Today, a judge agreed to expunge Mel Gibson's conviction that was widely publicised due to the anti-Semitic remarks made by the actor during the arrest. As a first-time drunk-driving offender, Gibson was eligible to have the conviction removed from his record after completing the terms of his probation.

Gibson was stopped in July 2006 on Pacific Coast Highway after he was seen driving over 85 mph. A breathalyzer test showed Gibson's blood alcohol content to be .12, the legal limit being .08.

Call the Law Offices of Mark A. Gallagher now at 800-797-8406 to get information on how your case can be expunged.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a first degree murder conviction in US v Begay (2009 DJDAR 7955). The defendant, Begay, was convicted of two counts of first degree murder along with two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence. The Ninth Circuit overturned the District Court's first degree murder convictions stating that the government had failed to introduce evidence that was sufficient to show premeditation. Since premeditation is an essential element of a first degree murder charge, the Ninth Circuit had no choice but to overturn the District Court's first degree murder convictions.

The Ninth Circuit stated that premeditation required a showing of a time to reflect on the decision to commit murder and that the defendant did in fact reflect on that decision and that the murder was committed with a "cool mind" after engaging in said reflection. The Court ruled the mere fact that the defendant had a weapon is not enough to support premeditation if the weapon is one in which the defendant regularly uses for lawful, non-violent purposes. In this instance the defendant routinely used his firearm for recreational purposes. The Court held that the possession of a firearm alone is not enough to support premeditation.

In July 2009, the California Supreme Court made a decision in People v McNeal that can be an important weapon in a criminal defense attorney's DUI defense arsenal.

According to the decision, defendants who have been charged with Vehicle Code §23152(a) may now present evidence of one's partition ratio to contest the accuracy of Breathalyzer results. The partition ratio is the conversion ratio that the breath machines use to convert the amount of alcohol in a breath sample to the amount of alcohol in the blood. The standard partition ratio is set at 2100:1, defined as milliliters present in the breath: milliliters present in the blood.

Even though scientists still believe that using a 2100:1 ratio is an acceptable representation of a person's partition ratio, it is believed that the majority of the population has a 2300:1 ratio. This would result in a higher than actual blood alcohol content on the Breathalyzer machine.

One problem with this decision is that court declined to provide guidance as to how a criminal defendant could establish their own personal partition ratio. In addition, the court could determine that this evidence is inadmissible at trial because in order for scientific evidence to be allowed it must have gained general acceptance in the particular scientific filed and currently there are no established procedures for determining a person's partition ratio.

Given the problems with this decision, it is important that anyone facing a DUI charge work with an experienced DUI attorney.

Most people ask what length of time the DMV reports actions or convictions on driver license records. Below is a guideline to answer that question.

Most traffic offenses (DUI, hit and run, reckless driving) will stay on your driving record for a period of seven years starting from the date of violation. These violations typically result in a two point penalty on your driver's license.

Most other traffic offenses (speeding etc.) will stay on your driving record for a period of three years starting from the date of violation. These violations typically result in a one point penalty on your driver's license.

Accidents are reported for three years from the date of the accident and if at fault result in a one point penalty on your driver's license.

A suspension or revocation of your license due to a DUI or failure to provide proof of financial responsibility, will be reported for a period of three years from the reinstatement date or proof termination date, whichever is earlier.

Any failure to appear (FTA) for DUI related offenses will be reported for a period of ten years starting from the date of violation. All other FTA's will be reported for a period of five years starting from the date of violation.

This year California's legislature passed a zero tolerance law for DUI offenders on probation, decreased the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) level that initiates the use of ignition interlock devices and mandated DUI programs to even those on probation for a lesser DUI offense known as a "wet reckless."

Effective 2009, Vehicle Code §23154 states that any driver who is on probation for a DUI conviction may not operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.01 or higher. In addition, under the implied consent law, if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver is violating this law, they can make the driver submit to a preliminary blood alcohol screening test. If the driver's BAC is 0.01 or higher, or the driver refuses the test, the police will issue a notice of an order to suspend the driver's license and then snatch the driver's valid license and issue a temporary license valid for 30 days.

As for Ignition Interlock Devices or IID, drivers with a BAC of 0.15 can be required to install an IID into their vehicles in order to receive restricted driving privileges. A second IID law transfers the administration of IID programs from the courts to the DMV and it grants the DMV the power to require any driver that has been convicted of a DUI to install an IID in any vehicle they own or drive.

Another change in 2009, requires those that are on probation for a lesser DUI charge known as a "wet reckless" to attend a mandatory DUI program. If the driver fails to enroll, participate or complete this program, the driver faces having their probation revoked.

Since DUI laws are constantly changing, it is best to contact an experienced DUI attorney if you come across any DUI issues.

On June 22, 2009, The California Supreme Court, reversed a decision by the Court of Appeal, stating that a person who knowingly aids and abets criminal conduct is guilty of the intended crime and any other crime the perpetrator actually commits that is a "natural and probable consequence of the intended crime." The aider and abettor is not required to have actually foreseen the perpetrator's crime but "whether judged objectively, it was reasonable foreseeable."

On June 15, 2009, The California Supreme Court, in a case entitled People v. Dykes, upheld a decision of the trial court with the jury convicting him of first degree murder, attempted murder, and robbery, sentencing him to death. Under Miranda, a suspect may not be interrogated unless he knowingly and intelligently waived the right to remain silent and to an attorney. After the waiver, interrogation may proceed unless the suspect clearly asks for an attorney. The prosecution must prove the defendant's waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. In the instant case, the trial court applied the stricter "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. The court gave credit to the officers' testimony that they had advised Dykes of his rights and that he did not ask for counsel.