People v. Marco Antonio Duarte
Feb 09, 2017OUTCOME: Case Dismissed - http://www.kialaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/FWV1501967.jpg
Criminal threats and gun charges filed based on false allegations
Riverside, CA
Criminal defense Lawyer at Riverside, CA
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense
OUTCOME: Case Dismissed - http://www.kialaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/FWV1501967.jpg
Criminal threats and gun charges filed based on false allegations
OUTCOME: Not guilty verdict
Our client is Juan Avila. He is a San Bernardino County Probation Officer. The Riverside District Attorney’s Office filed charges against Mr. Avila for one count of Battery in violation of 242 for an ... offense that occurred on May 17, 2013. Both our client and I felt that the charges against Mr. Avila were unsupported by the law and evidence. Juan and I decided to challenge the state’s evidence and we were focused on proving to a jury of his peers that Mr. Avila was not guilty of those charges. We started trial on August 7, 2014. On August 18, 2014, 12 jurors from Riverside County voted that Mr. Avila was not guilty of the charges. Mr. Avila can now return to his work and resume his duties as a San Bernardino County Correction Probation Officer. A law firm is talented in high stakes criminal prosecution matters. We are focused on justice. Justice was served on August 18, 2014. If you have any legal issues that you would want a second opinion on, please contact our law firm at (951) 686-4818.
OUTCOME: Case Dismissed
Client was charged with significant charges including multiple felonies including felony domestic violence and felony dissuading a witness from testifying in court. Through successful negotiation, we w ... ere able to get the charges dismissed.
OUTCOME: Charges dismissed
Defendant was accused of charges that would have required lifetime sex offender registration. Our office was able to identify facts and evidence to demonstrate that the charges were inappropriate and h ... ad to be dismissed.
OUTCOME: Reversal of case
We were sent out to trial. Judge made various rulings on the record which I objected to. Based on my objections, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. A huge win. The decision ca ... n be seen here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/G046490.PDF
OUTCOME: Not Guilty Verdict
When I first met my client, he indicated to me that he didn’t think he should have been arrested for his conduct. On day one, when we heard his story, we believed in his innocence. On September 27, ... 2012, we appeared in court and pled “not guilty” and set the matter for trial. Our last day to start trial was November 13, 2012. This was a case where we gave no “time-waivers” on the case. Essentially, this means that we put the pressure on the District Attorney to be prepared for trial within 45 days of our initial arraignment date of September 27, 2012. On October 18, 2012, I appeared in court and confirmed our trial date of November 5, 2012. On November 7, 2012, we started trial in this case. As you can see from the attached Case Report, we presented evidence on behalf of the client, cross-examined the police officer and provided a reasonable explanation as far as our client’s conduct was concerned. From the beginning, we always felt that the Police Officer was aggressive, unreasonable and failed to perform his duties to that of a reasonable police officer in the same or similar circumstances. The jury agreed with our assessment. On November 13, 2012, the Jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on the alleged violation of Penal Code 148. You see, just because an Officer arrests you doesn’t mean you’re guilty. Just because the District Attorney charges you with a crime doesn’t mean you’re guilty. Guilt is determined by the trier of fact – that is 12 people in your community. If you have any questions regarding your legal matter, feel free to contact our office for an evaluation.