Recent Results




NOTE: Names have been omitted in the below summaries of cases. In addition, some facts have been omitted in order to protect the privacy and identity of the involved parties. However, the criminal charges, general circumstances and results are factually accurate.



SPOUSAL ABUSE, ASSAULT WITH DEADLY WEAPON, CRIMINAL THREATS, VANDALISM

RESULT: NOT GUILTY

Client is involved with a girl friend for over two years. Although they both lived together in the past, they lived apart at time of the alleged crime. The day before the alleged crimes, client finds evidence that girlfriend is stealing money from client's daughter's trust fund set up for daughter's long-term disability.

The next day, client goes to girlfriend's home to confront her about the theft. Girlfriend refuses to discuss the evidence or their relationship. While client is attempting to talk with girlfriend, girlfriend's room mate approaches client with a gun and threaten's client. After a brief exchange of words, room mate tosses gun to ground and challenged client to fist fight.

Client, who has several years of martial arts training, proceeds to defend himself with great success. During the fight, girlfriend jumps on client's back and begins to choke him with her arm around client's throat. Client knocks girlfriend off his back, she falls to ground and stikes her head on rock. When girlfriend runs into house, client attempts to follow her to make sure she is not seriously injured. When client gets to door, he finds the door locked. Out of frustration, client kicks door and causes some damage.

At trial, girlfriend and room mate claim client has been stalking girlfriend for months attempting to have a relationship with her. Girlfriend also testified she has been telling client for approximately six months that they were over and she did not want to have any relationship with client. Girlfriend also testified she told client long ago they were not going to get married and refused to consider marriage with him.

After prosecution rested its case, we presented evidence girlfriend had told several people she was engaged to client, showed off her engagement ring to others one week before alleged assault, and went to a local park with client and his sister where she was kissing and hugging client and bragging about their marriage plans. This evidence included photos of client and girlfriend kissing and hugging at the park one week before alleged assault.

We were also able to point out several significant inconsistent statements by girlfriend and room mate. In addition, we presented evidence of theft from trust fund by girlfriend and prior incident by room mate where he shot his neighbor in the back with an "air-soft" pistol because the neighbor was making too much noise.

The jury deliberated for a short amount of time and returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts.



SPOUSAL ABUSE

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED

Client and wife have been married for more than 25 years. On night of incident, client uses wife's computer to access his e-mail because his computer was not working properly. Client finds a "my space" web site belonging to wife with several provocative photos on the web site. Concerned about what was on the web site, client wakes up wife who has been sleeping for several hours and they have a heated argument over the web site. Client decides to leave the residence for the night to calm down.

Wife calls her daughter to come and pick her up so she can stay somewhere else for the night as well. Daughter calls the local Sheriff's Department out of concern for safety of both parents. When Deputies arrive, they harass wife into giving a statement she does not want to give. Her interview was tape recorded and on the tape she states several times she did not call law enforcement and does not want law enforcement involved. The Deputy infers a physical assault from wife's statement (a careful review of tape shows she never stated she was physically assaulted, only a heated verbal argument).

Deputy locates client and asks client to explain what happened. Client refuses and states the matter is private between him and his wife. Deputy tells client he is under arrest. When client asks deputy why he is under arrest, deputy states "its personal." (This conversation was also recorded with deputy's knowledge.)

Our investigation shows no physical assault and no evidence of any injury. We inform District Attorney of defense evidence and insist case be dismissed. District Attorney refuses and offers to settle case with a misdemeanor conviction, three years probation, and batter's treatment program. We refuse to settle and confirm for trial.

On the last trial readiness conference, just before trial is to begin, District Attorney makes new offer: Diversion, complete batter's treatment program, have no new law violations, and District Attorney will dismiss in eighteen months. We reject offer and again confirm for trial. When we refuse new offer and confirm for trial, District Attorney moves to dismiss for "lack of evidence."



SPOUSAL ABUSE, TERRORIST THREATS

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED

Client and live-in girlfriend get into argument over girlfriend not cleaning up after herself. Girlfriend tries to kick client but he deflects the kick. Client then goes into a different room to get away from girlfriend. Girlfriend follows client and kicks client in his knee that had previously been injured and had reconstructive surgery. The kick seriously injures client and causes him to fall. During the fall, client and girlfriend both end up on the ground. Girlfriend tells client she is going to call the police if he does not leave. Client leaves to let her cool down as has happened in the past when they argued.

After client leave the house, girlfriend calls the Sheriff's Department and reports that client physically attacker her, threatened her, and injured her. Girlfriend gets an emergency protective order which keeps client from returning to his home (owned by client and not by girlfriend). Girlfriend immediately goes to court and also gets a civil restraining order. Girlfriend will not allow client to get any of his property, his work tool, or his work vehicle and client is not allowed to go to house to get any of his property by the court.

The case is set for trial and we begin collecting evidence on the girlfriend. Prior to trial, we present evidence to the District Attorney's Office that girlfriend has since stolen items from client's home, physically destroyed much of his property, wrecked his work truck (a total loss) and did not report the accident to law enforcement or the insurance company, and had broken into a storage facility owned by client on his property which she had no access to and was removing high value equipment and tools.

We also had the doctor's report that the kick to client's knee caused serious new injuries and would require another reconstructive surgery to repair. We also had photos of the bruise to client's knee which clearly showed the foot imprint of the girlfriend when she kicked him.

The District Attorney's Office confirmed the information we had provided to them and agreed to dismiss the entire action against client for "lack of evidence."



SPOUSAL ABUSE, TERRORIST THREATS, POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED!

Client and wife had separated and were in the process of going through a divorce. Client and the three children of the marriage lived in the main house on the property he and his wife owned. The wife moved into a guest house on the property with her new boyfriend. The main house and the guest house shared a "party line" telephone so that anyone who picked up the phone could hear someone on the phone in the other residence.

On the night of the alleged assault, wife was listening in on one of client's personal telephone calls about the divorce proceedings. After the call was over, wife came to the main house and started an argument with client about the phone call. Wife told children to go upstairs and then began to curse and yell as client. Client told wife to leave the house. Wife refused to leave. Client then took client by the arm and escorted her outside. Once outside, wife yelled she was going to call the police. Client told wife to go ahead and call them.

Wife called the Sheriff's Department and reported that client had punched her in the face, twisted her arm, shoved her out of the house, and made threats to her personal safety. When the Deputy Sheriff arrived, the officers searched the house for firearms and located several pistols, rifles and shotguns. One of the firearms had been reported stolen several years prior. Client denied striking the wife, twisting her arm, making any threats and denied knowing the firearm had been stolen.

During trial, wife made several inconsistent statements regarding what happened, the order of events, and what she reported to the first responding law enforcement officers. After three days of trial, the District Attorney's Office reported to the court that they had inadvertently not provided a tape recording of the interview with client and provided a copy to the defense. A review of the tape showed the client had not been told about his Miranda rights (the right to remain silent, right to an attorney, etc.) prior to an in-custody interrogation. Because the officer who conducted the interrogation had already testified that he had obtained a Miranda waiver and client's statements had already been admitted by the court, the court declared a mistrial.

After reviewing the trial transcripts and the inconsistent statements by the alleged victim/wife, the District Attorney's Office agreed to dismiss the entire case and not attempt to refile any charges.

Several of the jurors who remained after the mistrial was declared stated that they were leaning towards not guilty when the court declared a mistrial based on the inconsistent statement of the wife and her apparent willing to lie about what actually happened.



ATTEMPTED DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE, BRINGING DRUGS INTO A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED!

Client and his family was camping over a holiday weekend. Client became extremely intoxicated and started making too much noise at the campground. The local camp ranger called the Sheriff's Department. When the Sheriff's Department arrived, they placed client under arrest for public intoxication. The Deputy Sheriff searched client and located a small hard case for carrying glasses in client's pants pocket. The Deputy opened the case and found a marijuana pipe and indications of recent marijuana use. The Deputy asked client if he had any other marijuana and client told him everything he had was in the glasses case.

Client was then taken to jail. At the jail, a correctional officer searched client again and found another container in client's pocket which contained marijuana. The Deputy who transported client to the jail then searched his patrol vehicle and found another case in the back seat that contained small amounts of marijuana. Client was charged with public intoxication, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, felony attempted destruction of evidence (the case found in the back seat of the patrol car), and felony bringing drugs into a correctional facility.

We offered to settle the case for public intoxication and possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, both misdemeanors. The District Attorney refused because they wanted client to plead to a felony. The case was set for trial. We informed the District Attorney that we intended to present a defense showing that client was so intoxicated he did not know what was in his pockets at the time he was taken to jail and that the Deputy Sheriff who searched him at the campground before he was placed in the patrol car should have found the items later located in client's pockets and in the patrol car. We also had a video tape of client taken by the camp ranger which showed client standing in the middle of the road so intoxicated that he did not notice a law enforcement patrol car when he drove up to within several feet of client.

Just before the trial was to begin, the District Attorney's Office agreed to dismiss all the felony counts if client would plead guilty to misdemeanor public intoxication and misdemeanor possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. Client agreed and all the felony counts were dismissed for "lack of evidence."



DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED!

Client and her mother had been at an event all day walking around. Client is diabetic and does not consume alcohol. Prior to leaving the event, client took prescription pain killers for her injured back. On her way home, a deer jumped out in front of client's car causing her to swerve and run off the road. No person or property was injured. Before client could get her vehicle back on the road, a Highway Patrol Officer came by and arrested client for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Client asked for a blood test and was taken to the hospital. At the hospital the doctor's ran a blood test and told the officer she had nothing to drink but had an extremely low blood sugar and was on the verge of diabetic shock. The doctor specifically told the officer that client was not intoxicated and that the officer was confusing diabetic shock with intoxication, which has similar symptoms, such as slurred speech, confusion, poor balance, etc. The officer still took client to jail and booked her for DUI.

The District Attorney's Office filed charges against client because her blood test results showed she had a prescription pain killer in her system at the time she was driving. We informed the District Attorney's Office that we would put on the emergency room doctor to testify about her diabetic condition at the time of her driving, her regular doctor about the prescription medication, and several witnesses including the passenger in the vehicle on the day of her arrest to show that she was a good driver with no poor driving when she was using the prescription medication.

The Friday before the trial was to begin, the District Attorney's Office agreed they would lose at trial and dismissed all charges.



ELDER ABUSE, RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY

RESULT: NOT GUILTY!

Client was a residential care giver to an elderly couple. Client accused of temporarily taking the couples car without permission. The District Attorney's Office decided this also constituted Elder Abuse because of the age of the victims, and Residential Burglary because the vehicle was taken from inside an attached garage while the victims were asleep inside the house. Client admitted he took the car without permission, but took the car because his younger, homeless brother had been attacked and beat-up. No one was able to locate client's younger brother, so client borrowed the car without permission in order to locate his younger brother to make sure he was safe. On his way back to the house with the car a few hours later, he was stopped and arrested by the police.

Prior to trial, client agreed to plead to unlawful taking of an automobile, but refused to plead to either Elder Abuse or Residential Burglary. On the first day of trial, the District Attorney's Office agreed they could not prove Elder Abuse and dismissed that charge, but they insisted client plead to both unlawful taking of a vehicle and Residential Burglary. Client refused and we went to trial.

Our defense was that because client lived in the house, he could not burglarize his own residence. The District Attorney's Office argued that because he was an employee, he was not residing at the house, but just temporarily staying there and therefore it was a residential burglary. The jury deliberated for several hours before returning a verdict of not guilty to the residential burglary.



SPOUSAL ABUSE

RESULT: NOT GUILTY!

Client accused of assaulting his live-in girlfriend when she refused to attend a dinner with his parents. A friend of the girlfriend called the police and client was arrested. The girlfriend had bruises on the inside of her arms. Law enforcement photographed the bruises on the inside of the girlfriend's arms, but did not ask her if client caused the bruises. Law enforcement officers testified that girlfriend did not want to talk with them and refused to sign any forms pressing charges against client. Girlfriend eventually told the District Attorney's Office that client did not cause bruises and that the bruises were cause by an unreported sexual assault a few days prior to the arrest of client by unknown assailants. When pressed about why girlfriend did not report the sexual assault, she testified that she had been previously sexually assaulted, reported the incident to law enforcement, identified her attacker, and the attacker was not arrested or prosecuted. In the girlfriend's mind, reporting a new sexual assault to law enforcement was more humiliating than living with an unreported assault.

At trial, the prosecution questioned the girlfriend's credibility and argued that she was lying to cover-up for client physically attacking her. We argued that girlfriend's actions of not reporting the sexual assault were reasonable under the circumstances, and that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt client was responsible for the injuries. The jury agreed and returned a verdict of not guilty.



IDENTITY THEFT

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED!

Client accused of using the name and social security number of his girlfriend's ex-husband to set up telephone service in his home. The evidence presented included admissions by the client that he had set up the telephone service with the alleged victim's name and social security number. However, the statement to the police alleged the victim gave permission to set up the telephone service so that the alleged victim could stay in contact with his minor daughter who lived with client and her mother. The evidence also included that the bills for the telephone service were being sent to client's address and being paid.

At the preliminary hearing, we argued there was no showing the telephone service had been set up without the alleged victim's consent, an essential element. The District Attorney's Office argued to the court that element should be implied because the alleged victim had reported the telephone service in his name to the police, but could not produce any evidence that he did not give permission to set it up prior to having an argument with his ex-wife over visitation.

The court agreed with us that an essential element of the crime was missing and dismissed the entire case.



VIOLATION OF PROBATION ALLEGATION.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY!

Client accused of failing to complete work program. Probation Department recommended an additional 90 days in custody without being referred back to the work program (all time to be done in jail). We presented evidence that client had contacted the probation department and told them he was not financially able to pay the work program fees for several more weeks. Probation Officer admitted their policy was to send clients away if they could not pay the program fees, and that the probation department does not normally tell clients that the fees can be waived. The Probation Officer also admitted that the department does not keep records of contacts with clients when the client is sent away because of inability to pay the work program fees.

The court found no violation (not guilty), and referred the client back to the work program to complete the original time imposed in the work program.



POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS FOR SALE.

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED!

Client was arrested by Tribal Police Officers after they illegally searched client's vehicle and found drugs in the front seat and in the trunk. Tribal Police also found scales and a police scanner. Client admitted the drugs were his, but claimed the scales and scanner belonged to a friend.

Prior to trial, we filed a motion to suppress evidence, alleging an illegal search. The District Attorney's Office responded that the local tribal police are not true law enforcement officers and that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to them. After presenting evidence, the court agreed with us that since the Tribal Police wear uniforms with badges and shoulder patches that state they are police officers, the Tribal Police tell people they are police officers, and all officers are required to have successfully completed a California Police Academy training course prior to employment, they are police officers and the Fourth Amendment does in fact apply.

After finding the Fourth Amendment applies, the court ruled the search was without legal justification under the circumstances and excluded all the evidence. The District Attorney's Office was not able to prosecute without the evidence and the case was dismissed.



VEHICLE THEFT

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED!

Client was accused of stealing a car from a disabled person he had been assisting for several months. After several days of searching, law enforcement officers located client parked on the side of the road in the stolen car. Client insisted the owner had given him permission to use the car.

During our investigation, client told us about several people who could testify the alleged victim had given client permission to drive the car on numerous occasions. We contacted the alleged victim and confronted him with the other witness statements that he had allowed client to drive his car on many prior occasions, often to get the alleged victim's medication and groceries. The alleged victim admitted he had allowed client to drive the car and had told him he could drive the car when he last saw client. The alleged victim stated he was angry because the client had been gone so long without letting him know where he was, so he called the police and reported the car stolen. We produced the report to the District Attorney's Office. After they confirmed the alleged victim's statements, the District Attorney agreed to dismiss for lack of evidence.



VIOLATION OF PROBATION ALLEGATION

RESULT: PROBATION REINSTATED!

Client had been previously found guilty of a felony and sentenced to three years prison, suspended, and placed on felony probation. Client was later arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, resisting arrest and battery on a peace officer. The Probation Department and the District Attorney's Office both insisted the court impose the suspended three year prison term.

We presented evidence of long term substance abuse and client's attempts to get into residential treatment programs. Prior to sentencing, client was accepted into a long-term residential treatment program for alcohol. Over the District Attorney's strong objection, the court agreed the reinstate probation and allow client to enter the residential treatment program.



ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON

RESULT: CASE DISMISSED!

Client was recently paroled for grand theft. A few weeks after client was paroled, victim and several friends were driving down the highway behind client. Victim mistakenly believed client was another person who was victim's friend and started tailgating client, flashing headlights and waving to get the driver's attention. After a few minutes, victim realized he was mistaken and backed away. Several miles down the road, client pulled into a parking lot and got out of his vehicle. According to the victim, client waved his hands, cursed at him and challenged him to fight. When victim passed by, client got back into his vehicle and followed victim, tailgating, flashing headlights and flipping off the victim.

Victim reported to police that several days later, he and the same two friends reported saw client in two different vehicles a few hours apart. Each time victim and the two friends saw client, he allegedly tried to run them off the road with his vehicle. On the last alleged incident, client allegedly followed the victim at approximately 100 mph, tried several times to run crash into victim's car, and tried to run victim's car off the road. One of the witnesses identified client as the driver of the vehicle when this incident happened.

One of the witnesses reported that she did not know who the driver of the vehicle was until a friend called her and told her it was client, who had recently paroled from prison and was rumored to carry a gun. When the police located client, he admitted he was the driver in the first incident when the victim tailgated him, but denied following the victim after he pulled over and denied he ever had any contact with the victim again. Client did not have access to the other two vehicles and has never driven a pickup as described by the victim.

At the preliminary hearing, we pointed out a number of allegations made by the victim and witnesses that factually were very improbably, such as driving over 65 mph on a dirt shoulder while trying to run the victim's vehicle off the roadway, following the victim's vehicle (a newer model Saturn) so closely that the headlights of the suspect vehicle (an older model Chevy pickup) were no longer visible because they were below the line of sight out the back window--the pickup's headlights would be much higher than the rear of a Saturn trunk line, and that the rear passenger of the victim's vehicle was only able to see the suspect because the pickup's inside cab light was on--but the alleged incident occurred at 3:00 in the afternoon, well before dark!

After listening to the arguments of both sides, the court refused to hold client to answer. The case was dismissed and client was released from custody!



POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS FOR SALE

RESULT: NOT GUILTY!

Client was a passenger in a car that was stopped for a minor traffic violation. The driver was arrested for outstanding warrants. When the officer searched the car after the driver's arrest, he found drugs between the driver's seat and the center console of the car. Client was then arrested and charged with possession of narcotics for sale.

Client claimed the driver had been at his house earlier in the day and client had asked the driver for a ride to a friend's house to get back a weed whacker he had loaned to a friend. The driver agreed. On the way back from the friend's house, the driver was stopped and the drugs were located. Client denied every knowing anything about the drugs or having possession of the drugs.

Even though the driver had already plead guilty to possession of the drugs in the car, the District Attorney's Office continued to prosecute client. At trial, client testified he about getting a ride to pick up his weed whacker and not knowing about the drugs. During cross-examination, the arresting officer admitted there was a weed whacker in the back seat of the car and that client claimed it was his (this was omitted from the police reports).

After arguing that the District Attorney's Office had failed to show any evidence that client knew there were drugs in the car or that he had control over the car, the jury found him not guilty!



CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA

RESULT: NOT GUILTY!

Client and two of his friends were arrested and charged with cultivation of marijuana. Client owned some property in rural Madera County. Client had been attempting for several years to get a permit from the federal government for the production of commercial hemp. Client had arranged for the purchase of hemp seeds from the University of Amsterdam in which THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, had been removed from the strain of plant resulting in a hemp plant that could be used for commercial hemp and no other purpose. Even with this procedure in place, the federal government continued to deny his request for a commercial hemp permit.

In frustration, client and his friends organized a protest. They gave several days notice to local television stations and local law enforcement that they would be planting hemp on client's property in Madera County on the 4th of July. On the 4th of July, client and his friends waited for law enforcement and the media to arrive before they planted the hemp, which was recorded on video tape. Madera County Sheriff's Deputies then arrested client and his friends.

We presented several defenses to the court prior to trial, including necessity based on NAFTA, which stated that commercial hemp is a strategic national resource and that no country agreeing to NAFTA could prohibit commercial hemp, and that the planting was a protest of overly broad drugs laws and the acts should be protected under the First Amendment right to free speech. After several days of motions, the court rejected these defenses and ruled that we could not present our various defenses to the jury.

At trial, we presented an expert from the University of Amsterdam who testified the hemp seeds in question were not viable and even though they may sprout, they would never be able to grow into a mature stock because they had been bombarded with radiation, which made them legal in the United States. The prosecution presented an expert from the Department of Justice who stated that he planted some of the seeds seized during the arrest that allowed them to sprout, therefore the seeds were viable. During cross-examination, the prosecution expert admitted he held no college degrees, only had on the job training along with high school chemistry, and that he never tested any of the seeds or sprouts for THC, the active ingredient for marijuana.

After two days of deliberation, the jury found all three defendant's not guilty. The jury foreman also read a statement to the clients that they need to find another way to protest the laws of the United States.



ASSAULT ON A PEACE OFFICER

RESULT: NOT GUILTY!

Client and his family arrived at a concert in a park around 9:00 pm. The concert was scheduled to continue until 1:00 am. However, when the headliner arrived at 9:30 pm, some people in the crowd overwhelmed security trying to get close to the celebrities and local law enforcement decided to cancel the concert for security reasons. At 9:45 pm, a public announcement was made that the concert was being canceled and everyone needed to leave the park. Client approached a local police officer and asked him who he needed to contact to get a refund because he and his family had arrived less than one hour before the concert was canceled. The officer started yelling at client, pushed him down, sprayed him with pepper spray, and began to strike him with his baton. Several other officer then joined in striking client with batons. Client was arrested and charged with assault on a peace officer and resisting arrest.

At trial, the arresting officer denied ever hitting client. The officer claimed that client was intoxicated, belligerent, and tried to punch the officer when the officer used pepper spray to subdue client and take him into custody.

Client and his wife both testified the officer was lying and had struck client multiple times with a baton, along with other police officers of the same agency. We introduced photographs of client's injuries showing multiple baton strikes on his arm and back, and a large bruise about the size of a melon on the inside of his leg near his groin where one of the officers kicked client.

Arguing that the photographs don't lie, and the injuries were clearly baton strikes based on the shape and size of the bruising, the jury agreed and found client not guilty!



HOME