Contact Us Rates Advertising

Search Engine Friendly Directory

Directory / Business / Law / Law Firms / United States

Eisner Gorin LLP

Eisner Gorin LLP is a nationally recognized Los Angeles criminal defense law firm devoted to contesting serious felony and federal criminal cases.





  • Digg
  • Technorati
  • Blinklist
  • Furl
  • reddit
  • Google Bookmark It!
  • Stumble it!


Latest News RSS feed from site

  • California Burglary Suspect Arrested After He Got Stuck in Chimney
    Naked California Burglary Suspect Arrested After He Got Stuck in Chimney In Ladera Heights, CA, a naked man was pulled from a chimney by police officers and after he attempted to burglarize a nearby home before running and hiding in the neighbor’s chimney.   After he got stuck in the chimney, he began yelling “I’m not crazy,” and was making claims he was drugged and the police officers were going to murder him.   It was also reported that earlier in the day, he attempted to commit burglary on another home in Culver City, CA, but fled the scene after the homeowner confronted him.   The suspect was caught on video at the scene with a towel around his waist after police were leading him to a ladder. A witness claimed the suspect said he had been drinking and that he yelled at other people at the scene that he would never run around butt-naked.   Our are providing a comprehensive description of burglary charges under Penal Code Section 459 below.   Overview of California Burglary Charges PC 459 A crime in California is actually two distinct offenses. There is residential burglary, also known as home invasion, such as the example above, which is commonly called a first-degree burglary. There is also a commercial burglary, which is known as a second-degree burglary.   First-degree burglary under Penal Code 459 is any burglary of a residence - while second-degree burglary is burglary of any building that is not a residence. As you can see from the names, the primary difference between these distinct offenses is the type of property you are entering in order to commit a crime.   Burglary is described under . The crime occurs after you enter a property with an intent to commit a theft or a felony once you are inside.   It’s important to stop and make note you don’t have to actually complete a theft or felony, rather that you only need to have intent to commit the crime to be charged with Penal Code 459. What type of locations are covered under PC 459? This statute provides a list of locations that could be entered and lead to criminal charges of burglary. They include a home, apartment, stores, and even an inhabited camper, among many others.   Intent to commit a crime is the primary “” of burglary under Penal Code 459. The prosecutor has to be able to prove – beyond reasonable doubt – you specifically had an intent to commit theft of a felony after you illegally entered a property. These elements of the crimes under Jury Instructions.    This means that if a suspect is highly intoxicated and enters a property by mistake, but have no actual intent to commit a crime, they probably won’t be convicted of burglary. Our burglary chimney suspect above just might have a valid defense to his burglary charges if he retains an experienced criminal defense attorney, but of course could be charged with other crimes.   In most burglary cases, the prosecutor will attempt to prove the critical intent element using evidence, such as possession of certain items that are commonly used to commit burglary, like a crowbar.   Penalties for Burglary -  California PC 459 If convicted of burglary under Penal Code 459, the penalties will depend of the type of charges. If convicted of first-degree residential burglary, it’s a felony offense that will carry the following penalties:   Up to six years in a A fine up $10,000 Formal felony probation   If convicted of second-degree commercial burglary, it’s a , meaning the case can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony crime. If convicted of a misdemeanor burglary, you will face up to one year in a , a fine up to $1,000, and misdemeanor summary probation. If convicted on a felony second-degree burglary, you will face up to three years in a California state prison, a fine up to $10,000, and formal felony probation.   It’s important to note that exact penalties for a Penal Code 459 burglary conviction will depend on various facts of your case. These are commonly known as mitigating and aggravating factors and include:   Prior burglary convictions Type of property entered Whether home was occupied Intended crime   Additionally, makes first-degree residential burglary a strike.   Defenses for Burglary - California PC 459 As you can see above, the penalties for a California Penal Code 459 burglary conviction can be severe and have life-changing consequences. There are a wide-range of legal defenses our experienced Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers can argue on your case. The most common defenses for PC 459 burglary include:   Lack of intent – As discussed above, “intent” is the critical element of the crime. In other words, if we can prove you did not intend to commit a theft or felony after you entered a property, you can’t be convicted of burglary. The timing is the key. The prosecutor has to prove you had intent to commit theft at the moment you entered the location.   Mistake – In some burglary cases, we might be able to make an argument you entered the property to retrieve property that you owned, or you had a reasonable belief you had consent to take the property. Clearly, the opportunity for this defense is in limited situations. On a similar note, we might be able to argue to mistakenly or accidentally entered the property, or you were intoxicated.   False Allegation – It’s not uncommon for people to get arrested by mistake. We might be able to argue you were falsely accused or the victim of mistaken identity. Perhaps you were accused from someone out of revenge or jealously, or the police conducted an incomplete investigation.   If you or a family member has been accused of burglary in violation of California Penal Code 459, call our law firm for help with the case. Our Los Angeles burglary defense lawyers will review you case and legal options.   1875 Century Park E #705 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310-328-3776
  • Ex Glendale Bank Manager Pleads Guilty to Identity Theft Scheme
    Former Glendale Bank Manager Pleads Guilty to Identity Theft Scheme and Admits Federal Bank Fraud A former Wells Fargo bank manager in Glendale, CA who was facing allegations that he unfroze suspicious accounts in connection with a $14 million identify theft scheme to defraud the Internal Revenue Service has pleaded guilty to the federal criminal charges.   News reports about the case said the defendant, Hakop Zakaryan, 34, admitted to case as part his plea agreement with federal prosecutors.   He was charged along with other defendants in connection with an unlawful operation involving thousands of false claims using stolen identities.   This information came from a statement from the United States Attorney’s Office. The defendant was accused of lying to the bank’s loss prevention department to give clients fraudulent access to the accounts which were flagged due to suspicious activity. He faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in a federal prison.   Our provide an overview of federal bank fraud charges below.   What is Federal Bank Fraud Under 18 U.S.C. 1344? Bank fraud is a crime defined as when someone knowingly executes, or attempts to execute a scheme to defraud a financial institution, or obtain property owned a financial institution, by means of fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.   Bank fraud cases can range from the infamous theft or embezzlement of money by a bank employee to a much more complicated scheme to defraud a financial institution based upon false statements, such as false loan applications and misuse of money.   Since the rise of online banking, internet bank fraud has become more common. is the statute that criminalizes defrauding a bank or committing a scheme to defraud involving accounts of a financial institution.   Under 18 U.S.C. 1344 provides punishment for anyone who knowingly executes a scheme, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice:   To defraud any financial institution To obtain money, funds, securities, or other property owned by a financial institution by using false pretenses or promises.   Additionally, 18 U.S.C. Section 1014 makes it a to make false statements to a financial institution. If you are convicted of bank fraud, you could face up to 30 years in federal prison, a fine up to $1,000,000, or both.    The financial institutions covered by 18 U.S.C. 1344 are those that are federally insured, such as by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). This includes all major banks and most bank related entities.   How Does the Prosecutor Prove Federal Bank Fraud? In order for a federal prosecutor to convict you of federal bank fraud under 18 USC 1344, they have to be able to prove -  beyond a reasonable doubt – certain elements of the crime that:   You executed, or attempted to execute a scheme that was charged in the indictment that you defrauded a financial institution to obtain their money by using false or fraudulent pretenses You knowingly and willfully participated in this fraudulent scheme with specific intent to defraud in order to obtain money by means of false or fraudulent pretenses The financial institution in question was federally insured, a federal reserve bank, or a Federal Reserve System member     What are the Possible Defenses to Federal Bank Fraud? The crime of Bank Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 is an enhanced legal penalty for fraud committed against a certain classification of victims, like in this case a financial institution.    Therefore, the defenses that can be used by your federal criminal defense lawyer for bank fraud charges will be similar to the defenses used for most fraud crime allegations.   Typically, in order to prove a fraud, the federal prosecutor must establish that you made a knowingly false statement - and you intended them to rely on the statement - and they did in fact, rely on your statement that caused them to suffer a financial loss.  Each step in the defense process could be challenged for insufficient evidence.    That said, an experienced federal criminal defense can use a variety of legal defenses on your behalf against federal bank fraud charges in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. These include:   It might be possible to prove you didn’t know the statement made to the financial institution was false. Alternatively, it might be possible to show financial institution knew from the beginning your statement was false, and didn’t rely on it.  In some bank fraud cases, the false statement is actually believed and relied upon, but the financial institution did not suffer a financial loss as a result. We might be able to show you didn’t participate in a scheme to defraud the financial institution. If you weren’t involved in the scheme or the incident didn’t involve obtaining money from the financial institution, but rather a member of the bank or other connection, you shouldn’t be convicted of federal bank fraud. In such a case however, you might be convicted of other federal crimes. The financial institution in question did not face a real threat of potential loss. It should be noted that it’s not required that the financial institution suffered an actual financial loss. However, if our defense lawyers can show the financial institution was never facing a potential loss, in spite of how the fraudulent scheme occurred, you should be able to avoid a bank fraud conviction.   It’s important to note that each federal bank fraud case is fact-specific and depend on particular circumstances. This means the best defense strategy to use on your bank fraud case depends on a thorough examination of the prosecutor’s evidence.   If you or a family member is under investigation or already indicted for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, call our experienced federal crime defense attorneys to review your case. We will protect your rights and work to obtain the best possible outcome in your case. Call us at (877) 781-1570.    1875 Century Park E #705 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310-328-3776
  • Mental Health Diversion for Criminal Cases in California - Penal Code 1001.36
    Mental Health Diversion Program for Criminal Cases – California Penal Code Section 1001.36 Some defendants who have been charged with a crime suffer from a mental health issue that impact their ability to know right from wrong or it impacts their ability to control their actions. The California criminal justice system is often overwhelmed in attempting to deal with defendants suffering from a mental illness.   Los Angeles criminal courts have to find a balance between holding people accountable for their criminal behavior while recognizing that it may be possible a mental health issue might make them less culpable for their actions.   In response, the state of California decided to allow pretrial diversion if you committed a crime due to a mental disorder that allows you to receive treatment rather than prosecution. In July 2018, the Governor signed  that grants discretionary diversion to people who meet a specific criterial.   The new law is called “” and it’s described in . Critics of the new law claim it creates a dangerous change to public safety as it permits pretrial diversion to all levels of criminal offenders without sufficient restrictions.   In basic terms, under PC 1001.36, if you have been charged with a crime, you might be given the opportunity to go through a mental health treatment program.  If you successfully complete it, your criminal charges will be dismissed. Clearly, the Mental Health Diversion occurs before you go to trial, meaning it’s a form of “Pre-Trial Diversion.”   Our can make a request with the judge to permit you to go through the program before making a decision on sentencing. Obviously, the main benefit of California Penal Code Section 1001.36 Mental Health Diversion is that your criminal charges will be dismissed if you successfully get through it. In addition, your record of the arrest will be sealed and destroyed. Let’s take a closer look at the program below.   Who is Eligible for California Mental Health Diversion? Under California Penal Code 1001.36 Mental Health Diversion, defendants who have been charged with a misdemeanor or felony offense can be eligible. However, a judge will normally only allow you to enter the program if the following conditions are satisfied:   You suffer from a mental condition other than a personality disorder like pedophilia. Your mental disorder was a significant factor for why you committed the crime A qualified mental health professional forms an opinion that you would respond to treatment. You agree to participate in Mental Health Diversion and waive you right to a speedy trial. You agree to comply with the terms of your mental health treatment as a condition of diversion. The court believes you are not an unreasonably high risk or a danger to the community.   It’s important to review below the most important conditions below in order to determine if you could qualify for the California Penal Code 1001.36 Mental Health Diversion Program.    Suffering from a Mental Condition In order to qualify for Penal Code 1001.36 Mental Health Diversion, you have to have a psychological condition that is actually listed a Mental Disorders Manual. Most mental health conditions will qualify, including , bipolar disorder, and Post-traumatic stress disorder (), but excludes conditions such as Antisocial Personality Disorder and Pedophilia.   It’s important to note that you will be required to show evidence by producing a recent diagnosis by a qualified mental health professional. They will typically rely on relevant information such as their own examination, medical records, and a close review of your prior arrest record. After their review, they will submit a report to the court and might even be asked to testify.   It should also be noted that you must make an agreement to comply with mental health treatment as a condition of the diversion program. You must also waive your rights to a that is guaranteed under the of the United States Constitution. The only exception is if you can’t intelligently give your speedy trail rights due to your mental condition.   Mental Condition Was a Significant Factor in the Crime In order for the judge to permit your participation in diversion, they have to be convinced that your mental condition was a significant contributing factor on why your committed the alleged crime in the first place. They will listen to oral arguments looking for proof there were symptoms of a mental condition around the exact time of when the alleged crime was committed.   In order to make this important decision, they will normally rely heavily on credible evidence, such as reports submitted by police, statements or testimony from witnesses, transcripts from the , statements and reports from the mental health professional, medical records, and reports from your healthcare provider.   It should be noted that in order the judge to grant you a Penal Code 1001.36 Mental Health Diversion, a mental health professional must inform them that they reasonably believe mental health treatment would be helpful. They must tell the judge that your symptoms causing your unlawful conduct would actually respond to treatment.   Finally, the judge must believe you are not a reasonable risk of danger to the public. To determine this, they will consider the opinions from the prosecutor, your criminal defense attorney, and mental health professional. They will also review your prior criminal history and the severity of your current alleged crime.   Mental Health Diversion Treatment Program The length of a California Penal Code 1001.36 Mental Health Diversion program normally last not longer than two years. The program will include inpatient care or outpatient care, or both.  Before a judge will grant a treatment program, they will consider oral arguments from your lawyer and the prosecutor. They will also consider your specific needs and the best interest of the public.   It should be note the cost of the mental health diversion can come from public or private funds. If you are unable to afford private treatment, the court could refer you to a county mental health agency or another court. However, the county mental health agency has to make an agreement to accept the responsibility of providing treatment and they have to have sufficient resources to operate the program for which you are eligible.   The mental health provider of your diversion treatment will provide the court with periodic reports on progress.  These reports will also be provided to your lawyer and the prosecutor. Based on the information in the reports, the judge could decide to schedule a hearing to determine if they need to modify the treatment plan, whether normal criminal prosecution should proceed, or if you should be referred to a county investigator to determine whether you need a conservator.    The various types of circumstances that typically lead to a hearing include: (1) You have been charged with a new crime that shows you may be , such as a incident; (2) You were charged with a new felony crime; (3) You participated in any criminal behavior that makes you unsuitable for the diversion program; (4) A qualified mental health professional informs the court your performance in the program is unsatisfactory or you are highly mentally disabled.   If you successfully complete the treatment program under California Penal Code 1001.36, the court will dismiss your original criminal charges and the arrest will be sealed. You will be considered successful if you significantly completed the requirements of the diversion program, avoided any new crimes not related to your disability, and you have created a long-term plan for psychological care.   If your diversion was not successfully completed, the court will reinstate the criminal prosecution process and you will face the initial criminal charges.   Accused of a Crime in California? We Can Help You If you have been accused of a crime anywhere in Los Angeles or Southern California, our criminal defense lawyers can review your charges, potential penalties and defenses, and whether you may be eligible for California Penal Code 1001.36 Mental Health Diversion Program. You will need our legal professional to make an argument to the judge   This process starts with a phone call to our office so we can closely review the details of your situation and determine if you are eligible for the diversion program.  Contact us at 877-781-1570.   1875 Century Park E #705 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310-328-3776
  • Bail Reduction Motion in California Criminal Cases
    Arguments Regarding Bail in California Criminal Cases Current California law provides for a cash bail system under which most defendants who appear in court are allowed to remain free in the community pursuant to a bail bond.   Most defendants do not have the resources to post the complete cash bail amount themselves, and so they employ a bail bondsman whose business is to post bonds on behalf of defendants for a fee.    The bondsman bears the risk of losing their bond to the court if the defendant fails to appear or otherwise violates the conditions or their release.   This system is likely to change in the coming years as California has already voted to in favor of a risk-factor system in which the probation department will be empowered to determine who should or should not remain in custody while their case is resolved.    This new system is currently tied up in litigation, however, and has not been implemented. Our review the process of pursuing a reduced bail below.   Bail Reduction on Felony Cases in California A major concern for many defendants, particularly those charged with felony level offenses, is the reduction of their . The practical reality is that fighting a criminal charge from outside custody is preferable in every respect to fighting it from inside custody.    The discomfort of being in custody in many cases provides a coercive incentive to defendants to accept in exchange for the promise of imminent release.   This can unfortunately result in case dispositions which are less than ideal, and may negatively impact the defendant’s life for years to come, simply because the need to get out outweighs concerns about the fairness of the plea deal.    For these reasons, defense attorneys will often seek a or bail review for their clients who remain in custody facing serious charges. The primary consideration when setting bail is the safety of the public and flight risk.   In cases involving , such as fraud or cases, there is no realistic risk that the defendant will damage public safety, but a case is a different story. The court will also consider the risk that the defendant will flee and fail to return to court.   Factors that Determine Bail Amount in Los Angeles  This concern is heightened when the defendant has significant means or contacts in other countries. The amount of bail is typically set according to the “” in the county where the case is prosecuted.    In Los Angeles County, the schedule contains dollar amounts that correspond to each crime and additional factors related to specific offense characteristics, such as multiple victims or prior criminal history.    Also, for example, other factors for a judge setting bail at arraignment in deals with whether the defendant is a flight risk and whether they are a danger to the community at large.   These are two separate inquiries and important factors for a judge to consider when setting bail in a criminal case. Regarding whether a defendant is a flight risk, the judge is will review whether they have any prior failures to appear, and how much potential time in jail they may be facing.   If a defendant is facing life in prison, then clearly they are much more likely to be considered a flight risk. Another flight risk factor considered by the judge is whether or not they live in the jurisdiction, and how long they have lived there.   For example, does the defendant have a family, job, and property in the jurisdiction? If they do, then the criminal defense lawyer has a good argument the defendant is not a flight risk. The entire flight risk argument deals with whether a defendant will return to court to address the criminal charges.   As far as the danger to the community, the judge will review the specific facts of the crime. For setting bail, a judge will assume facts are correct. Therefore, the more dangerous a defendant appears according to the facts before them, the higher the bail will be set.   Motion to Reduce Bail in California Criminal Cases The court has the authority to deviate from the bail schedule in either direction – increase or decrease – but the analysis always starts with the schedule, or presumptive, bail amount.   An effective bail reduction motion from the defense will address both public safety and flight risk and propose reasonable alternatives to cash bail which will ensure the defendant’s future appearance in court. These alternatives can include electronic monitoring, home confinement, or others.    Recent case law suggests that a defendant whose appearance can reasonably be ensured by alternatives to cash bail should not be kept in custody simply because they lack the funds to pay a large cash bail.  In those cases, cash bail serves as a de facto detention order because of the economic reality of posting excessively large amounts of cash.   Timing the bail reduction motion correctly is critical as once a court denies a bail reduction request, it is not likely to reconsider its decision absent changed circumstances. For this reason, the most effective possible presentation should be made on the first attempt. Assistance from the defendant, and their family members and friends, is therefore critical.    All mitigating documents and information should be presented as part of the pitch for lower bail. This can include letters of support, a resume, documentation of work history, information about proposed housing after release from custody, etc.   All information should be presented which demonstrates to the court that the defendant will comply with the terms of bail and pose no threat to the public during the pendency of the case.      Retain a Los Angeles Criminal Defense Lawyer If you or a family member is facing criminal charges and has concerns about the amount of bail, please contact our experienced criminal defense attorneys for a consultation. Retaining an attorney and showing you are ready to address the charges is another factor showing you are preparing to address the charges you are facing and not a flight risk – and accordingly a reasonable bail should be set.   Our attorneys have extensive experience preparing, filing, and litigating effective bail reduction motions in court. Securing a reasonable bail which allows the defendant to fight the case from outside custody is a critical part of the overall defense strategy.   1875 Century Park E #705 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310-328-3776
  • Eisner Gorin LLP Secures Dismissal of Violation of Restraining Order Cases
    Eisner Gorin LLP Secures Dismissal of Multiple Cases of Violation of Restraining Order in LAX Airport Court Our Los Angeles criminal defense law firm secured case dismissals of multiple cases against same client in the LAX Airport Courthouse. Client was charged with two separate violations of a civil harassment restraining order, a misdemeanor under California law. Specifically, client was alleged to have harassed his former therapist with whom he had a falling out.    In the first case, client was alleged to have written a derogatory review on the therapist’s Yelp page. In the second, he was accused of having sent a direct email message to the therapist. When she received these messages, the therapist reported client to law enforcement and he was arrested.   Attorney with Eisner Gorin LLP represented client on both cases at . In the first case, the defense filed a demurrer to the misdemeanor complaint arguing that the Yelp review constituted protected speech activity under the to the United States Constitution and that therefore, as applied to his conduct, the statute prohibiting violation of the would be unconstitutional.   After reviewing the extensive legal arguments presented by the defense, including issues of viewpoint discrimination, vagueness, and overbreadth, the prosecution chose to voluntarily dismiss the case rather than defend against the demurrer.    In the second case, the First Amendment argument was not available as client was alleged to have directly contacted the protected person rather than publishing information to the public at large.    However, a thorough review of discovery materials revealed a technical deficiency in the original restraining order’s proof of service. The deficiency raised a substantial doubt as to whether client had in fact been served with the restraining order prior to making the allegedly violative contact with his former therapist.   Once again, the prosecution chose to voluntarily dismiss the case rather than defend the deficiency in a possible jury trial.  Ultimately, despite having been charged in two separate misdemeanor cases, client received no punishment and suffered no negative consequences to his criminal record.   How Can You Violate a Restraining Order in California? states it’s a crime to violate the terms or conditions of a restraining order. However, it’s important to note, there are a certain elements of the crime that has to be proven in order for someone to be convicted of violating a restraining order or order of protection.   For example, it has to be proven you were the subject to a valid and legal restraining order. Los Angeles County criminal courts have determined that an order can’t be violated if it’s invalid. This means a judge must have properly issued the restraining order. It will become invalid if the court didn’t have proper jurisdiction to issue it, or if there were no valid legal basis.   You also must have been aware of that a restraining order was issued against you. Accordingly, you can’t be subjected to penalties for violating a restraining order if you were unaware it existed and the court didn’t make an effort to inform you.   California law not only mandates that you were aware of the existence of the restraining order against you, but you must also be provided an opportunity to read it.   You can against you in various ways. For example, the court can notify you in person if you were present, or police can give it to you personally – or you can be simply notified in person by police.    Another important element is that it must be proven you  violated the restraining order. order. Intentional means it was willful and a purposeful violation of the terms of the restraining order.   Accidents don’t typically result in criminal penalties for a restraining order violation. For example, your girlfriend has a restraining order against you prohibiting you from being within 500 feet of her. If you willfully drove over to her place of employment to talk, this would be a clear intentional violation of the restraining order.   However, if you accidentally cross paths with her at the gym or grocery store, this would not normally be considered a violation – but you are required to take immediate action to comply with the terms of the restraining order. This means you need to leave the location immediately.   It is possible to be arrested for an accidental violation, but you would be responsible to prove it was an accident, and took immediate action to follow the terms of the restraining order.   Penalties for Violating a Restraining Order in California If it can be proven you intentionally , you could be facing criminal penalties. Violation of a restraining order in California is typically a misdemeanor for a first offense. A conviction can result in up to one year in county jail, fines, and probation.   If there are further violations of a restraining order, or a violation involving threats, or firearm – or a violation that resulted in an injury to the protected person – then the penalties will become more severe. A serious restraining order violation could be filed as a felony case and lead to penalties including up to three years in a California state prison, and a $10,000 fine.   Additionally, violating a restraining order California might also lead to other criminal charges, such as , , or .   In order to avoid harsh legal penalties for violating a restraining order, it’s critical that you clearly understand the terms and conditions set by the court. Judges consider a willful violation of a restraining order a serious matter and will sentence you accordingly if they believe you intentionally ignored them.   Retain an Experienced California Restraining Order Lawyer If you were arrested for , you should consult with our experienced Los Angeles restraining order violation defense lawyers to review your case.   We will protect your legal rights and discuss potential strategies for the best possible outcome. Contact our Los Angeles criminal defense law firm at 877-781-1570 to learn how we can help you.   1875 Century Park E #705 Los Angeles, CA 90067 310-328-3776


Join the Conversation @EisnerGorinLLP

  • California Penal Code § 288.3 criminalizes the attempt to have sexually explicit conversations with minors, even if…
  • California Penal Code § 288.2 criminalizes the sending or distribution to minors of harmful material of a sexual na…
  • A naked California man was pulled from a chimney by police after he attempted to commit burglary of a nearby home b…
  • Arrested for a crime and have to appear at the LAX Airport Court? Many types of crimes are aggressively prosecuted…
  • A former bank manager in Glendale, CA who faced allegations he was involved in a $14 million identify theft scheme…
  • Mental Health Diversion in California criminal cases allows some defendants with a mental disorder to get their cha…
  • Learn how to seek a bail reduction motion in California felony criminal cases. Our Los Angeles defense lawyers can…
  • After someone has been charged with a crime in Compton, CA, they will need to retain experienced legal representati…
  • Our Los Angeles criminal defense law firm secured case dismissals of two separate cases of violating a civil harass…
  • In California domestic violence cases, a court will almost always issue a criminal protective order to protect alle…