Unless you live under a rock, you probably recall the recent Powerball jackpot that totaled around $1.6 billion dollars, to be split between three big winners.  One of those winning tickets originated at a 7-Eleven in our own Chino Hills, California, but to whom that ticket was sold remains a mystery.

Treacherous Trickery in Chino

Right after the numbers were announced, there was the 62-year-old nurse, whose wretched, awful, NOT funny son played a mean trick on her, and convinced her that she had the winning ticket when in fact, she did not.  The nurse’s boss, owner of the Park Avenue Health Care and Wellness Center in Pomona, had purchased some 18,000 tickets for each of his employees.  He called the son’s trickery “despicable,” and in consideration, gave the nurse and her family an all-expense vacation to a destination of their choice.

Since then, no one else has come forward to claim the Chino winnings, but according to some experts, the delay is no surprise.  In fact, the last big California lottery winner took six weeks to come forward and made a big dramatic spectacle of it when he did finally claim his $425 million jackpot.  Susan Bradley, expert and founder of the Sudden Money Institute of Palm Beach, said it can take at least two months to prepare a winner psychologically and emotionally for the fortune and obstacles ahead.

When in Doubt, Sue 'Em!

Today, Los Angeleno Brandy Milliner sued the Lottery Commission, claiming to have purchased a winning ticket for the SuperLotto Plus from a 7-Eleven in Chatsworth.  The jackpot for this case was $63 million, and the deadline to claim it expired today at 5 p.m.  Milliner allegedly sent in the winning ticket within the period and even received a letter from the Lottery Commission congratulating him on the win.  Later, the Commission reneged on the award and claimed the ticket was “too damaged to be reconstructed.”  The Commission has also refused to return the ticket to him, claims Milliner. 

What Happens to Lost Loot?

So, what happens if no one can prove legal claim to lottery winnings?  The money goes into an “unclaimed funds” account that is eventually given to the California Department of Education to help fund schools within the State.   The process is slow, but eventually, many Californian kids will be much better off as a result of the Lost Lotto Loot!

Last night around 6:15 p.m. PST, the Ferguson prosecutor Mr. Robert McCulloch, made an incredibly drawn out announcement to the world that police officer Darren Wilson would not be charged after shooting and killing unarmed teenager, Michael Brown. The grand jury took just over 3 months to come to the conclusion that not only was there not enough evidence to put Officer Wilson on trial for first degree murder, but there was not even enough to try him for involuntary manslaughter, essentially exonerating Wilson for the killing.

Not surprisingly, the announcement sparked a huge uproar, from Ferguson, Missouri, to Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, where protestors hit the pavement to express great upset in the grand jury’s decision. According to the LA Times, 61 people were arrested in Ferguson last night, and at least a dozen buildings were set on fire during the protests.


No. The United States Justice Department is conducting its own federal investigation into this incident and is also investigating the practices of the Ferguson Police Department as a whole. And thank goodness for that.

A Couple of Interesting Facts You Might Not Know

1. The prosecutor in this case, Robert McCulloch, was accused of bias and asked to step down from his handling of the matter due to his own personal experience: his father was a police officer who was shot to death while in pursuit of a suspect. (Sound familiar?)

2. Officer Wilson has stayed out of the public eye during the grand jury deliberations, but his life was not put on hold by any means – in fact, he got married at the end of last month. Nice to see he isn’t letting the death of an unarmed teenager get in the way of his nuptials.


From what the prosecutor said, Michael Brown had turned around and began to run towards Officer Wilson when Wilson fatally shot him “several times.” Brown was unarmed; Wilson was a trained police officer. So my question is, shouldn’t a police officer have some skill or tool OTHER to fatally shoot an unarmed young person who comes toward him? Why not use his Taser? Or a police baton? Or his own police-trained fists. It is my belief that cops should be trained on how to deal with people in ways that do not involve shooting them and if Officer Wilson had been properly trained, he should have been able to quell any threat presented by Michael Brown without killing him in his tracks.

If Brown had pulled a gun on Officer Wilson, then absolutely, shoot to kill. Or if there had been 10 Michael Browns surrounding Officer Wilson, then okay, probably a good idea to pull your gun. Or, if it was ME who Michael Brown was aggressively approaching in a secluded alleyway, then fine, I would probably feel scared and threatened enough to pull a firearm. But an officer of the law should know better – he should know how to deal with an UNARMED person without using his damn gun.

If you live in the State of California, you have no doubt been bamboozled with an onslaught of political ads for all the Propositions on the ballot at tomorrow’s election. One initiative that has received somewhat less coverage is Proposition 47, “Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute.” This Proposition, if enacted, will make certain drug and property crimes misdemeanors instead of felonies, greatly reducing the amount of incarceration required for such a conviction.

My suggestion is to VOTE YES ON PROP 47! Here’s why:

1. MONEY: Prop 47 will save us loads of money; according to the State website, savings would be “potentially in the high hundreds of millions of dollars annually.” There would be 3,000 fewer people who are convicted of low-level crimes sent to State Prison each year, along with thousands fewer sent to County Jail. So the financial benefit extends not only to the State, but also to Los Angeles County, which has long suffered from grave budget deficits.

2. CRIME PREVENTION: According to the State website, savings resulting from the measure will be “used to support school truancy and dropout prevention, victim services, mental health and drug abuse treatment, and other programs designed to keep offenders out of prison and jail.” In other words, instead of spending millions per year in locking people up, the State will have more money to invest in our youth and in programs that help keep them on the straight and narrow before they go down that dark path of drug abuse.

3. EXEMPTIONS: The Proposition does not apply to defendants who have a prior conviction for a “serious or violent crime” nor will it apply to sex offenders. So if you are concerned about drug dealers being put back on the street, chances are this law will not apply in that type of case. Also this proposition does not apply to crimes of violence against a person, so if someone is injured or killed during the commission of a crime, there would be no leniency given as a result of Prop 47.

Prop 47 would also allow those who are already incarcerated under the applicable sections of the penal code to petition for resentencing. This too would free up a huge amount of State funds to be re-appropriated to other areas in the State’s budget. Moreover, Prop 47 would allow those who have already served out their felony sentence to petition the court to have their felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor (and thereafter expunged), which would renew their voting rights and greatly increase employability.

Overall, Prop 47 seems like a great idea and I strongly encourage all Californians to vote YES ON PROPOSITION 47!

For more specifics on Prop 47, see: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/47/analysis.htm
See also: http://www.prop47impacts.org

For more information on the other ballot initiatives, see: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/

Today in court, counsel for Alix Tichelman claims she had no motive to kill Forrest Hayes, the victim in her pending manslaughter case out of Santa Cruz. Hayes was an executive at Google and also worked for several other tech companies. Public defender Larry Bigham told the judge that Hayes had been a steady source of income for the defendant, who would thus have no reason to want him dead. He was trying to get Tichelman released on her own recognizance or at least get a reduction in her $1.5 million bail; both requests were denied.

Security video from the time of Hayes’ death apparently shows the lady of the night preparing a syringe of heroin and injecting it into Hayes, who collapsed after a severe reaction to the drug. According to the police, instead of calling 911, Tichelman packed up her drugs while sipping a glass of red wine, and promptly got the hell out of dodge. She is now facing a manslaughter charge (among others), the prosecution alleging that administering heroin was “part of her routine.”

The scenario was all too familiar for Tichelman. In September 2013, she came out of the bathroom to find her “boyfriend,” 53-year-old Dean Riopelle, unconscious from a heroin overdose. She claims that she spent 5 minutes trying to revive him and only then called 911. Riopelle was eventually transported to the hospital but was taken off life support one week later.

So, can evidence of the prior case be used against Alix Tichelman in this new case? The answer is: maybe.

California Evidence Code section 1101(b) provides the following: "Nothing in this section prohibits the admission of evidence that a person committed a crime, civil wrong, or other act when relevant to prove some fact (such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or whether a defendant in a prosecution for an unlawful sexual act or attempted unlawful sexual act did not reasonably and in good faith believe that the victim consented) other than his or her disposition to commit such an act."

In layman’s terms, this section allows evidence of “prior bad acts” to prove anything BUT the accused having a propensity towards a particular act or behavior. This type of character evidence can, however, be used to prove things such as intent, knowledge, familiarity, etc… So basically, the prosecution only needs to frame its relevance in terms other than to show likelihood of defendant having committed the crime at hand, and the incident is admissible character evidence.

There have been many cases that define the parameters of this type of character evidence, far beyond this blog’s capacity. For more, see: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1982&context=plr