Nota Bene

The Sacramento Bee reports:

The state’s high court ruled Monday that a Santa Barbara deputy district attorney who helped in the making of the movie “Alpha Dog” can stay on the real-life death penalty case on which the film is based.

In a similar ruling Monday, the court reinstated a Santa Barbara prosecutor who was taken off a case after she published a crime novel with some of the same features as the actual case.

In the “Alpha Dog” case, a lower appeals court had removed Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen after he turned over probation reports, police files and other sensitive materials to director Nick Cassavetes. “Alpha Dog,” a fictionalized account of the case that starred Bruce Willis, Sharon Stone and Justin Timberlake, was released last year.

You can access the Alpha Dog case here and the second, related case here.

The Daily Breeze reports:

Cameron Brown, who is accused of throwing his 4-year-old daughter off a Rancho Palos Verdes cliff, will not have famed criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos or his firm representing him at his retrial.

Instead, because the judge will not approve state payments to a set of two privately retained defense attorneys, Mr. Brown will be represented by an attorney from the Alternate Public Defender’s office.

Tomorrow the California Supreme Court will issue its opinion in People v. Black (S126182). Among other issues, the Court will determine whether trial judges or juries should assess the factors that determine whether a person convicted of multiple offenses should be sentenced consecutively or concurrently. Historically, this has been the role of the trial judge. However, whether this practice runs afoul of the Sixth Amendment in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 127 S.Ct. 856, will be determined tomorrow.

Update 1: The opinion has been issued.  You can read it here.  More later.

What are the consequences in a white collar criminal case when government prosecutors coerce a corporation into leaving corporate employees without a paid legal defense team? From yesterday’s opinion in the high profile KPMG case:

The government threatened to indict, and thus to destroy, the giant accounting firm, KPMG LLP (“KPMG”). It coerced KPMG to limit and then cut off its payment of the legal fees of KPMG employees. KPMG avoided indictment by yielding to government pressure. Many of its personnel did not. They now await trial, four of them deprived of counsel of their choice and most of the others unable to afford the defenses that they would have presented absent the government’s interference. This Court previously held that the government’s interference with KPMG’s payment of the legal fees of its employees and former employees violated the employees’ constitutional rights. The government now concedes that thirteen of the sixteen individuals formerly employed by KPMG (the “KPMG Defendants”) are entitled to dismissal, assuming that this Court’s previous ruling correct. But the government does not concede the correctness of that ruling. Accordingly, the Court has reconsidered Stein I carefully in light of the government’s arguments. It remains convinced that the ruling was correct. Indeed, additional evidence not previously considered strongly supports the Court’s decision. (more…)

Legal Pad reports:

Working for Robert Nudelman must have been a really bad experience — because some of the fellow lawyers in his Woodland Hills firm decided to take him down.

State Bar officials announced Monday that they shut down Nudelman’s Criminal Defense Associates Inc. last week because the firm had become “incapable” of properly representing its 150 clients who face criminal charges.

Nudelman resigned from practicing law immediately, officials said in a press statement, after the State Bar seized about 700 files, froze the firm’s bank accounts and placed it under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Kimberly Anderson said Monday that some of the lawyers employed by Nudelman are largely responsible for stopping Nudelman before things got worse. (more…)

The Sacramento Bee reports:

A judge on Monday removed high-profile defense attorney Mark Geragos from the case of a defense contractor charged with conspiring to defraud the CIA because the lawyer refused to submit to background checks.

U.S. District Judge Larry Burns said Geragos placed an undue burden on the court by refusing to obtain a security clearance. Prosecutors said they would have to spend six months sifting through 17,000 pages of documents to remove any classified material.

The move may delay the trial against former top CIA official Kyle “Dusty” Foggo and his best friend, Poway-based contractor Brent Wilkes, Burns said, after repeatedly asking Geragos to reconsider his stance.

The trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 23.

Geragos, who represents Wilkes, called the government’s insistence that it could not hand over the material “laughable” and said his client has a constitutional right to any incriminating evidence. Burns said Geragos may appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.