Contact Us Rates Advertising

Search Engine Friendly Directory

:  
Directory / Business / Law / Law Firms / United States

Eisner Gorin LLP

Eisner Gorin LLP is a nationally recognized Los Angeles criminal defense law firm devoted to contesting serious felony and federal criminal cases.

 

Website: https://www.egattorneys.com

 


 

  • Del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Blinklist
  • Furl
  • reddit
  • Google Bookmark It!
  • Stumble it!

 

Latest News RSS feed from site

  • What Happens If I Violate a Protective Order in California?
    What Happens If I Violate a Protective Order in California? A criminal protective order is normally issued in criminal cases with the primary purpose of restraining a defendant from harassing, physically abusing, stalking, or threatening the alleged victim. A protective order is just about always issued in cases involving violence or credible threats of violence to the victim.   The specific conduct that a protective order attempts to prohibit will depend on the circumstances of the case. Criminal protective orders or CPOs for short are issued by a criminal court as part of a prosecution.   The protective order outlines and dictates the type of behavior that are acceptable or prohibited. Normally, the CPO requires the restrained person to avoid any form of contact with the protected person. A violation of a California protective order is a criminal offense punishable by law.   Where a protective order exists, the restrained person needs to avoid making contact with the protected person. There are many different forms of contact, including personal contact where they must remain a certain distance away from the victim.   It also includes contact through electronic means such as text, email, and phone calls. Contact can also include interaction in social media platforms.   Our Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers help people who are facing allegations of violating a protective order.   Levels of Protective Orders There are different levels of which have different restrictions. The most restrictive and most commonly issued form of a CPO is a full stay-away, no-contact order restraining the defendant from contacting or coming close to the alleged victim in the case in any way.   Less restrictive orders can be issued for a number of reasons. One common reason for a less-than-full stay-away order is that the parties share minor children in common and a full stay-away would interfere with the defendant and victim’s ability to exchange the children and otherwise co-parent.    In these cases, a criminal court will often defer to custody and visitation orders issued by a family or dependency court which is more familiar with the particular family dynamics at issue.    In other cases, the victim may address the court directly and request a less restrictive CPO, such as a peaceful contact order.    Under a peaceful contact criminal protective order, the defendant may continue to live with the alleged victim and contact the alleged victim by phone or other electronic means provided that the contact does not involve violence, threats of violence, , , or other unwanted conduct.   Violating a Protective Order – PC 273.6 Criminal protective orders typically remain in effect from the first court date in the criminal case until the resolution of the case, and can potentially extend up to ten years after the resolution of the case as part of the defendant’s sentence. If the restrained person , they could be facing penalties.   order can have severe consequences under California Penal Code 273.6. While the case is still pending, adhering to the provisions of the CPO is a condition of the defendant’s release on bail.    The judge can immediately remand the defendant to the custody of the Sheriff’s Department if the judge determines that the CPO was violated.    Even after the case is already resolved, violating the CPO is a serious offense. Violation of the order is a separate criminal offense, a , which can result in potential county jail time and fines and fees.    Potentially more importantly for the defendant, violating the criminal protective order also constitutes a .    If the sentencing court is convinced that the defendant violated probation, the court has the power to impose any sentence up to the maximum for the underlying offense.    Domestic Violence Cases Particularly in a felony domestic violence case, the consequences for a probation violation can be much more significant than those originally imposed at sentencing.   For example, a felony domestic violence defendant might be given probation with a requirement to complete anger management and domestic violence counselling classes as a result of a negotiated plea.    The defendant has received a relatively lenient sentence on a felony case and has avoided jail time. However, if the court learns that the defendant has been sending harassing messages to the victim in violation of the criminal protective order, the court can find the defendant in violation of probation and impose state prison time.   Defenses for Violating a Protective Order Experienced criminal defense counsel will always caution their domestic violence clients to strictly adhere to the provisions of the criminal protective order.    Even if the defendant is not directly violated on bail or on probation, one or more alleged violations of the CPO are likely to cause the prosecution to seek harsher punishments against the defendant compared with other similarly situated defendants.    The terms of a CPO in a domestic violence case may be very disruptive for a charged defendant, possibly resulting in loss of housing and a strain on the family dynamic.    Rather than violate the criminal protective order and risk significantly increased consequences while out on bail or after conviction while on probation, the appropriate mechanism for addressing an inappropriately restrictive criminal protective order is to bring a formal motion to modify the criminal protective order before the court.    The judge has broad discretion to modify the terms of a CPO to address particularly circumstances faced by the defendant.   Contact a Los Angeles Criminal Lawyer for Help If you, or someone you know, has been arrested for, is charged with, or has been convicted of a domestic violence offense and wish to know more about the imposition or modification of a criminal protective order or CPO, contact our experienced team of Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys.    We have represented numerous defendants charged with domestic violence offenses in California courts and have litigated issues related to CPOs on behalf of our clients. Experienced representation is critical to maximizing the chances of a successful outcome in your case.   Eisner Gorin LLP is a top-rated criminal defense law firm located at 1875 Century Park E #705, Los Angeles, CA 90067. We also have an office next to the Van Nuys Courthouse in the San Fernando Valley at 14401 Sylvan St #112 Van Nuys, CA 91401. to review the details of your case at (310) 328-3776.
  • What is a “No Contest” Plea Under California Law?
    What is a “No Contest” Plea Under California Law? The vast majority of California criminal cases are resolved before taking the case to trial. They are settled through a plea agreement as most defendants will plead guilty rather than face the uncertainty of the outcome of a trial. While the meaning of a “guilty” plea is commonly understood, a “no contest” plea needs further explanation.   The term "" means "I don’t wish to contest." A guilty plea and a no contest plea will result in a criminal conviction. However, when you plead "no contest,” you are not admitting guilt but are allowing the court to determine your punishment.   Before you can plead "no contest,” the has to accept the plea and make sure you understand that the plea will be considered the same as a guilty plea and the court will find you guilty. The judge also has to ensure you are voluntarily entering your no contest plea and were not coerced in any way.   These rights are typically waived in written form called a . After these requirements are met, you will then proceed to a where the judge will impose your sentence.   The main benefit of entering a "no contest" plea in California rather than a guilty plea is apparent in cases.   Once you plead "no contest" in a misdemeanor case, the plea can’t be used against you as an admission of guilt in a situation where a civil proceeding is pursued from the same conduct for which the criminal prosecution was based.   In order to give readers a better understanding of a “no contest” plea in California, let’s take more detailed look below.    How California Criminal Cases Are Resolved A California criminal case, once filed, will resolve either by a negotiated plea between the defendant and the prosecution. This can be done by a , or in rare cases with the voluntary dismissal of the charges by the prosecutor.   The dismissal of charges could also occur by the judge ruling on either a statutory , such as under Penal Code § 995, or a non-statutory motion to dismiss such as for outrageous government misconduct or violation of the statute of limitations or by demurrer.    The majority of criminal cases “settle,” meaning the defendant and the prosecution reach a negotiated resolution which involves the defendant pleading guilty or no contest to one or more criminal offenses or violations.    A plea of guilty is a straightforward admission of criminal liability which is the opposite of a plea of not guilty.   No Contest Plea in Felony Cases No contest pleas, or nolo contendere plea as they are more formally known, are not quite as straightforward.   California statutes provide for a plea of no contest in a criminal case. In all cases, the judge in a criminal case who accepts a no contest plea will treat the defendant as a guilty person and impose sentence just as if the defendant had entered a guilty plea.    Why, therefore, would the defendant choose to plead no contest rather than guilty? In a felony case, there is no meaningful distinction between a no contest plea and a guilty plea except for the words used.    The fact that the defendant pled no contest to a felony can be used against a defendant her in subsequent civil or administrative proceedings.    In felony cases, therefore, a no contest plea just like a guilty plea is an admission of criminal liability. This becomes important because the burden of proof in civil cases is lower than that in criminal cases.    By admitting criminal liability based on a certain set of facts, the defendant is implicitly admitting also that civil liability could be found based on the same facts.    Benefit of No Contest Plea in Misdemeanor Cases However, in misdemeanor cases a no contest plea provides a potentially substantial benefit to the defendant.    California law provides that a no contest plea to a misdemeanor cannot be used as an admission of liability in a related civil case. When would this scenario arise?    Imagine the defendant is charged with driving under California Vehicle Code Section 20002, a misdemeanor. No one was injured in the automobile collision, but substantial property damage was incurred by the victim which has not yet been compensated.    The defendant knows that the victim intends to sue him for money damages in civil court separate and apart from the criminal case he is already charged in. The defendant makes a decision to resolve his criminal case by negotiated plea.    The prosecutor has offered an extremely lenient sentence and, even though the defendant feels he might be acquitted at trial, he does not want to take the risk, instead preferring the guarantee of a lenient outcome.    However, the defendant also knows that if he pleads guilty to the hit and run, there is every likelihood that this plea will be used against him by the victim and his civil attorneys who will likely secure a large money judgment against the defendant.    By pleading no contest instead, the defendant can still take advantage of the plea agreement in his criminal case while preserving his ability to litigate his liability fully in the upcoming civil court proceeding.    A no contest plea as opposed to a guilty plea is therefore a substantial benefit to the defendant.   The same rule that applies to misdemeanors also applies to infractions under California law, though the relatively minor nature of an infraction makes it less likely that the defendant would be worried about substantial civil liability arising out of the same facts.   People v. West Appellate Decision A related, but distinct, concept to pleading no contest is pleading pursuant to .   This a California appellate decision which stands for the proposition that some defendants enter guilty or no contest pleas not because they believe they are factually guilty, but because after weighing the costs, benefits, and risks of a jury trial, including the financial costs, they have decided to resolve their case by negotiation rather than litigation.    This is an important distinction because a judge must find that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea before accepting it.    Rather than telling the court that they are factually innocent, but nevertheless will plead guilty, the defendant can take advantage of California’s laws in an appropriate case.   By pleading no contest and stipulating to the court that there is a factual basis for the no contest plea, but only pursuant to People v. West, thereby signaling to the court that whether or not the defendant is factually guilty, they believe that it is in their best interests to plead no contest.   Eisner Gorin LLP is a criminal defense law firm located at 1875 Century Park E #705, Los Angeles, CA 90067. our office for a consultation at (310) 328-3776.          
  • Prosecution and Defense of Los Angeles Police Officers
    Prosecution and Defense of Los Angeles Police Officers The death of George Floyd and the subsequent protesting and civil unrest have raised numerous questions about the role and conduct of law enforcement, the need for and possibility of systemic change in the criminal justice system, and longstanding issues of race relations in the United States.   Additionally, the civil rights law community is grappling with the effect of , a doctrine which in some observers’ opinions has shielded many police officers and municipalities from civil liability for objectively unreasonable acts which would otherwise be compensable under of the United States Code.    For the state prosecutorial agency who was tasked with reviewing the conduct of the officer who killed Floyd, however, a much narrower but nevertheless very nuanced determination had to be made.   What, if any, violations of criminal law should the officer be charged with?  As the prosecution was initiated under state laws of Minnesota, certain jurisdiction-specific considerations were likely very important.    This post examines the options which would have been available to a prosecutor facing the same factual scenario had it occurred in California. Our Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers are providing a detailed review below.   Manslaughter vs. Murder Charges in California For the purposes of this discussion, there is no dispute that the victim died as a result of the officer’s actions and that the force used by the officer.   In this case sitting with a knee on the victim’s neck for an extended period of time - was objectively unnecessary for the officer to defend himself, someone else, or to stop the victim from fleeing.    The question, therefore, is what factors would affect which of the several and statutes are charged in criminal court by the prosecutor.    In making this determination, the prosecutor must consider not only which crimes could arguably apply, but also which crimes based on the evidence are likely to be proven to an eventual jury at trial beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in the law.   The prosecutor might first consider the most serious possible charge, first-degree murder (CALCRIM 521) that is defined under .    To prove a first-degree murder (CALCRIM 520), the government would have to establish that the officer either killed the victim with premeditation, or that he killed him during the commission of another inherently dangerous felony, the so-called “felony murder rule.”    There have been some reports of a pre-existing relationship between the officer and the victim. However, there does not appear to be any compelling evidence that the murder was pre-planned, or that the officer was in the process of committing a dangerous felony when he happened to encounter the victim.    The prosecutor would likely decide against filing a first-degree murder charge for these reasons.   Second-Degree Murder Charges The next most serious potential charge would be second-degree murder (). Under this theory, the prosecution would need to show that:   The officer acted with deliberate indifference to the value of human life, meaning that his actions were so reckless and so likely to result in the victim’s death that any reasonable person would have known or should have known that the victim would be killed.    In this case, the officer placed a knee on the victim’s neck for an extended period of time during which bystanders were yelling that the victim appeared unresponsive and during which the victim himself stated that he could not breathe.    Accordingly, a second-degree murder charge is arguably provable against the officer and, indeed, was the ultimate charge selected by the prosecution in the Floyd case.   Voluntary Manslaughter Charges – PC 192(a) Moving further down the spectrum of seriousness, the prosecution could have charged  that is defined under California Penal Code 192(a).    Voluntary manslaughter is sometimes charged directly, though it is most commonly a lesser-included offense to first or second-degree murder which the defense can establish through affirmative evidence.    A defendant commits voluntary manslaughter (CALCRIM 570) when they kill another person either in the heat of passion, i.e. during a sudden and unplanned fight, or when the defendant unreasonably believes that they must use deadly force to protect themselves or a third-party.    Here, there is no evidence that the officer was suddenly driven to attack the victim based on the heat of passion and, in any event, that passion would certainly have dissipated during the multiple minutes of the physical contact.    There is likewise no evidence that the officer believed he was engaged in reasonable . Rather, he was attempting to affect an arrest and using unreasonable force to do so. For these reasons, a charge of voluntary manslaughter would likely understate the culpability of the officer in the Floyd case.   As stated above, the prosecutorial agency in the Floyd case ultimately charged the officer who killed Floyd with second-degree murder, and charged the other officers involved as accessories.    Due to the high-profile nature of the killing and the resulting protests and political fallout, we would expect the prosecution of the officers involved, particularly should it reach a , to be closely watched both by the legal community and the public at large.   Defending Police Officers in California Criminal Courts in Los Angeles County and throughout the state of California often face misconduct allegations and it’s common for police officers to become involved with criminal, internal affairs, or civil investigations.   Law enforcement officers are a frequently a target of unfounded allegations that are damaging to their reputation and career. Criminal misconduct can result in a police officer becoming a defendant.   At Eisner Gorin LLP, our Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers provide experienced legal representation to the men and women in the law enforcement community. We defend police officers, sheriff’s deputies, probation and corrections officers, and federal agents.   Police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions in a chaotic situation. While the police officer might believe their actions were reasonable and within police department guidelines, some people and the media will closely scrutinize every single detail in an effort expose alleged misconduct.   If you are a law enforcement officer and the target of a misconduct or criminal investigation, you need to retain an experienced criminal lawyer as soon as possible. Our law firm will take a proactive approach to protect your legal rights and career.   Eisner Gorin LLP is a top rated criminal defense law firm located at 1875 Century Park E #705, Los Angeles, CA 90067. Our main office is next to the Van Nuys Court at 14401 Sylvan St #112 Van Nuys, CA 91401. Contact our office for a consultation at (310) 328-3776.
  • What is Lewd and Lascivious Acts with a Minor?
    What is Lewd and Lascivious Acts with a Minor under Penal Code 288? California law describes lewd and lascivious conduct as sexual acts that are considered to be offensive and contrary to common standards of behavior. The statute that covers this type of sex crime is found in California Penal Code 288, and a conviction could result in many years in prison and a mandatory requirement to register as a sex offender.   “Lewd and lascivious” is legal description for conduct regarding immoral sexual intent or behavior. It’s frequently used in the legal description of offenses where some type of sexual activity is prohibited.   The legal term “lewd and lascivious” typically refers to a crime which occurs when an adult has sexual contact with an underage child. A violation of PC 288(a) when the victim is under 14 years old is always a felony and a “strike” under California’s .   However, under California law, anyone involved in sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 may be prosecuted, including another minor. In California, minors can never legally consent to sexual activity.   Lewd and lascivious conduct is sexual conduct which appeals to the lust, passions, or sexual desires of either the defendant or the victim, or both. Lewd and lascivious conduct generally, though not always, requires physical contact between the parties, but does not require penetration.    In California, lewd and lascivious acts which are unlawful are generally punished under .   Types of Prohibited Conduct Section 288 defines a number of different crimes which involve lewd and lascivious acts and prescribes different punishments depending on the presence or absence of certain aggravating factors.    Lewd and lascivious conduct between adults is generally lawful, provided consent is present.  When an adult engages in such conduct with a minor who is 16 or 17 years old, different legal standards apply and the matter is generally handled as a , which is a lesser offense. Penal Code 288 addresses conduct between adults and minors aged 15 or less.   When an adult engages in lewd and lascivious conduct with a aged 14 or 15 years old and the adult is at least 10 years older than the minor, Penal Code Section 288(c)(1) applies.    Under PC 288, the legal definition of lewd and lascivious acts with a minor consists of two elements of the crime () that a prosecutor has to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt:   You willfully touched some part of a minor’s body or you willfully caused the minor to touch their own body, your body, or someone else’s body; and You acted with the intent to arouse, appeal, or gratify the lust, passion, or sexual desires of yourself or the minor.   In order to be charged with Penal Code 288, the main element of the crime is that you had a specific intent to satisfy sexual arousal or desire. This means if you touched the minor’s naked body or through their clothes simply doesn’t matter.     Penalties for California Penal Code 288 A violation of Section 288(c)(1) is a under California law, meaning it can be prosecuted as either a felony or a misdemeanor. The prosecutor will typically consider the follow factors to determine how to file the case:   The age of the minor The age difference between you and the minor Whether force was used, or fear or threat of harm to the victim or someone else   If prosecuted as a misdemeanor, the defendant convicted under subsection (c)(1) faces a possible one year in the county jail plus fines and fees.    On the other hand, if the case is prosecuted as a felony, the punishments include one, two, or three years in the California state prison. When the minor who is subject to lewd or lascivious acts is under the age of 14, much more severe punishments apply.   Under subsection (a) to Penal Code Section 288, the defendant faces a straight felony conviction which can never be reduced to a misdemeanor. The applicable punishment if convicted is three, six, or eight years in the California state prison. This punishment applies where the only conduct at issue was a lewd or lascivious act, meaning a sexually-related act.    Keep in mind that this can be anything as simple as touching of the private area, buttocks, or female breasts up to more aggravated cases involving oral copulation, penetration, digital penetration, or other conduct.    However, in cases where force, violence, threats, menace, or other methods are employed to accomplish the lewd or lascivious acts, substantially increased penalties are available.    A defendant who engages in this more aggravated conduct faces 5, 8, or 10 years in the California state prison. These enhanced penalties also apply where the victim is a dependent for whom the defendant was charged with acting as a caretaker.   PC 290 Registration as a Sex Offender Defendants convicted of having committed a lewd and lascivious act under California law are also required to under Penal Code Section 290. Currently, this registration is for life.    Recent changes in the law mean that in the future, some defendants in an appropriate case may be able to petition the court for a reduction of their sex offender registration term to 10 or 20 years. As of this writing, the courts have not begun entertaining such petitions.   Fighting Penal Code 288 Charges Defenses to a charge of lewd and lascivious acts under California’s criminal laws include reasonable doubt, false accusation, and lack of corroboration.    The reality in lewd acts cases, as with many sexually-based offenses, is that the alleged conduct often occurs behind closed doors outside of the presence of third-party witnesses. This presents an obvious evidentiary problem for prosecuting defendants accused of these offenses.    In order to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors will look for objective independent corroboration of the victim’s claims.    This can include third-party witness statements, contemporaneous reporting to law enforcement, physical evidence, audio/video recordings, DNA or other forensic evidence, etc.   Call the Criminal Lawyers at Eisner Gorin LLP Because of the issues of proof in lewd and lascivious acts cases as well as the potentially life-changing consequences to a defendant who is charged with one of these serious sex offenses, a designed to persuade law enforcement and the prosecuting agency to drop or reduce charges is critical.    Experienced criminal defense counsel can make contact with the investigating officer and the reviewing prosecutor to present mitigating information about the defendant’s history, background, and reputation as well as argue issues of proof and any legal defenses which may apply before the case is formally filed in criminal court.    Avoiding the filing of charges ultimately saves the defendant time, money, and stress even if they would have eventually been acquitted in court due to lack of proof.   Eisner Gorin LLP are Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers located at 1875 Century Park E #705, Los Angeles, CA 90067. our firm for a consultation at (310) 328-3776.
  • What is the Difference Between Pimping and Pandering?
    What is the Difference Between Pimping and Pandering Under California Law? Pimping and pandering are both serious felony offenses under California’s criminal laws. They involve the unlawful trafficking of others for purposes of commercial sex acts, meaning the exchange of money or other things of value for sexual acts, i.e. prostitution.   Pimping and pandering are so closely related that it is extremely common for defendants charged with one of the two offenses to also be charged with the other. However, they are legally distinct and have different elements.   There are primary differences between the sex crimes of . Pimping is connected with someone receiving the earnings of a prostitute, while pandering occurs when someone persuades another person to either become, or remain, a prostitute. Receiving money is not a part of a pandering crime, rather it deals with convincing or persuasion.   In order to be found guilty of felony pimping (), it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you received financial support from somebody that you understood was engaging in prostitution, or you received or attempted to receive compensation for locating their customers.   In the classic pimping crime, a pimp will receive a portion of a prostitute’s payment they received their customers, commonly known as a “john.” In many situations, the pimp played no part in providing a customer to the prostitute, but they still expect to receive money from the prostitute.   It should be noted that pimping and pandering are straight felony crimes, not a “.” The only type of conduct that would be considered a is the crime of supervising or aiding a prostitute defined under California Penal Code 653.23.   The Crime of Pimping – Penal Code 266h Pimping is prohibited by . Pimping is defined as the crime of receiving all or part of the proceeds of another person’s work as a prostitute.    Note that force, fear, or coercion are not required under the definition of pimping. While it is unlikely a case would be filed in this circumstance, technically someone is guilty of pimping if they have a friend who is a prostitute who voluntarily shares their prostitution earnings.    In the more common scenario, however, we view pimps as coercing the prostitutes and forcing them to share their prostitution earnings through force, fear, or by denying them access to essentials such as housing, clothing, and food unless they share their earnings.   It should also be noted that pimping does not require that the defendant set up the prostitute’s “dates,” or communicate in any way with the customers.   The prostitute can be running their own operation completely, but as long as the proceeds thereof are shared with the pimp, he is guilty under Penal Code Section 266h.    A charge under Penal Code Section 266h for pimping is a straight felony under California law.  It cannot be reduced to a misdemeanor or an infraction. It also carries a stiff maximum penalty of 6 years in the California state prison if the defendant is convicted, as well as fines and fees.   The Crime of Pandering – Penal Code 266i Pandering, on the other hand, is addressed by . Unlike pimping, which focusses on the exchange of money derived from prostitution, pandering focuses on the defendant’s role in encouraging another individual to either become or remain a prostitute.   If the defendant encourages, persuades, induces through promises, threats, or violence, arranges, or uses fraud or trickery to cause another individual to become or to remain a prostitute, the defendant is guilty of pandering under Penal Code Section 266i.   Whereas pimping could be charged even if the defendant had no involvement in setting up the actual prostitution activity but only received funds derived from that activity, pandering is the opposite.    Even if the panderer receives no compensation at any point, they can still be guilty under Penal Code Section 266i provided that the defendant is providing the encouragement or inducement for the prostitution activity to occur.    Note that the encouragement can be violent, fraudulent, or completely non-violent and merely consist of verbal encouragement. However, pandering is a specific intent crime, meaning that the prosecutor must prove that the defendant specifically intended the victim to become a prostitute.    This may provide a defense for the defendant who merely discussed prostitution with the victim but had no intent to encourage further prostitution activity.   Penalties and Related California Crimes Pandering is also a straight felony offense under California law with a maximum penalty of 6 years in California state prison plus fines and fees.    A pandering charge cannot be reduced to a misdemeanor or an infraction. When the victim is a minor – a person under the age of 18 – the maximum penalty increases to 8 years in the California state prison.   There are several related California offenses for pimping and pandering, including:   Penal Code 653.23 - Supervising or aiding a prostitute Penal Code 653.22 – Penal Code 647(a) – Lewd acts in public Penal Code 647(b) – Penal Code 236.1 – Human trafficking Penal Code 272 - Contributing to the delinquency of minor   The penalties for a violation of Penal Code § 653.23 include up to six months in county jail and a fine up to $1,000. Informal probation might be available for this crime.   Contact a Los Angeles Criminal Lawyer As you can see, in the stereotypical street prostitution context, the pimp is almost always a panderer and vice versa.     The defendant will encourage the victim to become a prostitute either through promises, threats, violence, or some combination of the three and then obtain part or all of the financial proceeds from the victim’s prostitution activity. This is why defendants charged with pimping are very often also charged with pandering.    One can imagine hypothetical situations in which a pimp would not also be a panderer – the roommate who allows his prostitute friend to pay for the rent using prostitution proceeds knowing the money is unlawfully gained but has no role in the prostitute’s activities otherwise – but these cases are few and far between.   If you, or someone you know, is charged with pimping and/or pandering under California law, contact our experienced team of Los Angeles criminal defense attorneys for an initial consultation.    We can leverage our experience and knowledge of these serious felony crimes to help you achieve the best possible outcome in your case. Eisner Gorin LLP is a criminal defense law firm located at 1875 Century Park E #705, Los Angeles, CA 90067. our office for a consultation at (310) 328-3776.

 

Join the Conversation @EisnerGorinLLP