NOTEWORTHY CASES
United States of America v. D.M. (2013)
United States District Court, District of Nevada, 11-CR-00XXX
Defendants were charged with conspiracy, possession and/or manufacture of 621 marijuana plants, 12 grams of hashish, and 312 grams of tetrahydrocannabinol pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, as well as aiding and abetting pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2. Michael sought to suppress evidence seized by challenging the search warrant affidavit under Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154. According to Franks, a defendant can challenge a facially valid search warrant affidavit by showing that it contains intentionally or recklessly false statements, and that the affidavit purged of its falsities would not be sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to issue a search warrant. After successfully obtaining the right to an evidentiary hearing, Michael put agents of the Las Vegas Police, DEA, and FBI, among others, on the stand to challenge the veracity of the search warrant affidavit. Just two days after Michael’s relentless and skillful cross-examination of the law enforcement agents during the hearing, the United States dismissed all charges.
People of the State of California v. J.T. (2014)
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, KA099XXX
Defendants were charged with cultivation of marijuana, possession of marijuana for sale, and possession of concentrated cannabis, pursuant to California’s Health & Safety Code §§ 11358, 11359, and 11357(a). Michael moved to dismiss the case, on the basis that the defendants were improperly denied the ability to raise a defense under California’s Medical Marijuana Program Act at their preliminary hearing. At that hearing, the judge inserted a registration requirement into the collective action permitted by Health & Safety Code § 11362.775, denied the defense as to all defendants, and would not allow their offers of proof concerning their medical marijuana recommendations. Michael successfully argued that this registration requirement was error as a matter of law, and subsequently obtained dismissal of all charges.
People of the State of California v. K.L. (2014)
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, 4VY00XXX
Defendant was charged with a DUI, under Vehicle Code § 23152(a) and § 23152(b), and with refusing the post-arrest chemical test, under Vehicle Code § 23612. Defendant was also on felony probation for an unrelated prior conviction. The defendant had provided three PAS (Preliminary Alcohol Screening) tests. The PAS is a small hand held breath test used by law enforcement during a DUI investigation. The defendant’s three PAS samples were .085, .111 and .097. Michael focused on the possibility of mouth alcohol and rising alcohol level to challenge the validity of the PAS results. Michael challenged the evidence of the defendant’s alleged refusal of the post-arrest chemical test by identifying numerous inconsistencies between the arresting officer’s written reports and his testimony at the DMV hearing. On the eve of trial, Michael persuaded the prosecutors to completely dismiss the DUI and refusal charges and impose no punishment for the violation of probation, other than a short alcohol education class.
United States of America v. H.P. (2014)
United States District Court, Central District of California, 12-CR-0XXX
Michael handled the sentencing for a defendant that had pled guilty to one count of violating 21 U.S.C. § 846, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. According to a DEA laboratory report, the methamphetamine had a net weight of 8,879 grams with 98.5% purity (8,745 grams of actual methamphetamine). A conviction with that quantity triggers a federal mandatory minimum sentence of at least 10 years for a first offense. Additionally, the defendant’s particular history and characteristics of the offense resulted in a total offense level of 35 under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which carries a sentence of 14 to 17½ years. Michael overcame the Government’s repeated objections and successfully argued for Safety Valve relief, U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, which allows the sentencing judge to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum sentence. The Government sought a sentence of 11 ½ years. In his sentencing motion, Michael argued that pursuant to the sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the defendant should receive a sentence substantially below the applicable sentencing guidelines range and Government recommendation. The sentencing judge relied on Michael’s arguments and sentenced the defendant to 6 ½ years.
People of the State of California v. L.F. (2013)
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, BF1369XXX
A felony complaint charged defendant with possession of several pounds of marijuana for sale pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 11359. Michael was hired after defendant’s prior attorney had unsuccessfully sought discovery seized pursuant to a search warrant executed two days before the filing of the complaint. Michael argued that the prosecution’s failure to turn over this discovery unnecessarily delayed prosecution of the case, depriving defendant of his federal and state constitutional rights to a speedy trial and his federal constitutional right to due process. Michael was then able to negotiate with prosecutors to get the charge reduced to simple possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, a misdemeanor.
People of the State of California v. C.M. (2013)
Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, F12907XXX
The defendant was charged with being a California State Prison inmate in possession of a weapon, in violation of Penal Code § 4502(a). Because of the defendant’s significant criminal history, including a prior strike conviction (serious prior convictions are considered “strikes” and significantly increase sentences for subsequent convictions pursuant to Penal Code § 667 and § 1170.12), the defendant was facing an additional consecutive prison term of 12 years or more. The best plea offer that defendant’s prior attorney was able to negotiate was for 9 ½ years. Michael argued that the defendant’s strike and prison priors should be removed for sentencing purposes pursuant to People v. Romero, (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 497 and Penal Code § 1385. Michael argued persuasively that based on the many relevant factors under the Romero case, and based on the compelling mitigating factors in the current case, a sentence substantially below the statutory minimum was just and proper. The Court agreed, granted the Romero motion and sentenced the defendant to 18 months.
P.S. v. P.H. (2014)
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, EC056XXX
In this civil action Michael represented the plaintiff who brought suit to collect on more than 100 checks which had been issued to plaintiff’s now deceased mother by her deceased partner. The action sought payment from the check issuer’s estate. The case involved seemingly insurmountable evidentiary issues. The original checks had been stolen, leaving only copies to offer into evidence. Additionally, both the issuer and payee of the checks were deceased by the time of trial, unable to testify as to the authenticity of the checks and circumstances surrounding their issuance. The defense argued that the checks should be excluded from evidence at trial based on hearsay, authentication, foundation and secondary evidence objections. At trial, Michael successfully overcame these evidentiary objections and the court allowed the checks into evidence. Michael won a judgment in favor of his client for payment of all checks not barred by the statute of limitations.
In the Matter of D.M.V v. M.C. (2012)
California Department of Motor Vehicles, Riverside Office, D.L. # X4129XXX
Michael represented the driver in this DMV Administrative Per Se Hearing. The DMV sought to suspend the defendant’s driver’s license based on an allegation of driving under the influence. The defendant had been arrested by law enforcement after he crashed his car on a freeway on-ramp. The defendant’s blood alcohol level was .17 based on the post-arrest blood test. Michael focused on the fact that Vehicle Code § 23152 requires that the blood alcohol level is only presumed accurate if the test is conducted within three hours of driving. On cross examination, Michael got the arresting officer to admit, contrary to the arrest reports, that he did not witness the accident and could not testify as to what time it occurred. Accordingly, the officer had to admit that he did not know whether the blood test was conducted within three hours of driving. The DMV hearing officer found in favor of the defendant and set aside the suspension.
Administrative “Request for Assistance” by N.A.B. (2013)
California Department of Insurance
Michael’s client, an auto repair facility, was in an ongoing dispute with several auto insurance companies regarding their refusal to pay fair and customary rates for genuine replacement vehicle parts. For several years, this issue had been a maddening problem for Michael’s client, as well as for countless other auto repair facilities across the country. The primary problem being that courts have repeatedly held that the auto repair facilities do not have standing to sue the insurance companies to challenge this conduct. Michael used a little known administrative remedy, a Request for Assistance to the California Department of Insurance, to challenge the insurance companies’ conduct. By arguing persuasively that the substandard parts being required by the insurance companies didn’t meet the standards applicable to the repair facility under numerous California Bureau of Automotive Repair regulations, Michael was able to get the Department of Insurance to intercede with the insurance companies and persuade them to stop the objectionable conduct.
People of the State of California v. M.R. (2014)
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, 4FF00XXX
The defendant was charged with the unlawful taking or keeping an automobile, under California Vehicle Code § 10851. The allegation resulted from the defendant keeping a rental car for several weeks after the rental car company claimed they had stopped receiving rental payments and had demanded that the car be returned. Initially, the defendant was arrested and accused of grand theft auto, under Penal Code § 487(d)(1). Michael was aggressive and proactive in investigating the case prior to charges being filed in court. He was able to ensure that the far more serious charge of grand theft was not filed, and the case was filed alleging only the less serious charge of unlawful taking or keeping a vehicle. Michael’s diligent investigation resulted in putting together extensive evidence that persuaded the prosecutors to dismiss all charges related to the rental car, and the defendant was convicted only of a traffic ticket for not having a California driver’s license.
People of the State of California v. L.F. (2013)
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, BF1369XXX
A felony complaint charged defendant with possession of several pounds of marijuana for sale pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 11359. Michael was hired after defendant’s prior attorney had unsuccessfully sought discovery seized pursuant to a search warrant executed two days before the filing of the complaint. Michael argued that the prosecution’s failure to turn over this discovery unnecessarily delayed prosecution of the case, depriving defendant of his federal and state constitutional rights to a speedy trial and his federal constitutional right to due process. Michael was then able to negotiate with prosecutors to get the charge reduced to simple possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, a misdemeanor.