Skip to main content
Karl William Krooth

Karl Krooth’s Legal Cases

7 total

  • People v. Norteno

    Practice Area:
    Constitutional
    Date:
    Jan 01, 2008
    Outcome:
    Overcame restriction on free exercise & employment
    Description:
    Mitigated client's exposure against civil gang injunction in general and immigration consequences in particular. Successful disposition in terms of limiting injunction's effect on exercise of rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Right to Privacy under the California Constitution. See link: http://www.immigrantcrime.com/PDF/Gang-Injunctions-Draw-a-Crowd.pdf
  • Gholamshahi v. Ashcroft

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    May 21, 2004
    Outcome:
    Stay of Removal Granted-Petition for Review Denied
    Description:
    The King Hall immigration law clinic (University of California Davis) originally represented this client before the Immigration Court, which denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals entered a final order of removal by affirming on appeal. The Board of Immigration Appeals.subsequently denied a motion to reopen that a private practitioner filed. My representation of this client was limited to the appeal (stay of removal and petition for review) of this motion to reopen before the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The primary issue was incapacity in English, which prevented adequate presentation of his religious faith (Baha'i) and the past persecution to which it subjected him. Despite the client's articulation that he did not understand questions and his poor ability to convey himself in the transcript before the Immigration Court, immigration counsel did not request an interpreter and the Immigration Court did not appoint one sua sponte (on its own motion). The Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the client testified at length, so there was no prejudice from failure to appoint an interpreter when counsel did not request one. Moreover, it found that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion by finding that the client was not Baha'i.
  • People v. Ramirez-Ramirez

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Outcome:
    Order granting withdrawal of plea for legal cause
    Description:
    Client did not have interpreter services at change of plea or sentencing despite unexecuted order appointing interpreter at arraignment. Transcript of change of plea reflected client's incapacity to understand fundamental rights. Charge and sentence bargain contemplated benefits that client never received. Trial court found that client had established ignorance or inadvertence in entering plea, which justified its withdrawal for legal cause under Penal Code section 1018.
  • People of State of California v. Bautista

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Outcome:
    Order vacating judgment
    Description:
    Client petitioned for writ of error coram nobis because he neither received the benefit of his bargain nor understood a factual defense against his charges. Court granted writ and entered order vacating judgment as a remedy.
  • People of State of California v. Amidi

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jan 30, 2006
    Outcome:
    Order vacating judgment granted
    Description:
    Petitioner moved to vacate judgment for failure to admonish him about the possibility of immigration consequences under Penal Code section 1016.5, and petitioned for writ based on omission of admonishments about fundamental rights. Court granted order vacating judgment.
  • People of State of California v. Niang

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Oct 05, 2005
    Outcome:
    Order vacating judgment
    Description:
    Client petitioned for writ of habeas corpus based on the failure to appoint an interpreter, and omission of the parties to properly execute the waiver and plea agreement. The Court entered an order vacating judgment.
  • People of State of California v. Agonafer

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Outcome:
    Order vacating banishment condition
    Description:
    Client petitioned for writ of error coram nobis to cure banishment condition, which was pre-empted by federal Constitution. Court struck banishment condition.