These petitions are very difficult to get granted by the judge because proving the concept of factual innocence basically means that once the judge looks at the facts, no reasonable person could construe that you committed whatever crime they're accusing you of, and a lot of times the reason that the police arrest people is because there is a story out there. There is information available suggesting that they committed some sort of offense. Now, that story might not be completely accurate. There may be problems with it. It may be debatable, but that's the exact type of case for which you can be arrested, and it's the type of case that prosecutors should evaluate, sometimes even trying it in front of a jury. At other times, the prosecutors may look at it and decide not to file this case. We don't think we can win it. There is just not enough evidence, especially given the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt required to prove someone guilty of a crime in Los Angeles.
That's a different standard from factual innocence. That concept, the case law that supports it, and how judges deal with those factual innocence petitions. So again, it isn't easy to win those. I can provide you with an example of a case where my client was found not guilty of a crime. I filed a petition for factual innocence to try to expunge my arrest record, and the judge denied it. I'm like, wait a minute, how much more factual innocence do you want? He was found not guilty. But really, that's not the test.
It almost seems like this whole factual innocence thing is designed to protect the police, who are the ones arresting people, because I guess they feel that if there is a bunch of factual innocence petitions granted, the people could pursue the police and claim that the police unlawfully arrested them, false imprisonment. Now, there will be a number of civil lawsuits. That's what it seems like to me. I don't think anyone would ever admit that, as far as the authorities are concerned. But this whole factual innocence thing is a bit ridiculous because what it's really saying is that if they accidentally grab you and arrest you. They find out later that they got the wrong person; it was a complete mistake; fine, we'll take it off there, but beyond that, we're not taking it off. So, that's really what the test seems to be.
I wouldn't say I like it because if they don't file a case against you, or if they file and it's dismissed, and you get no conviction, having that mark of being arrested on your record is almost as bad as the conviction itself. You don't want anyone to see anything criminally related in Los Angeles that relates to you. So, they should be more lenient with these factual petition arguments. Recently, some new case law came out that basically states that if you are arrested. If there is no filing of the case, then you have a much stronger and easier path to get that arrest record sealed and destroyed, so that nobody can see it.
