We recently heard about the defendant (an attorney) who was purportedly convicted on ONE felony count, whereupon the State Bar claimed that such conviction amounted to moral turpitude. We know of other cases where defendants have been accused of beating up a girlfriend, and even that was not moral turpitude because he took a plea for another type of crime. So for an animal negligence case to rise to the level of moral turpitude, it is not exactly the same as if you left your kid in a car and it got sick and almost collapsed? Or even if you accidentally forgot and left your dog in the car and it actually expired?
Judges tend to want to find "hoarders" guilty in many instances, however, animal hoarders in many cases, are simply people with a facet of OCD which is considered different than ordinary OCD, but there is no known scientific theory, only professional and semi-scientific guesswork. To us, the OCD part means it is a defense since OCD is all about the brain, and where non normal behavior is seen in relation to the actions (claiming to love animals and then purposely not feeding them for example), we can see that there is a direct discrepancy which is brain related.
Anyone accused of a Penal Code violation related to animals should call an animal law defense attorney immediately, and hopefully before any seizure is done.
530 359 8810 In custody clients call 365/24hr We have bail agent on call