within the accepted modes of expression is not effective. The outbursts managed to successfully interrupt Oren from talking, but did not communicate any counter point. Some people present complained that UCI should have taken better measures to control the crowd and that the outbursts made UCI look bad. Notably, as soon as a person yelled out they were escorted out of the auditorium. The position that UCI takes on the incident is that expression is permitted within certain limits dictated by place and time. It is unclear if the students will be charged criminally. If they are they can be charged with disturbing the peace under Penal Code section 415 (2); this penal code section prohibits using “loud and unreasonable” noise. Despite the strong protection of Free Speech in the U.S. Constitution it does appear that the manner in which the students sought to protest the ambassador fell outside the protection of the constitution.