Seal Your California Arrest Records

There's a new procedure in California to seal your arrest records.  This new law will be a huge benefit to anyone who has been arrested but not convicted for a crime.

This is not the same as an expungement.  As I've previously written on this blog, an expungement in California does not completely hide the fact that your case ever happened.  Instead, it simply changes your criminal history report so that your old conviction shows up as a dismissed case.  Expungements are helpful for people who were once convicted of a crime, but later complied with probation and remained law-abiding.  Once an expungement is granted, you can honestly state on most job applications that you have never been convicted of a crime.

The procedure I want to discuss today is a little different.  This new law, PC 851.91, is specifically intended to help people who were arrested but NOT convicted of any crime (i.e., the DA declined to file charges, the case was dismissed, or the petitioner was acquitted by a jury).

Until now, a petitioner who wanted to seal his arrest record had the burden of proving that he was "factually innocent" of the charges for which he was arrested.  That can be nearly impossible.  Being factually innocent is not the same as being "not guilty".  Remember, to be convicted of a crime, the DA must prove the defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".  That's pretty high burden.  The law doesn't define "beyond a reasonable doubt" in terms of a percentage, but most law school professors will tell you that it is probably the equivalent of being 98-99% sure of the defendant's guilt.  In some cases, though, the DA might only be able to prove that the defendant is "probably" guilty (let's say, 60-75% sure).  In those cases, the DA has failed to carry the burden of proof and the defendant is not guilty.  That doesn't necessarily mean that he's "factually innocent", it only means that the DA could not prove the defendant's guilt with enough confidence to sustain a conviction.  Under the old rule, a defendant who had beaten a criminal case and wanted to seal his arrest record basically had the burden of proving himself innocent (0% guilty), and that was extremely difficult.  As a result, a lot of people were stuck in a weird, gray area -- they had never been convicted of a crime, but they still had an embarrassing arrest record.

Under the new rule, though, you no longer need to prove yourself "factually innocent" to seal your arrest record.  Now, you only have to show that the arrest did not result in a conviction.  If you were arrested and the DA declined to file charges, charges were dismissed, or you were acquitted by a jury, our office can help you ensure that your embarrassing arrest records and police reports are never released to the public.

Even if you were never charged or convicted for any crime, an arrest record can make your life difficult.  When you apply for a job and your prospective employer runs a background check, they are going to see an arrest with no disposition.  They are going to have questions about the case -- were you convicted?  Were you acquitted?  Did you participate in some diversion program?  Good luck getting a job with those records following you around.  The same problem arises when you try to purchase a firearm and your record shows an arrest for some disqualifying offense, like domestic violence or assault.  Plus, it's just embarrassing.  Getting arrested was probably one of the worst nights of your life.  There's no reason that experience needs to be rehashed every time you submit to a background check.  

There are a lot of criteria that you have to satisfy before you're eligible to seal your arrest records, and the process is a little complicated, but we can help.   If you or a loved one has questions about sealing your record in California, call us for a free attorney consultation. 714 449 3335. Ask for John.

Seal Arrest Records in Fullerton

How to Fight a Restraining Order When the Facts are BAD

I've previously written on this blog about the process of getting or fighting a restraining order in California.  If you haven't already, take a moment to read some of the basics here.  In these introductory articles, I explain the legal procedures and the issues you should be prepared to discuss at your hearing.

I've also previously written on this blog about a common situation -- fighting a restraining order when the petitioner is crazy.  Defending yourself against a crazy person requires a special strategy, and that's not the focus of this article.

Today's post is specifically about fighting a restraining order when the facts against you are BAD.  Maybe you've said or done things that you're not proud of, and maybe the petitioner has proof (emails, text messages, surveillance videos, reliable witnesses, etc.).  Even if you've behaved badly, and even if we all agree on what happened, it's not necessarily a slam dunk that the petitioner will walk out of court with a restraining order in hand.  There are several effective strategies for fighting restraining orders, even if the facts appear bad at first glance.

There are situations where it may be futile to deny your bad behavior.  If the petitioner has reliable proof, you will harm your own case by disingenuously trying to deny the facts.  You will look like a liar, you will lose your credibility, and you will lose your case.  Of course, that's not to say that you should admit to things you haven't done or confess when the evidence is weak.  I'm speaking specifically about situations where you behaved badly and the petitioner can prove it.

Bad facts must be justified, excused or explained.  A justification is a defense where you essentially argue that you did the RIGHT thing under the circumstances.  Your behavior might have been illegal or improper in other situations, but perfectly proper in that particular place and time.  "Self defense" or "defense of others" are common justifications.  In most situations, for example, it is illegal to threaten someone with a weapon.  If you threaten your neighbor with a bat to make him stop beating his wife, though, you've done a GOOD thing.  If your neighbor then files a restraining order against you for threatening him with a bat, you should admit that you engaged in that conduct (you DID threaten him with a bat), and you should explain to the judge why your actions were justified under the circumstances.

If you can't justify your actions, maybe you can excuse them. An excuse is a defense where you acknowledge that your behavior wasn't "good", but you argue that you don't deserve to accept the blame.  If, for example, you were involuntarily drugged, you might not deserve to be punished for your behavior while you were under the influence.

If your behavior can't be justified or excused, maybe it can at least be explained.  An explanation is a defense where you admit that you did the wrong thing, but you argue that your blame is mitigated or reduced under the circumstances.  For example, maybe you were provoked with offensive insults and you responded with violence.  We don't agree that your violent reaction was appropriate, but maybe we understand why you reacted the way you did.  Your outburst was out-of-character and it won't happen again.

That last part is important -- it won't happen again.  As I've previously explained on this blog, a restraining order is an "injunction".  An injunction is a court order that is intended to prevent some future harm that has not yet happened, not to punish you for some past wrongdoing.  This is tricky.  The issue that the judge must decide at the restraining order hearing is: has the petitioner proven that the respondent has harassed him or her?  Sometimes -- and this is risky -- we must acknowledge that the respondent has committed some act of violence, threats or harassment against the petitioner, but we establish that the harm is not likely to reoccur in the future.  Since we're talking about an injunction and not a criminal violation, the analysis doesn't stop with, "did this happen?".  A restraining order is not appropriate unless the harm is likely to happen in the future.  If the harm has already passed and is not likely to happen again, then a restraining order is not appropriate.  There is valid case law to support this defense, but the proper citations and legal argument must be presented effectively by an experienced, competent lawyer.  Don't try this at home.

If you or a loved one has questions about a restraining order in California, call us for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County Restraining Order Lawyer

What We're Working On Now

It's been a busy couple of months here in the office, and I realize that I haven't posted any updates about some of our recent success stories.  If you've been anxiously holding your breath, good news!  Here's a quick rundown of some of the great cases that we've been working on:

• Driving Without a License / False Info to a Police Officer -- Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County):  Our client had been stopped several years ago for driving without a valid license.  To make matters worse, he gave a false name to the officer.  A month later, police discovered that the name was incorrect and our client was accused of 2 separate misdemeanors. Our client failed to appear in court and he had 2 outstanding warrants for several years. Eventually, the warrants caught up to him and he was going to lose his job. This morning, I met with the DA and they agreed to dismiss both matters entirely. Our client can finally get back to work without being afraid that police would show up at any minute and take him into custody on some ticky tacky old warrants. Greats news for him and his family. 
• Elder Abuse Restraining Order -- Santa Ana (Orange County):  Our client was an elderly man who had been the victim of harassment and financial abuse by his adult daughter. He was seeking a restraining order against her to keep her away from his home and bank accounts. We were able to negotiate an out-of-court stipulation to help both parties achieve what they wanted without going to a full hearing before a judge. As I've written on this blog in the past, stipulations can be a great way for parties to negotiate their disputes in restraining order matters without involving taxpayers and judges. Out-of-court negotiations often allow both parties to achieve 100% of their goals without the risk that a judge will impose some "solution" where neither party is satisfied. 
• Attempted Rape --  Fullerton (Orange County):  Our client is a young alcoholic. He was extremely intoxicated and acting belligerently, including some aggressive behavior toward a female stranger. We all agreed that his behavior was inappropriate, but I did not believe that he intended or attempted to "rape" anyone. After a thorough investigation, the District Attorney agreed that my client was not guilty of attempted rape. He was potentially facing several years in prison, followed by lifetime sex offender registration. Instead, he received the appropriate resolution: mandatory alcohol counseling and NO sex offender registration.  
• Trespassing / Theft -- Fullerton (Orange County):  Our client was a "porch pirate". She was actually captured on camera stealing packages from the victim's doorstep. Package theft is rampant in North Orange County, so police and prosecutors are often eager to make an example when offenders are caught red-handed. Luckily, our client was sympathetic and apologetic. She had no serious criminal history. Most importantly, she had a great defense attorney! In the end, she agreed to a "diversion deal" -- she took a 6-hour class one Saturday and the DA agreed to dismiss the case entirely.  
• Child Abuse -- West Covina (Los Angeles County):  Our client was accused of abusing her boyfriend's child. My client insisted that she had merely used some reasonable methods of discipline to correct behavior in an obstinate child. The defendant was a tough disciplinarian, but I did not believe that the punishments she imposed on the child were excessive or unwarranted. After some further investigation, the DA agreed to dismiss the charges.

These are just a few of the cases where we've recently achieved some great results for our clients. Obviously, the facts of every case are different, so these success stories are not guarantees or predictions of future performance.  

I have a lot more interesting cases that I'll be free to discuss soon. Check back for updates as they become available.  

If you or a loved one is accused of a crime in Orange County, call us for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449-3335. 

Fullerton Criminal Defense Attorney

What is the Statute of Limitations for Sex Crimes in California?

The "statute of limitations" ("SoL") describes the time limit within which prosecutors must bring criminal charges.  If the DA waits too long before filing a case, they may be "time barred" from doing so.  Like everything else in the law, though, this is often more complicated than it sounds.

Before we get started, it's important to remember that the "statute of limitations" refers to the time within which the case must be filed.  Often, prosecutors do file a case within the proscribed time period, but the defendant never appears in court for his arraignment.  When this happens, a bench warrant is issued.  The warrant may remain outstanding forever, or until the defendant is eventually arrested and brought to court.  A warrant will never simply go away on its own.  If an old warrant has been outstanding for several years, the defendant may have a valid argument that his constitutional right to a speedy trial has been violated, but this is different from a "statute of limitations" argument if the case was filed before the SoL expired.

The length of the statute of limitations depends on the maximum sentence for the specific underlying crime.  For most misdemeanors, the SoL is one  year.  That means prosecutors have one year from the date that the crime was discovered (not necessarily the date that the crime was committed) to file charges.  If the crime is a "wobbler" (one that can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony at the discretion of the DA), then a longer statute of limitations may apply, even if the case is only filed as a misdemeanor.

If the crime is a felony and the maximum penalty is less than 8 years in prison, the statute of limitations is usually 3 years.  If the maximum sentence is more than 8 years in prison, then the SoL is usually 6 years.  If the crime is potentially punishable by death or by life in prison, or if the crime involves embezzlement of public money, then there is no statute of limitations -- the DA can file charges at any time.

There are many, many exceptions and caveats to the rule that prosecutions must generally commence with within the 1-, 3- or 6-year statute of limitations.  If, for example, a defendant is out of the state when the crime is committed, the SoL can be extended by up to 3 additional years.

Arguments about the statute of limitations get especially complicated in cases involving allegations of child molestation, or "lewd acts with a minor" (PC 288).  Under section 803(f) of the California Penal Code, the SoL may be extended even longer under certain circumstances. The  district attorney can file criminal charges at any time (for up to one year after a report is made) if ALL of the following criteria are met:

• The crime involved child rape, oral copulation, penetration, or other "substantial sexual conduct" with a minor (the victim was under 18 at the time),
• The crime had never been previously reported to police, AND
• There is some independent evidence to support the allegations.  If the victim is over 21 at the time that the crime is reported, that "independent evidence" must be "clear and convincing".

The argument in these cases tends to revolve around the 3rd prong -- that the allegation be supported by "independent evidence" that is "clear and convincing".  Appellate courts have dealt with these issues extensively, and the nuances are intricate.

As I warned in the opening paragraph, issues regarding the statute of limitations can get complicated.  You may have a valid defense based on a filing delay, but the argument must be properly presented and supported by up-to-date citations or it will not be effective.

If you or a loved one is fighting an old sex case, call us for a free attorney consultation. 714 449 3335.  Ask for John. 

Thanks for reading.

Fullerton Criminal Defense Attorney

Driving Under the Influence of Drugs in Orange County

The Orange County District Attorney is aggressively cracking down on cases involving driving under the influence of drugs (DUID).

There's a lot of bad information out there regarding DUID cases in California.  Some of my clients are surprised to learn that they can be arrested for driving under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs that affect their ability to drive a car safely.  That includes legal drugs, illegal drugs, prescription drugs, medical marijuana, chemotherapy drugs, sleep aids, even NyQuil.

Everyone knows that the "magic number" with alcohol is 0.08%.  If you drive a car while your blood alcohol concentration is 0.08% or greater, you are guilty of DUI.  With other drugs, though, there is no clearly defined limit in California that tells us how "impaired" is too impaired to drive.  To be guilty of driving under the influence of drugs, prosecutors must prove that you were intoxicated to such a degree that you could not operate a vehicle with the skill and care of a normal, sober driver.  That can be complicated.

If you are arrested on suspicion of drunk driving, you will be given the choice of either submitting to a blood test or a breath test.  If officers suspect that you are impaired by drugs, though, you must give a blood sample (a breath test will not detect drugs other than alcohol).  The Orange County Crime Lab will screen your blood sample for 5 drugs: alcohol, THC (both active delta-9 THC and its metabolites), opiates, cocaine, amphetamine and benzodiazepines (prescription drugs like Xanax).  The presence of one or more of these drugs, though, does not necessarily prove that you are dangerously impaired or guilty of a DUI.  Many drugs have a safe, therapeutic application. Someone who suffers from ADD, for example, might be a safer, more attentive driver after he takes his Adderall.  The fact that he tests positive for amphetamine, then, does not prove that he is dangerously impaired by drugs.

Marijuana is an especially tricky one.  Most people have heard that THC is detectable in the blood for weeks after use.  This is only partly true.  When you smoke weed, delta-9 THC is the chemical that actually causes you to feel "high".  After you consume delta-9 THC, your body metabolizes the drug and produces a chemical called "carboxy THC" (COOH-THC).  Carboxy THC has no psychoactive effect, but it may remain traceable for days or weeks.  Carboxy THC, then, may be evidence of recent marijuana use, but it means nothing if we're trying to determine whether or not a subject is impaired at the moment.  When the crime lab analyzes your blood sample, their report will show your levels of both delta-9 THC (the stuff that is currently making you high), and COOH-THC (evidence of past use).  In some cases, high levels of COOH-THC can actually support your defense.  If you are an experienced user, you might have a high tolerance for the drug.  In that case, even high levels of active delta-9 THC might not necessarily prove that you were dangerously stoned at the time of driving.

If you or a loved one has questions about driving under the influence of drugs in Orange County, call us for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449-3335. Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County DUI Lawyer

Is it Worth My Time to Fight a Restraining Order?

I believe I've posted about this question before, but I still hear it a few times every week. Callers tell me that an ex-girlfriend or a former co-worker has filed a restraining order petition against them. They don't see the petitioner anymore and they have no reason or desire to have further contact with that person. As they see it, a restraining order really wouldn't affect their life in any way -- it wouldn't prohibit them from doing anything that they really want to do. Why take the time and effort to fight it?

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose a restraining order, even if you agree to the petitioner's basic demands (e.g. stay away, have no contact, do not follow or stalk, etc.), and even if you have no interest in doing those things anyway. Having a restraining order issued against you will affect your life in ways that might not be obvious. These court orders are public records. Subjects of restraining orders forfeit various rights that the rest of us enjoy. Being the subject of a restraining order may also lead to some other nightmare scenarios that I've seen, and that I'll describe below.

Even if you're not interested in the restraining order, your employer might be. As mentioned, restraining orders are public records. They're available for anyone to see, with or without your permission. They are easily discovered by a simple background check. Most courts even put this information online now. Being the subject of a restraining order can make you ineligible to hold certain jobs or professional licenses. Good luck getting a security clearance or a Global Entry pass with an active restraining order against you.

Anyone who is the subject of a restraining order is prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. If there's a restraining order against you, you may not even have access to firearms that someone else in your home owns. If you already own guns, you will be ordered to surrender them to local police, or else sell them to a licensed dealer immediately. You may not simply give them or "sell" them to a friend or family member for safekeeping. If your job requires you to carry a weapon in the course of your duties, you might be looking for a new job. Again, good luck finding work with a restraining order on your record.

Having a restraining order issued against you may also make you vulnerable to false accusations or "accidental violations". If the petitioner spots you (or someone who looks like you) in a restaurant or a public place, she is likely to call the police. Even if you haven't "knowingly and willfully" violated the order, you can expect an unpleasant and embarrassing encounter with investigators. I've handled too many cases where my client accidentally butt-dialed an ex-girlfriend, allegedly violating an active restraining order. If your email gets hacked and your account starts sending spam messages to everyone in your address book, you could end up back in court trying to explain yourself.

Take restraining orders seriously, and make the necessary preparations to ensure the best outcome possible for your case. Of course, the best way to effectively prepare for your day in court is to retain a qualified, local expert. If you or a loved one has questions about restraining orders, call us for a free attorney consultation.  (714) 449-3335. Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County Restraining Order Lawyer

How to Fight a Restraining Order When the Petitioner is Crazy

One of the inherent problems in restraining order court is that anybody can file a petition against anybody else, at any time.  This often means that the petitioner (the person seeking the protection of a restraining order), is crazy.  He or she may be paranoid, delusional, senile, drug-addled, vindictive, or just plain nuts.

If a crazy person is seeking a restraining order against you, presenting an effective defense can be tricky.  It is not sufficient to simply argue that the petitioner is crazy.  Instead, you must carefully show the judge that your opponent is detached from reality, and that the allegations against you are entirely made up.  The goal here is to prove that the accusations against you are false, not just to prove that the person making the accusations is erratic or afflicted with some mental disease.

This defense strategy can be more complicated and difficult than some people expect.  Even if you have personal knowledge of the petitioner's mental health problems, the rules of evidence will restrict the types of arguments that you're allowed to present in court.  First of all, you may not testify that somebody else told you about the petitioner's diagnosis.  That would be hearsay.  The person who actually made that diagnosis must appear in court to testify.  If that person is the petitioner's doctor, then the rules of confidentiality would prohibit the doctor from revealing the petitioner's medical records.

In some types of restraining order hearings, hearsay is admissible.  Even if this evidence may come in under the hearsay rules, it may still be excluded if you are not qualified to render an opinion on the subject.  Before any evidence is admissible in court, the witness must "lay the foundation" -- that is, you must prove that you possess the knowledge that you're now presenting as fact.  Psychiatric diagnoses are obviously complicated medical issues.  Even if you've personally observed "crazy" behavior by the petitioner, the judge will not allow you to express an opinion about the petitioner's medical condition or mental state because you're simply not qualified to do so.

Remember also that even crazy people have the right to be free from civil harassment and domestic violence.  If your defense is that the petitioner is crazy, you must be careful not to blame the victim for your harassment.  You must be extremely mindful not to argue that the petitioner deserves to be harassed because she is crazy.  Instead, you must argue that you have not harassed anybody.  If the petitioner believes that you have harassed her, you must prove that she is mistaken and that her false beliefs are rooted in delusions.  This is done by effectively cross-examining the witness in court.  A qualified attorney knows how to ask probing questions, drill down on the details, let the witness discuss her false beliefs, and give her enough rope to hang herself.  A lawyer who is experienced in the art of cross-examination will not argue with the witness or become confrontational.  Instead, the witness should have the opportunity to destroy her own credibility.

Last, and most important, is to always consider the relevance of any argument that you want to present.  The big question in restraining order court is always whether or not the petitioner can prove that the respondent has engaged in harassment or domestic violence.  The court is not interested in determining whether or not you're a good person, or whether the opposing party is a bad person, or whether someone has lied about something unrelated in the past, or who was responsible for the breakup, or even if one party suffers from a mental illness.  Those issues might be important to you, and they might be loosely related to something in your case, but the court simply does not care.  It might be tempting, but you must not waste the court's time and your own by focusing on details that are legally irrelevant.

Every piece of evidence that you present as the respondent must support the fact that you have not engaged in conduct that would legally justify the issuance of a restraining order.  If your argument is that the petitioner is crazy, you must prove that the allegations against you are untrue.  The petitioner's mental health issues are not an excuse for your bad behavior.  Instead, those delusions help explain why the petitioner falsely believes that you have done something inappropriate.

If you or a loved one has questions about restraining orders in California, call our office for a free attorney consultation.  714 449 3335.  Ask for John.

Thanks for reading.

Orange County Restraining Order Lawyer

Can I Get a DUI on Private Property?

In California, you can be arrested for DUI on private property, off-road, or even on the water.  

Section 23152 of the California Vehicle Code prohibits anybody from operating a vehicle while they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The DA doesn't need to prove that you were on a public road. They don't even need to prove that the vehicle was an automobile.  

I've had clients accused of riding dirt bikes, jet skis and golf carts while drunk (not all at the same time). In California, all of those situations can be treated as "DUI". Hiring an experienced DUI defense attorney can be very helpful in these cases, though. Often, the kind of officers who arrest drunken dirt bikers, boaters or golfers are inexperienced in making those types of arrests. They don't have the training or resources to properly prosecute DUI cases. Park rangers and harbor patrol officers might mishandle evidence or fail to file documents in a timely manner.

You can even be cited for riding a bicycle while drunk in California ("Cycling Under the Influence, or "CUI"), but those cases are treated a little differently. CUI is an infraction only and not a misdemeanor, so the court cannot impose jail time or probation. Bicycles obviously aren't "motor vehicles", so the 0.08% BAC limit doesn't apply, and the DMV will not suspend your driver's license or impose mandatory classes. To be guilty of CUI, the officer must prove that you were so impaired by alcohol and /or drugs that you could not operate a bicycle with the skill and care of an ordinary cyclist (whatever that means). If you are cited for CUI, you may demand a breath or blood test, but you are not required to take one.  

If you or a loved one has questions about DUI in California, call us for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449-3335. Ask for John. 

Fullerton DUI Lawyer

How Can I Drop Domestic Violence Charges?

Here's a situation that our office sees very frequently:  A couple (married, dating, etc.) has a big, blowup argument.  The police show up and one party accuses the other of domestic violence.  Someone spends the night in jail.  The police conduct an investigation and the DA files criminal charges against the party that they determine to be "the aggressor".

By the time the case ends up in court, emotions have cooled, the parties have attended some counseling and the "victim" no longer desires the involvement of the courts.  She asks prosecutors to drop the case, but they refuse.  Instead, the DA proceeds "full speed ahead", with or without cooperation from the reporting party / "victim". 

Many of my clients are surprised to learn that an alleged victim of domestic violence cannot simply "drop the charges" in California.  The decision of whether to file / drop criminal cases is made by the District Attorney's Office.  Prosecutors may consult with victims, but they're not legally required to follow a victim's wishes.  

When a victim asks to drop charges (or indicates that she will not cooperate in a prosecution), the DA must decide whether or not they believe that they have a strong case without their victim's testimony.  The evidence might include a recorded 911 call where the victim describes events as they're happening ("He's hitting me now! Help!").  The suspect might be heard in the background shouting threats.  The police might have recorded an interview with the victim near the time of the incident in which she discusses her injuries and how they occurred.  Cops might have photographed the injuries to corroborate the reporting party's story.  Maybe other witness tell police that they saw the suspect personally striking the victim, etc.  In those situations, prosecutors will aggressively follow through with a criminal prosecution even if the victim asks them to dismiss the case.  Their reasoning is easy to understand -- they can prove that the suspect has committed a serious, violent crime against the People of the State of California.  He shouldn't be allowed to intimidate his victim into recanting her story.  Prosecutors have a responsibility to protect vulnerable citizens and to seek justice against those who would do them harm.  Plus, they don't need the victim's testimony to win a conviction.  There's enough independent evidence to prove the charges even without her cooperation.  That much makes sense.  

Most cases aren't that cut and dry, though.  A fact pattern that I see more commonly goes like this: Both parties have been drinking or using drugs and arguing.  At some point, one party (or a neighbor, or a stranger) calls police to report something nebulous ("I think they're fighting or something.  I heard a loud noise", etc.).  When the police show up, one party or both accuses the other of domestic violence.  There are no injuries, witnesses or physical evidence to support the accusations, but cops take a report anyway.  By the time the case ends up in court, the accuser changes her story.  Maybe she admits that she exaggerated a little, or even that she was the aggressor.  In these situations, an ethical prosecutor should consider the interests of justice, the wishes of the parties, the cost to taxpayers, the burden to the court system, and their priorities in general.  When those considerations tilt in favor of dropping the case, they should do so. 

But these guys didn't get to be overpaid government employees by making reasonable decisions.  Often, prosecutors need a little arm-twisting to help them come to their senses.  That's where we step in.  Our professional staff can help dig you out of a hole without making the hole any deeper.  We have extensive experience defending against all types of domestic violence cases in Orange County, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino.  We can deal directly with investigators, witnesses and prosecutors to ensure that your rights are protected.  Domestic violence charges may carry harsh, mandatory penalties.  They're complicated, emotional matters and they require the attention of an expert. 

If you or a loved one has questions about domestic violence, call us for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449-3335.  Ask for John.  Thanks for reading. 

Fullerton Domestic Violence Lawyer