OUTCOME: jury acquitted our client of felony assault
Client was charged with a violation of 18 USC 113(6)-Felony Assault Causing Serious Bodily Injury, an accusation carrying a sentence of up to ten years. The incident involved a dispute between passenge...rs on a Southwest Airlines flight from LAX to San Francisco. The victim, seated directly behind our client, reclined her seat prior to takeoff. She ignored our client’s request to put her chair in upright position, as required, prior to takeoff. The victim reclined again just after takeoff. When our client attempted to engage her in conversation, the two argued, and the victim then called our client an expletive. Our client then assaulted the victim. Testimony at trial revealed that client either ‘choked and punched her head’ or simply ‘took hold of her shoulders and shook her’ in frustration. The government presented testimony that the victim suffered a concussion, which included symptoms of headaches, loss of memory, nausea and anxiety. The defense called five witnesses: The EMT/fireman who assessed the victim on the plane; a passenger who characterized the assault as shaking the victim from her shoulder area;, and two character witnesses who had known our client both personally and professionally, who both testified about his good character, including character traits for non-violence and law-abidedness. Client also testified on his own behalf. The jury acquitted our client of Felony Assault, the indicted charge. They found him responsible for simple misdemeanor assault, 18 USC 113(5), a charge carrying a maximum sentence of six months.
Sex crime
Rape – Prefiling Intervention
Jul 07, 2016
OUTCOME: DA Rejected Criminal Filing
Client accused by a co-worker of date rape and rape by intoxication. Immediate intervention with investigating detective and background information about our client and alleged victim. District Attorne...y rejected case for prosecution.
Criminal defense
Probation for Embezzlement – Los Angeles Superior Court
Jun 15, 2016
OUTCOME: Probation Only on Embezzlement Charges
Our client was charged with embezzling over $200,000 dollars from her employer. She was facing a significant prison sentence. We negotiated a sentence of probation with the client required to pay rest...itution. .
Federal crime
Drug Case Dismissed – Central District of California, Federal Court
Jun 06, 2016
OUTCOME: Case Dismissed
Our client was charged with purchasing pseudo-ephedrine in mass quantities for the purpose of transportation and resale. He was facing 40 years in prison. DEA agents entered his home after obtaining hi...s consent by claiming they were earthquake inspectors. We challenged the legality of the entry, search of our client’s home and seizure of property on the grounds that consent was obtained unlawfully. The U.S. District Court Judge agreed and suppressed the contraband, resulting in dismissal of the entire case.
Criminal defense
JURY ACQUITTAL: ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON - SAN FERNANDO COURT
May 30, 2016
OUTCOME: Jury Acquittal
Client faced four charges of assault and domestic violence, including up to three years in jail. After a two week trial, the jury reached a Not Guilty verdict within 10 minutes of beginning deliberatio...ns. The Judge ordered the police to seal and destroy all of its police reports of the incident pursuant to Penal Code Section 851.8.
Criminal defense
Unlawful Search - Court Granted Motion to Suppress Evidence - Case Dismissed
Nov 02, 2015
OUTCOME: Case Dismissed
Eisner Gorin LLP earned a great victory for the Fourth Amendment today after a Judge held that officers had no legal justification to enter our client’s car to search for the registration after the veh...icle stop. In so holding, the court granted defendant’s motion to suppress a firearm recovered inside the car, and the prosecution dismissed the case (People v. Y.F.)
Officer’s made a patrol stop of our client’s vehicle after claiming he went through a stop sign, made unsafe lane changes, and failed to signal before changing lanes. (Violations of Vehicle Code sections 22450, 21658 and 22107). Officers approached the car and asked client for his driver’s license, insurance and registration. Officers claimed that client moved nervously in the vehicle, put his hand in his pockets and did not produce the proper documentation. Officers ordered client out of his car. While outside the car, client continued to move nervously, and denied officers’ requests to keep still and keep his hands out of his pockets. Officers handcuffed client. Officers again requested the registration, which client said was on his phone. Officers ask client for consent to enter the car which client refused. Officers entered the car in attempt to locate the registration, and while searching the interior, recovered a firearm in plain view from an open grocery bag.
The court held that in general, an officer has the lawful right to enter a vehicle to recover the registration and proof of ownership of the vehicle – even where the subject refuses consent, or where the subject states that the documents are not in the car. But the court noted the relevant Vehicle Code section states as follows: “The driver of a motor vehicle shall present the registration or identification card or other evidence of registration of any or all vehicles under his or her immediate control for examination upon demand of any peace officer.” Vehicle Code section 44627.
The court ruled that in this case, client did not fail to produce his vehicle registration as the officers testified; in fact, he told them it was on his cell phone. This in effect constituted “other evidence of registration” as the statute permits. The court reasoned that in today’s electronic age, where we can travel between countries with a plane ticket produced on our phone (that passes muster even with TSA), a citizen that says his registration is “on my cell phone” does not fail to produce his registration. The court also noted that it was significant that officers made no attempt to ask for or recover the cell phone, before entering and searching the vehicle.
The Court granted defendant’s Penal Code section 1538.5 motion, on grounds that although officers acted in good faith, they acted unlawfully by entering the car to search for the registration after client told them it was on his cell phone. The court suppressed the firearm recovered in the vehicle and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the case.
The Fourth Amendment “The right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures…” is an essential principal in criminal defense law. It provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases.
Criminal defense
Not Guilty Verdict in Assault with a Deadly Weapon Trial
Jan 13, 2015
OUTCOME: Jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY
Client was charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon (stick) and Great Bodily Injury after client and his neighbor (victim) had an argument and fight. Client retrieved a bamboo stick from his garage af...ter verbal altercation with victim. Victim had injuries to his head, arm and chest area. We presented multiple witness demonstrating alleged victim’s prior false complaints to police and history of prior violence. We also presented two character witnesses for client, demonstrating his character for non-violence and honesty. We also called the responding police officer to bring out the victim’s (inconsistent) version of incident given to officers at the scene. Jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Criminal defense
Felony DUI Charges with Injuries
Jan 03, 2014
OUTCOME: Reduced to Misdemeanor, No Jail
Client facing state prison for DUI accident with pedestrians. He had no criminal record. We presented mitigation packet to prosecution.
Criminal defense
Murder Trial in Van Nuys Court - Not Guilty
N/A
OUTCOME: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity - Jury Verdict
Homicide in strip club caused by acts of insane person. Client facing life in prison. Jury refused to hold him criminally responsible following monthlong jury trial and the district attorney's efforts ...to send him to prison for life.
Criminal defense
200-Pound Marijuana Case
N/A
OUTCOME: Dismissed, 4th Amendment Violation
Case dismissed due to successul litigation over law enforcement violating client's right. Litigated by Firm Partner Alan Eisner.
