In September 2013, Ashley Bell’s vehicle collided a bicyclist on Coffee Road. The collision mortally wounded the bicyclist and Bell was charged with vehicular manslaughter for what the police described as “distracted driving.” Now, 19 months later, Bell has been acquitted of the charge due to the investigation and diligence of her defense attorney, Kyle J. Humphrey. Both Bell and Attorney Humphrey spoke to The Bakersfield Californian about the decision and what Attorney Humphrey believes was a misguided case against Bell.
The victim was Tony Ray Rumple, 47. Examiners found that he died of acute head trauma from the collision. Even though Bell was neither drunk, high, nor speeding at the time of the collision, police and prosecutors zeroed in on the fact that she was on the phone—speaking to her friend via ear buds, which is allowable by law. She was promptly charged with vehicular manslaughter.
Attorney Humphrey and Bell recounted to the paper how the prosecution tried to characterize Bell as a frantic single mother, who, in a moment of stress, veered into the bike lane and killed Mr. Rumple. Attorney Humphrey, however, saw things differently. Citing coroner reports and interviewing medical experts, Attorney was able to firmly establish that Mr. Rumple was a meth user who was not only high at the time of his accident, but showed signs of habitual use. Due to the lack of reflectors, his bike was in violation of California Vehicle Code at the time of the collision.
Asserting all of this evidence, Humphrey was able accurately portray the contributing factors of the collision and counter the state’s case against Bell. Talking to The Bakersfield Californian, he says he’s surprised there was ever even a trial for this accident in the first place. “In this case there was no crime,” Humphrey told the paper. “The prosecution was the crime.”
Finding Justice Even in the Face of Loss
Attorney Humphrey and Bell maintain that the loss of Tony Ray Rumple is a tragedy, but that when an incident is purely an accident, criminal charges are not called for. Attorney Humphrey blamed what he called a “bloodlust, vengeful, vendetta society” for the unfounded charges against Bell. “Government is big and all-powerful, and we need to protect the rights of the individual,” he told the paper following the court decision.
Bell, the mother of three, is grateful she does not have to be separated from her children to serve a jail sentence. Still, she believes that Rumple’s death will weigh on her for the rest of her life. “No one feels more terrible than I do,” she’s quoted saying.
If you have been accused of a crime, then it is absolutely essential to seek competent and proven legal representation for your defense. At Humphrey & Thompson, our legal team has over two decades of legal experience and has built its reputation on aggressive strategies, client advocacy, and high profile court victories.
You do not have to face this difficult time alone. Contact our team today.
Criminal defense lawyers and privacy advocates alike are cheering the latest ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) requiring law enforcement agencies to attain a warrant before they search an arrestee’s cell phone.
Supreme Court Decision Has Roots in California
The U.S. Supreme Court deliberated two cases involving cell phones when making its verdict. One of the cases, Riley v. California, began in California. San Diego police pulled over driver David Riley for expired tags. A search of the vehicle discovered guns in his truck and he was arrested. Law enforcement officials then searched his smartphone and found evidence linking Riley to gang activity. This evidence was used to later convict him.
Riley argued the search of his cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights and attempted to suppress the evidence gathered. The trial court denied his request and the California Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. The case went all the way to SCOTUS, where they agreed with Riley that searching cell phones without a proper warrant was unconstitutional.
SCOTUS Keeping Up With Modern Technology
Law enforcement officials had argued that cell phones, smart or otherwise, should be considered the same as items in a suspect’s pocket and are subject to search and seizure. With over 90% of Americans owning cell phones according to a survey conducted by Pew Research, such assumptions can have far-reaching consequences for criminal defendants or anyone else wishing to keep their contents private.
In reality, cell phones have become nothing less than hand-held computers and should be protected as such. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed and wrote the following in his court opinion:
“The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant.”
Humphrey & Thompson fights to protect your Fourth Amendment rights!
Our Bakersfield criminal defense lawyer is up-to-date on all judgments pertinent to the Fourth Amendment and the ramifications of such rulings on a case. With more than 25 years of combined experience, our team has the depth of knowledge and tenacity needed to craft the best criminal defense possible to get you acquitted.
Contact us today to learn how our team can fight your charges!
On March 26, 2014, Bakersfield Criminal Defense Attorney Kyle J. Humphrey carried out a presentation before the Kern County Bar Association’s Family Law section. The presentation essentially provided the family law attorneys with various criminal law concepts that they should be aware of in order to better protect their clients (particularly clients who are suspected of offenses such as domestic violence or child abuse). The Kern County Bar Association’s monthly magazine called Res Ipsa Loquitur has just published an article that provides an overview of Attorney Humphrey’s presentation from March. The article (“Criminal law for family lawyers”) appeared in the magazine’s May 2014 issue on page 28. Here are a few of the various topics that were covered in the presentation, according to the article:
- Salinas v. Texas (2013 case): When clients accused of domestic violence or child abuse are being questioned by officers, they must be sure to explicitly invoke their rights under the Fifth Amendment. Otherwise, prosecutors may be able to later use their silence against them in court.
- Fernandez v. California (2014 Supreme Court case): The decision to give consent to a police search of a residence should be decided on together by all the members of the household, considering that all it takes is consent from one party to make the search legal.
- U.S. v. Chovan (2013 Ninth Circuit case): Family law attorneys should handle domestic violence restraining order matters with a high level of care, especially since such issues can potentially result in the defendant’s permanent loss of gun ownership rights.
- Many individuals are not required by law to cooperate with law enforcement, as established under the Victim’s Bill of Rights Act of 2008 (Marsy’s Law). Uncooperative individuals cannot be thrown in jail for contempt for such action–they can only be ordered by the court to see a domestic violence counselor.
- Phone calls are sometimes used as traps to get people accused of child abuse or domestic violence to make self-incriminating statements. This usually occurs when one spouse calls the suspected spouse while law enforcement is listening in on the call.
The Res Ipsa Loquitur article contains additional explanation on these points, as well as on others. Check out the magazine’s May 2014 issue to reach the article. If you are facing criminal charges, do not hesitate to consult with a knowledgeableBakersfield criminal defense lawyer from our firm. Contact us today!
Three Strikes Law a Failed Experiment
The Three Strikes Law was passed in California with an huge majority of somewhere near 70% of the population. In the 20 or so years since the law was passed, it has proved to be a failed experiment in crime and punishment. The point is brilliantly presented by Malcom Gladwell in his book “David and Goliath”. The 3 Strikes Law, along with many of its supporters and like-minded judges, believe that people who commit crime do so after careful consideration of the risks and rewards in commiting the crime. This theory necessarily means that a would-be criminal considers the liklihood of getting caught, the possible punishment if he or she is caught, the possible fruits of the crime, and the way he or she will feel after doing the crime.
The problem with this theory is that many studies in criminology have established that criminals do nothing even close to this risk/benefit analysis. Clearly, a severe penalty will have no deterrent effect if the would-be criminal never thinks about the penalty. Studies show that people who commit the crime either do so because they are desperate, or because they are bored, or because they are high on drugs. By and large, they DO NOT consider the penalty or sentence if they get caught.
You see, supporters of the 3 Strikes Law do not take into account the indirect effect this law has on society. One such effect is that many of the men who are sentenced are fathers. The children of these men must then grow up without a father, which greatly increases the liklihood of juvenile delinquency and psychiatric disorder. The law also institutionalizes the individual, so when they are released, their only assications are with other criminals. California has somewhere in the range of 8 times more people in prison than all of Western Europe. If that doesn’t make you fear our continued loss of liberty as a society, you probably voted for the 3 Strikes Law, and still thinks its a good idea.
At this office, we investigate each case carefully, spend time with our clients and their cases, and take every step to avoid the severe and many times unreasonable prison sentences that can occur in California. There will always be those violent and dangerous offenders who must be locked up, but being “tough” on crime as a blanket rule will only create more problems and more criminals.
Drug Treatment Over Jail
You May Have Options
We recently had a client who was charged with drug sales, drug transportation, and several other charges many of which were felonies. It was a tough case and the prosecutor had strong evidence against our client. The client, who was not a drug dealer, simply let drug use create a very vunerable situation.
Thankfully, through negotiation with the prosecutor, we were able to resolve this case for treatment and dismissal of the felony charges.
Contact Humphrey & Thompson today for more information.
This case highlights a very important message in dealing with drug cases. Most times, drug offenders, especially those who use drugs, are not violent or dangerous. They are simply addicts who put themselves in precarious situations while feeding addiction. The media can give alot of attention to a drug addict who does something dangerous or violent, but statistically this occurs very infrequently. The truth is, to prevent future offenses, the addiction has to be treated.
Successful treatment will lead to less crime and the addict being able to rejoin the community as a productive member. Treatment should always be considered, because when it is successful, it serves the individual’s and the community’s best interest.
Drug Treatment May Be a Possiblity For You
To find out if treatment is an option in your case, reach out to Humphrey & Thompson for answers to your questions or to get started on your case.
After a man was found dead in an almond orchard in Bakersfield, California, it was his wife—a principal at a local elementary school—who was the murder suspect. The Kern County Sheriff’s Office suspected that it was the principal who fatally shot the man, dumped his body and then abandoned his vehicle nearby. While the woman was arrested on suspicion for the crime, the formal charges against her were not filed and she was released.
Kyle J. Humphrey, of our law firm, was the Bakersfield criminal defense lawyer who represented the accused woman. According to a Sept. 4 CNN article, this was because the woman’s court hearing was postponed and she technically could not be held any longer without actually being charged with a crime. The prosecutors involved in the case were still awaiting information from the sheriff’s department at the time of the school principal’s release.
Attorney Humphrey spoke to CNN about the matter. His comments were aired in a video segment by the news outlet, which was available online with the article. He said his client was confused and shocked by the accusations that were made against her and that he was ready to defend her innocence. The lawyer noted that cases do not get filed when accusations are made without the appropriate amount of evidence to back up them up. The burden of proof lies with the prosecutors, he said.
One woman who had been friends with the principal for years expressed disbelief concerning the allegations, noting that the couple always seemed to get along well, according to a Good Morning America article on the matter. According to what the friend told Good Morning America, the principal’s quiet personality simply does not “fit that bill at all.” Attorney Humphrey’s client had been the principal at the same school since 2006. The married couple had three daughters–one of them being the daughter of the principal and stepdaughter of the principal’s husband.
When individuals are arrested on suspicion of serious crimes and then never actually charged, this is oftentimes and indication that there is some type deficiency with the evidence involved in the case. At Humphrey & Thompson, we are highly skilled at determining where there are any flaws in prosecutors’ cases against our clients. We provide solid defense against many different kinds of criminal charges, even charges for criminal offenses as serious as murder. Contact our firm today to find out more about how our legal team might be able to assist you in your criminal matter. Our lead attorney has more than 25 years of criminal law experience, which includes time spent as a prosecutor!
The Other Perspective in the Media
At the Law Offices of Kyle J. Humphrey, Mr. Humphrey understands the importance of being available to media outlets to discuss current cases that he his handling, as well as other cases garnering media attention. In almost all criminal cases that catch the attention of the media, the initial information and details are provided by law enforcement officials and prosecuting agencies. By virtue of this reality, the initial information is commonly very much incriminating, and causes the public to decide guilt or innocence in the court of public opinion.
Mr. Humphrey has always believed that the other perspective, the perspective of the criminal defense attorney and the clients we represent, should be offered to the public as well. For this reason, he has always made himself available for media outlets to discuss his own cases and other high-profile cases. This philosophy is indicative of appreciation for the criminal justice system, the rule of law, and the presumption of innocence.
Recently, Mr. Humphrey has been seen in the media discussing the George Zimmerman verdict, a local homicide case, and some of his own cases involving school teachers and children. His perspective as an experienced and proven criminal defense attorneys allows the court of public opinion to be more balanced and fair. As we have all learned since kindegarten, there are always two sides to a story. Mr. Humphrey enjoys talking to the media to ensure that the other side of the story is given due attention. It is vital in our age of technology and instant access to information that the public be given different perspectives on current affairs. Mr. Humphrey is always available to provide such a perspective in criminal defense matters.
As the verdict in the George Zimmerman Trial was announced over this past weekend, there was a much anticipated flood of opinions and emotions, as people began to pick sides in a social and political debate. One very important piece of this trial seems to be forgotten – Our criminal justice system worked in the manner it was designed to work by our Founding Fathers.
In all criminal jury trials, it is always the fear of the criminal defense attorney that the jury will not fully appreciate and uphold the precious burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard that exists in our legal system. It was understood by our Founding Fathers, who experienced the oppressive power of the Crown, that an individual must be afforded every reasonable protection when that individual is accused of a crime by our government. That burden of proof, and corresponding presumption of innocence, is afforded to every person accused of a crime – including George Zimmerman.
We are not here to comment on the outcome. The jurors were the ones who sat through the trial and heard all the evidence. For any commentator, politician, or other person to comment on the outcome is inappropriate; none of us are able to judge the credibility of each witness, the performance of the attorneys, or the rulings of the court because we were not jurors in the case.
This jury understood and appreciated proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Clearly, they were not convinced that the government had removed all reasonable doubt from each juror’s mind, which is ALWAYS the government’s burden. If each juror still had reasonable doubt it was each juror’s legal duty to acquit Mr. Zimmerman.
Our criminal justice system is not in place to make victims of crimes feel better. This notion is a fallacy. Our constitution speaks of individuals’ rights who are accused of a crime and nowhere does it talk about rights of a victim or victim’s family. A criminal jury should not consider the effect its decision will have on the accused or on the alleged victim. A criminal jury should weigh the evidence against the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems the Zimmerman jury did this, and rather than submit to political pressure or allow sympathy for Mr. Martin cloud thier decision, the jury did not find the government’s evidence convincing. In such a circumstance, Not Guilty is the only proper verdict.
DUI Penalties in California
Driving under the influence (DUI) is a serious criminal offense in the state of California, and the severity of sentencing depends upon the specific factors involved in the alleged crime and the individual’s past convictions. DUI can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony based upon the circumstances of the case, and the penalties for drunk driving increase with each subsequent conviction.
DUI Penalties and Fines in California
First DUIThe law imposes harsh sentencing to try to deter people from intoxicated driving, and even a first offense can result in serious penalties. A first DUI is a misdemeanor offense and potential penalties include:
- Incarceration in county jail for up to 6 months
- Fines of $390 to $1,000
- Driver’s license suspension for 6 to 10 months
- Summary (informal) probation for 3 to 5 years
- Mandatory completion of a 3 or 9 month court-approved alcohol education program
Second DUIIf you are convicted of drunk driving for a second time within 10 years, you face increased consequences. A second DUI is a misdemeanor offense punishable by the following penalties:
- Incarceration in county jail for a minimum on 96 hours to a maximum of 1 year
- Fines of $390 to $1,000
- Driver’s license suspension for up to 2 years
- Summary probation for 3 to 5 years
- Mandatory completion of a 18 or 30 month court-approved alcohol education program
Third DUIConviction for a third DUI offense within 10 years will result in much harsher penalties. A third DUI is a misdemeanor punishable by the following:
- Incarceration in county jail for a minimum of 120 days and a maximum of 1 year
- Fines of $390 to $1,000
- Driver’s license revocation for up to 3 years
- Summary probation for 3 to 5 years
- Mandatory completion of a 30 month court-approved alcohol education program
- DMV designation as a habitual traffic offender (HTO)
Fourth (or More) DUIDUI is charged as a felony offense if you are convicted for four or more drunk driving offenses within 10 years. The penalties for a felony DUI are very severe, and sentencing can include:
- Incarceration in a state prison for 16 months to 3 years
- Fines of $390 to $1,000
- Driver’s license revocation for 4 years
- HTO designation by the DMV
In addition to the penalties for a standard DUI charge, the penalties for any drunk driving offense can be increased if aggravating factors were involved in the alleged incident. You could face increased sentencing if your DUI involved any of the following:
- Your blood alcohol content (BAC) was .15% or higher
- You are under 21 years of age
- You caused an accident
- You caused injuries to victims
- You caused a fatality
- You refused to submit to a chemical test
- You were driving at excessive speeds
- You drove intoxicated with a child under the age of 14 in the car
Regardless of your past record, DUI charges are always serious and require the representation of an experienced Bakersfield criminal defense lawyer. No matter how dire your situation may seem, you still have the right to fight back against your charges, and our firm can help. We can evaluate the circumstances that led to your arrest and charges to determine whether your rights were violated and to build a compelling defense on your behalf.
Our team at Humphrey & Thompson is dedicated to providing clients with the aggressive and strategic defense needed to effectively challenge DUI charges, and we can fight for you as well. If you would like to learn how you can fight the harsh consequences of drunk driving, contact our firm today to discuss your case!
Man Wanted For Attempted Murder in Bakersfield
On April 26th, 2013 the Bakersfield Sheriff’s Office reports that a man, J.R., entered into an argument with another man in a church parking lot and the argument resulted with J.R. shooting the other man multiple times. J.R. fled the scene and hit the victim with his vehicle while driving away, leaving the victim with many severe injuries. J.R. has a warrant out for his arrest for attempted murder, assault with a weapon, as well as a felon possessing a firearm.
The penalties for attempted murder are harsh and unforgiving. The conviction for first degree attempted murder is a life term in prison in California with the chance of parole. If you are convicted for second degree attempted murder, you would be facing either a five, seven or nine year sentence in prison. On top of these California state prison sentences, the defendant could also face additional penalties, such as victim compensation, which vary from case to case according to the injuries and other factors, a fine up to $10,000, or losing the right to own or have a firearm.
In order to be convicted of attempted murder, it must be proven that you made at least one direct action to kill another person. This entails more than just plotting to kill someone; the plan must have been implemented for the action to be considered an attempted murder. The other fact that the prosecutor must prove is that it was your intention to kill a person, and proving intent is one of the most complex processes in California. This is because showing intention to severely injure someone is not enough proof to prosecute a defendant. The defendant must have been directly aiming to kill the person. This regulation is blurred however, by other rules, which allows the defendant to be prosecuted even if they did not have a definite target. For example, a person can be charged with attempted murder for shooting a firearm into a group of people intending to kill without obtaining a specific target. Ultimately, neither of these facts are easily proven, which makes it an intricate process, especially in California.
In light of the severity of these charges, contacting a Bakersfield criminal defense attorney is imperative if you are facing allegations of attempted murder. Do not be ill-informed when it comes to your future; if you or a family member is falsely accused or has been wrongfully arrested for attempted murder, make sure you know all your defense options. Contact Humphrey & Thompson to ensure that your rights are protected and you receive a fair trial!
Connect with us
Local Office
- 2211 17th Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301 - 661-247-0115