Front Page  »  

Alexander Gonzales’ attorney speaks out

June 22, 2014

OPINION By DARRYL GENIS

I have been retained to represent Alexander Gonzales who attended Paso Robles and Liberty High Schools where he was active in FFA, wrestling and welding. He played AYSO soccer for several years. He has been working at Calpoly housing on the janitorial staff while attending Cuesta College. He is working towards a welding certificate. Alex has been hard working and gets along with people.

Alex has no criminal record, including the fact that he has never been arrested, charged or convicted of a DUI before in his life.

It is with great concern that I read that Alex is publicly charged with being intoxicated even before the results of any blood tests are released for either Alex Gonzales or the other young man, Jackson Garland, who was tragically killed in Wednesday’s accident. It is both reckless and insensitive to the reputation and memory of both young men to make such a premature claims in the absence of any proof.

After speaking with my client’s family, I fully expect the toxicology of Alex’s blood to support the claim that he was not under the influence of any alcohol or drugs. For the sake of the preservation of the memory and good reputation of Jackson Garland, who was tragically killed in this accident, for the sake of his surviving family and friends I also hope the post mortem toxicology clears him of any wrongdoing. Sometimes tragedies like this one really are just accidents, not crimes.

Also of concern, the Tribune and other news outlets have already reported that the SLO DA intends to proceed with felony DUI charges because that has long (as in 30 years) been precluded by law, since January 1984, when the California legislature re-wrote both the Vehicle Code and the Penal Code so that DUI could only be charged when injuries not leading to death occur, but when death occurs the case must proceed only upon the more specific charge of vehicular manslaughter.

See Wilkoff v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.3d 345 (1985) footnote 6:

[6] While the moral culpability of a drunk driver who causes death and a drunk driver under the same circumstances who merely causes injury may be the same, the Legislature has chosen to draw a line at this point by defining one crime in terms of an act of violence against the person (“unlawful killing”) and placing it in the Penal Code, while defining the other in terms of an act of driving and placing it in the Vehicle Code. The Legislature has made this line even more clear through recent amendments to the drunk driving and manslaughter statutes. Effective January 1, 1984, an intoxicated driver who kills another person is no longer chargeable with that death under the Vehicle Code, but may only be charged under the manslaughter statutes of the Penal Code. (See Stats. 1983, ch. 937, § 1, p. ___, amending § 23153 and Pen. Code, § 192.)

Therefore, on Monday morning, for all reasons stated herein, I will be filing specific legal objections to any DUI charges, as well as moving for a significant bail reduction. I will be happy to provide the media with the legal brief upon request.

Darryl Genis, Constitutional Defense Attorney.


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


65 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Liberty High School? Isn’t that the advanced placement accelerated school for accomplished community-minded youth where you get a Dodge Charger from your parents for “graduating”?


0

Toxicology aside, this is no accident absent mechanical failure or medical event. If anything this is even MORE responsible and just as deadly as the impaired driver. I thought of this story on the way back from the store early Sunday a.m. headed northbound on 101 from LOVR to Santa Rosa. The highway was nearly empty with only one car ahead of me in sight when two street racers in lowered silver rice rockets playing NASCAR shot passed me in the left lane. Seconds later, rapidly closing on the car in the fast lane ahead of me they both went right. After briefly using the innocent car as blocking the lead racer accelerated and as soon as a gap developed the trailing racer cut off the car in the fast lane causing the driver to brake quickly at 70mph. He never saw it coming. The racer in the right lane then exited Santa Rosa, did a u-turn onto the on ramp and went off to play some more. These people are as dangerous as a drunk driver or the guy holding the gun demanding your wallet. Throw the book at him and remember young Mr. Garland and his family in your thoughts and prayers.


0

Genis is a typical attorney…castigating the public for trying the case in public, while at the same time clouding public opinion with malarkey like “there was no crime, it was just an accident”. His client was in violation of section 21460(a)VC-(Crossing to left of double yellow line). That is an infraction….a CRIME. His infraction lead to the death of another…another crime…manslaughter. There had to be signs and symptoms of being under the influence of something if he is charged with that. Genis KNOWS you can be charged with that even though sometimes it is quite a wait for the test results to come back. You don’t have to have the test results to be charged with it and he knows that. look for THAT appeal to be denied.


0

Perspicacious…

Have you ever crossed a double yellow line (an infraction…a CRIME) in your life time?

I see it every day; even on blind curves…By both men and women ! ! !

Myself, I’m NOT a tailgater, but how many posting here are who just can’t wait to get around the automobile ahead of them? All accident waiting to happen…!


0

Yes I have. I have also tailgated. In each instance, I committed a crime. I don’t understand what your point is.


0

He’s also going to be appearing in the community theater production of Guys and Dolls.


0

My Opinion:

From Attorney Darryl Genis statement I believe he was saying that Alexander Gonzales shouldn’t be tried in the Court of Public Opinion. That until proven otherwise both drivers might have been under the influence; or neither of the drivers were under the influence; or just one or the other was. That blood tests will show for certain who was DUI or not. Not a roadside test after a serious accident. That we shouldn’t draw conclusions.


Attorney Genis NEVER suggested that the victim might somehow be responsible for the accident. Where did that come from?


Mr. Genis is saying that his client should have been charged with vehicular manslaughter; not DUI unlawful killing of a person. See Wilkoff v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.3d 345 (1985) footnote 6: That: Effective January 1, 1984, an intoxicated driver who kills another person is no longer chargeable with that death under the Vehicle Code, but may only be charged under the manslaughter statutes of the Penal Code. (See Stats. 1983, ch. 937, § 1, p. ___, amending § 23153 and Pen. Code, § 192.).


Therefore he will be filing specific legal objections to any DUI charges, as well as moving f

or a significant bail reduction.


How many who post here have texted while driving or while adjusting the radio etc., and almost caused a serious accident? BE HONESY…!


Sometimes tragedies like this one really are just accidents, not crimes and this will play out in a Court of Law.


0

But people are still responsible, even for the “Accidents” they cause, right??


0

Someone did something stupid that caused the death of another…it was not an ACCIDENT! The negligence of one person that lead to this collision caused it. You posters, incuding Genis himself, have no idea what an accident is. Genis can try is case in court but can STHU when it comes to the court of public opinion. We can try is client all we want and it is none of his business.


0

“For the sake of the preservation of the memory and good reputation of Jackson Garland, who was tragically killed in this accident, for the sake of his surviving family and friends I also hope the post mortem toxicology clears him of any wrongdoing.”


What part of “I ALSO HOPE (emphasis mine) the post mortem toxicology clears him (Jackson Garland-that’s who he speaking of) of any wrongdoing”.


0

I what you say is true, WHY would Mr. Genis provide the public with an op-ed regarding his client? Essentially he is doing exactly what he is so opposed to….trying him in the media. The only difference is that he is defending him and claiming that he is innocent.

Mr. Genis can now, and probably will ask for a change of venue because HE has chosen to go public…..good job Popeye.


0

Q: What’s the difference between a lawyer and a liar?

A: The pronunciation.


0

Lose the Hat. (I have no comment on the tie, but who dresses you anyway.) Move to New Jersey, they like your kind of law.


0

Try your case in court or are you looking for a change of venue claiming your “poor client” will not receive a fair trial? I see you have your traveling suit on.


0

I think his point is valid. A person should not be publicly charged with DUI unless the tests have proven that to be true.


This is what a good attorney does.


0

I have yet to see any evidence that either man was doing driving.

Black’s Law 4th Ed.

DRIVER. One employed in conducting or operating

a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,

with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle,

tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad

car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed

by owner to drive or driving his own vevehicle.

Wallace v. Woods, 340 Mo. 452, 102 S.W.2d

91, 97.


0

WTH was THAT post supposed to mean? WTH is “doing driving”?


0

I knew his name sounded familiar.


FILED FEBRUARY 3, 2014

STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

HEARING DEPARTMENT

–

LOS ANGELES

In the Matter of

DARRYL WAYNE GENIS,

Member No. 93806,

A Member of the State Bar.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case Nos.:

11

–

O

–

18966

–

RAH (12

–

O

–

14873)

DECISION

Introduction

1

In this contested disciplinary matter, respondent Darryl Wayne Genis is charged with

four counts of misconduct in two client matters, including: (1) making a false and malicious

State Bar complaint; (2) committing an act of moral turpitude;

and (3) failing to obey court

orders.

Although charged with four counts of misconduct, the court finds that respondent has

committed misconduct in only two of those counts, and dismisses the other two with prejudice.

The found misconduct involves respon

dent’s willful failure to comply with court orders in two

different matters. Even though two counts have been dismissed, the recommended discipline in

this matter was significantly aggravated by respondent’s lack of remorse for the found

misconduct. As s

uch, it is recommended that respondent be suspended for two years, stayed,

with two years’ probation, and 90 days’ actual suspension.


0

That’s it he qualifies to be an attorney.


0

As unsavory as this finding is, it does not determine, one way or the other, the guilt of Gonzales.


In making formal arguments, this logical fallacy would be called “blaming the messenger.” No matter what the attorney’s prior problems are, unless a logical connection can be made between his prior problems with the Bar and this particular client’s case, his prior troubles with the Bar doesn’t mean much about Gonzales’ case.


0

That hat is an act of moral turpitude.


0

Re: brettmx’s comment concerning California State Bar Court Case Nos.: 11-O-18966-RAH (12-O-14873), commenters in this “Opinion” by Darryl Genis should carefully review the ENTIRE pleading at this link: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/11-O-18966-3.pdf. You will see for yourselves that “Attorney” Genis is nothing more and nothing less than a buffoon.


On page 14, the court pointedly described respondent’s inappropriate behavior in its Decision on Appeal, filed August 1, 2012. The court wrote: “Consisting of repeated tirades and impertinence, and with a tone wholly condescending and accusatory, Appellant’s conduct is a serious and significant departure from acceptable appellate practice, or for that matter, practice in any court of law. If left unaddressed, this sort of advocacy demeans the profession, lowers public respect, and conveys the impression that it is acceptable and effective.”


On page 15, The appellate panel noted that the tone of respondent’s comments was “confrontational, accusatory and disdainful” and constituted a “’cynical practice’ that is a ‘serious and significant [departure] from the standard of practice.’


Today “Attorney” Genis didn’t bother making a personal appearance at his client’s initial arraignment in SLO Superior Court; rather, he sent another attorney—Jennifer Goldman. This is “standard procedure” for this bozo. From all appearances … a pitiful predicament for his client.


0

At least we know Ms Goldman has experience in dealing with these type of case as she is a DUI Attorney listed in Santa Barbara and according to the article below was filling in for, go ahead and guess, come on, try, YES, attorney Darryl Genis.


http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/local/state-and-regional/last-continuance-granted-in-trial/article_b2e59f68-d4e6-11e3-a403-0019bb2963f4.html.


Bettencourt, 38, is charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and causing great bodily injury in the November 2012 single-vehicle crash that killed his passenger, Jennifer Clark, 39, of Los Olivos.


On Monday, Bettencourt appeared at the Superior Court in Santa Maria alongside Santa Barbara attorney Jennifer Goldman.

There are crucial pieces of discovery that have not been turned over to us,” said Goldman, who was there in place of DUI attorney Darryl Genis.


0
1 2 3