People vs R.D. (Van Nuys West Courthouse — December 2023)

Facts:

Client was pulled over by uniformed Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers, ostensibly for a moving violation. They used this as a false pretense to question him and unlawfully search his vehicle. As a result, they found a so-called “ghost gun” – i.e., an unregistered handgun with no serial numbers that was assembled through various parts obtained from an unknown source. As a result, Client was arrested.

Charges:

Client was charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (DA’s Office) with the following felony:

Carrying a Concealed Firearm on Your Person or in a Vehicle (California Penal Code section 25400(a)(1) P.C.).

See also Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (“CALCRIM”) CALCRIM Number 2521 (“Carrying Concealed Firearm within Vehicle — Pen. Code § 25400(a)(1)”).

Maximum Sentence:

Three years in jail.

The Process:

After our attorney commenced her own investigation, she found that the officers who pulled Client over were assigned to the notorious LAPD Mission Division – the most scandal-plagued LAPD division since Rampart in the ‘90’s.

Next, she scrutinized all three officers’ body-worn video (BWV) camera footage and saw that none of them had turned on their BWVs at the outset of the incident, as required by LAPD policy. Instead, they turned them on halfway through, thereby omitting the lead officer’s initial explanation as to why Client was pulled over. The BWVs proved that the officers had lied in their police report that Client had made “furtive movements” that justified a warrantless search.

As a result, she filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence (California Penal Code section 1538.5 P.C.) to exclude the seized ghost gun (and its ammunition) based on the violation of Client’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Notably, Client’s case caught the attention of an investigative reporter from the Los Angeles Times who had been writing a series of articles about these corrupt LAPD Officers from the Wilshire Division who were unlawfully pulling over young Latino drivers on false pretenses and conducting warrantless searches for contraband – all without turning their BWVs on.

Result:

At the hearing on the 1538.5 P.C. motion, the prosecutor admitted that the involved officers were “unavailable to testify” about Client’s stop and arrest, and that they themselves were under investigation – clearly, as part of the Mission Division scandal. The judge therefore dismissed the case, as confirmed by the L.A. Times article written thereon:

“Prosecutors drop charges in ‘ghost gun’ case linked to LAPD gang unit scandal” by Libor Jany (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 5, 2023).

People v. R.S. (Criminal Courts Building (C.C.B.)/Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center — October 2023)

Facts:

Client and the accuser got into a wild brawl with each using a hammer and a wrench, respectively, over a business dispute and the latter’s commercial establishment, resulting in serious injuries to both.

Charges:

Client was charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (DA’s Office) with the following felonies:

1. Deliberate and Premeditated Attempted Murder (“First-Degree Attempted Murder”) (California Penal Code section 664 P.C. & California Penal Code section 187(a) P.C.); and
2. Aggravated Battery Causing Serious Bodily Injury (California Penal Code section 243(d) P.C.).

See also Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (“CALCRIM”) CALCRIM Number 600 (“Attempted Murder — Pen. Code §§ 21a, 663, 664”);

CALCRIM Number 601 (“Attempted Murder: Deliberation and Premeditation — Pen. Code §§ 21a, 189, 664(a)”); and

CALCRIM Number 925 (“Battery Causing Serious Bodily Injury — Pen. Code §§ 242, 243(d)”).

Maximum Sentence:

Life in prison with potential parole for 664/187 P.C. plus six years in county jail for 243(d) P.C. with serious injury.

The Process:

At the culmination of the preliminary hearing, the judge dismissed the 664/187 P.C. based on self-defense, but allowed the Deputy DA to continue prosecuting the 243(d) P.C. felony (i.e., Client was “held to answer” thereon).

The Result:

Final plea to misdemeanor Trespass to Closed Lands (California Penal Code section 602 P.C.(o)) – dismissal of assault charge; no jail; drug & alcohol outpatient counseling only. Client successfully completed the program so even the Trespass was dismissed.

See also CALCRIM Number 2932 (“Trespass: Entry into Dwelling — Pen. Code § 602.5(a) & (b)”); and

CALCRIM Number 2929 (“Trespass After Making Credible Threat — Pen. Code § 601(a)”).

People v. S.F. (Criminal Courts Building (C.C.B.)/Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center — June 2023)

Facts:

Google notified the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) that a certain account owner had been downloading child pornography, which in turn led to sex crimes detectives receiving a CyberTip Report.

After obtaining a search warrant, they raided Client’s residence. At that time, Client allegedly made numerous incriminating statements. Far worse, police allegedly found on his computer numerous Child Sex Abuse Materials (CSAM).

As a result, he was arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) – specifically, by detectives from the Los Angeles Regional ICAC Taskforce (Internet Crimes Against Children).

Charges:

Client was charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (DA’s Office) with the following felony:

Possession and Control of Child or Youth Pornography (California Penal Code section 311.11(a) P.C.).

See also Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (“CALCRIM”) CALCRIM Number 1145 (“Possession of Matter Depicting Minor Engaged in Sexual Conduct — Pen. Code § 311.11(a)”).

Maximum Sentence:

Three years for 311.11(a) P.C. plus lifetime Sex Offender Registration (California Penal Code section 290 P.C.) and public disclosure on Megan’s Law website.

The Process:

We worked with her longtime computer forensics expert — who once taught at the National Security Agency (NSA)

– on this case.

Result:

Client received a Felony Reduction to a Misdemeanor (California Penal Code section 17(b) P.C.) for 311.11(a); Tier One Sex Offender Registration (10 years); and 52 sessions of Sex Offender Counseling.

People v. N.A. (Criminal Courts Building (C.C.B.)/Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center — June 2023)

Facts:

Google notified the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) that a certain account owner had been downloading child pornography, which in turn led to sex crimes detectives receiving a CyberTip Report.

After obtaining a search warrant, they raided Client’s residence. Police therein allegedly found on his computer numerous Child Sex Abuse Materials (CSAM).

As a result, he was arrested by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).

Charges:

Client was charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (DA’s Office) with the following felonies:

1. Possession and Control of Child or Youth Pornography (California Penal Code section 311.11(a) P.C.); and
2. Distribution of Child Pornography (California Penal Code section 311.1(a) P.C.).

See also Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (“CALCRIM”) CALCRIM Number 1145 (“Possession of Matter Depicting Minor Engaged in Sexual Conduct — Pen. Code § 311.11(a)”); and

CALCRIM Number 1141 (“Distributing Obscene Matter Showing Sexual Conduct by a Minor — Pen. Code §§ 311.1(a), 311.2(b)”).

Client had a clean criminal record aside from a single misdemeanor conviction for DUI — Operating a Vehicle with a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.08% or Higher (California Vehicle Code section 23152(b) V.C.).

Maximum Sentence:

Three years in state prison for 311.11(a) P.C., another three years for 311.1(a) P.C., plus lifetime Sex Offender Registration (California Penal Code section 290 P.C.) and public disclosure on Megan’s Law website.

The Process:

We were able to negotiate an extraordinary plea that included dismissal of the 311.1(a) P.C. charge.

Result:

Client received a Felony Charge Reduction to a Misdemeanor plea (California Penal Code section 17(b) P.C.) for 311.11(a) P.C.; Tier One Sex Offender Registration (10 years); and 52 sessions of Sex Offender Counseling.

People v. P.H. (LAX Airport Courthouse — May 2023)

Facts:

Male Client was accused of stealing a luggage bag containing thousands of dollars in cash from an LAX terminal after he had disembarked from a cross-country flight. CCTV footage captured him and an alleged female accomplice exiting the terminal with the bag and leaving the scene.

Los Angeles Airport Police were able to ID Client and the female, who was arrested shortly thereafter by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).

After she allegedly confessed to the theft, Client surrendered himself to the LAPD for arrest and booking.

Charges:

Client was charged with misdemeanor Grand Theft (California Penal Code section 487(a) P.C.), which was quite fortunate for him because typically this would be a felony charge due to the value (more than $950) of the allegedly stolen property.

See also California Criminal Jury Instructions, CALCRIM Number 1801 (“Grand and Petty Theft — Pen. Code §§ 486, 487–488, 490.2, 491”).

Maximum Sentence:

Twelve months in jail.

The Process:

We filed and argued a Motion for Judicial Diversion (Court-Initiated Diversion) (California Penal Code section 1001.95 P.C.). She also convinced the Court that the female was the one who had initiated taking the bag.

Result:

Judge granted Judicial Diversion: no jail, no probation, a single eight-hour anti-theft class, restitution, and, after six months, the case will be dismissed with no conviction.

People vs O.M. (Baldwin Park Police Department — May 2023)

Facts:

Client ran into her ex-spouse at a restaurant while he was with his new girlfriend. An argument erupted between the two women, and the girlfriend attacked Client, forcing her to defend herself.

Charges:

Client was cited by Baldwin Park P.D. in February 2023 for suspicion of Simple Battery, a.k.a. Battery Upon Another (California Penal Code section 242 P.C.), a misdemeanor.

Maximum Sentence:

Six months in county jail. See also California Criminal Jury Instructions, CALCRIM Number 960 (“Simple Battery — Pen. Code § 242”).

The Process:

We were able to convince the prosecutor that Client had acted in self-defense, including by providing him photos of her injuries.

Result:

In May 2023, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (DA’s Office) formally issued a no-charge/“decline to file” letter, confirming the case would not be prosecuted.

People vs R.S. (Criminal Courts Building (C.C.B.)/Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center — October 2023)

Facts:

Client and the accuser got into a wild brawl with each using a hammer and a wrench, respectively, over a business dispute and the latter’s commercial establishment, resulting in serious injuries to both.

Charges:

Client was charged by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (DA’s Office) with the following felonies:

• Deliberate and Premeditated Attempted Murder (“First-Degree Attempted Murder”) (California Penal Code section 664C. & California Penal Code section 187(a) P.C.); and
• Aggravated Battery Causing Serious Bodily Injury (California Penal Code section 243(d) P.C.).

See also Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (“CALCRIM”) CALCRIM Number 600 (“Attempted Murder — Pen. Code §§ 21a, 663, 664”);

CALCRIM Number 601 (“Attempted Murder: Deliberation and Premeditation — Pen. Code §§ 21a, 189, 664(a)”); and

CALCRIM Number 925 (“Battery Causing Serious Bodily Injury — Pen. Code §§ 242, 243(d)”).

Maximum Sentence:

Life in prison with potential parole for 664/187 P.C. plus six years in county jail for 243(d) P.C. with serious injury.

The Process:

At the culmination of the preliminary hearing, the judge dismissed the 664/187 P.C. based on self-defense, but allowed the Deputy DA to continue prosecuting the 243(d) P.C. felony (i.e., Client was “held to answer” thereon).

The Result:

Final plea to misdemeanor Trespass to Closed Lands (California Penal Code section 602 P.C.(o)) – dismissal of assault charge; no jail; drug & alcohol outpatient counseling only. Client successfully completed the program so even the Trespass was dismissed.

See also CALCRIM Number 2932 (“Trespass: Entry into Dwelling — Pen. Code § 602.5(a) & (b)”); and

CALCRIM Number 2929 (“Trespass After Making Credible Threat — Pen. Code § 601(a)”).