A History Of Success
People V. Martinez-Luna
My client was charged with child molestation. His two nieces accused my client of molesting them over a period of several years. He was charged with multiple counts of violating Penal Code sections 288(a) and 288(c)(1). My client denied the allegations when he testified. There were also several witnesses who testified that they didn’t see any conduct suggesting my client was molesting the girls. The two nieces testified and it was obvious under my cross-examination that they were not telling the truth. The jury obviously agreed that my client did not molest them. The result was 12 not guilty of child molestation verdicts rendered by the jury for the charged counts and all the lesser included charges.
People V. Jarrett
Defendant was charged with POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS. Police arrest the defendant in his truck, the truck is searched and the cocaine is found under the front seat of his truck. The defendant says that the cocaine is not his. Cross examination of the arresting officer reveals the presence of a female prostitute in the truck who was never mentioned in the police report. Jury verdict of NOT GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS.
People V. Parada
Defendant charged with FELONY MURDER and DRIVING A STOLEN CAR. Defendant driving a stolen van with several others inside leads police on a high-speed chase. Defendant runs numerous stoplights at high speed on Beach Boulevard. Defendant loses control of the van and crashes into a pole and a cement block wall. The van rolls and the roof caves in crushing the skull of a passenger causing his death. The entire chase and accident are on patrol car video. Jury verdict of NOT GUILTY OF MURDER.
People V. Aruda
Defendant charged with RAPE BY INTOXICATION WITH A PRIOR STRIKE CONVICTION FOR ROBBERY. Defendant found in bed with a 15 year old girl, by victim’s father, both are intoxicated. Victim tells police that she had sex with the defendant. Police forensic evidence includes defendant’s pubic hair found inside victim’s vagina and victim’s DNA found on defendant’s penis. Jury verdict of NOT GUILTY OF RAPE BY INTOXICATION.
People V. Maae
Defendant charged with FELON IN POSSESSION OF A GUN. Defendant stopped by police at the location of a disturbance. Defendant’s vehicle is searched and a gun is found under the seat. Defendant was previously convicted of a felony, but says that it is not his gun. It was left there by someone else. Jury verdict of NOT GUILTY OF FELON IN POSSESSION OF A GUN.
People V. Richardson
Defendant charged with POSSESSION OF A WEAPON IN A JAIL OR PRISON. Defendant who is a former professional football player who started on the Chicago Bears Super Bowl winning team was in custody in Orange County Jail. While he was being moved within the jail a sack carrying his belongings
People V. Martinez
I represented a client named Marco Martinez. He came to see me because he was referred to me by someone who knew my experience, track record winning cases, and my commitment to my clients. He had been arrested for multiple counts of child molestation. He was accused of molesting his two younger cousins. They all lived in an apartment in Santa Ana along with the girls’ parents and other siblings. The girls had given an elaborate story of being molested separately on different occasions. Marco was adamant that he had not done that, and wasn’t sure why they would falsely accuse him. I could almost instantly feel his sincerity and honesty. I decided to take his case. Child molestation cases are the most difficult cases to defend for obvious reasons. Everyone hates child molesters and it’s difficult to cross-examine child witnesses. We eventually proceeded to trial in front of Judge Marc Kelly. But before we started, the prosecutor was trying to coerce guilty pleas from my client. She threatened to add a “multiple victims” allegation that would subject Marco to life in prison if he was found guilty. I relayed that to Marco. He adamantly said no, he was not guilty and was not interested in a plea in spite of the danger of a life sentence. The girls testified and made their “claims of molestation.” Their testimony was wildly exaggerated. Under cross-examination, I showed that my client had gotten engaged right before they made their accusations. Prior to his engagement Marco was basically their “Taxi” service and their “errand boy.” After the engagement, he no longer had time for them and they were very unhappy with him. That was their motive to lie. Marco testified and was very truthful and believable. The jury believed him. The jury returned multiple verdicts of NOT GUILTY.
Cell Phone Cameras And Justice
The Derek Chauvin trial is the perfect example of the effect of cell phone cameras on the justice system. If this occurred before cell phone cameras, there would be no criminal charges filed against Chauvin, and there would be no trial. Black Lives Matter [BLM] would not exist as we know it. The outrageousness of what Chauvin did would have gone unknown. It has been reported Chauvin had 18 prior complaints, including one where he put his knee on a minor’s neck. Unfortunately, if his prior complaints had been publicized, Mr. Floyd would likely be alive now. This country has prevented its citizens from finding out about police officer complaints for far too long. It’s time to do away with the secrecy. Additionally, many police departments make it so difficult to file complaints that the numbers of complaints are ridiculously artificially low. Hopefully, justice system change will be George Floyd’s legacy.
People V. Tieu
The client was one of 16 alleged Vietnamese gang members charged with special circumstances murder for the benefit of a gang. Special circumstances is an enhancement that if proven at trial, calls for the death penalty or a sentence of Life without Parole [LWOP]. My client was charged with helping lure rival gang members from a pool hall so they could be followed and attacked. The plan worked and the rival gang left the pool hall and were followed by 6 carloads of the client’s fellow gang members. Another passenger in the car my client was riding in shot two people in the other car, killing one and injuring another. My client was arrested at his home the next day. He was coercively questioned there in his room by the infamous Dect. Vi of GGPD. He was taken to GGPD for further questioning, where he made further admissions. He was arrested and charged with 187 and murder for the benefit of his alleged gang. Several other participants were tried separately and convicted of those charges. We went to trial and the jury hung 11-1 for guilty, thus requiring a retrial. The jury that voted not guilty said afterward, that the sole reason she voted that way is due to my cross-examination of Vi and the resulting exposure of Vi’s bias against my client. Her singular vote spared my client a life sentence at that time. Eventually, SB 1437 was passed which drastically changed the law of 187. As a result, my client’s case was adjudicated, and he was released on this case and no longer facing a life sentence. That is a victory saving his life.
Third-Party References
Avvo
Please give us your feedback regarding our services.