Skip to main content
Mark Joseph Sullivan

Mark Sullivan’s Legal Cases

11 total


  • People vs. Rudy T Jonas

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jul 02, 2003
    Outcome:
    Not guilty verdict
    Description:
    This was a case charging the defendant and his brother with having beaten a man into submission with a baseball bat. The case turned on the fact that the alleged victim had been abusing his girlfriend, who turned out to be the sister of the defendant. On many occasions, she had gone to her brother and told him of her boyfriend's abuse, but would then quickly change her attitude and prevent her brother from giving the man exactly what he deserved. On the occasion in question, the defendant had seen his sister being held by her boyfriend in a headlock, although upon seeing her brother, he quickly let her go. This time, the defendant had seen enough, Acting a defense of his sister, he grabbed a baseball bat and beat the man to withi an inch of his life. The prosecutor charged him with assault with a deadly weapon. The jury deliberated for two hoyrs after a week long trial, and found the defendant not guilty as charged. case dismissed.
  • Williams vs. Random House Publishing Co.

    Practice Area:
    Libel & Slander
    Date:
    Apr 30, 1979
    Outcome:
    Plaintiff verdict, $300,000 damages
    Description:
    This was a civil case back in the 1970's. As a 33 year old sole practitioner, Mr. Sullivan represented Dave Williams, a wide receiver for the San Diego Chargers who was vilified in Arnold J Mandell's book, The Nightmare Season. The book purported to chronicle the San Diego Chargers' 1972 season. In a then-record high award, Mr. Sullivan obtained a verdict of $300,000 for his client, including punitive damages of $50,000 each against publisher Random House and Dr. Mandell, the book's author and the consulting psychiatrist for the team. The defendants were represented by one of the largest law firms in the country. Witnesses included Pro Football Hall of Famers such as then-NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle, NFL head coach Tom Fears and Chargers GM Ron Mix. Interwoven into the fabric of the celebrated case was the soon-to-be infamous Judge James A Malkus who presided over the case. In 1995, Malkus and others, one a colleague of his on the San Diego County bench, were charged, tried and convicted of corruption. Malkus was removed from the bench and disbarred. Mr. Sullivan had been outspoken in the media about Judge Malkus' unfair rulings during the trial and had raised questions about his integrity. It would be many years that would pass before the young lawyer's questionable charges were finally determined to be true and his concerns validated.
  • People vs. Nick Stuart

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Apr 23, 2002
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    This was a case wherein the defendant was caught red handed with drugs and a large amount of money. Or so it seemed. It turns out that he was a fall guy, set up by a drug dealer who had been using him as a pawn to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The sheriff's department came in on him in a hotel room because they had been asked to go there by someone whom it turned out was the actual drug dealer who wanted the defendant to take the fall. The jury saw through this charade and acquitted nick after deliberating for only a few minutes.
  • People vs. Kaushal Niroula

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Pending
    Description:
    Defendant Kaushal Niroula is a Nepalese prince who is being charged with murdering a 74 year old man and trying to transfer the man's $1.4 million house into his own name. The man's body has never been found, but the DA's office going to try to get a death penalty conviction of the defendant because they are convinced that he is a con man and a murderer. We'll see.
  • People vs. Robert L. Vance

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Apr 26, 1999
    Outcome:
    Not guilty
    Description:
    This is the trial of a police officer who was charged with perjury. He was exonerated of the perjury charge because it turned out that what he had testified to was the truth as he knew it, even though the facts turned out to be false.
  • People vs. Larry H Harrison

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Aug 14, 1990
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    Larry Harrison was charged with first degree murder in the killing of one of several members of a family which had been threatening him and other members of his Native American Indian tribe. The jury acquitted larry because they believed that he had not been the agressor, and because he had acted in self defense.
  • People vs. David Nivens

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Sep 21, 1999
    Outcome:
    Not guilty verdict
    Description:
    This was a case wherein the defendant was charged with pwerjury and fraud in obtaining a workers compensatin settlement. The jury disbelieved the prosecution witnesses and found the defendant not guilty.
  • People vs. Gary F. Grey Eagle

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Apr 02, 2001
    Outcome:
    Not guilty verdict
    Description:
    A domestic violence charge alleging that the defendant severly beat his wife, almost killing her. The defendant was found with the weapon in his hand, and his wife lying on the floor near death. He had called for emergency medical treatment, but was found to be virtually incoherent when found by law enforcement. The wife recovered, and was able to testify about what happened, but before the defendant has already been charged. nevertheless, the DA argued that there certainly was no justification for a man to beat his wife so severly, no matter what the possible provocation. They missed the point, however, because the defense presented evidence that it wasn't the defendant who had been involved in the altercation with his wife at all, it was an intruder. The husband had walked in on the beating and the intruder left suddenly, and it was only because of the circumstances that the police believed that the husband had inflicted the injuries. The jury deliberated for about 6 hours after a week long trial and found the defendant not guilty.
  • People vs. Michael D Rath

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Mar 27, 2001
    Outcome:
    Not guilty
    Description:
    This was a relatively famous case involing a male nurse who was accused of sexually assaulting patients and young female employees of the local hospital where he had been employed. At the time of his arrest, there were six complaints by individuals who had been at the facility who claimed that the defendant had been engaging in conduct ranging from simple indecent exposure (flashing) to aggravated assaults on their person. But it turned out that the defendant had been the victim of some unreliable eyewitness identification, and that the victims had falsely identified him as the perpetraor instead of another employee who looked similar to the defendant. Once one victim had picked him out of a lineup, word had spread around the hospital as to the identity of the suspect, who had committed these crimes in the dark for the most part. Then, all of them claimed that it was Michael. Fortunately, howver, the defense was able to present the actual offender in court and many, although, not all, of the victims changed their testimony and picked out the correct perpertaror. The jury deliberated more than a full day after a two-week long trial, and acquitted the defendant
  • People vs. James P. Sargentson

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Feb 26, 1992
    Outcome:
    Guilty verdict
    Description:
    Defendant was a police officer who was accused of having abused prostitutes while was on duty. This was a verteran cop who had a perfectly clean record who, it appears, engaged in sexual conduct with prostitues while he was supposed to be protecting the public. The jury convicted the defendant and he was disgraced and of course lost his job. But the case was important because it showed that the local district attorney and the investigating officers, some of them friends of the defendant, had conducted themselves in an admirable manner and the system is shown to have worked.