Shoplifting Charge to be dismissed after 20 days of community service.

Client allegedly stole over 250 in personal items from JCPenny's.  A shoplifting convictions would have affected future employment.  The charges against her will be dismissed after 20 days of community service.

Evading Charge reduced to simple infraction, exceeding 65 MPH

My client was charged with evading the police for a stretch of 4 miles on the freeway, officers reported speeds in excess of 100 MPH.  I presented evidence of my client's good character and no history of criminal or vehicle code violations.  He literally was not aware of what was going on due to fatigue.  Great outcome.  An evading conviction would have had significant implications.

Jury Finds Client Not Guilty Over Eye Witness Peace Officer Testimony

After a three-day trial, a jury found my client not guilty of domestic violence battery.  Four undercover officers followed a vehicle in which my client was a passenger.  They claimed that they could see my client punching the driver, my client’s spouse.

The officers stopped my client.  Despite the alleged victim’s denial of any attack or injury, an arrest took place.  The case proceeded to trial.  At trial, it was discovered the peace officers left out glaring details, most significantly that they attempted to arrest the victim, too, and they recorded the contact but failed to timely disclose it.  One officer gave extremely evasive testimony and each officer’s testimony was almost identical.   The jury deliberated about three hours and returned a Not Guilty verdict.

Crime Law: Jury finds client NOT GUILTY of domestic violence ...

Crime Law: Jury finds client NOT GUILTY of domestic violence ...: After a two day trial my client was found not guilty of domestic violence battery resulting in traumatic injury and not g...

LOVE on Trial-Jury finds client NOT GUILTY of domestic violence battery and false imprisonment charges!

After a two day trial my client was found not guilty of domestic violence battery resulting in traumatic injury and not guilty of falsely imprisoning his then girlfriend and now mother of their child.  The jury deliberated for three hours before returning a verdict.  The victim testified at trial that she exaggerated allegations she made against my client and that all he did was pull on her purse to get her attention.  The deputy district attorney tried to suggest she was lying because she did not want the now father of their infant child in trouble.

The prosecution called the responding officer who testified to the victim’s original allegations and played recordings of her statement to him.  However, she was extremely calm and deliberate when she spoke to the officer.  I was able to impeach the officer’s testimony in several areas, most significantly he claimed my client made admissions that he NEVER made.

The decision to go to trial in this case was not an easy one because the District Attorney made a very reasonable offer that involved no jail and dismissal after 12 months.  If my client lost, he had exposure of two years in jail, fines, classes and loss of gun rights.  The jury made the right decision.

Jury found Client Not Guilty of DUI with two prior DUI convictions!

After a three day jury trial, my client was found NOT GUILTY of DUI and driving with blood alcohol concentration over .08.  There were special allegations of two prior DUI convictions.  If found guilty, he could have been subject to 120 days minimum jail and indefinite loss of his driving privileges.

The arresting officer testified along with two California Department of Justice experts for the prosecution.  Blood alcohol evidence was presented that my client's BAC was .10, 45 minutes after arrest.

A single defense expert and witness testified for the defense.  Evidence of a Rising Blood Alcohol was presented. Additionally, the court excluded the evidence of a preliminary alcohol test taken in the field because the peace officer failed to inform my client of his right to refuse the test.

The jury reached its verdict in just over one hour of deliberations.

Crime Law: Three Felony Charges Dismissed against Client on E...

Crime Law: Three Felony Charges Dismissed against Client on E...: Three Felony Charges Dismissed against Client on Eve of Trial For the most part, I find district attorneys take the approp...

Three Felony Charges Dismissed against Client on Eve of Trial

Three Felony Charges Dismissed against Client on Eve of Trial

For the most part, I find district attorneys take the appropriate course of action when presented with the right evidence, though the path to the end seems fraught with treacherous turns at times.

Today, the Assistant DA dismissed three felony charges against my client, who unfortunately could not make bail and has been in custody for several months.  He had charges related to theft, receiving stolen property and possession of a firearm.

This case was emotionally draining as I developed a fondness for the client and his strong will and optimism.  He had lots of idle time and researched the books in the jail law library and often wrote briefs for my consideration.

He devastatingly learned the hard way the best lesson every new attorney should learn:  the law and facts often have nothing to do with the outcome of the case.  I briefly romanced the idea I would be successful with a motion to suppress evidence.  The law, facts and absence of opposing law militated in my favor.   Only to be reminded of the harsh realities of ends oriented justice system, at times.  That is, the end justifies the means.  I was so miffed at the outcome I filed a Writ of Mandate, in this case, a 103-page document, with the appellate court, seeking emergency relief, only to relearn the lesson I already knew.

Fortunately my client did not cave and take a deal just to have matters done with, although the deal wasn’t much and he only stood to enhance his sentence by 8 months if he lost at trial.

The case against my client was circumstantial and a Dept of Justice forensic analysis showed a single fingerprint on a firearm belonged to someone else.  My client’s early and adamant denials of the possession of a firearm, the fact he was not the owner of the commercial trailer and the owner of the vehicle had a felony conviction presented facts too ominous for the DA to overcome and show constructive knowledge and possession of a stolen weapon. 

My client was a stranger in a foreign county and is now happily on his return home to his family, sadly missing his daughter’s sixth birthday, but eager to reclaim lost family time.

About the Author:

Mark Johnson is a California Criminal Defense Attorney defending clients in both state and federal courts.

Crime Law: Client Accused of Domestic Violence Battery found ...

Crime Law: Client Accused of Domestic Violence Battery found ...: "Client accused of domestic violence battery found not guilty by jury. Today I concluded a week-long trial, which included jury select..."

Client Accused of Domestic Violence Battery found NOT GUILTY by Jury

Client accused of domestic violence battery found not guilty by jury.

Today I concluded a week-long trial, which included jury selection and deliberations.  A jury found my client not guilty of DV battery and not guilty of lesser included offenses.  It was a hard fought trial.  DV cases can be difficulty to defend because unlike other cases the district attorney can introduce propensity evidence whether or not the person has been convicted of a crime.  In this case the district attorney introduced the testimony of an alleged prior victim from an incident occurring seven years ago.  The victim testified almost flawlessly and the jury seemed very sympathetic to her testimony.   To be honest, I was concerned I could not overcome the impact of her testimony.  I was able to provide impeachment evidence that created the necessary doubt for the jury to find my client not guilty.  This was a great outcome and fitting end to a long and arduous week.

Pride, Arrogance and Ad Lib Testimony are a Peace Officer’s Achilles’ Heel

Pride, Arrogance and Ad Lib Testimony are a Peace Officer’s Achilles’ Heel

Today I began a DMV hearing regarding a DUI case.  I previously appeared at an evidentiary suppression hearing in the same case.  Two officers arrested my client for DUI.  The officer who testified at the DMV hearing today miraculously had a better memory of what occurred although he opted not to testify and deferred to his partner previously due to what I was told was a lack of personal knowledge.   This officer who testified today added facts that were never previously reported, including my client was trying to flag the officers over for assistance despite contradictory testimony by the partner officer that the sole basis for the stop was his license plate was allegedly obscured.

This case is still pending but I will likely take it to trial.  It is sad testimony when officers risk so much to justify their conduct or ends justifies the means.  I can almost predict a favorable outcome for my client as I have been down this road before in other cases, the last in Federal court.  An officer’s election to come up with new and extraordinary facts two years after the incident backfired and caused sufficient liability.

Juries can accept innocent mistakes and memory affected by time, but they don’t usually buy into facts that don’t make sense.  Although the officers arrogance and unwillingness to back down from unimpeachable facts helps my client, I am so offended at what some officers are willing to do.

Two Cases Dismissed at Eve of Trial

Two cases dismissed at the eve of trial confirmation.

Today was a good day, two separate cases were dismissed by the district attorney’s office on a day set to confirm readiness to go to trial in these cases.  I applaud the district attorneys who did what was the proper course in my opinion.

The first case dismissed was quite interesting and my client faced possible state prison due to a number of prior DUI convictions and he had been on the run in this case for nearly a decade, and not surprisingly, he picked up a new DUI case in another county within the state.  The case wasn’t looking good for him and time usually is not on one’s side in criminal cases but it was in this matter.

Luck would have it, or bad luck for the arresting officer, subsequent to the arrest of my client, the officer became involved in his own foray into the criminal justice system, and I am told he had a number of charges against him for sexual assault under color of authority and other serious malfeasance and was forced to resign or retire.

I filed suppression motions and what is known as a “Pitchess” motion to obtain incriminating data on the arresting officer . The district attorney’s office could not put the key witness on the stand in good consciousness and dismissed the matter.  My client who was in custody was very grateful and appreciated I took the case seriously.  This was a court appointment with no cost to the client and sometimes you do get what you pay for.

In another unrelated matter, a young lady with a troubled past obtained a dismissal of her case for battery on her spouse.

Felony Charges Against Client Dismissed-DA Very Fair

Felony Charges Against Client Dismissed-DA Very Fair

By Mark Johnson, California Criminal Defense Attorney

http://crimelaw.org

Today I resolved a case on behalf of a client who was charged with two felony counts related to grand theft and embezzlement, each charge holding up to 3 years state prison.  It was an interesting case involving a public employee and allegations stemming from his employment. And misappropriation of funds.

I applaud the DA for not succumbing to any public pressure in light of recent Los Angeles cases involving public figures and financial corruption and there was earlier mediation attention in this case.  The case ended with a complete dismissal of the felony charges and an added charge, a minor misdemeanor , of a California Corporations Code, which more accurately reflected my client’s conduct in this case.

Crime Law: Criminal Case Dismissed at Trial-Knowing When to H...

Crime Law: Criminal Case Dismissed at Trial-Knowing When to H...: "@font-face { font-family: 'Cambria'; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: ..."

Criminal Case Dismissed at Trial-Knowing When to Hold Out

Criminal Case Dismissed at Trial-Knowing When to Hold Out

By Mark A. Johnson, Esq.  California criminal defense, civil rights, and employment lawyer. Offices in Palmdale, Bishop, Oxnard, Rancho Cucamonga and Temecula, California.

Perhaps it’s a bad analogy to equate the resolution of a criminal case to a card came, but the reality of litigation, whether criminal or civil, is often about acceptable risk should a favorable opportunity to resolve a case  present itself.  The resolution of a case hinges on the strength of a case and ability to finance a protracted matter.  In criminal cases the deal offered by the prosecution gets worse if a case is protracted and a strong case exists against the accused.  However, most district attorneys are fair when significant disputes regarding fact and law exist. 

Today, at the cusp of trial, the deputy district attorney dismissed a case against my client, a case that never should have been filed, and in my opinion, stems from bad blood between my client and former employer.  From the onset of this case, when asked if we could settle the case, I replied, sure, “dismiss it.”  I give homage to the judge in this matter because he listened earnestly to my position and how the DDA could not make its case at trial and I expected an early disposition of the matter.  While usually amenable to a reasonable settlement of a case, I advised dismissal or no deal and we were ready to go to trial.  While I have noted in previous articles that I don’t like to gamble over certain outcomes when faced with high risk, but today was different and I saw no downside going to trial or that  my client could lose.  Yeah for the justice system!