Attorney Jonathan L Katz's Legal Cases

Criminal defense

Converting 3 prostitution cases to disorderly conduct with suspended jail

Jun 01, 2017

OUTCOME: Converted three prostitution cases to disorderly conduct with suspended sentences

The prostitution police stings continue, including in my headquarters county of Fairfax, Virginia. I have blogged before about defenses against prostitution prosecutions. Now I address a unifying appro ... ach I recently used in three prostitution sting defenses from two separate stings, to convert the original prostitution charge to a guilty or no contest plea to disorderly conduct under Virginia Code § 18.2-415(A) with no active jail time. Long before the case negotiations, my clients and I doggedly worked on their cases. I obtained discovery, including watching the incident videos and talking with the police involved with the stings. My clients obtained clean HIV tests, and completed numerous documented community service hours. We got a court reporter for each trial, to have a record to use in the event of a trial conviction and appeal. We arrived at our best defensive strategy and flowchart against the three prostitution elements of [1] offering “money or its equivalent to another [2] for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts as enumerated in subsection A and [3] thereafter [doing] any substantial act in furtherance thereof.” Va. Code § 18.2-346. In each instance, I was able to include in my negotiation discussions the point in each sting video that showed the provider trying to upsell my client, including to offer penetrative sexual activity (prostitution is penetrative sexual activity, as confirmed in Va. Code § 18.2-346 and Va. Code § 18.2-346) where my client initially expressed interest in a massage. The idea in my pointing out this upselling into offers of penetrative sexual activity was not to convince the prosecutor that I would win an entrapment defense — which is not proven by the mere happening of a police sting — but to talk sense to the prosecutor about why amending the prostitution solicitation charge to disorderly conduct with no active jail time, made sense for all parties concerned. Avoiding active jail can be very important in these and other cases, at least to those with security clearances, where a misdemeanor conviction without active jail time can be better for keeping a security clearance than when the number of days in jail begin adding up. Avoiding a prostitution conviction in the first place is ideal for those with security clearances, without United States citizenship, and for those wanting to protect their reputations.

DUI and DWI

Winning A DWI Trial By Putting Our Own Traffic Stop Witness On The Stand

Aug 11, 2015

OUTCOME: Acquittal

It is St. Patrick’s Day evening, and a police officer testifies at my client’s bench DWI trial that he stopped my client for blowing a traffic light that was solid red for my client at all times, with ... the officer driving a few car lengths behind my client in my client’s direction. The officer then investigated and arrested my client for alleged DWI/driving while intoxicated. In my opening statement and on cross examination, I point out the questionability of the police officer’s accurate recollection of events, where his own incident report date is dated eight days after the incident and where he concedes from the witness stand that he might have taken at least over twenty-four hours to complete his incident report. Of course, such a substantial passage of time can cause faded memories, particularly on such essential points as whether my client had a solid red traffic light or green light when first he was approaching the intersection. Cops do not have a monopoly on the truth. They come from the same gene pool as the rest of humans. Enter my client’s passenger, in his military uniform, who testifies that my client approached the traffic light on a green signal, got caught in some traffic that caused him to be in the intersection when the light turned from green to yellow, and cleared the light when it was still yellow. We thereby have two diametrically opposed versions of what happened at the traffic light. My client’s liberty may rise and fall on the judge’s decision whether this traffic stop was lawful or not. To take the wind out of the prosecutor’s sails, I proactively ask our passenger witness whether he had consumed any alcohol the night of the incident. He had two drinks, the first several hours before the police traffic stop and the second an hour before. He felt no effects of the alcohol. Thankfully, our judge credited our client’s passenger's testimony over the police officer’s testimony, thereby finding the traffic stop unlawful and my client not guilty.

DUI and DWI

Winning a DWI trial by challenging the opposing toxicologist.

Oct 31, 2013

OUTCOME: Acquittal.

Confrontation Clause challenge keeps out blood test testimony in a DWI case, followed by acquittal. See details and disclaimer here: http://katzjustice.com/winning-a-dwi-trial-by-challenging-the- ... opposing-toxicologist

DUI and DWI

Righting The Wrong Of A Hunch Stop, That The Cop And Prosecutor Should Have Stopped In Its Tracks.

Oct 02, 2013

OUTCOME: Dismissed for a bad stop

A prosecutor chose to go to trial — rather than to dismiss — my client’s driving while intoxicated (DWI) case where the stop, in my mind, was clearly unconstitutional, and where the trial judge suppres ... sed the stop of my client’s car as a stop based on but a hunch. According to the reporting police officer, he received a report from police dispatch of a domestic dispute in a deadend street community of townhouses. As he approached the street t this time when most people are asleep, he saw my client’s car coming from the direction of the townhouses at a time of little traffic. He stopped the car to see whether my client or his passenger were involved in the domestic dispute. In my cross examination and argument to suppress the stop of my client’s car, I highlighted points including the following: – The police officer did not know who made the complaint. He knew nothing about the reliability of the caller (including whether the call even came from the location of the alleged dispute as opposed to being a false report from someone having no connection at all to the house). – The officer did not know the gender, age, nor other description of the civilian calling in the domestic dispute nor of the description of those alleged in the domestic dispute. – The officer did not know any details of the domestic dispute. For instance, h did not even know whether such a non-criminal matter as a verbal argument was alleged. – The officer had no information that any parties to the dispute was in a car, let alone any description of the car. Backup. Before the trial commenced, I tried talking sense to the prosecutor that this was an entirely unconstitutional car stop lacking reasonable articulable suspicion to stop my client’s car. I suggested that her office should not feel proud to proceed to trial on such a bad stop. The prosecutor had a choice: Stand by his oath to uphold the Constitution and dismiss the case, or try the case, thus avoiding alienating the county police department that the prosecutor repeatedly works with, avoid a tongue lashing from the prosecutor’s supervisor (who should only have given the prosecutor a tongue lashing for not dismissing the case), and keep a reputation of not having the good discretion and action to dump cases that are unjust to be prosecuted. The judge, bless his brain, heart, and courage, ruled the stop unconstitutional, for being based on not more than a hunch. The judge did not berate the cop for stopping my client’s car nor the prosecutor for the stop, arrest and prosecution, and it was not his duty to do so. We had our victory, finally. I certainly wish any judge in the courthouse would have also suppressed this stop. Our judge seems to be very dedicated to serving his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether doing so leads to rulings by him that offend the lawmakers who appoint and re-appoint judges in Virginia. Not all judges seem to be the same, being human, with trial judges falling into three general categories: (1) judges devoted to upholding the Constitution and their oath of office, (2) prosecutors in robes, and (3) judges elevating administrative, budget and time efficiency above all else, including the Constitution and their oath of office. Getting back to our trial, the prosecutor wisely did not argue that the police officer’s stop of my client’s car was akin to a Constitutional roadblock intended to investigate an immediate harm. Before being Constitutional, such roadblocks must be for clearer and more severe public safety threat (for instance a homicide) than an amorphous report of a "domestic dispute", must be executed by a valid plan, and must be a roadblock, where a roadblock was not in effect in my case. Burns v Virginia, 261 Va. 30, 541 S.E.2d 872 (2001).

Criminal defense

Winning a marijuana trial despite a judge's many roadblocks.

Aug 01, 2013

OUTCOME: Acquittal.

After a judge cut off what I viewed as several legitimate lines of cross examination and argument, he acquitted my marijuana possession client. For disclaimer and details, visit: http://katzjustice ... .com/winning-a-marijuana-trial-despite-a-judges-many-roadblocks/

Criminal defense

Winning a jury acquittal over eight pounds of marijuana in the defendant's rear carseat.

Jun 27, 2013

OUTCOME: Jury acquittal.

A jury acquitted my client who was driving with eight pounds of marijuana in a box in his car's backseat. For disclaimer and details, visit: http://katzjustice.com/winning-a-jury-acquittal-over-eig ... ht-pounds-of-marijuana-in-the-defendants-rear-carseat

Lawsuits and disputes

Dring v. Sullivan

Mar 30, 2006

OUTCOME: Libel lawsuit dismissed.

The defense convinced a federal trial court to eject a defamation lawsuit where the lawsuit was filed in Maryland against our client who was in New Jersey. The United States District Court in Maryland ... agreed on March 30, 2006, with Marks & Katz that the Maryland courts have no jurisdiction over our client, holding that Maryland's long arm statute does not establish personal jurisdiction where the plaintiff cannot show any contact between the defendant and Maryland other than the defendant's posting of an allegedly defamatory message to a national e-mail listserv focused on Tae Kwon Do refereeing. The court gave the plaintiff until mid-April 2006 to file a request to have the case transferred to another federal court; the plaintiff did not do so. The case is Dring v. Sullivan, 423 F. Supp. 2d 540 (D.Md. 2006). The opinion is available here https://casetext.com/case/dring-v-sullivan.

Criminal defense

Maryland v. Taylor, et. al., 371 Md. 617 (2002)

Nov 12, 2002

OUTCOME: Double jeopardy dismissal.

Maryland's highest court hands down landmark.decision that it is double jeopardy to proceed to trial on a criminal case after the judge has dismissed the prosecution pretrial in full or partial relianc ... e on facts beyond the four corners of the charging document. This victory was shared by the Maryland Public Defender's Office and Jon Katz, whose clients' cases were consolidated for this appeal. The case is at 371 Md. 617, 810 A.2d 964 (2002), and is viewable at http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2002/124a00.pdf .

Jonathan L Katz's Legal Cases (8)

Converting 3 prostitution cases to disorderly conduct with suspended jail

Winning A DWI Trial By Putting Our Own Traffic Stop Witness On The Stand

Winning a DWI trial by challenging the opposing toxicologist.

Righting The Wrong Of A Hunch Stop, That The Cop And Prosecutor Should Have Stopped In Its Tracks.

Winning a marijuana trial despite a judge's many roadblocks.

Winning a jury acquittal over eight pounds of marijuana in the defendant's rear carseat.

Dring v. Sullivan

Maryland v. Taylor, et. al., 371 Md. 617 (2002)