Los Angeles Criminal Lawyer Blog

In what some might argue is a story epitomizing true meaning of the holiday season, the peace and holiday cheer of one Los Angeles suburb was shattered on Thanksgiving night by a crime of ruthless consumerism.

The backdrop is the idyllic San Fernando Valley hamlet of Porter Ranch. The place is Wal-Mart. Countdown to Black Friday. Pre-Midnight-Madness holiday specials. The smiley-face logo is now sporting a Santa Claus hat, and is plastered throughout the store, wherever a particularly-shocking "price rollback" is occurring on palates of products being freshly moved from the back of the warehouse to the retail floor. Crowds gather where the palates come to rest, eager consumers jockeying for position as employees peel off the layers of Chinese shrink-wrap, releasing the smell of fresh electronics.

Last night, a problem arose when the shoppers spotted employees wheeling out a large palate, with the Smiley-Faced mascot sign already identifying the contents and the impossibly low price the retailer was asking for . . . Xboxes. Word spread through the crowd so rapidly there was an audible murmur as shoppers learned, processed and let out a collective and involuntary sound, which was part joy, part shock, but quickly transformed into a steely-eyed focus on what must be done next.

From the ceiling-mounted security camera, the two employees and their large palate formed a island surrounded by the heads of scores of customers, who would yield to the motion of the palate slowly and reluctantly at the urging of the employee in front.

Finally, the employees, frustrated by and somewhat scared by the crowd of consumers, looked at each other and, though twenty-five feet short of their planned destination, stopped the palate, removed utility knives from the front pocket of their ALWAYS low prices aprons, and began cutting through the shrink wrap and second layer of cushion wrap underneath. Now the crowd started pushing forward, as individuals began committing minor, tolerable misdemeanors upon each other in order to ensure that they would be ultimately walking away with what one of what-might-be-less-than-the-total-number-of-people-surrounding-the-palate, Xboxes.

It was when the employees removed the first layer of shrink-wrap and cushioning only to find, to their own frustration along with that of their crowd of spectators, that there was yet another layer of shrink-wrap, this one containing a large amount of what struck them as excessive, superfluous cushioning, that the crowd -- perhaps in a collective, unconscious calculation (or was it primordial, "brain-stem recognition?") that the palate now contained much more shipping material and far fewer Xboxes than their previous estimate and, with the stakes now raised, their previous positions would have to be adjusted correspondingly -- surged forward. The employees, recognizing that the efficiency of their utility knives had been suddenly surpassed by the frightening effectiveness of a thousand consumer claws tearing at the Chinese packing materials, retreated quickly away from what was now a 400 square foot field of chaos. Incidents of increasingly severe degrees of California Penal Code sections 240-245 were now occurring: holding, grabbing, pushing, hooking, interference, and, now transforming a fun game of full-contact shopping into a police investigation, pepper spray.

A positionally-disadvantaged woman produced a canister of the caustic concoction and released it on her fellow patrons, clearing her path to the palate of gaming consoles.

Reports are that the woman walked away with an Xbox. Since none were reported stolen, it is presumed that she proceeded to the registers and paid for it. It is now up to police to review the store security video and see if the woman's identity can be determined. If so, Los Angeles County Prosecutors will likely charge her with felony assault, felony battery, and other pepper-spray-specific violations for each of the individuals affected by her chemical warfare.

If the identity of this pepper-spraying mother of an Xbox fan can be determined, she will need a good lawyer for her holidays to be happy.

Louie Sanchez and Marvin Norwood were recently charged with the beating of Bryan Stow on opening day of the baseball season in the Dodger Stadium parking lot. Mr. Stow remains hospitalized today, but is reportedly showing signs of improvement after four months in and out of a coma.

There are defenses to crimes of assault, such as "self-defense," but given the evidence that Stow was hit in the back of the head initially, that one probably isn't going to fly. Leaving what appears to be two remaining defenses for the suspects: "the co-defendant did it," and "neither one of us did it."

"The co-defendant did it" is a risky defense in this situation, since it requires putting the client at the scene. Putting a client at or near the scene raises the possibility that the jury might have no sympathy or mercy for someone who was anywhere near such violence, or cause them to think "he must have had something to do with it." It also increases the possibility that the prosecution could prove "aiding and abetting," which means that even if one defendant perpetrated the crime, if the other defendant aided, facilitated, promoted, encouraged, or instigated in any way, he can be convicted of the full crime as if he were the perpetrator. Because of the obvious risks here, attorneys should not put their clients at the scene unless boxed in by the evidence to the point they would lose credibility with the jury by NOT doing so.

In the Bryan Stow case, however, the police themselves have paved the way for a very solid "neither of us did it" defense. They did this by attempting to poison the jury pool for the previous suspect they arrested for this crime, Giovanni Ramirez. On May 26, 2011, once Mr. Ramirez had been arrested for the Stow beating, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck stated that he was "absolutely" confident that police had the right suspect. In fact, he stated it even more specifically than that; "Absolutely . . . I am as sure as you need to be to make an arrest and pursue a prosecution."

If the Chief was that sure, then surely the detectives and investigating officers on the case were similarly sure. But police were later forced to release Mr. Ramirez based on a lack of evidence. Now that two other suspects are being held for the same crime, how much credibility does LAPD have in asserting they have the right people in custody? Are they sure? As sure as they "need to be?"

What happened here was the police were under pressure to make an arrest in a case that was receiving state and national news coverage. When they rushed to arrest Mr. Ramirez, they realized there were some serious holes in their case, so Mr. Beck went public to say he was "sure," in order to assure the community (and a future jury?) that trust us, there's no doubt we have the right guy. In doing so, they have laid the groundwork for a strong defense for the new suspects. A good defense attorney in this situation will take the police's case against Mr. Ramirez and use every reason, every piece of evidence, every public statement about being "sure" by the Chief and the other officers staffing the case, and use it to create doubt about their own client's guilt.

We hope the perpetrators of the crimes against Mr. Stow are taken off the streets, as there is no place in our society for that kind of brutality. But the public and jury that is ultimately assembled to hear the evidence against Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Norwood should approach this case starting from a position of doubt about their guilt, and with zero confidence that the police have arrested the right people