What is wrong with what a recent New York Times opinion piece terms "one-size-fits-all fines" in criminal law cases?
Here in the East Bay, we have a wide selection of nearby professional sports teams in football, baseball, basketball, soccer and hockey. With hundreds of pro athletes working and living in a relatively small area, it is inevitable that some will have personal and legal problems that affect their careers.
The answer to the above-posed question in today's blog post headline can be quickly and emphatically supplied by many California prison inmates.
Many of our readers in the Bay Area and across California have likely seen television dramas and movies with scenes involving a back-and-forth discussion between prosecutors and criminal suspects concerning plea bargains.
California stands out starkly from most other states when incarceration-linked numbers are crunched by statisticians and demographers.
A California man was identified from a photo lineup some years back by witnesses who targeted him as the shooter in an attempted murder. He was sentenced to a 53-year prison term.
How concerned are prosecutors who have engaged in professional misconduct that they will be legally called to task for their acts or purposeful omissions?
Many motorists in Alameda County and elsewhere across California have never encountered a sobriety checkpoint set up by a local police department or other law enforcement agency.
There is a degree of wiggle room -- an exception, if you will -- in the 4th Amendment's requirement for police officers and other enforcement officials to secure a warrant prior to engaging in a search and potential seizure of criminal evidence.
The U.S. Constitution directly addresses citizens' rights in the face of governmental search-and-seizure actions.