A motion by Jonathan Alonzo—one of the defendants named in the proposed gang injunction—for appointment of counsel was denied Wednesday morning by Judge James Brown. The judge found that Alonzo was not entitled to appointed counsel in the civil proceedings, a right recognized only in very limited circumstances. Meanwhile, several attorneys have stepped up to offer legal services to some of the 30 named alleged gang members. A series of motions are set to be heard on the gang injunction early next month, though any possible implementation of the injunction will likely not be argued for months.
Previous Month
Comments
When there's blood in the water, them sharkboys sure come circling in, don't they. Let's hope these gangthugs get diced into chum.
Draxor (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2011 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right, there's lots of money to be made in defending the civil liberties of alleged gang members, who have to be guilty, of course, or otherwise why would the government, which must always be trusted, is never wrong, and must be given as much arbitrary power over citizens as possible, be going after them?
pk (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2011 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Somebody enlighten me please: If one is accused of a crime, aren't they entitled to legal representation?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2011 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Only in criminal cases, not in civil cases
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2011 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This matter has already been ruled on, check out: Iraheta v. Superior Court of Los Angeles 70 Cal. App. 4th 1500; 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 471. In some courtrooms (i.e. Utah) representation has been denied altogether just to get the injunction in place and stop this public nuisance. Will it stop it all together? No. Will it be a good way to harass young street punks? Yes. Could it be misused? Most likely.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2011 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you italiansburg. Doesn't it seem however, that the letter of the law (the difference between civil and criminal cases) contradicts the spirit of the law?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 15, 2011 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The reasoning behind this is that they are not being charged with a crime yet. If they violate the injunction then they will be charged with a crime and then they will have the right to an attorney paid for by the taxpayer if they cannot afford one. So first thing is to get the injunction in place then they can have a lawyer if they break the law. (Gideon vs. Wainwright)
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
June 16, 2011 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! I completely agree with you!
waz (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2011 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have just declared Draxor to be a member of a criminal street gang. Now he has to take his gangster assembly out of the Safety Zones to upper State Street instead.
If Draxor does not like this, too bad because I and my three friends just declared him to be a gangthug. He can hire his own lawyer to refute that.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
June 17, 2011 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)