Case Results

  • Probation and One Year Custody. Avoided Prison.
    Bookkeeper Arrested for Theft of $330,000 From High School

    A longtime bookkeeper for a public high school was arrested for theft of $330,000 and then charged with seven felonies, including embezzlement by a public officer, grand theft, forgery, and money laundering. Because of the large dollar amount of the loss, the bookkeeper faced many years in prison after approximately two years of negotiations with the prosecutor’s office, we were able to resolve the bookkeeper’s case for probation and one year in custody.

    (Click here to read news article about the case)

  • Probation & House Arrest
    Office Manager Accused of Grand Theft and Embezzlement
    Office Manager Accused of Grand Theft and Embezzlement

    An office manager was accused of grand theft and embezzlement of approximately $55,000 from her employer. A subsequent background investigation revealed that the office manager was previously involved in a $3-million real-estate scam for which she was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison — we were able to resolve the office manager’s new case for probation and house arrest.

  • DA's Office Ordered to Return Money to Victims
    $360,000 in Asset Forfeiture From Burglary

    The District Attorney's Office seized approximately $360,000 in cash, cars and motorcycles from a group of individuals believed to be involved in sophisticated roof-top burglaries of jewelry stores. The property was sought for asset forfeiture. The DA's Office wanted to keep the money for itself – The judge ordered that part of the money be returned for victim restitution.

    ( Click here to read news article about the case.)

  • Criminal Charges Not Filed
    500 Marijuana Plants And 100 lbs. Of Marijuana With Intent to Sell

    Possession of more than 100 lbs. of marijuana with intent to sell and cultivation of more than 500 marijuana plants — Criminal charges not filed by the District Attorney's Office.

  • Rights Protected
    Off-Duty Sheriff's Deputy Arrested For Pointing His Gun At Two Individuals During Verbal Argument

    During a verbal argument with two individuals, an off-duty Sheriff’s Deputy pulled out his gun and pointed it at them in a threatening manner. Law enforcement was called and after their investigation, they determined that the Deputy was the aggressor and he did not act in self-defense. The Deputy was arrested and charged with assault with a gun in violation of Penal Code 245 and brandishing a firearm in violation of Penal Code 417 — we presented our own investigation to the prosecutor and as a result, the assault with a gun charge was dismissed. Nonetheless, with a conviction for brandishing a firearm, the Deputy would automatically lose his right to own any gun or other firearm for 10 years. With a lot of hard work, we were able to convince the prosecutor and the Judge that the Deputy satisfied all the requirements of Penal Code 29860. The Deputy is now permitted to own a firearm.

  • Case dismissed
    10 Days of Round-the-Clock Surveillance Of Client's House Ended With SWAT Team Entering To Search For Illegal Guns
    During early morning hours, the Sheriff Department’s SWAT team executed a search warrant at our client’s home looking for illegal guns, rifles, ammunition and gang-related paraphernalia. The client’s entire family was woken-up at gun point and detained for several hours while their house was searched. The search warrant was based on information that was obtained during someone else’s arrest 2 weeks prior and then followed-up with round-the-clock surveillance of our client’s house for 10 days — we reviewed the search warrant and concluded that it lacked probable cause to connect our client’s home to any illegal activity. We then challenged the search warrant in court on the basis that the warrant was issued in violation of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The DA’s Office fought to save the warrant. The judge who heard the evidence agreed with us, stating that the warrant was “woefully inadequate” and that the SWAT team should have known better than to rely on the inadequate warrant to search our client’s home. The entire case against our client was dismissed.