Skip to main content
Autumn Renee Paine

Autumn Paine’s Legal Cases

10 total

  • People v. Ms. S.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Acquittal - Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    Client was charged with violations of PC 488 (petty theft) and VC 20002 (a) (hit and run). The prosecution alleged that Client stole clothing from a department store, then ran out of the store, jumped in her car and hit another car while leaving the parking lot. This conduct was supposedly witnessed by several loss prevention officers and caught on video. She also allegedly made incriminating statements to the police. Ms. Paine used the fact that the police officers had not given Client her Miranda warnings before interrogating her in order to suppress all statements supposedly made by Client. She also used the store's own video, as well as the LP agents' testimony to secure not guilty verdicts on both counts. See www.oaklanddefense.com for more information.
  • People v. Mr. L.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Mistrial and subsequent dismissal
    Description:
    Client was charged with battery on his spouse, a violation of PC 243 (e). During the trial it was discovered that the prosecution had withheld exculpatory witness statements. Ms. Paine successfully brought a motion for mistrial and the case was subsequently dismissed entirely. See www.oaklanddefense.com for more information.
  • People v. Mr. V.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Case Dismissed
    Description:
    Client was charged with violations of PC 273.5 (a) and 245 (a) (1), corporal injury on a spouse and assault with a deadly weapon, respectively. Ms. Paine successfully argued a motion to dismiss based on violations of Client's Constitional right to a speedy trial. The motion was granted and all charges were dismissed. See www.oaklanddefense.com for more information.
  • People v. Ms. T.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Acquittal - Not Guilty Verdict.
    Description:
    Client was charged with two counts of DUI, violations of VC 23152 (a) and 23152 (b). According to the police report she allegedly blew a .14 at the scene of the stop and a .11 at the police station. At jury trial Ms. Paine successfully brought a motion to exclude the initial breath test of .14 . She argued to the jury that there was no bad driving pattern. She also picked apart the prosecution's star witness - a criminologist - and the administering officer to cast substantial doubt on the validity of the remaining breath test. The jury found Client not guilty on both charges. See www.oaklanddefense.com for more information.
  • People v. Mr. W.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Case Dismissed
    Description:
    Client was charged with violations of VC 23152 (a) and (b), DUI, and 14601.2, driving on a suspended license. It was allegedly Client's third DUI (a fourth DUI within 10 years is a felony). Ms. Paine successfully argued a motion to dismiss due to violations of Client's constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court granted the motion and all charges were dismissed. See www.oaklanddefense.com for more information.
  • People v. Mr. R.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Acquittal - Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    Client was charged with corporal injury on a spouse, PC 273.5 and a lesser included offense of battery on a spouse, PC 243 (e). At jury trial Ms. Paine developed inconsistencies between the alleged victim's statement to the police and testimony in court. She also developed how physically impossible the alleged victim's story of how the battery actually occured was, as well as a major motive for the alleged victim to lie. The jury found the defendant not guilty of the charge and the lesser included offense. See www.oaklanddefense.com for more information.
  • People v. Ms. D.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Acquittal - Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    Client was charged with PC 245 (a), Assault with GBI. The co-defendant pleaded early in the case but Ms. Paine represented Client in a jury trial. After days of testimony by eye witnesses, police investigators and the victim, and horrific pictures of the victim's injuries, Ms. Paine argued to the jury that the prosecution had not proven that Client was even present at the scene, much less inflicted any harm on the victim. The jury returned with a Not Guilty verdict after two hours of deliberations. See www.oaklanddefense.com for more information.
  • People v. Mr. S.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Charges dismissed at preliminary hearing.
    Description:
    Client was charged with cultivation of marijuana for sale after police raided his home and found over forty marijuana plants growing in his back yard. Ms. Paine cross examined the officer extensively at the preliminary hearing to show that Client was actually growing legally under California cooperative (co-op) laws. See www.oaklanddefense.com for more information.
  • Mr. A

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Case dismissed!
    Description:
    This young man was charged in juvenile court with battery with great bodily injury, a strike offense. The prosecution alleged that he, along with four other people, ruthlessly kicked and hit another young man outside of a bar in Berkeley. Ms. Paine thoroughly developed the defense, including critically examining the statements of all of the eye witnesses. It turned out that the prosecution's case was not as solid as it appeared; only one eye witness (out of five) made an actual positive identification of the client, and she admitted that she had had six hard-liquor drinks in a period of about four hours before seeing the fight. The investigation also revealed that there were about twenty people outside that night, of whom the police only talked to five. The other eye witnesses were either unable to say if Mr. A was involved, or said that he actually was not. Additionally, there was that another individual present had blood on his shirt, and cuts on his hands. The police apparently decided to arrest Mr. A based on the statement of one very intoxicated witness. Ms. Paine pushed the case to jurisdictional hearing (the equivalent of a trial) where it was eventually dismissed.
  • In re S.

    Practice Area:
    Juvenile
    Outcome:
    Case dismissed!
    Description:
    The prosecution alleged that this juvenile committed first degree burglary by breaking a window of a house around midnight. There were no eye-witnesses and the entire case rested on fingerprint evidence. At trial Ms. Paine thoroughly picked apart the CSI's investigation, showing that there were significant problems with the chain of custody of the latent prints, as well as the processing of the scene. Ms. Paine also argued that even if the client's prints were on the window, there was no evidence that he broke the window, or that the elements of burglary were met.