bscq8960-5el8bceeoyokfdum

Florentino C.G.

Fri, 07 Nov 2025 06:23:09 GMT

Florentino C.G. 24CR08094, on November 7, 2025 his case was settled for eight years at fifty percent which was significantly better the twenty-three years to life that he was facinG

This is a case in which Addison was conducting the jury trial, a three co-defendant two juries trial, and settled after the jury started for just eight years to be served at fifty percent

Charges: Torture (Penal Code § 206), kidnapping (Penal Code § 207(a)), robbery (Penal Code § 211 First Degree), assault with weapon (Penal Code § 245(a)(1)) with great bodily injury (Penal Code § 12022.7(a)), dissuading a witness (Penal Code § 136.1(c)(1)), threatening a witness (Penal Code § 140), accessory after the fact (Penal Code § 32), and possession of drugs for sales (Health and Safety Code § 11378).
Exposure: Florentino was facing twenty-three years to life in prison.
Outcome: During the trial the case resolved, Florentino pled guilty to non-strike assault (Penal Code § 245(a)(4)), dissuading a witness (Penal Code § 136.1(c)(1)), and threatening a witness (Penal Code § 140), all other counts were dismissed, one of which, torture (Penal Code § 206), carried a mandatory life in prison sentence, as well as all the violent strike counts, his agreed upon sentence was eight years at fifty percent. He had credit for one year, so he will serve three years instead of possibly being sentenced to twenty-three years to life.

November 7, 2025. This case was built on the complaining witness (what the DDA's the "victim") accusing Florentino and his two co-defendants of beating him up, stealing his phone, tying him up, holding him for three days, and stabbing him twice because they thought he was a snitch. The complaining witness' story had problems. During the three days he claimed he was kidnapped and being held against his will, he had gone with Florentino, a mechanic, to work on a car. The complaining witness also had a history of engaging in criminal conduct, and then when things went haywire with his crimes he would go to the police to tell them that the people with whom he was engaged in criminal conduct were the perpetrators. He wasn't particularly skilled at spinning his stories because the police could generally figure out that he was involved in the crimes.

There was also a Brady issue. A United States Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 says that the district attorney has to turn over any exculpatory evidence they have, or any agency with which they work has. Failing to turn over exculpatory evidence can cause a case to be dismissed, however it doesn't matter at all if the exculpatory evidence was not turned over on purpose or by accident. Good deputy district attorneys (DDAs) want their convictions to be clean with no appellate issues at all, and a Brady issue is a potential appellate problem. Smart DDAs will often put some extra effort into settling the case when there's a Brady issue.

The Brady issue was litigated after the trial had started. The judge found that the Brady material should have been turned over, but did not dismiss the case. However, the issue was serious enough that the case, that could not resolve before the trial started, could now settle. After the litigation over the Brady issue, all the lawyers sat down and talked again, and after pretty extensive negotiation, Addison was able to resolve Florentino's case for eight years with only a serious, not a violent strike, so the time would be at 50%. Florentino had credit for a year in jail, so instead of facing the risk of a 23 years to life in prison, and having to potentially serve 85% of 23 years to then start getting parole hearings every two or five years and hope to be released, he would instead be going home in three years, and if he takes advantage of the programs that are offered in prison could be home in as little one year eight months.

Mr. 319

Sat, 13 Sep 2025 16:33:28 GMT

This is the story of Mr. 319

This is trial exhibit 319 from Raymond's trial. He remains in Addison's office to this day. The exhibit was referred to throughout the trial as Mr. 319. He was presented by an expert witness that Addison had hired to explain the trajectory of the bullet and how the district attorney's snitch witness' testimony did not match the forensic evidence. While explaining the trajectory, the expert witness, Blaine Kern, used the Pythagorean theorem to explain where the gun would have to have been fired from at different distances to account for the trajectory of the bullet.

After the trial was over the clerk called Addison to tell him that he needed to go get Mr. 319 because they could not continue to store him. After taking pictures of him from all angles for the appellate record, Addison took Mr. 319 back to his office. He then called Blaine Kern and asked if Blaine wanted him back, to which he answered that he could no longer use Mr. 319 because he now had a hole in his chest with a dowel sticking out of it, not to mention that he had been written on when witnesses testified about him and of course also now had an exhibit tag on him. Addison offered to buy him from Blaine, but Blaine said that he didn't feel right charging Addison for him and offered to give Mr. 319 to him as a memento of the fight they had had together in court. However, Addison couldn't accept him as a gift because at the time he was a public defender and couldn't accept gift from clients or expert witnesses. Blaine then asked Addison if would store Mr. 319 indefinitely for him. Addison agreed to do that and Mr. 319 has been happily stored in Addison's office since 2010.

Mr. 319 is very spirted and enjoys being decorated for holidays and special events. His is below showing his Christmas spirit.

The UCSB interns dress up Mr. 319 for holidays and occasions. It's unclear what the occasion is here. Maybe it's Fiesta, maybe it's summer solstice, not sure.

Here his is dressed up for one of the partner's birthday.

This is Mr. 319 dressed up for Pride Month.

It's unclear what they're doing to Mr. 319 here, perhaps they're hazing him.

Here is Mr. 319 dressed up for Halloween

Article Links 2022 Mock Trial

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 03:00:42 GMT

Dos Pueblos Mock Trial Team Celebrates Third-Place Finish at National Competition: The high school students also receive Congressional Commendations from Congressman Salud Carbajal for their achievements | November 4, 2022 | Noozhawk | Serena Guentz
Dos Pueblos Mock Trial team celebrates third-place finish in Empire Mock Trial invitational | October 27, 2022 | News Channel 12-3-11 | Lily Dallow
Defendants with History of Drug Use Obtain Different Outcomes - 1 to Jail, Other to Treatment | April 18, 2022 | Vanguard | Darling Gonzalez
Dos Pueblos High School Wins 2022 Santa Barbara County Mock Trial Competition | March 7, 2022 | Noozhawk | Santa Barbara County Education Office
Dos Pueblos High School Wins 39th annual Santa Barbara County Mock Trial competition | March 6, 2022 | News Channel 12-3-11 | Lily Dallow

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Article Links 2021 Haobsh

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 02:58:14 GMT

A Grisly Crime: Recap of the Pierre Haobsh Trial: How the Triple-Murder Case Played Out Leading to the Guilty Verdict | December 1, 2021 | Santa Barbara Independent | Ryan P. Cruz
Triple-Murder Suspect Pierre Haobsh Gives His Account of Days Leading to Han Family Murders; Defendant describes his involvement with multiple companies and his belief that the U.S. Department of Energy was targeting him | November 23, 2021 | Noozhawk | Serena Guentz
Haobsh Spins a Story on the Stand: Accused of Triple Murder, Alleged Killer Gives His Version of the Evidence | November 23, 2021 | Santa Barbara Independent | Jean Yamamura & Nick Welsh
Triple-Murder Suspect Pierre Haobsh Starts Testifying in Own Defense During Santa Barbara Trial: He faces murder charges in the 2016 killings of Goleta-area Dr. Weidong 'Henry' Han, Huijie 'Jennie' Yu and their daughter, Emily | November 22, 2021 | Noozhawk | Serena Guentz
Defense Team Raises Doubts in Case Against Accused Han Family Killer: Pierre Haobsh's Attorneys Question Reliability of Cell Phone Data Records | November 19, 2021 | Santa Barbara Independent | Ryan P. Cruz & Jun Starkey
Triple-Murder Trial for Pierre Haobsh Continues with Defense Witnesses | November 18, 2021 | Noozhawk | Serena Guentz
Review of Suspect's Computer Search History May Implicate Him in Triple Homicide | November 17, 2021 | Vanguard | Mairead Perez
Computer Analyst Provides Forensic Evidence in Triple Murder Case | November 16, 2021 | Vanguard | Joshua Cenzano
Trial for Triple-Murder Suspect Pierre Haobsh Hears Testimony From Expert Witness: Lead investigator says the web history on Haobsh's laptop included a search for 'can 22lr hollow point penetrate the skull' | November 12, 2021 | Noozhawk | Serena Guentz
Grim Friday Hearing in Haobsh Trial; Photos Displayed of Triple Murder Victims as Evidence Unfolds | November 5, 2021 | Santa Barbara Independent | Jean Yamamura
Triple-Murder Trial for Pierre Haobsh Continues with Testimony From Sheriff's Personnel: Segments of Detective Jeff McDaniel's four-hour interrogation with the suspect, accused of killing the Han family in 2016, also a shown in court | November 5, 2021 | Noozhawk | Serena Guentz
Inside the Interrogation Room with Accused Killer Pierre Haobsh; Witness Testimony Continued Thursday in Han Family Triple Murder Case | November 4, 2021 | Santa Barbara Independent | Ryan P. Cruz
Witness Testimony Begins in Han Family Triple Murder Case: Prosecutors Lay the Foundation for Arguments Against Alleged Murderer Pierre Haobsh | October 29, 2021 | Santa Barbara Independent | Serena Guentz
Triple-Murder Trial Starts for Pierre Haobsh, Accused of 2016 Slayings of Han Family | October 28, 2021 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
P ublic Defender Objects to Late Trial Video Evidence, Suggesting It Was Racist and Offensive | September 1, 2021 | Vanguard | Carson Eschen
Santa Barbara DA Drops Bid for Death Penalty in Han Family Murder Case: In Exchange, Triple Homicide Defendant Agrees to Trial by Judge Instead of Jury | August 13, 2021 | Santa Barbara Independent | Nick Welsh
Triple-Murder Suspect Pierre Haobsh Waives Right to Jury Trial, Will Have Case Heard in a Bench Trial: Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office drops intention to seek death penalty in the case, attorneys said Thursday | August 12, 2021 | Noozhawk | Brooke Holland
Public Defender Argues Defendant Should Be Allowed to Possess Discovery During Trial; District Attorney Disagrees, Citing Safety Concern | August 12, 2021 | Vanguard | Michelle Lagos
Defendant Waive Rights, Accepts Plea Deal, Pleads No Contest to Charges | August 8, 2021 | Vanguard | Lauren Smith
Triple-Murder Suspect Pierre Haobsh Expected to Waive Right to Jury Trial, Defense Says: Attorneys make a brief appearance as they work toward a final agreement for a bench trial in the deaths of Dr. Henry Han, his wife and child | July 22, 2021 | Noozhawk | Brooke Holland
Santa Barbara County judge approves motion to continue MS-13 trial May 3 | January 8, 2021 | Santa Maria Times | Dave Minsky

Article Links 2020 Haobsh & BLM

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 02:55:48 GMT

Attorneys Discuss Jury Selection for Man Charged With Murdering Dr. Henry Han and Family | October 28, 2020 | Noozhawk | Brooke Holland
Public Defenders Set Plan for One-on-One Virtual Meeting with Triple-Murder Suspect Pierre Haobsh | August 12, 2020 | Noozhawk | Brooke Holland
Court Hearing Held for Pierre Haobsh, Suspect in 2016 Murders of Dr. Henry Han and Family: His attorneys say accessibility issues are hindering efforts to schedule a trial; the case is scheduled to return to court next month | July 29, 2020 | Noozhawk | Brooke Holland
Santa Barbara Public Defenders Demand Civil Justice in Black Lives Matter Demonstration | June 8, 2020 | News Channel 12-3-11 | Scott Sheahen
Public Defenders Make a Stand for Black Lives | June 8, 2020 | Santa Barbara Independent | Jean Yamamura
MS-13 judge to consider protecting juror identities | February 14, 2020 | Santa Maria Times | Dave Minsky

Article Links 2019 Haobsh

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 02:53:24 GMT

Pierre Haobsh's Triple-Murder Trial in Han Family Deaths Pushed to 2020 | March 18, 2019 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
News Commentary: Death Penalty Shouts and Whispers: Governor's Reprieve Has Little Effect in Santa Barbara | March 17, 2019 | Santa Barbara Independent | Nick Welsh

Article Links 2018 Haobsh, Holzer, Byers, Etc.

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 02:50:45 GMT

Trial Determining if Man Accused of Rape Spends Ten Years or Life in Prison | December 19, 2018 | Santa Barbara Independent | Nick Welsh
Trial Starts in Homeless Woman Rape Case | December 5, 2018 | Santa Barbara Independent | Nick Welsh
Lompoc Releases Triage Center Stats | October 12, 2018 | Santa Barbara Independent | Erika Carlos
Lompoc Riverbed Evictees' Triage Center to Close | October 6, 2018 | Santa Barbara Independent | Erika Carlos
No Trial Date Set Yet for Suspect in 2016 Murders of Dr. Henry Han and Family: Pierre Haobsh facing 1st-degree murder charges in killings of Santa Barbara herbal doctor, his wife and daughter, but trial not expected before mid-2019 | September 23, 2018 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Mental Illness and Criminal Justice in Santa Barbara County: Who Is Crazy and Who Is Sane in the Jails and Courts and on the Streets | September 13, 2018 | Santa Barbara Independent | Nick Welsh
Holzer's Public Defender weighs in on mental health issues after sentencing | August 25, 2018 | News Channel 12-3-11 | News Channel 3-12
Juana Holzer Testifies Against Ex-Husband: Claims He is Not Mentally Ill | June 21, 2018 | Santa Barbara Independent | Nick Welsh
Testimony Reveals Nicolas Holzer Spoke of Killing Family Months Before Stabbing Them to Death: Goleta man's sister and brother take the witness stand in sanity phase of his trial for murdering parents and 2 sons in 2014 | June 20, 2018 | Noozhawk | Tom Bolton
Ex-Wife Testifies for Prosecution in Nicolas Holzer's Quadruple-Murder Trial: Attorneys question Juanita Holzer, the mother of Sebastian and Vincent, who were stabbed to death by their father in 2014 | June 19, 2018 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
A Tough Day for Prosecution in Holzer Case; Expert Witness Struggled During Cross Examination | June 14, 2018 | Santa Barbara Independent | Nick Welsh
Child Custody Evaluator Testifies in Sanity Phase of Nicolas Holzer's Mass Murder Trial | June 10, 2018 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Did Nicolas Holzer Know Right From Wrong? Judge Hill Considers Killer's Sanity | June 7, 2018 | Santa Barbara Independent | Nick Welsh
Psychiatrists, Santa Barbara Jail Staff Testify During Quadruple-Murder Trial: Nicolas Holzer's mental state at the time he killed his parents and 2 sons is focus of 'sanity phase' of his trial | June 5, 2018 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Extent of Defendant's Mental Illness Is Focus of Sanity Phase in Quadruple Murder Trial; Forensic Psychologist Testifies That Nicolas Holzer, who killed his parents and 2 sons in 2014, suffers from 'schizoaffective disorder' | May 30, 2018 | Noozhawk | Tom Bolton
Is Nicolas Holzer Sane Enough to Be Found Guilty of Murder? Trial Start May 30 in Santa Barbara Superior Court | May 24, 2018 | Santa Barbara Independent | Nick Welsh
Judge Finds Goleta-Area Man Guilty of Killing His Parents, 2 Sons: Nicolas Holzer, 48, was accused of 2014 slayings; criminal trial's sanity phase will begin later this month | May 21, 2018 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Trial Underway for Nicolas Holzer, Accused of Stabbing Deaths Of His Parents and Two Sons | May 17, 2018 | KCLU | KCLU Staff
Details Emerge as Trial Begins for Goleta-Area Man Accused of Killing Parents, 2 Sons: Victims all suffered multiple stab wounds allegedly inflicted by Nicolas Holzer; detectives struggle to understand motive | May 16 2018 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Defense Waives Jury for Quadruple-Murder Criminal Trail in Santa Barbara Court: Case against Nicolas Holzer, accused of slaying his parents and 2 sons in 2014, will be decided by Judge Brian Hill | May 9, 2018 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
May Jury Trial Set for Goleta-Area Man Accused of Killing His Parents, 2 Sons | April 30, 2018 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Han Family Murder Case Continued to July in Santa Barbara Superior Court | April 13, 2018 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli

Article Links 2017 Haobsh, Oliver, Blackmon, Etc.

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 02:46:15 GMT

Suspect in Triple-Murder Case Pleads Not Guilty, Santa Barbara Judge Issues Gag Order | September 19, 2017 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
DA Seeks Death Penalty in Triple Han Homicide: Accused Killer Wants to Represent Himself | September 8, 2017 | Santa Barbara Independent | Nick Welsh
Prosecutors to Seek Death Penalty for Pierre Haobsh in Han Family Murders: District Attorney Joyce Dudley makes announcement in court; defendant also apparently has expressed desire to represent himself | September 8, 2017 | Noozhawk | Tom Bolton
DA seeking death penalty against Goleta triple-murder suspect | September 8, 2017 | YouTube | KSBY News
Haobsh Death-Penalty Decision Delayed: It Would Be DA Dudley's First Death-Penalty Case | August 31, 2017 | Santa Barbara Independent | Nick Welsh
DA Still Deciding Whether to Seek Death Penalty in Han Family Murders | August 29, 2017 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Quadruple-Murder Case Pushed to September Trial in Santa Barbara Superior Court; Nicolas Holzer is accused of slaying his parents and two sons in 2014 in their home near Goleta | August 4, 2017 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli

Who Murdered Henry Han and His Family? Prosecutors Present Evidence at the Preliminary Hearing | June 14, 2017 | Santa Barbara Independent | Nick Welsh
Couple charged in San Juan murder case enter pleas | June 7, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim
Man Pleads Not Guilty in Orcutt Homicide; Wife Pleads No Contest to Accessory Charge | June 7, 2017 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Lompoc Case Example For Treating Mental Illness, Defense Attorney Says: 20-year-old takes plea deal after February 2015 incident that culminated with him being shot by the police | June 5, 2017 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Court Case Continued for Alleged DUI Driver In Orcutt Rollover Crash That Killed 2 Women | June 5, 2017 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Han Murder Trial Preliminary Hearing Nears Conclusion | June 3, 2017 | Santa Barbara Independent | Sabrina McGraw
Pierre Haobsh to Stand Trial on Murder Charges in Han Family Triple Homicide Case: Defendant will be arraigned on June 23 on charges he killed Santa Barbara physician and his family | June 2, 2017 | Noozhawk | Sam Goldman
Vehicle Holds Trove of Evidence in Han Family Triple-Murder Case: Search of suspect Pierre Haobsh's red Lexus turned up alleged murder weapons and several items belonging to victims, including cell phones | June 1, 2017 | Noozhawk | Tom Bolton
Preliminary hearing on Han murder case reveals new details in brutal killings | June 1, 2017 | News Channel 12-3-11 | News Channel 3-12
Man charged in murder case arraigned after nearly a decade | June 1, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim
Preliminary Hearing Offers View Into Santa Barbara Triple Homicide Case: Pierre Haobsh, 27, is facing first-degree murder charges in slayings of Santa Barbara doctor and his family | May 31, 2017 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Victim Speaks Out During Man’s Sentencing Hearing for Child Molestation | April 27, 2017 | Noozhaw k | Janene Scully
Santa Maria man convicted of child sex abuse charges sentenced to probation | April 27, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim
Case Continued For Driver Charged With Murder in Alleged DUI Crash | April 17, 2017 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Summer Trial Expected for Goleta Man Accused of Murdering 4 Family Members | April 4, 2017 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Trial to begin this summer for alleged West Park member charged with murder | March 8, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim
Cameron Oliver arraigned on murder charges in drunk driving crash | March 8, 2017 | News Channel 12-3-11 | News Channel 3-12
Former Santa Maria basketball coach sentenced in child molestation case | March 7, 2017 | San Luis Obispo Tribune | Janene Scully
Preliminary Hearing Set for Suspect in Santa-Barbara-Area Triple Homicide Case | March 7, 2017 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Blackmon released from jail, must register as a sex offender | March 6, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | April Charlton
Former Santa Maria Valley Basketball Coach Sentenced in Child Molestation Case: Ramoan Blackmon receives five years probation and must register as a sex offender | March 6, 2017 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Bail Set at $2 Million for Suspect in Orcutt Crash That Killed 2 Women: Cameron Oliver, 25, of Santa Maria is facing murder, other charges in Feb. 6 accident | March 6, 2017 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Cameron Oliver enters not guilty pleas in deadly rollover | March 6, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | April Charlton
Two charged in Castaneira-Asuncion homicide case plead not guilty | March 2, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim
Santa Maria man charged with murder in DUI crash appears in court | February 28, 2017 | San Luis Obispo Tribune | Janene Scully
Arraignment Hearing Continued for Driver Charged with Murder in Orcutt DUI Crash | February 27, 2017 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Santa Maria man facing murder charges for deadly crash appears in court | February 27, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | April Charlton
Judge orders alleged West Park gang member to answer in PVHS student murder case | February 23, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim
Defendant Held To Answer to Murder Charges in Fatal Santa Maria Stabbing | February 23, 2017 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Judge yet to decide on request by prosecution to shave defendant's head | February 9, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim
Santa Maria Valley Coach Takes Plea Deal in Child-Molestation Case | February 7, 2017 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Former Santa Maria basketball coach, accused of lewd act with a minor, takes plea deal: Ramoan Blackmon must now register as a sex offender | February 6, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | April Charlton
Trial delay expected for coach charged with lewd acts | February 2, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim
Lompoc murder suspect expected to plead not guilty by reason of insanity | January 26, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim
Trial date set for coach charged with lewd acts | January 17, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | Staff Report
Trial Date Set For Santa Maria Valley Basketball Coach Accused of Child Molestation | January 17, 2017 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Accused Child Molester's Accuser Recants Story in Court | January 4, 2017 | Santa Maria Sun | David Minsky
Former basketball coach pleads not guilty, denies special allegations | January 3, 2017 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim

Article Links 2016 Haobsh, Solis, Blackmon, Etc.

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 02:42:45 GMT

What Were Noozhawk's 16 Most-Read Stories of 2016?: Carnage, killings, wildfires and court cases captivated readers during a tumultuous year | December 30, 2016 | Noozhawk | Tom Bolton and Giana Magnoli
Man Gets Seven Years in Domestic Violence Case | December 21, 2016 | Santa Barbara Independent | Kelsey Brugger
Santa Maria youth basketball coach to face trial on molestation charges | December 20, 2016 | San Luis Obispo Tribune | Janene Scully
Santa Maria Youth Basketball Coach Will Face Trial on Molestation Charges | December 19, 2016 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Tentative April Trial Date Set for Goleta-Area Quadruple Murder Case: Nicolas Holzer has entered an insanity plea to charges he murdered his parents and two sons in August of 2014 | December 15, 2016 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Han family murder suspect sent letter to DA after alleged crimes | December 6, 2016 | News Channel 12-3-11 | News Channel 3-12
Basketball coach charged with lewd acts pleads not guilty | December 5, 2016 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim
Preliminary Hearing Date Delayed for Santa Barbara-Area Triple-Murder Suspect | November 15, 2016 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Han Family Murder Suspect Appears Appears in Santa Barbara Court Tuesday | August 9, 2016 | News Channel 12-3-11 | News Channel 3-12
Hearing Delayed for Suspect in Han Family Triple Murder Case | August 9, 2016 | Noozhawk | Brooke Holland
Former youth pastor charged with sex abuse sentenced to 8 years | July 6, 2016 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim
Haobsh Claims Innocence in Han Family Murders: Not Guilty Plea Pushes Case Forward | May 5, 2016 | Santa Barbara Independent | Lena Garcia
Triple-Murder Suspect Pleads Not Guilty in Santa Barbara Superior Court | May 5, 2016 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Operation Matador defendants will wait to set preliminary hearing: Suspects linked to MS-13 will return to court in July | April 29, 2016 | Santa Maria Times | Gina Kim
Attorneys Subpoena Mental-Health Records in Goleta-Area Quadruple Murder Case: Nicolas Holzer has entered an insanity plea for killing of his parents and 2 children in 2014 | April 26, 2016 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Arraignment for SM man accused of sex abuse continued | April 25, 2016 | Santa Maria Times | April Charlton
Haobsh Denied Access to Public Defender; Attorney Not Allowed in County Jail, Calls Block "Unprecedented" | April 14, 2016 | Santa Barbara Independent | Lena Garcia
Pierre Haobsh Makes Second Court Appearance | April 13, 2016 | YouTube | News Channel 3-12
Arraignment Delayed Again For Triple-A Suspect Pierre Haobsh: Man accused of killing Dr. Weidong "Henry" Han, his wife and daughter ordered to return to Santa Barbara Superior Court on May 5 | April 12, 2016 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Inside the Han Family Murders: The Investigation, and Legacy of Dr. Henry Han | March 30, 2016 | Santa Barbara Independent | Lena Garcia
Triple-Homicide Suspect Appears in Court to Face First-Degree Murder Charges: Pierre Haobsh is also accused of special allegations that could lead to death penalty in slayings of 3 Han family members | March 28, 2016 | Noozhawk | Sam Goldman
MS-13 Gang Arraignment | March 18, 2016 | YouTube | Santa Maria Times

Article Links 2015 Solis, Holzer, Martinez, Blackmon, White, Etc.

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 02:38:18 GMT

Defendants In Marilyn Pharis's Death Make Brief Court Appearance | November 19, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Goleta-Area Man Accused of Killing His Family Enters Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity | October 21, 2015 | Noozhawk | Lara Cooper
Arraignment Delayed for Former Hancock College Basketball Players Charged With Murder | October 19, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
At a Glance: Santa Maria: Arraignment continued again in Lompoc murder case | September 30, 2015 | Lompoc Record
Men accused in Marilyn Pharis attack in court, case continued: New attorney on board as Public Defender's Office prepares for potential death penalty defense | September 17, 2015 | Santa Ynes Valley News | Kyle Harding
Men accused in Marilyn Pharis attack in court, case continued: New attorney on board as Public Defender's Office prepares for potential death penalty defense | September 17, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Kyle Harding
Psychiatric Search Narrows in Holzer Case: Five Forensic Experts Considered to Perform Evaluation | September 16, 2015 | Santa Barbara Independent | Kelsey Knorp
Prosecution in Lompoc murder case focuses on social media activity | September 1, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Kenny Lindberg
Inept Inmate Care by Corizon? Supervisors Must Decide Path for County Inmates' Health | August 20, 2015 | Santa Barbara Independent | Kelsey Brugger
Defense continues cross-examination of boy, 14 | August 20, 2015 | Santa Barbara Times | Kenny Lindberg
Man Accused of Murdering Family May Enter Insanity Plea in Santa Barbara Court | August 11, 2015 | Noozhawk | Lara Cooper
Last U-Haul defendant sentenced | August 3, 2015 | Santa Ynez Valley News | Ryah Cooley
Last U-Haul defendant sentenced | August 3, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Ryah Cooley
Man accused of ordering murder from behind bars appears in court: Three others enter not-guilty pleas, will proceed to trial | July 21, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Kyle Harding
Judge Rules Former Allan Hancock College Basketball Players to Be Tried on Murder, Other Charges | June 24, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Preliminary Hearing Begins for Former Hancock College Basketball Players Charged with Murder: Ali Mohammed and Lavell White are accused of the fatal shooting of a 23-year-0ld man in Santa Maria during an alleged drug deal | June 23, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Preliminary hearing set in robbery and carjacking case | May 27, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Kyle Harding
Five Men Sentenced to Life in Prison Without Parole for Torture-Murder of Anthony Ibarra: Judge rules on numerous motions during the hearing, during which family members of Ibarra speak out about 'the nightmare that will never end | May 22, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Trio Held to Answer on Charges Related to Guadalupe Homicide | May 16, 2015 | Lompoc Record | Kyle Harding
State Prison Inmate Accused of Orchestrating Murder of Santa Maria Man: Judge rules three other defendants should stand trial in the shooting of Javier Limon | May 15, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
5 of 6 Defendants Found Guilty of First Degree Murder in U-Haul Trial: Sixth defendant pleads to kidnapping after mistrial declared | April 7, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Kyle Harding
5 of 6 Defendants Found Guilty of First Degree Murder in U-Haul Trial: Sixth defendant pleads to kidnapping after mistrial declared | April 7, 2015 | Santa Ynez Valley News | Kyle Harding
5 Men Found Guilty in Santa Maria Torture-Murder Case: Jury in Ibarra case returns guilty verdicts against five of the six defendants | April 7, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
U-Haul juror dismissed, deliberations start over | March 31, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Kyle Harding
Jury Begins Deliberating in Santa Maria Torture-Murder Trial | March 24, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
U-Haul closing arguments continue | March 20, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Kyle Harding
U-Haul defense casts doubt on witness credibility | March 19, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Kyle Harding
County Lines: Santa Maria: U-Haul defense casts doubt on witness credibility | March 19, 2015 | Santa Maria Times
No hearing yet for Hancock College basketball players | March 16, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Staff Report
Sentencing Hearing an Explosive Ending to Santa Barbara County's First Human Trafficking Trial: Brannon Lawrence Pitcher, found guilty by a jury of prostituting a teen girl, is kicked out of the courtroom for shouting at the judge | March 13, 2015 | Noozhawk | Lara Cooper
Second Defendant Testifies in Ibarra Murder Trial | March 13, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Second U-Haul Defendant Testifies, Counters Allegations | March 12, 2015 | Lompoc Record | Kyle Harding
Sentencing Delayed in Human Trafficking Case | March 8, 2015 | Santa Barbara Independent | Colleen Flaherty
Cameron Oliver Arraigned on Murder Charges is Drunk Driving Crash | March 8, 201 5 | News Channel 12-3-11 | News Channel 3-12
Week 8: Santa Maria Ibarra Murder Trial | March 7, 2015 | New Channel 12-3-11 | News Channel 3-12
Defendant testifies he was not present when Anthony Ibarra died | March 6, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Kyle Harding
U-Haul Defendant Takes the Stand | March 5, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Kyle Harding
Defendant Takes Witness Stand in Own Defense in Ibarra Murder Trial: Anthony "AJ" Solis denies gang membership during testimony | March 5, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Defense Expert Testifies About Phrase 'Gang Associate' During Ibarra Murder Trial | March 3, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Prosecution Rests in Santa Maria Trial of Six Defendants Charged in Ibarra Murder: Defense attorneys ask the judge to acquit their clients, accused of the gang-related torture-slaying of Anthony Ibarra in March 2013 | February 27, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
U-Haul defense continues cross-examination of SMPD gang detective | February 26, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Kyle Harding
U-Haul defense attorneys question SMPD detective: Prosecutor, detective paint picture of local gang violence | February 24, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Brian Bullock
Week 7: Santa Maria Ibarra Murder Trial | February 23, 2015 | News Channel 12-3-11 | News Channel 3-12
Police Detective's Testimony in Ibarra Murder Trial Focuses on Gang Culture: The Santa Maria Court case with six defendants enters its seventh week | February 23, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
No hearing date yet for Hancock College basketball players | February 23, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Staff Report
Man Accused of Killing His Parents, Sons in Home Near Goleta Enters Not-Guilty Plea: Nicolas Holzer appears in court to respond to a grand jury indictment charging him with four counts of murder | February 11, 2015 | Noozhawk | Lara Cooper
Police Officers Take the Stand in Multiple-Defendant Ibarra Murder Trial: Testimony centers on gang culture, cell phone records and witnesses' statements to detectives | February 9, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Hancock College basketball players enter not guilty pleas in court | February 3, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
DA calls forensic pathologist to the stand in U-Haul murder trial | January 26, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Witness in U-Haul Murder Challenged | January 16, 2015 | YouTube | News Channel 3-12
Judge clears challenge against U-Haul prosecutor: District attorney testifies during trial | January 15, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Judge in Murder Trial Rejects Challenge Regarding Witness' Drug Use: Defense attorneys contend prosecutors failed to divulge meth use by woman who testified before grand jury | January 15, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Prosecutor: Evidence to Show Six Defendants' Roles in Gang Torture-Murder: Testimony to begin Tuesday in case against Ramon Maldonado and 5 other men accused in gang-related crimes in Santa Maria | January 12, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Jury hears opening statements in U-Haul murder trial | January 12, 2015 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Jury hears opening statements in U-Haul murder trial | January 12, 2015 | Lompoc Record | Rebecca Howes
Jury Finalized for Trial in Ibarra Gang Torture-Murder Case | January 9, 2015 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully

Article Links 2014 Solis, Holzer, Maguire, Godinez, Kitt, Ect.

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 02:22:05 GMT

Seven indicted by grand jury in gang extortion case in court | December 22, 2014 | Lompoc Record | Rebecca Howes
Seven indicted by grand jury in gang extortion case in court | December 22, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
U-Haul jury to remain unseated through Christmas holiday: Sentencing for U-Haul defendant who took plea postponed | December 19, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Month-long stay denied in Guadalupe homicide case | December 16, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Staff Report
Second stay granted in Guadalupe homicide case after denial issued by appellate division court | December 12, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Arraignment Delayed Again for Goleta Man Accused of Killing His Parents and Children | December 2, 2014 | Noozhawk | Gina Potthoff
Death penalty decision out of court's hands in U-Haul case, judge says | November 21, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Voir dire begins in U-Haul trial despite concerns | November 20, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Jury commission to address defense concerns over low turnout of potential jurors in U-Haul trial | November 18, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Majority of 700 summoned absent on the first day of U-Haul trial: Jury selection continuing today at Fairpark | November 17, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Lompoc woman on the lam: Indicted by grand jury in gang extortion ca se | November 10, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Stay granted in Guadalupe homicide case: Court of Appeals to review transcripts | November 7, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Motions heard in U-Haul case as trial looms | November 7, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Grand jury indicts seven in gang extortion case | November 5, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Not guilty pleas entered, preliminary hearing set in Guadalupe homicide case | October 31, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Trial date set in bank robbery, carjacking case | October 29, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Staff Reports
3 charged in connection in Guadalupe homicide appear in court: Motion filed by defense to compel discovery | October 27, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Quadruple-Murder Arraignment Delayed Until December: Nicolas Holzer is accused of slaying his parents and two sons in August | October 28, 2014 | Noozhawk | Lara Cooper
Grand Jury Indicts Goleta Man Accused of Killing Four Family Members: Nicolas Holzer faces four counts of murder in the August stabbing deaths of his parents and two sons | October 14, 2014 | Noozhawk | Lara Cooper
Santa Maria Judge Rejects Change of Venue Motion in U-Haul Murder Case | October 10, 2014 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
Second Change of Venue Motion Denied in U-Haul Murder Case | October 10, 2014 | Lompoc Recor d | Rebecca Howes
Judge orders temporary protective order for discovery in gang conspiracy case | October 8, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Holzer Pleads Not Guilty: Public Defender Ponders Insanity Plea | September 18, 2014 | Santa Barbara Independent | Kelsey Brugger
Murder Defendant Nicolas Holzer Appears in Court | September 17, 2014 | YouTube | News Channel 3-12
Quadruple Murder Defendant Nicolas Holzer Appears in Court | September 16, 2014 | News Channel 12-3-11
Goleta Man Accused of Killing Four Family Members Pleads Not Guilty: Nicolas Holzer's attorney says she reserved the right to later enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity | September 16, 2014 | Noozhawk | Lara Cooper
Holzer Case on Hold: Arraignment Delayed as a New Judge is Assigned | September 11, 2014 | Santa Barbara Independent | Kelsey Brugger
Arraignment Postponed for Goleta Man Accused of Killing Four Family Members: The public defender asks for a different judge in the case against Nicolas Holzer, whose parents whose parents and sons were found stabbed to death | September 9, 2014 | Noozhawk | Lara Cooper
Holzer's Court Case Continued Until Next Week | September 9, 2014 | YouTube | Victoria Sanchez
Mass-Murder Suspect Nicolas Due Back in Court for Arraignment Tuesday | September 7, 2014 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Law experts weigh in on costs to retry local gang leader | September 5, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Paperwork Snafu Forces Judge to Postpone Hearing in Santa Maria Slaying Case | September 3, 2014 | Noozhawk | Janene Scully
New Defense Attorney Assigned to Bank Robbery, Carjacking Case | August 27, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Staff Reports
Court Records Shed Light on Holzer Murders: Nicolas and Ex-Wife Juana Exchanged Accusations of Sexual Abuse Against Sons | August 21, 2014 | Santa Barbara Independent | Kelsey Brugger
U-Haul murder case defendant granted reappointment of counsel | August 16, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
U-Haul murder case defendant granted reappointment of counsel | August 16, 2014 | Lompoc Record | Rebecca Howes
Holzer Officially Charged with Murders, Appears in Court: DA Joyce Dudley Undecided on Whether to Pursue Death Penalty | August 14, 2014 | Santa Barbara Independent | Lyz Hoffman
Quadruple Murder Suspect in Court | August 14, 2014 | YouTube | News Channel 3-12
Mass Murder Suspect Makes First Court Appearance in Fatal Stabbing of Family: Nicolas Holzer, accused of killing parents, sons at home near Goleta, does not enter a plea | August 13, 2014 | Noozhawk | Lara Cooper
Isla Vista Man Accused of Rape Appears in Court | June 26, 2014 | Santa Barbara Independent | Kelsey Brugger
Trial in Ibarra Murder-Torture Case Delayed Until November | March 18,2014 | Noozhawk | Gina Potthoff
U-Haul murder trial delayed until November: Defendant granted right to represent himself | March 15, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Judge: Godinez defense cold case 'dragging': Prosecutor says he's ready to proceed after many delays | February 14, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Judge Denies Change of Venue in Ibarra Case: Superior Court Judge Rick Brown denied a motion to move the high-profile Anthony Ibarra murder case out of Santa Maria, and rejected three other defense motions Friday afternoon at Santa Barbara County Juvenile Court | February 8, 2014 | NBC News | Santa Maria Times
Judge denies change of venue in Ibarra case: Solis, eight others charged in March U-Haul murder case | February 8, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Rebecca Howes
Change of venue denied in massive Ibarra murder case | February 7, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | Staff Report
Judge Denies Request to Relocate Ibarra Murder Trial | February 7, 2014 | Noozhawk | Gina Potthoff
Man Sentenced to Nine Years for DUI Injury Collision: Martin Maguire Struck Canadian Couple on Motorcycle Last May, Severing Their Legs | February 6, 2014 | Santa Barbara Independent | Kelsey Brugger
Trial in Santa Maria cold case murder postponed for month: Godinez faces charge in '05 shooting death | January 14, 2014 | Santa Maria Times | April Charlton

Article links 2013 Alvarez Leon, Solis, Maguire & Nicolas

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 02:12:50 GMT

Change of venue motion filed in U-Haul murder case: Trial scheduled to begin in mid-May | December 15, 2013 | Lompoc Record | April Charlton
Change of venue motion filed in U-Haul murder case: Trial scheduled to begin in mid-May | December 14, 2013 | Santa Maria Times | April Charlton
Dates of alleged sexual abuse contested | November 20, 2013 | Santa Maria Times | April Charlton
Prosecutor calls man a child rapist in trial finish: Nicolas Jr. faces counts of alleged abuse of goddaughters | November 19, 2013 | Santa Maria Times | April Charlton
Accused child molester testifies story isn't believable | November 16, 2013 | Santa Maria Times | April Charlton
Man accused of sexual abuse denies committing crimes: Nicolas testifies at his trial Thursday | November 13, 2013 | Santa Maria Times | April Charlton
Montecito Man Pleads Guilty in Motorcycle Crash That Maimed Canadian Couple: Relatives say 51-year-0ld Martin 'Leo' Maguire, who faces up to 9 years in prison after plea in felony DUI, is 'truly remorseful' about collision | October 31, 2013 | Noozhawk | Lara Cooper
10 Murder Defendants Plead Not Guilty: Trial in Ibarra slaying to start in May | October 19, 2013 | Santa Maria Times | Brian Bullock
Judge Tosses Manslaughter Case Against Motorcyclists: Judge Jean Dandona rules prosecutors did not prove charges against Francisco "Alex" Rodriguez and Jonathan Alvarez Leon | July 3, 2013 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Charges in Fatal Motorcycle-Crash Trial | July 1, 2013 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Investigating Officer Testifies in Fatal Foothill Road Motorcycle Crash | June 28, 2013 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Trial Begins for Two Men Charged in Motorcycle Death | June 19, 2013 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Judge Refuses to Reduce Bail, Allow Release of Driver Who Struck Motorcyclists: Martin Maguire of Montecito faces felony DUI charges after a crash that left a Canadian couple critically injured | June 4, 2013 | Noozhawk | Lara Cooper
Trial Starts June 7 in Foothill Road Motorcycle Fatality: Francisco Rodriguez, 23, and Jonathan Alvarez-Leon 24 face manslaughter charges after allegedly racing with the victim | May 31, 2013 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Men Appear in Court to Face Charges in Fatal Motorcycle Crash | April 4, 2013 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Judge Orders Men to Stand Trial for Fatal Motorcycle Crash: Francisco Rodriguez, 23, and Jonathan Leon, 24, face vehicular manslaughter charges in death of Raul Ibarra | March 20, 2013 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Judge Raises Questions About Culpability in Fatal Motorcycle Crash: Francisco Rodriguez, 23, and Jonathan Leon, 24 are charged with manslaughter in Foothill Road crash that killed another rider | March 20, 2013 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli
Driver Recall Crash That Killed Local Motorcyclist | March 19, 2013 | Noozhawk | Giana Magnoli

Article links 2011 realignment

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 02:00:31 GMT

California prosecutors, public defenders grapple with 'realignment' | October 4, 2011 | KPCC LAist 89.3 FM | Julie Small
Inland counties prepare for surge of state parolees under California realignment | October 3, 2011 | KPCC LAist 89.3 FM | Steven Cuevas

Article links 2005 Weinhart

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 01:57:33 GMT

Animal Cruelty Jury Hears Keeper's Side | February 10, 2005 | Los Angeles Times | Susannah Rosenblatt
Photos a Key Part of Animal Abuse Trial Set to Start | January 24, 2005 | Los Angeles Times | Lance Pugmire

Article links 2023 Mock Trial

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 01:48:44 GMT

Dos Pueblos High Wins County's 2023 Mock Trial Competition: Winning team will compete at Mock Trial State Finals in Los Angeles later this month | March 4, 2023 | Noozhawk | Camilla Barnwell
Verdict is in: Dos Pueblos High Wins County Mock Trial Competition: San Marcos High takes second; third and fourth go to Carpinteria High School and Laguna Blanca High, respectively | March 3, 2023 | Noozhawk | Camilla Barnwell
Dos Pueblos Mock Trial Students Coach Their Own Way to International Championship | June 23, 2023 | Noozhawk | Ed Zuchelli
Goleta's Dos Pueblos High School Places Second in California Mock Trial Finals: DP Senior Jacob Molina Name 'Outstanding Attorney' in Statewide Competition | March 21, 2023 | Santa Barbara Independent | Callie Fausey
Dos Pueblos High School Lands Second Place at Mock Trial State Finals with the Team's Defense Attorney Garnering Top Individual Award | March 20, 2023 | Santa Barbara Independent | Santa Barbara County Education Office
Dos Pueblos High Takes 2nd Place at Mock Trial State Finals: Senior Jacob Molina named outstanding attorney for his performance defending the fictional robbery and battery case | March 20, 2023 | Noozhawk | Camie Barnwell

UCSB Protests

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 04:04:42 GMT

John or Jane D. 24CR07427, on December 20, 2024 a search warrant to invade the Instagram accounts of protesters was quashed

This is the UCSB search warrant case. The UCSB Police Department got a search warrant to access the social media accounts related to campus protests. The Warrant wanted identifying information about anyone that even looked at the social media pages. Addison, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, fought against the warrant and won. The warrant was quashed.

This is a case where Addison fought off police overreach on behalf of the UCSB war on Palestine protesters. A group of students at UCSB protested the war on Palestine by conducting a long-term sit in, as students had done on university campuses across the country and throughout the world. During the protests a group of students entered a campus building, Girvetz Hall, and briefly occupied it. They set up tableaus of what education is like in Palestine by turning over desks, scattering debris about, and placing effigies of dead bodies. The UCSB Police Department got search warrants for the protester's social media accounts. Addison battled and got the search warrants quashed.

Potential Charges: Kidnapping (Penal Code § 207(a)), vandalism (Penal Code § 594(b)(1)), burglary (Penal Code § 459 2nd degree), conspiracy (Penal Code § 182(a)(1)), unlawful assembly (Penal Code § 408), wearing a mask while committing a crime (Penal Code § 185) and trespassing for the purpose of injuring property (Penal Code § 602(k)).
Exposure: Anyone who may have been charged as the UCSB police suggested in the search warrant would have been facing nine years four months in prison.
Outcome: The search warrant was quashed and the UCSB police were not given access to the protesters' social media

December 20, 2024. Addison got a call from John or Jane Doe (his client remained anonymous throughout the litigation, and was referred to in the pleadings as John or Jane Doe, the client remains anonymous) saying that he or she got notice from Meta, which owns Instagram, that they had been served with a search warrant for the protesters' two Instagram accounts, @ucsbliberatedzone and @saygenocideucsb. Meta had informed the holders of the Instagram accounts that unless they filed a motion to quash by the next day that they were going to turn the account information over to the UCSB Police.

The information that Meta would be turning over was the names of the people that set up the two accounts, the names of all the people that had posted on the two sites, the names of all the people that had commented on the two cites, the names of all the people that had "liked" a post on the either site, and the names of all the people that had merely looked at the either site.

Addison got a motion to quash filed by the next day. It was no small feat just figuring out who Meta's lawyers were. Then he got a call from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) saying that they wanted to join in the fight against the search warrant. They were willing to write an amicus brief. Addison's motion to quash was heard and the judge took it under submission. The courtroom was packed with protesters, who were perfectly appropriate in court. Addison argued the case, the ACLU attorney, Jake Snow, argued the case, the UCSB Police Department's lawyer argued the case as did the deputy district attorney (DDA) that approved the warrant. The judge told the attorneys to talk and see if they could agree on the scope of the warrant, she took the matter under submission, told the attorneys to file supplemental briefs, and scheduled another court date for her ruling. An agreement was not worked out and everyone returned for her ruling. She gave an indication that she was inclined to quash the warrant. The UCSB Police Department's lawyer argued the case again, but it was clear that the he had not persuaded the judge. Addison decided he was ahead and didn't offer any additional argument. Then the judge quashed the warrant.

Addison thought the UCSB Police Department would try to rewrite the warrant. He got assurances from Meta's attorneys that they would give him notice if they were served with another search warrant. So far that hasn't happened.

This is paragraph text. Click it or hit the Manage Text button to change the font, color, size, format, and more. To set up site-wide paragraph and title styles, go to Site Theme.

This is article has mistakes and Addison even emailed the author to ask her to correct them, but they weren't corrected. Addison's last name is misspelled. The article incorrectly says that Jennifer Steel was working with Addison. That is NOT the case, Jennifer Miller was one of the UCSB Police Department's attorneys.

Featured Article

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 02:37:33 GMT

The featured article is the latest notable article

or press release

The Haobsh Case

This is Christine being featured on 48 Hours

Watch the episode here: 48 Hours Season 38 Episode 8

The Florentino C.G. Case

Charges: Torture (Penal Code § 206), kidnapping (Penal Code § 207(a)), robbery (Penal Code § 211 First Degree), assault with weapon (Penal Code § 245(a)(1)) with great bodily injury (Penal Code § 12022.7(a)), dissuading a witness (Penal Code § 136.1(c)(1)), threatening a witness (Penal Code § 140), accessory after the fact (Penal Code § 32), and possession of drugs for sales (Health and Safety Code § 11378).
Exposure: Florentino was facing twenty-three years to life in prison.
Outcome: During the trial the case resolved, Florentino pled guilty to non-strike assault (Penal Code § 245(a)(4)), dissuading a witness (Penal Code § 136.1(c)(1)), and threatening a witness (Penal Code § 140), all other counts were dismissed, one of which, torture (Penal Code § 206), carried a mandatory life in prison sentence, as well as all the violent strike counts, his agreed upon sentence was eight years at fifty percent. He had credit for one year, so he will serve three years instead of possibly being sentenced to twenty-three years to life.

The Haobsh Case

The Murphy Case

Below is the press release that the three firms issued after the sentencing in the case

Charges: Human Trafficking (Penal Code § 236.1(c)(2)), pimping a minor (Penal Code § 266h(b)(2)), possession of child pornography (Penal Code § 311.11(a)), distributing child pornography (Penal Code § 311.2(b)) and lewd act with a minor (Penal Code § 288(c)(1)). The case was both overcharged and creatively charged. For example, the possession and distribution of child pornography charges are meant for pedophiles that collect and sell or trade child pornography. In this case the "child pornography" was photos that were used in internet "escort" advertisements, many of which were selfies taken by the complaining witness (what district attorneys call "victim"), Jazmin Doe, and given to Josh. The "distribution" was the placing of the advertisements, which the complaining witness testified that she did and sometimes Josh did them for her. Another example is the lewd act with a minor charge. This is usually charged under Penal Code § 261.5, the typical charge for when a young person in his or her twenties has sex with a high school age person. An element of Penal Code § 261.5 is that the adult either needs to know, or a reasonable person would have known that the minor was a minor. In this case Jazmin Doe in no way resembled a minor, there was no chance that the DDA was going to convince twelve jurors that a reasonable person would have known she was a minor. However lewd act with a minor is essentially a strict liability crime, which means that it doesn't matter if the person accused knew the person was a minor, or if a reasonable person would have known the person was a minor, all the DDA has to prove is that the person was a minor. That means that not only was Josh automatically guilty for having sex with Jazmin Doe even though no reasonable person would have thought she was a minor, it means that all of her tricks (prostitution customers) were also guilty of the same crime, even though, they, like Josh, could not have been in any way expected to know that she was minor based on the way she looked.
Exposure: Josh was facing seventeen years four months to life in prison.
Outcome: In order to be convicted of a violation of Penal Code § 236.1(c)(2), human trafficking by force, fear, violence or coercion, the jury had to make a finding that there was force, fear, violence or coercion. If the jury made that finding Josh was subject to a mandatory sentence of fifteen years to life in prison. The jury found that allegation not true, so by operation of law, Josh was only convicted of a lesser offense of Penal Code § 236.1(c)(1), which was a maximum of twelve year WITHOUT a life sentence. He was sentenced in total to fourteen years four months at fifty percent. He had two years credit so he will be home in five years instead of having a life sentence and hoping to be granted parole at a parole hearing every two years after serving eighty-five percent of seventeen years four months.

October 1, 2025. This was a long hard fought human trafficking jury trial that Addison won. Any time when the client is facing a life in prison sentence and is saved from a life in prison, that is an overwhelming victory. This was a three co-defendants, three juries trial that started on May 19, 2025 and ended on July 24, 2025 with a verdict that saved Josh from a life sentence. The accusation was that Josh and his co-defendants went to Nevada to get a prostitute to transport to California in order to sex traffic her around the state. In reality, as came out in court during the trial, the "victim" was an experienced prostitute that Josh met on a dating site. Josh and his co-defendants picked up the prostitute because she wanted to travel around with them. As they traveled the prostitute, who knew the "game" (the business of prostitution) in California well, would leave the group to work the "blade" (a place where street prostitutes walk to solicit customers) in whichever city they happened to be in. She also placed internet prostitution advertisements. Eventually Josh began helping the prostitute by giving her rides to her customers or staying nearby as "security." The prostitute was caught in a police sting when an undercover detective answered one of her internet prostitution advertisements.

Human trafficking has become the crime of the day for law enforcement. They don't have much interest in catching prostitutes, they want to catch pimps so they can be charged with human trafficking. When the prostitute was caught, what the detectives, including an FBI agent, were most interested in was finding out if she had a pimp and who was that person. Pimping as defined by California law is not what most people believe it is. The law casts a wide net because the definition is essentially if a person gains or is supported in any way by the proceeds of a prostitute's work, that person is a pimp. An example is a person, we'll call him Adam, has a friend that's a prostitute, we'll call her Betty, and Betty in any way uses her prostitution income to benefit Adam, he's a pimp. So if Adam knows that Betty went to work prostituting, and at the end of her work day, Betty says, "Hey let's go get a cup of coffee," and Adam says, "Sure, I'll join you for a coffee." Then when they get to Starbucks, Betty says, "Let me buy today, I had a good night, it's my treat," and Adam accepts a cup of coffee from her, he's now a pimp. He now has been supported in whole or in part by Betty's work as a prostitute and under California law is a pimp. That may sound extreme, but that's the law that district attorneys rely on to convict people that they accuse of being a pimp. Human trafficking also is not what people think it is. When most people hear "human trafficking" they think of someone being transported and held against his or her will and forced to work, and when people hear "sex trafficking," they think of someone being transported and held against his or her will and being forced into prostitution. The definition in California law is not even close to that.

The law is that if a person does as little as coerce a prostitute to work, that person is a human trafficker. So if Adam says to Betty, "You had better go out and work tonight or you're not going to be able to buy food and will go hungry," he is coercing her to engaged in prostitution and is a human sex trafficker. The context does matter, a jury could find that Adam meant, "You better go out and work tonight or you're not going to be able to buy food and will go hungry, and it's a terrible tragedy that this is your only means of survival, buy I guess you need to do what you need to do to survive, and I certainly don't want any proceeds from it," and possibly not find that Adam coerced Betty into working, but there's no guarantee, a jury could just as easily be convinced the Adam did coerce Betty into working. A jury could just as easily decide that what he meant was, "You had better go out and work tonight or you're not going to be able to buy food and will go hungry, and I'm not going to help you, you need to get out there and earn money and then buy me dinner when you get back," in which case Adam most certainly will be found to have coerced Betty. It may seem like an extreme example, but these are the kinds of arguments that deputy district attorneys make to juries. In some cases the punishment for human trafficking can be extreme. One type carries a maximum of twenty years in prison and another type carries a sentence of fifteen years to life in prison.

In Josh's case the jury found that he persuaded the prostitute, but did not use force or fear or coerce her. The difference in those those words was the difference between Josh getting a minimum sentence of fifteen years to life and more likely a seventeen years four months to life sentence. If Josh had gotten a seventeen years months to life sentence, he would have had to serve eighty-five percent of that sentence and then would have gotten parole hearing. If he was not released after the parole hearing he would then get parole hearings every two or five years until he was released or died in prison. The difference in the jury's findings regarding those words saved him from a life in prison sentence.

Josh did get what defense attorneys call the victory tax. The victory tax is when a jury saves a defendant from a life sentence and then the judge sentences to the maximum of everything that's left. This is a very common phenomenon. As a matter of fact, it's rare when after winning the life sentence counts or allegations that the judge does not impose the victory tax (although Steele & Voss have had some exceptions ( People v. Zavala RIF131949, People v. Angulo RIF126653 and People v. Lopez SB225068, all of whom, like Josh, had no prior record whatsoever). Josh did get the victory tax which meant a fourteen year four months sentence. However, because the life sentence allegation was won with the jury, that sentence is served at fifty percent, so that makes the sentence seven years two months, and he has two years credit, so in roughly five years he'll be home, and if he takes advantage of the programs that are offered in prison he could be home in less than three years.

That's a significantly better outcome than spending the rest of his life in prison. As said above, if the life sentence enhancement had been lost, Josh would have had to serve eighty-five percent of seventeen years four months and then start to get parole hearings either every two or five years and hope to win the parole hearing so he could go home.

This is the article from when Addison was on television after the sentencing. He told the reporter that it was an overwhelming defense victory for all three defendants. Josh and Tre were saved from a life sentence by the jury. Lynne was saved from a life sentence by the judge.

High School Mock Trial

Both Christine and Addison coach high school Mock Trial teams. Christine's team is extremely competitive and has been very successful. Her team has won the county championship that last four years in a row. They also compete in national and international invitational competitions like the one below, which they won.

This is a trial that Addison won. His client was accused of sexual battery in the jail. Tyler was clean and sober and didn't want to participate in drug use in his tank in the jail. The other inmates became suspicious of him because he wasn't using drugs with them. Eventually they formulated a plan to levy false allegations against him. The allegation were not believable because in the jail Tyler could not have done what he was accused of without being severely beaten. The jury found the allegations were not believable and found Tyler NOT guilty of the charges and the lesser included offenses.

The Tyler M. Case

The below story of Tyler being found NOT guilty of all charges is told with his permission,

he wants the world to know that the allegations against him were false allegations.

Charges: Two counts of Sexual Battery (Penal Code § 243.4(e)(1)) and two counts of a lesser included offense of simple battery (Penal Code § 242).
Exposure: Tyler was facing two years in the County Jail and at least ten years of sex offender registration.
Outcome: Tyler was found not guilty by the jury of all charges and all lesser included offenses.

August 8, 2025. Tyler was serving a sentence at the San Luis Obispo County Jail. He was housed in an eight man pod, also referred to as a tank, that at the time had five men in it. Tyler testified that in early June the tank boss, the inmate that was in charge of the tank, was released to attend a funeral. When he returned he smuggled in a large amount of methamphetamine and fentanyl. Tyler found himself in a difficult situation because he had been clean and sober since December and knew that if he didn't use drugs with the other men in the tank that he would be suspected of being a snitch. Over the next few days the other men became more and more suspicious of him. The tank boss demanded that he give up the password to his tablet so they could see if he was communicating with law enforcement on it. Even though they didn't find anything on his tablet, they weren't satisfied and continued to suspect him because he wasn't getting high with them.

The tension grew and grew in the tank until Tyler felt that he had no choice but to ask the correctional deputies (C.D.s) to "roll him up," which means to move him out of the tank and re-house him. The C.D.s weren't taking any action to move him, then late on June 14, 2025 during "pill call," a time when the inmates can leave their pods and go to the C.D.'s station to get their meds, Tyler went to the C.D.'s station and told them that he needed to get out of the pod immediately and told them why. However, one of the other men from his pod was in earshot and heard what he said to the C.D.s. Tyler told the C.D.s that it wouldn't be safe even for him to go back to the pod to roll up his property there. By the time the C.D.s got to the pod the tank boss had heard that Tyler had spilled the beans about the drug use in the pod. The men left in the pod had to flush their drugs and come up with a plan to counter what Tyler had told the C.D.s.

That plan was to levy false accusations and make a Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA, complaint. If they could distract the C.D.s with a PREA complaint, perhaps they wouldn't focus on the drug use in the tank. However, they didn't have enough time to really think their accusations through to make sure that they made sense. Letzer Salguero Paiz accused Tyler of grabbing his penis when he was in the shower, but the story he told didn't make any sense. He said that Tyler grabbed his penis while he, Tyler, was sitting on the toilet. Mr. Salguero Paiz didn't count on the Steele & Voss team getting a court order to photograph and measure the tank, which proved that there was absolutely no way that someone sitting on the toilet could reach someone in the shower. Mr. Salguero Paiz, then changed his story from he was in the shower to he was getting out of the shower reaching for a towel. However he didn't realize that with the new story he was still too far away for a person on the toilet to reach him. Finally, he changed his story again to say that Tyler wasn't on the toilet, but had been on the toilet and had stood up and walked toward him. When asked on cross-examination about the third story, he couldn't answer if Tyler was clothed hanging out on the toilet or bottomless as if using the toilet.

Mr. Salguero Paiz spun an additional story that Tyler was constantly exposing himself in the tank. When he was asked on cross-examination about Tyler's pubic grooming, which he would clearly be able to answer if Tyler was bottomless in front of the other men in the tank, Mr. Salguero Paiz said he couldn't answer the question. Another man that was in the tank, Robert Forsman, said that Tyler had gone into the shower and grabbed his buttocks. However again, the details were not well thought out. He said that Tyler was clothed when he went into the shower and grabbed him, but couldn't say whether or not Tyler's clothes got soaked in the very small jail shower. Both men admitted that allowing that allowing another person in jail to sexually batter them without immediately beating that person up would cause them to have a, "bitch jacket," which is a reputation in the jail, which would follow them to prison and back onto the streets, for being a coward, and that having a "bitch jacket" is very dangerous. Neither man could explain why they did not take action in order to not have a "bitch jacket."

The jury came back with NOT guilty verdicts for both counts of sexual battery and for both lesser included offenses of simple battery. Had Tyler been convicted of either sexual battery he would have had to register as a sex offender for at least ten years.

The Murphy Case

The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney puts out sensationalized press releases after securing convictions. In this case the press release implied that Addison's client and one of his co-defendants had been convicted as charged, when in fact the trial outcome was a tremendous victory for Addison's client and one of his co-defendants. They had both been saved from the possibility of spending the rest of their lives in prison. Addison's client, even if given the maximum sentence for the less serious charges for which he was convicted, is now only subject to a few more years of incarceration, which is of course a far cry from the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison. A legal intern at Steele & Voss created this more truthful announcement.

July 24, 2025. This was a long hard fought human trafficking jury trial that Addison won. Any time when the client is facing a life in prison sentence and is saved from a life in prison, that is an overwhelming victory. This was a three co-defendants, three juries trial that started on May 19, 2025 and ended on July 24, 2025 with a verdict that saved Josh from a life sentence. The accusation was that Josh and his co-defendants went to Nevada to get a prostitute to transport to California in order to sex traffic her around the state. In reality, as came out in court during the trial, the "victim" was an experienced prostitute that Josh met on a dating site. Josh and his co-defendants picked up the prostitute because she wanted to travel around with them. As they traveled the prostitute, who knew the "game" (the business of prostitution) in California well, would leave the group to work the "blade" (a place where street prostitutes walk to solicit customers) in whichever city they happened to be in. She also placed internet prostitution advertisements. Eventually Josh began helping the prostitute by giving her rides to her customers or staying nearby as "security." The prostitute was caught in a police sting when an undercover detective answered one of her internet prostitution advertisements.

The article below illustrates the biased reporting that resulted from the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney's press release. The article doesn't mention that for two of the defendants the outcome was a tremendous victory. They were both saved from serving life in prison sentences. It also implies that Joshua Murphy was in possession of a cache of child pornography, which is not true. Joshua had a copy of the sex advertisements that Jazmin Doe had used to get prostitution customers. The evidence presented at the trial by Jazmin Doe was that she placed online ads. The article fails to mention that Jazmin Doe testified that she held herself out to be twenty years old in the dating application where Joshua and she met, and that she told co-defendant Heather Hunt that she was nineteen years old. The article does not mention that Joshua testified that he believed that Jazmin Doe was twenty years old and that any reasonable person that saw the photos of Jazmin Doe at the time would have believed that she was twenty years old, if not older. The article also say that Jazmin Doe was "lured" from her home in Nevada, when in fact Jazmin Doe testified that she went with the defendants voluntarily.

The Sanchez Case

May 22, 2025. This was an extremely difficult resentencing that Christine did and won. This was a resentencing under a new law called AB600 or Penal Code section 1172.1. The state legislature wrote the law for prisoners to have an opportunity to have their sentences reheard. Unfortunately the courts have seized on one part of the law that allows judges to not hear frivolous requests for resentencing and use that deny hearing virtually all requests for resentencing. However Christine fought to get the case heard, but that was just the beginning of the fight.

The case was particularly difficult because of what happened with the original crime that sent her client to prison was far from sympathetic. Her client had engaged in a high speed chase and hit a grandmother who was pushing a baby in a stroller. He had been sentenced to nineteen years four months, however Judge Brian Hill told him to do everything he could in prison to better himself and that the laws are constantly changing. He in fact did do everything he could, he took every class he could, worked at anything he could, and stayed out of trouble. After battling just to get the case heard, Christine won the hearing and he was resentenced to fifteen years four months, which means that he'll home in a matter of months.

County Budget Television Interview

Christine and Addison are often asked by the press for their expert opinion on issues that impact the criminal justice system. In this television interview Addison was asked for his expert opinion regarding funding for the jail.

High School Mock Trial

This is Christine's high school Mock Trial team winning yet another competition.

The Haobsh Case

The UCSB Protesters Case

Potential Charges: Kidnapping (Penal Code § 207(a)), vandalism ( Penal Code § 594(b)(1)), burglary (Penal Code § 459 2nd degree), conspiracy (Penal Code § 182(a)(1)), unlawful assembly (Penal Code § 408), wearing a mask while committing a crime (Penal Code § 185) and trespassing for the purpose of injuring property (Penal Code § 602(k)).
Exposure: Anyone who may have been charged as the UCSB police suggested in the search warrant would have been facing nine years four months in prison.
Outcome: The search warrant was quashed and the UCSB police were not given access to the protesters' social media

High School Mock Trial

The Marquez Case

Charges: Voluntary Manslaughter (Penal Code § 192(a)) and gang activity (Penal Code § 186.22(a)).
Exposure: Miguel was facing 11 years and eight months in prison.
Outcome: After a post-conviction trial Miguel was acquitted of the voluntary manslaughter charge and only convicted of a non-strike assault (Penal Code § 245(a)(4)) and gang activity (Penal Code § 186.22(a)).

August 22, 2024. This was a post-conviction trial due to a change in the law. In order to get Miguel post-trial relief the voluntary manslaughter charge had to be won. Christine would have to prevail on the issue of whether or not Miguel was a substantial participant in the homicide. Because she won that issue Miguel was able to be sentenced to three years with credit for time served.

This was what the press called, "The Fourth of July Stabbing." There was a gathering at Miguel's house and car full of East Side gang members drove by and yelled out their gang name. Over the previous six months East Side gang members had killed two West Side gang members. The evidence that the district attorney presented was that Miguel was one of the oldest people at the gathering and that he was an "original gangster" to whom the younger gang members would listen. The district attorney alleged that Miguel said things such as, "Let's go get them back," and, "Let's go to the beach and rumble."

The group went to the beach and gathered more West Side gang members along the way. The district attorney presented evidence that Miguel was at the front of the group challenging the East Side gang members to fight. At some point the group of West Side gang members split into two groups and then a melee ensued. Some other West Side gang member, not Miguel, stabbed a person during the melee thinking that person was an East Side gang member. It turned out the person was a fellow West Side gang member. The person that got stabbed died. At the trial the judge ruled that Miguel may have instigated a fight, but that he did not have an intent to kill that could support a homicide charge.

High School Mock Trial

The Alvarez Case

Santiago Alvarez Found NOT Guilty of Attempted Murder and Freed from Custody

Charges: Two counts of attempted murder (Penal Code § 664/187(a)), assault with a weapon (Penal Code § 245(a)(1)), all three charges with special allegations of being at the direction of, in association with, or for the benefit of a gang (Penal Code § 186.22(b)), and all three with special allegations of great bodily injury (Penal Code § 12022.7(a)).
Exposure: Santiago was facing 28 years eight months to life in prison sentence that he already had.
Outcome: Santiago was found not guilty of all charges other than a lesser related misdemeanor offense of gang activity.

November 1, 2023. This case was a resentencing court trial because of a change in the law. Penal Code section 1172.6 allows for a person to petition for resentencing in certain circumstances. The first step is winning a prima facie showing that the person was not a "substantial participant" in the crime. If that step is successful, the person then gets a court trial.

Santiago was serving a 28 years eight months to life sentence for attempted murder and a gang charge. He was from Santa Maria and at a party for Santa Maria locals only. A group of people from Lompoc showed up at the party claiming that one of them had been invited by a woman. Some of the Santa Maria people at the party blocked the Lompoc group from leaving wanting to make sure that it was clear that they were not welcome and should not return, words were exchanged and a fight ensued. One of the men from the Lompoc group was stabbed. Under the law at the time Santiago could be convicted of attempted murder just for being there and being part of the Santa Maria group. He decided to mitigate his risk of a longer sentence and resolved his case with a plea to attempted murder.

However, because of the new law, the district attorney would not be able to convict him just on the fact that he was there and someone in his group may have stabbed someone. Now the district attorney would have to prove that he was a "substantial participant." The district attorney was confident because there was a knife about twenty feet from where Santiago was arrested which had a trace amount of Santiago's DNA on it. At the trial the issue was the lack of evidence as to who committed the actual stabbing. Christine argued that the DNA could have been from a prior handling of the knife or a transfer and there was no evidence to say otherwise. The judge found Santiago NOT guilty because the district attorney could not prove that Santiago was stabber.

High School Mock Trial

The Herrera Case

The Haobsh Case

The Gutierrez Valtierra Case

This article is a bit odd because it's about a very ordinary day in court. Addison's client was showing up at program and Probation, doing everything he was told to do, but was continuing to test positive for drugs because he was addict. Probation recommended detox and continued treatment, but the DDA wanted him thrown in jail. The judge decided that considering that he wasn't getting into trouble, just struggling with addiction, that continuing to try treatment was the better call than just throwing him in jail.

The Haobsh Case

High School Mock Trial

The Haobsh Case

The Payan Case

This was a hard fought domestic violence trial that Addison did. It went from the end of July to the beginning of September of 2021.

The Haobsh Case

This is the press from Christine won the Haobsh case by agreeing to have a court trial (a trial just with the judge), instead of a jury trial, in exchange for the removal of the death penalty from the case. Removing the risk of a death sentence is an overwhelming victory for the defense.

The Payan Case

The Haobsh Case

This is the press from when Christine won the Haobsh case. The trial hadn't even started, but the first and foremost goal was to save Pierre from the death penalty. Defense attorneys consider any capital murder (a case in which the district attorney is seeking the death penalty) in which the client is saved from Death Row an absolute victory. Once an agreement was reached where both the prosecution and the defense would allow a court trial (a trial with the judge instead of a jury) in exchange for the prosecution withdrawing its intention to seek the death penalty the case had been won by the defense.

The allegation was that Pierre had killed a family, including a five year-old girl. The evidence against him was overwhelming. His defense was (and all of this is based on his testimony in open court) that despite having lasted only a few weeks in Army boot camp, he was recruited by the government to be a secret agent and was trained in secret government underground black sites. His military records, of course, did not reflect that work for the government because it was classified. After working for the government he had invented a perpetual energy machine, and found investors that put hundreds of thousands of dollars into it. However the Department of Energy (DOE) set out to stop him because their interest was in protecting the fossil fuel industry, which would be bankrupted by his perpetual energy machine. The defense was that it was in the DOE that had killed the family in order to frame him, and that they had planted the overwhelming physical and digital evidence against him. His defense included a story that the DOE had sent a tactical team to kill him, but he instead killed the tactical team, left their dead bodies behind in his motel room, and when he returned hours later the bodies had been removed and the scene had been completely cleaned and repaired. His testimony was essentially that because of his black sites training he was too skilled to be killed by the DOE's tactical teams, so they had to come up with another way to stop him, and that way was to kill a family and frame him for it.

His testimony was clearly seen by Judge Brian Hill, who presided over the case, as delusional, or just fanciful lies, but delusional isn't necessarily insane for the purposes of the criminal justice system. As crazy as it may sound, the client must agree to an insanity defense, and Pierre testified that he was not mentally ill, that he in no way was crazy.

Any case where the client is accused of killing three innocent people, including a five year-old child, and through the defense attorney's efforts the death penalty is eliminated, that outcome is an absolute victory.

The Perlingos Case

This is a somewhat odd article in that it is about an absolutely ordinary day in court. Vanguard News Group appears to be made up of journalism students. During the pandemic courts all over the state, and even all over the country, were accessible to the public from anywhere in the world because court was being conducted by Zoom. That allowed these journalism students to observe court in jurisdictions all over the state. However, they didn't really understand what was news worthy. This was an extremely typical and uneventful day in court, however they wrote an article about it.

The Haobsh Case

The Miles W. Case

Charges: Dissuading a witness (Penal Code § 136.1(b)(1)) with a special allegation of force or threat (Penal Code § 136.1(c)(1)), vandalism (Penal Code § 594(b)(1) and shoplifting (Penal Code § 459.5(a)).
Exposure: Miles was facing three years and eight months in prison.
Outcome: Miguel was acquitted of the shoplifting charge because of a granted Penal Code § 1118.1 motion, he was found not guilty of dissuading a witness by the jury, because of that not guilty verdict the special allegation of force or threat was not reached, he was found guilty of vandalism, but because the special allegation of the amount of damage being over $400.00 was found not true, by operation of law it was only a misdemeanor conviction of Penal Code § 594(b)(2)(A). The real victory in this case was miles not just coming away without a felony conviction, but winning the dissuading charge which is a strike. Miles was homeless with an extensive record of misdemeanor and low grade felony convictions. If he had been convicted of the strike, every time he time he got a new low grade felony he would be probation ineligible, get the double the term and have to serve 80% of the term. For example with this case if he had had a strike prior, instead of facing three years eight months at 50%, he would have been facing seven years four months at 80% and he would have been probation ineligible, which means that the judge could not grant him probation and would have had to send him to prison. Saving Miles from a strike was critical.

This case was an overwhelming victory. It's always considered a defense victory when a client is charged with a strike offense and comes away without a strike. It's a huge victory when a client is charged with a strike felony and comes away with only a misdemeanor conviction. It's also a victory when after trial, instead of the client getting sentenced to prison, he's released from jail with credit for time served. All three of those routes to victory happened in this case.

This was a true pandemic trial. It was one of the first in Santa Barbara County after the courts were shut down by the pandemic in March of 2020. All the participants wore masks, which puts the defense at a tremendous disadvantage because the client and lawyer cannot see the jurors' facial expressions during jury selection and during the trial. Addison litigated the issue and made a motion for transparent masks for the jurors. That motion was denied. The witness box was enclosed in a transparent barrier and the was a large transparent barrier between the defense and prosecution sides of the counsel table. The majority of the jurors did not sit in the jury box. Only three jurors sat in the jury box spaced six feet apart. The rest of the jurors and the alternates were seated in the gallery, behind the lawyers, spaced six feet apart. There was only one bench in the very back for the public. Again this was a huge disadvantage to the defense because Addison could not see the jury to gauge their reactions during the trial. However no amount of making motions or objecting could change the way the trial was conducted in pandemic conditions. There was one advantage, the jury selection was conducted very small groups, so it was almost individual voir dire, something that is normally only granted in capital murder cases, and even then rarely, This is called Hovey voir dire ( Hovey v. Super Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 1) and is advantageous to defense.

Miles was homeless and had gone into a CVS to buy a candy bar. He was immediately suspected of shoplifting and kicked out of the store. The shoplifting charge was dismissed by the judge in the middle of the trial because there was no evidence of despite Miles time in the store all being on video. Miles became frustrated after being kicked out of the store. Moments after he was kicked out he returned and pulled the theft detection sensor out of the ground and threw outside. He then went back outside. The store employee locked the door behind him so he couldn't go back in. He then did a stomping motion toward the employee, who was on the other side of the locked glass door, which the employee perceived as Miles attempting to dissuade her from calling the police. The entire incident was on video.

The stomping motion was the most critical part of the trial. If the jury believed that the stomping motion was done with the intent to dissuade the employee from calling the police he would be convicted of a strike felony, and with his long record, even though it was all misdemeanors or minor felonies, he would surely have been sent to prison, and even if he was granted probation, being homeless, suffering from addiction and mental illness (all of which came out in the trial), it would have been very unlikely that he could successfully complete felony probation and would end up in prison anyway.

The jury found Miles not guilty of dissuading a witness, they found that the vandalism of the theft sensor device was not more than $400.00 damage which made the vandalism a misdemeanor by operation of law. That means that he only suffered a conviction for misdemeanor vandalism. He had been arrested at the height of the pandemic when the courts were closed and in very limited use. So despite having never waived his right to a speedy trial, it took almost six months to get his case to trial. The California Supreme found that speedy trial delays due to the pandemic were not unconstitutional. He was given credit for time served for the vandalism and released from jail.

The Murphy Case

The Sanchez Case

The Urbina Serrano Case

This is a case that Addison had when the case first started. The public defender at the time decided to declare a conflict on the case, so the case went to a conflict attorney. However, the press never really caught on so Addison was in paper and on the internet for years after that, as in this article where he is standing with the client.

The Haobsh Case

Television

Sun, 10 Aug 2025 03:25:48 GMT

Christine & Addison have been featured in television news stories, or on internet video news stories, countless times These are screen shots from the times they've been on television or in Internet news stories

This is Christine being featured on CBS on 48 Hours

Watch the episode 48 Hours Season 38 Episode 8

This is Addison being interviewed after the sentencing of his client that he saved from a life sentence

This is Addison being interviewed after the verdict that saved his client from a life in prison sentence

This is Addison being interviewed after defending a person that could be impacted by social media search warrant

This is Addison being interviewed after successfully quashing a social media search warrant that would have impacted

thousands of People that were student protesters or simply interacted with the political activity social media sites

This is Addison being interviewed after after defending a person that could be impacted by social media search warrant

This is Addison in a television news story, he was a speaker at a black lives matter demonstration after the killing of George Floyd

This is Christine in the same television news story

This is Christine in a Video Presentation that the Santa Barbara Independent did Regarding Homelessness

This is Christine appearing in court on the Pierre Haobsh case

This is Christine being interviewed on television after Nicolas Holzer's first court appearance

This is Christine being interviewed on television about the nicolas holzer case

This is Christine on television during a piece on Nicolas holzer being indicted by a grand jury

This is Addison being interviewed for a television news story at the Santa Maria courthouse

This is a television news story where Addison was being interviewed with his client

This is a television news story that featured Addison in action in the courtroom and then an interview after the Court Appearance

This is another television news story that featured Addison in action in the courtroom

This is another time that Addison was being interviewed for a television news story at the Santa Maria courthouse

This is when Addison was Appearing on television in Santa Maria on the "operation Matador" Also called the "MS13 case"

During what the press called the "U-Haul Murder trial" they were allowed record the entire trial,

so portions of the trial were featured on the news throughout the trial

This is when Addison on television arguing an issue during the trial

This is Christine being interviewed outside of the courthouse after appearing on the Nicolas holzer case

Christine and Addison's cases have also been featured

in countless newspaper and Internet articles

These are articles regarding awards that Addison has won Or recognition he's received

This Is the article from when Addison was named the California Public Defenders Association Defender of the Year Award

CPDA is a Statewide Criminal Defense organization, Defender of the Year is the Noble prize of Criminal Defense in California

"A Riverside County deputy public defender who has won several cases by putting on an aggressive defense that often includes putting the accused on the witness stand will receive a state organization's top honor today.

R. Addison Steele II was named the Defender of the Year for 2009 by the California Public Defenders Association.

. . .

He earned it for 'solid legal work and an uncompromising concern for clients,' the organization said.

. . .

'The way I look at the case is, I only keep my client off the stand if I have to. That is very different,' he said in a telephone interview. He teaches other attorneys his methods.

. . .

Steele's 'ability to enable the community--the jury--to see the client as a human being, to see the client through his eyes, is amazing,' said Assistant Public Defender Robert Willey."

This is the internet version of the above Article

Tyler M.

Fri, 08 Aug 2025 16:08:53 GMT

Tyler M. 25M-04632, on August 8, 2025 he was found NOT guilty by a jury of all charges and all lesser included OffenseS

This is a trial that Addison won where the client was saved from having to register as a sex offender

The below story of Tyler being found NOT guilty of all charges is told with his permission,

he wants the world to know that the allegations against him were false allegations.

Charges: Two counts of Sexual Battery (Penal Code § 243.4(e)(1)) and two counts of a lesser included offense of simple battery (Penal Code § 242).
Exposure: Tyler was facing two years in the County Jail and at least ten years of sex offender registration.
Outcome: Tyler was found not guilty by the jury of all charges and all lesser included offenses.

Awards

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 03:26:14 GMT

Christine and Addison have been the recipients of many awards recognizing their work

When Christine was a very young attorney, and after a string of jury trial victories,

she was named Attorney of the Year

This is an article from when Addison named was named Attorney of the Year

These are articles from when Addison was named statewide Attorney of the Year

Christine was attorney of the year at the Santa Barbara County Public defenders office in 1998 AND 2013

Addison was also the Attorney of the Year at the Santa Barbara County Public Defenders Office in 2002

This an article recognizing Addison's jury trial victories

Murphy

Thu, 24 Jul 2025 04:24:32 GMT

Joshua M. 23F-04550-C, on July 24, 2025 the special allegation that would have subjected him to life in prison was found NOT true

This is a trial where Addison saved his client from a life in prison sentence

Below is the press release that the three firms issued after the sentencing

Charges: Human Trafficking (Penal Code § 236.1(c)(2)), pimping a minor (Penal Code § 266h(b)(2)), possession of child pornography (Penal Code § 311.11(a)), distributing child pornography (Penal Code § 311.2(b)) and lewd act with a minor (Penal Code § 288(c)(1)). The case was both overcharged and creatively charged. For example, the possession and distribution of child pornography charges are meant for pedophiles that collect and sell or trade child pornography. In this case the "child pornography" was photos that were used in internet "escort" advertisements, many of which were selfies taken by the complaining witness (what district attorneys call "victim"), Jazmin Doe, and given to Josh. The "distribution" was the placing of the advertisements, which the complaining witness testified that she did and sometimes Josh did them for her. Another example is the lewd act with a minor charge. This is usually charged under Penal Code § 261.5, the typical charge for when a young person in his or her twenties has sex with a high school age person. An element of Penal Code § 261.5 is that the adult either needs to know, or a reasonable person would have known that the minor was a minor. In this case Jazmin Doe in no way resembled a minor, there was no chance that the DDA was going to convince twelve jurors that a reasonable person would have known she was a minor. However lewd act with a minor is essentially a strict liability crime, which means that it doesn't matter if the person accused knew the person was a minor, or if a reasonable person would have known the person was a minor, all the DDA has to prove is that the person was a minor. That means that not only was Josh automatically guilty for having sex with Jazmin Doe even though no reasonable person would have thought she was a minor, it means that all of her tricks (prostitution customers) were also guilty of the same crime, even though, they, like Josh, could not have been in any way expected to know that she was minor based on the way she looked.
Exposure: Josh was facing seventeen years four months to life in prison.
Outcome: In order to be convicted of a violation of Penal Code § 236.1(c)(2), human trafficking by force, fear, violence or coercion, the jury had to make a finding that there was force, fear, violence or coercion. If the jury made that finding Josh was subject to a mandatory sentence of fifteen years to life in prison. The jury found that allegation not true, so by operation of law, Josh was only convicted of a lesser offense of Penal Code § 236.1(c)(1), which was a maximum of twelve year WITHOUT a life sentence. He was sentenced in total to fourteen years four months at fifty percent. He had two years credit so he will be home in five years instead of having a life sentence and hoping to be granted parole at a parole hearing every two years after serving eighty-five percent of seventeen years four months.

Addison was misquoted in this article, he in fact said that that Jazmin Doe was, "A lying liar that lies about lying," not that she was a, "Lying liar that lie a lot."

The Tribune quoted Addison and acknowledged that the outcome for Joshua was a tremendous victory. The other press outlets just adopted the district attorney's narrative even though it was misleading.

Charges: Human Trafficking (Penal Code § 236.1(c)(2)), pimping a minor (Penal Code § 266h(b)(2)), possession of child pornography (Penal Code § 311.11(a)), distributing child pornography (Penal Code § 311.2(b)) and lewd act with a minor (Penal Code § 288(c)(1)). The case was both overcharged and creatively charged. For example, the possession and distribution of child pornography charges are meant for pedophiles that collect and sell or trade child pornography. In this case the "child pornography" was photos that were used in internet "escort" advertisements, many of which were selfies taken by the complaining witness (what district attorneys call "victim"), Jazmin Doe, and given to Josh. The "distribution" was the placing of the advertisements, which the complaining witness testified that she did and sometimes Josh did them for her. Another example is the lewd act with a minor charge. This is usually charged under Penal Code § 261.5, the typical charge for when a young person in his or her twenties has sex with a high school age person. An element of Penal Code § 261.5 is that the adult either needs to know, or a reasonable person would have known that the minor was a minor. In this case Jazmin Doe in no way resembled a minor, there was no chance that the DDA was going to convince twelve jurors that a reasonable person would have known she was a minor. However lewd act with a minor is essentially a strict liability crime, which means that it doesn't matter if the person accused knew the person was a minor, or if a reasonable person would have known the person was a minor, all the DDA has to prove is that the person was a minor. That means that not only was Josh automatically guilty for having sex with Jazmin Doe even though no reasonable person would have thought she was a minor, it means that all of her tricks (prostitution customers) were also guilty of the same crime, even though, they, like Josh, could not have been in any way expected to know that she was minor based on the way she looked.
Exposure: Josh was facing seventeen years four months to life in prison.
Outcome: In order to be convicted of a violation of Penal Code § 236.1(c)(2), human trafficking by force, fear, violence or coercion, the jury had to make a finding that there was force, fear, violence or coercion. If the jury made that finding Josh was subject to a mandatory sentence of fifteen years to life in prison. The jury found that allegation not true, so by operation of law, Josh was only convicted of a lesser offense of Penal Code § 236.1(c)(1), which was a maximum of twelve year WITHOUT a life sentence. He was sentenced in total to fourteen years four months at fifty percent. He had two years credit so he will be home in five years instead of having a life sentence and hoping to be granted parole at a parole hearing every two years after serving eighty-five percent of seventeen years four months.

Sanchez

Thu, 22 May 2025 01:54:01 GMT

This Ricardo S. 19CR00733, on May 22, 2025 Christine was able to get him resentenced so he will be home soon

This was an extremely difficult resentencing case that Christine did and got her client closer to going home

County Budget

Mon, 14 Apr 2025 04:05:26 GMT

This is an article from when a reporter asked Addison for his criminal justice expertise with regard to the county Budget

This is Addison being interviewed for his commentary regarding county funding of the jail

Mock Trial

Mon, 03 Mar 2025 04:47:04 GMT

Both Christine and Addison coach high School mock trial teams at Dos Pueblos High school

The Mock Trial team that Christine coaches won the 2022 Santa Barbara County Competition

The team that Christine coaches also came in third at an international competition

The team Christine coaches won the also won the 2023 Santa Barbara County Competition

The team that Christine coaches came in second at the state competition.

The final round round was a Mock Trial battle royale

Christine's team went to the next international competition without coaching,

just what they had already learned from their coaches and won the competition

The team Christine coaches won the Santa Barbara County competition again in 2024, that's three years in a row. 

Christine's team won an international competition later that same year

Christine's team won the Santa Barbara County competition again in 2025, that's four years in a row

Marquez

Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:18:03 GMT

Miguel M., 1260902, Acquitted of Voluntary manslaughter on August 22, 2024

This is a resentencing trial that Christine won

Her client won the gang voluntary manslaughter count

He was only co nvicted of a non-assault and gang activity

Charges: Voluntary Manslaughter (Penal Code § 192(a)) and gang activity (Penal Code § 186.22(a)).
Exposure: Miguel was facing 11 years and eight months in prison.
Outcome: After a post-conviction trial Miguel was acquitted of Voluntary manslaughter charge and only convicted of a non-strike assault (Penal Code § 245(a)(4)) and gang activity (Penal Code § 186.22(a)).

This was a post-conviction trial due to a change in the law. In order to get Miguel post-trial relief the voluntary manslaughter charge had to be won. Christine would have to prevail on the issue of whether or not Miguel was a substantial participant in the homicide. Because she won that issue Miguel was able to be sentenced to three years with credit for time served.

Alvarez

Wed, 01 Nov 2023 20:25:54 GMT

Santiago A. 1407388, on November 1, 2023 he was found NOT guilty by the judge of attempted murder

This is an attempted murder resentencing trial

that Christine won

This is paragraph text. Click it or hit the Manage Text button to change the font, color, size, format, and more. To set up site-wide paragraph and title styles, go to Site Theme.

Charges: Two counts of attempted murder (Penal Code § 664/187(a)), assault with a weapon (Penal Code § 245(a)(1)), all three charges with special allegations of being at the direction of, in association with, or for the benefit of a gang (Penal Code § 186.22(b)), and all three with special allegations of great bodily injury (Penal Code § 12022.7(a)).
Exposure: Santiago was facing 28 years eight months to life in prison sentence that he already had.
Outcome: Santiago was found not guilty of all charges other than a lesser related misdemeanor offense of gang activity.

Gutierrez Valtierra

Mon, 18 Apr 2022 04:49:34 GMT

Jose G.V. 21CR03290, on April 14, 2022, Addison kept him from going to jail after a dirty test while he was on ProbatioN

This is an article about a case where Addison got his client drug treatment instead of jail

This is paragraph text. Click it or hit the Manage Text button to change the font, color, size, format, and more. To set up site-wide paragraph and title styles, go to Site Theme.

Haobsh

Thu, 02 Dec 2021 02:37:34 GMT

Pierre H., 1494152, Death penalty eliminated from the case on August 12, 2021

This is the Haobsh Quadruple murder trial that Christine did,

the district Attorney sought the death penalty,

defense attorneys consider a case where the prosecution seeks a death sentence that Does not result in a death sentence

an absolute win, Christine negotiated to be able to elect a court trial in exchange for death "coming off the table," at that point the case was won and

Pierre was saved from death row

Charges: Three counts of murder (Penal Code § 187(a)) with special circumstances of murder for financial gain (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(1)) and multiple murder (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(3), as well as a great bodily injury enhancement (Penal Code § 12022.7).
Exposure: Pierre was facing the death penalty.
Outcome: As the trial was beginning the death penalty was withdrawn in exchange for waiver of jury for his trial.

This was a triple murder case. Pierre was facing the Death Penalty. Christine started out, as is the case in all capital murders, by trying to convince the district attorney to not seek death. When that didn't work she made sure that everything was prepared for trial. Right before the trial started there was agreement between the district attorney and Christine to remove the death penalty from the case. Pierre and Christine agreed to elect a court trial (a trial with just a judge instead of a jury) and the district attorney agreed to remove the death penalty from the case. Pierre testified at his trial to what the press called, "A fantastical story" of the Department of Energy committing the murders to frame him. Pierre's testimony was that he had invented a perpetual energy machine and that the Department of Energy then set out to stop him because his invention would bankrupt the fossil fuel industry, which the Department of Energy was intent on protecting. He testified about a Department energy tactical team attempting to kill him, but that he killed the entire tactical team before they could kill him, and that he then fled the scene, and when he later returned the bodies of the tactical team members had been removed and the scene was cleaned up so that no one would be able tell that there had been a multiple fatality five on one gunfight. He also testified that although he did not make it through Army boot camp, he was recruited to be a secret government agent and was trained at an underground black ops site. When asked why there was no record of his work as a secret agent, his answer that it was of course all classified. When asked during the trial if he's mentally ill, he testified that was not.

One of the highlights of the case was that after Pierre's preliminary hearing Christine found out that the district attorney was going to give a press conference after Pierre's court date. She knew that meant that the district attorney was going to announce that they were going to seek the death penalty, and then have a press conference to make a statement that would only taint potential jurors. Christine then, on the fly, filed a motion for a gag order, which the judge granted, the district attorney had to cancel the press conference.

Christine saved Pierre from Death Row, but he was convicted of all three murders and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The trial was extensively covered by the press.

These are stills from when Christine was on television defending her client

This is the court document where Christine saved her client from the death penalty

This is the press from when Christine saved her client from the death penalty

You can follow the press on the case from beginning to end here

Charges: Three counts of murder (Penal Code § 187(a)) with special circumstances of murder for financial gain (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(1)) and multiple murder (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(3), as well as a great bodily injury enhancement (Penal Code § 12022.7).
Exposure: Pierre was facing the death penalty.
Outcome: As the trial was beginning the death penalty was withdrawn in exchange for waiver of jury for his trial.

This was a triple murder case. Pierre was facing the Death Penalty. Christine started out, as is the case in all capital murders, by trying to convince the district attorney to not seek death. When that didn't work she made sure that everything was prepared for trial. Right before the trial started there was agreement between the district attorney and Christine to remove the death penalty from the case. Pierre and Christine agreed to waive jury and the district attorney agreed to remove the death penalty from the case. Pierre testified at his trial to what the press called, "A fantastical story" of the Department of Energy committing the murders to frame him. Pierre's testimony was that he had invented a perpetual energy machine and that the Department of Energy then set out to stop him because his invention would bankrupt the fossil fuel industry, which the Department of Energy was intent on protecting. He testified about a Department energy tactical team attempting to kill him, but that he killed the entire tactical team before they could kill him, and that he then fled the scene, and when he later returned the bodies of the tactical team members had been removed and the scene was cleaned up so that no one would be able tell that there had been a fatal five on one gunfight. He also testified that although he did not make it through Army boot camp, he was recruited to be a secret government agent and was trained at an underground black ops site. When asked why there was no record of his work as a secret agent, his answer that it was of course all classified. When asked during the trial if he's mentally ill, he testified that was not.

One of the highlights of the case was that after Pierre's preliminary hearing Christine found out that the district attorney was going to give a press conference after Pierre's court date. She know that meant that the district attorney was going to announce that they were going to seek the death penalty, and then have a press conference to make a statement that would only taint potential jurors. Christine then, on the fly, filed a motion for a gag order, which the judge granted, the district attorney had to cancel the press conference.

Christine saved Pierre from Death Row, but he was convicted of all three murders and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The trial was extensively covered by the press.

This is paragraph text. Click it or hit the Manage Text button to change the font, color, size, format, and more. To set up site-wide paragraph and title styles, go to Site Theme.

Payan

Wed, 01 Sep 2021 05:51:43 GMT

Jorge P. 20CR06769, his trial ended on September 1, 2021, it was a pandemic trial with everyone masked up

This is a domestic violence trial that Addison did

Perlingos

Sun, 08 Aug 2021 04:48:46 GMT

David P. 21CR04508, on August 4, 2021 he resolved his case probation and 90 days in jail

This is a somewhat strange article in that it covers a completely ordinary event in court

Miles W.

Fri, 04 Jun 2021 10:16:48 GMT

Miles W. 20CR08197 on June 4, 2021 he was found NOT guilty of all felony charges which included a charge that is a strike, winning all strike charges is considered an absolute victory and winning all felony charges is even more so

This is a jury trial that Addison won with acquittals on all the felony charges

Charges: Dissuading a witness (Penal Code § 136.1(b)(1)) with a special allegation of force or threat (Penal Code § 136.1(c)(1)), vandalism (Penal Code § 594(b)(1) and shoplifting (Penal Code § 459.5(a)).
Exposure: Miles was facing three years and eight months in prison.
Outcome: Miguel was acquitted of the shoplifting charge because of a granted Penal Code § 1118.1 motion, he was found not guilty of dissuading a witness by the jury, because of that not guilty verdict the special allegation of force or threat was not reached, he was found guilty of vandalism, but because the special allegation of the amount of damage being over $400.00 was found not true, by operation of law it was only a misdemeanor conviction of Penal Code § 594(b)(2)(A). The real victory in this case was miles not just coming away without a felony conviction, but winning the dissuading charge which is a strike. Miles was homeless with an extensive record of misdemeanor and low grade felony convictions. If he had been convicted of the strike, every time he time he got a new low grade felony he would be probation ineligible, get the double the term and have to serve 80% of the term. For example with this case if he had had a strike prior, instead of facing three years eight months at 50%, he would have been facing seven years four months at 80% and he would have been probation ineligible, which means that the judge could not grant him probation and would have had to send him to prison. Saving Miles from a strike was critical.

This was a true pandemic trial. It was one of the first in Santa Barbara County after the courts were shut down by the pandemic in March of 2020. All the participants wore masks, which puts the defense at a tremendous disadvantage because the client and lawyer cannot see the jurors' facial expressions during jury selection and during the trial. Addison litigated the issue and made a motion for transparent masks for the jurors. That motion was denied. The witness box was enclosed in a transparent barrier and the was a large transparent barrier between the defense and prosecution sides of the counsel table. The majority of the jurors did not sit in the jury box. Only three jurors sat in the jury box spaced six feet apart. The rest of the jurors and the alternates were seated in the gallery, behind the lawyers, spaced six feet apart. There was only one bench in the very back for the public. Again this was a huge disadvantage to the defense because Addison could not see the jury to gauge their reactions during the trial. However no amount of making motions or objecting could change the way the trial was conducted in pandemic conditions. There was one advantage, the jury selection was conducted very small groups, so it was almost individual voir dire, something that is normally only granted in capital murder cases, and even then rarely, This is called Hovey voir dire (Hovey v. Super Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 1) and is advantageous to defense.

BLM

Thu, 11 Jun 2020 04:47:52 GMT

Christine and Addison don't just defend people in court, they take defending people to the streets

This is Christine at a Black Lives Matter demonstration.

This is a screenshot from when she was on television at the demonstration

This is an internet article about the demonstration

The demonstration was also on television. This is the television station article

This is Addison on television speaking at the demonstration

This is the article that was in the Santa Barbara Independent

Gabriel V.

Mon, 08 Apr 2019 04:33:41 GMT

Gabriel V. 18CR03764, on April 8, 2019 he was found NOT guilty of all charges (on one charge he was found NOT guilty by the judge a few days before)

This is a domestic violence trial that Addison won

Charges: One count of domestic battery (Penal Code § 243(e)(1)), with lesser included offenses of simple battery (Penal Code § 242) and simple assault (Penal Code § 240), one count of trespassing (Penal Code § 602.5(b)) and one count of child endangerment (Penal Code § 273a(b)).
Exposure: Gabriel was technically facing two years six months in the county jail, but realistically was facing one year in jail because it's extremely rare for someone to get more than one year in the jail for misdemeanor convictions.
Outcome: First the judge acquitted him of the child endangerment count by granting a Penal Code § 1118.1 motion for judgment of acquittal. Then the jury found him NOT guilty of the rest of the charges. He was acquitted of all charges.

This was a challenging trial because the complaining witness, Gabriel's baby's mother, Nathalia C., and her mother, Monica G., were trying to get sole custody of Gabriel's infant son, M.V. Monica G. had called the police to report that Gabriel tried to take the baby (as he did every day and spent the day with him and returned him to Nathalia C.'s home every day where Gabriel was living). Monica G. was told that the police couldn't do anything about that because Gabriel had joint custody of M.V. They then decided to make up a story about Gabriel pushing Nathalia's head into a wall.

The judge and the jury saw through it. Gabriel was acquitted on all counts. Below is one of the slides that Addison used in his closing argument.

This is one of the four NOT guilty verdict forms from Gabriel's case.

This is Gabriel and Addison after the verdicts.

Rachel W.

Thu, 21 Feb 2019 06:28:28 GMT

Rachel W. 19CR00491 on February 21, 2019 case dismissed during trial

This was a trial that Addison won by a dismissal of the case after the trial had started

An interesting feature of this trial was that it was Addison 100th Jury Trial

Charges: One count of domestic battery (Penal Code § 243(e)(1)), one count of child endangerment (Penal Code § 273a(b)), and one count of simple battery (Penal Code § 242).
Exposure: Rachel was technically facing two years six months in the county jail, but realistically was facing one year in jail because it is extremely rare for a person to be sentenced to more than one year in jail for misdemeanor convictions.
Outcome: Despite the complaining witness' aunt supporting his story that Rachel was the aggressor, being informed how the defense battered women's syndrome expert would be testifying, the district attorney realized that it was in fact the complaining witness that was the aggressor and she dismissed the case during the trial.

This was a challenging trial because it appeared that the complaining witness, Danny L., was not the aggressor because his aunt, Maria P., had backed his story that Rachel was aggressor. Rachel had called the police and reported that Danny L. had hit her and that his aunt and he had kidnapped her daughter, L.L., that she had with Danny L. When the police arrived the and aunt and Danny L. spun a story about Rachel going crazy.

This is the minute order where Rachel's case was dismissed.

Byers

Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:41:13 GMT

Kahlil B. 18CR03793, on January 18, 2019 he had a hung jury on the charge of forced oral copulation and that charge and the special allegations that made it a life in prison count were later dismissed

This was an extremely difficult rape trial that Addison did

Jeannette S.

Fri, 09 Nov 2018 18:17:38 GMT

Jeannette S. 18CR01797, on November 9, 2018 she was found NOT guilty of the domestic violence charge and the domestic violence lesser included offense

This is a domestic violence trial that Addison won,

A domestic violence conviction, even a misdemeanor,

has onerous consequences, defense attorneys consider winning the domestic violence counts a victory

Charges: One count of domestic violence (Penal Code § 273.5(a)) with lesser offense of domestic battery (Penal Code § 243(e)(1)), resisting arrest with force (Penal Code § 69), and two counts of battery on a police officer (Penal Code § 243(b)).
Exposure: Jeannette was technically facing four years in the county jail, but was realistically facing one year in jail because it's highly unusual for a person to be sentenced to more than one year in the county jail for misdemeanor offenses.
Outcome: Despite video of her violently resisting arrest, Jeannette was found NOT guilty of the domestic violence charge that caused the police to called in the first place, she was found guilty of resisting arrest and battery on two police officers. She was given credit for the time she spend in jail, ordered to do a twelve week anger management class and attend AA meetings.

This was a challenging trial because of videotape, from different angles, of Jeannette physically struggling when she was being arrested. The primary goal was to win the domestic violence charges because the probation terms for a domestic violence conviction are so onerous, and she was acquitted of domestic violence charges

This is the first of her two NOT guilty verdict forms.

Lompoc Riverbed

Fri, 12 Oct 2018 04:47:28 GMT

Christine was involved in helping the people that were living in a homeless encampment that was bulldozed by the County

This is a still from a video story that the Santa Barbara Independent did. Below the is a link to see the story.

Lompoc Riverbed Evictees' Triage Center to Close

This is the article that was in the Santa Barbara Independent

In this article Christine was asked for her insight into the situation

Holzer

websitebuilder@thryv.com — Thu, 13 Sep 2018 02:37:34 GMT

Nicolas H., 1470650, Death penalty eliminated from the case on June 16, 2015

This is the Holzer case,

he was charged with the quadruple murder of his parents and two sons

defense attorneys consider a case where the prosecution seeks a death sentence

that does not result in a death sentence an absolute win

Christine met with the district attorney when She was making her decision whether or not to seek the Death penalty

Christine made a mitigation presentation and convinced the district attorney to no seek a death Sentence

at that point the case was won and

Nick was saved from death row

Charges: Four counts of murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), with special circumstance of multiple murder (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(3)), special allegation of personal use of a knife (Penal Code § 12022(b)(1)) and animal cruelty (Penal Code § 597(a)).
Exposure: Nicolas was facing the death penalty.
Outcome: Christine did a mitigation presentation and was able to convince the district attorney to not seek the death penalty. Nicolas is not on Death Row.

This case was a tragedy in every aspect. The evidence that was presented at trial was that Nick was extremely mentally ill and delusional. He believed that God had to told him that he needed to kill his parents and two sons in order in to save them. Several expert witnesses were presented by both sides during the trial. All of the experts agreed that he was extremely mentally ill, but there was a disagreement regarding whether he understood the difference between right and wrong at the time that he killed his family. Nick had gone through a long custody battle to have his boys, he clearly loved them. In a police interrogation he said that he knew that it was legally wrong to kill his children, but that he did it anyway because God told him that was what he had to do in order to save his boys from Hell.

It would appear that there is no way that a case like this could be "won." However, Nick had killed two children and two elderly people, the kind of case that it would be no surprise at all for the district attorney to seek the death penalty. A victory in this case was for Christine to save Nick from Death Row. Most district attorneys allow a defense attorney to do a "mitigation presentation," but they seldom make a difference. Christine approached the mitigation presentation as if it was the trial. After her thorough presentation the district attorney elected to NOT seek the death penalty. It was at that moment that Christine won Nick's case.

These are stills from when Christine was on television defending her client

This is the press from when Christine saved Nick from the death penalty

Charges: Four counts of murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), with special circumstance of multiple murder (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(3)), special allegation of personal use of a knife (Penal Code § 12022(b)(1)) and animal cruelty (Penal Code § 597(a)).
Exposure: Nicolas was facing the death penalty.
Outcome: Christine did a mitigation presentation and was able to convince the district attorney to not seek the death penalty. Nicolas is not on Death Row.

Mariano L.P.

Fri, 27 Oct 2017 15:32:12 GMT

Mariano L.P. 1501535, on October 27, 2016 he found NOT guilty of all charges of rape and all the lesser included offenses and forcible sodomy and all the lesser included offenses

This is another rape trial that Addison won

Sarwary

Fri, 06 Oct 2017 14:51:21 GMT

Hamidullah S. 1442831, on June 27, 2017 Christine started his trial, she fought hard but unfortunately was not able to prevail

This was a difficult rape trial that Christine did

Taylor

Thu, 14 Sep 2017 04:10:51 GMT

James T. 1494332, On September 18, 2017, on the thirteen day of the jury trial, the case settled for a dismissal of the attempted murder charge in exchange for a plea to burglary and Assault

This is an attempted murder case that Christine won, in the middle of the trial she settled the case for seven years instead of the life in prison sentence the District Attorney wanted

Charges: Two counts of attempted murder (Penal Code § 664/187(a) X 2), mayhem (Penal Code § 205), attempted robbery (Penal Code § 664/211), residential burglary (Penal Code § 459 1st degree), assault with a weapon (Penal Code § 245(a)(1)) and two counts of assault with a firearm (Penal Code § 245(b)).
Exposure: James was facing twenty-eight years eight months to life in prison.
Outcome: After thirteen court days in trial the case settled for a plea to assault with firearm and residential burglary for eight years in prison. It is considered a victory to get a determinate term (a sentence without "to life," but that instead has a set release date), but it is considered an absolute victory to get determinate term under ten years.

James and his co-defendant went to an apartment in Isla Vista buy drugs. As sometimes happens when gentlemen negotiate a business transaction, there was a disagreement. The disagreement led to a fight and shots being fired. James was "beaten into submission" when he was hit over the head with skateboards, his co-defendant was shot in the hand. One of drug sellers had a through and through gunshot wound to the abdomen and the other drug seller was shot in the chest. The drug sellers claimed to the police that they were just home hanging out. They denied selling drugs or using drugs. They claimed they were just watching cartoons and eating snacks. The police searched the apartment and found bricks of marijuana, guns and cash. The district attorney charged James and his co-defendant with multiple attempted murder with a gang enhancement.

Christine beat the attempted murder charge twice in this case. At the preliminary hearing Christine beat the attempted murder charge and the gang enhancement, but the district attorney didn't give up trying to convict her client of attempted murder. On a felony the district attorney is allowed to do a "dismiss and refile." Basically start the case all over and it's not a violation of double jeopardy (in some cases such as homicide, they can dismiss and refile twice, giving them three bites at the apple). That's what the district attorney did in this case. Despite having two bites at the apple, the district attorney could not get attempted murder conviction. After thirteen court days in trial the case resolved, not just for a determinate term (a sentence that does NOT include life in prison), but it was single digits, which is considered an absolute victory,

This case started as an attempted murder case

Christine fought and fought until the attempted murder charge was dismissed

Then the district attorney refiled the attempted murder

Christine fought and fought some more

Then in the middle of the trial the case settled for seven years instead of the life in prison sentence the D.A. Wanted

Highley

Thu, 08 Jun 2017 04:49:11 GMT

Jonathan H. 17CR02077, Addison made appearances on this case to help his Colleague

This case interesting because it was not Addison's case, it just seemed like every time Addison appeared for his colleague that the press was there

Hernandez

Mon, 05 Jun 2017 08:05:21 GMT

Troy H. 1489148, he was facing life in prison for attempted murder, after a lot of hard work defending his case was resolved with a plea to assault with a weapon and resisting arrest and credit for time served

This was a great outcome for an otherwise tragic case that involved mental illness

Oliver

Mon, 05 Jun 2017 04:37:26 GMT

This is a murder case that Addison handled for a while

Torres

Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:30:10 GMT

Leonel T. 1284585, Addison handled his case when he was extradited from Mexico

This is another murder case that Addison handled part of the way as it was litigated

Gault

Mon, 08 May 2017 04:14:11 GMT

Gerald G. 1502241 on April 4, 2017 after the pretrial motions the case was resolved for probation

With this case Addison was part of legal history and the landmark case IN re Gault (1967) 387 U.S. 1

This is a case that Addison defended that was particularly significant. Most people are familiar with the landmark United States supreme Court Case Gideon v. Wainright (1963) 372 U.S. 335. Gideon stablished that the right to an attorney meant a right to an appointed attorney if the person cannot afford to hire an attorney. There is a juvenile equivalent of Gideon with which all practitioners of juvenile defense are familiar. That landmark United States Supreme Court case is In re Gault (1967) 387 U.S. 1. As an old man he was accused of child molestation, and Addison was his lawyer for that case. He was facing spending the rest of his life in prison. Addison got him released from jail with probation

Delgado

Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:36:15 GMT

William D. 1506063, Addison handled his case until he was moved to the Santa Barbara office

This is a homicide case that Addison handled for a while

Cruz

Wed, 08 Mar 2017 09:44:06 GMT

Israel C. 1486111, Addison handled his case but then was moved to the Santa Barbara office, the public defender that took over the case then plead him as charged to a life sentence

This is another murder case that Addison had for a while

Blackmon

Wed, 08 Mar 2017 04:19:37 GMT

Ramoan B. 1504038, he was facing life in prison, on March 6, 2017 Addison was able to get a resolution of his case for probation with credit for time served so he could go home

This was a child molestation allegation case,

the alleged victim admitted that it was a false allegation,

however the district attorney did not listen to her

Mora

Fri, 03 Mar 2017 09:41:59 GMT

Pedro M. 1502968, on May 26, 2016 Addison started on his case when the DDA filed a motion to shave his head, Addison fought that off, but eventually the case was reassigned when Addison was transferred to Santa Barbara

This is another murder case that Addison handled

Herrera

Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:33:00 GMT

Noe H. 140519, Addison handled his case until he was moved to the Santa Barbara office

This is a murder case that Addison handled for a while

it was a complex insanity defense case

Montgomery

Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:28:28 GMT

Brent M. 1476128, 0n December 21, 2016 he was sentenced to seven years for a non-strike assault when he was facing thirteen years and second strike

This is a domestic violence case that Christine handled and saved the client from getting a second strike

Martinez

Sat, 19 Nov 2016 04:42:07 GMT

Victor M. 1481236, on September 17, 2015 Addison first appeared on the case

Addison was hired by the Public Defender specifically to work on this case because of his experience with capital murder cases, having done two capital murder trials and having won both

Codey S.

Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:21:46 GMT

Codey S. 1477699, On November 16, 2016 the case resolved in the middle of trial for only charges that do NOT require sex offender registration, beating sex offender registration is always a huge victory

This is a child molestation trial that Christine won by resolving the case during the trial for charges that do not require sex offender registration

Charges: One count of child molestation (Penal Code § 288(a)) and one count of assault with intent to rape a minor (Penal Code § 220(a)(2)).
Exposure: Codey was facing eleven years in prison and lifetime registration as a sex offender.
Outcome: After twelve court days of trial the resolved for no contest pleas to charges that didn't require lifetime sex registration, probation and only having to register during the probation period.

Ibanez Herrera

Mon, 01 Aug 2016 21:38:40 GMT

Antolin I.H. 1461668, on August 1, 2016 found NOT Guilty by jury of attempted rape and all child molestation charges, he was only found guilty of misdemeanor assault

This is a multiple alleged victim child rape and child molestation case that Addison won

Charges: Four counts of child molestation by means of force or fear (Penal Code § 288(b)(1)) with lesser offenses of three counts of attempted child molestation by means of force or fear (Penal Code § 664/288(b)(1)), lesser offenses of three counts of battery (Penal Code § 242) and lesser offenses of three counts of assault (Penal Code § 240), one count of attempted rape (Penal Code § 664/261(a)(2)) with a lesser of offense of battery (Penal Code § 242) and a lesser offense of assault (Penal Code § 240), one count of molesting a child that was fourteen or fifteen years old (Penal Code § 288(c)(1)) with a lesser offense of attempted molestation of a child fourteen or fifteen years old (Penal Code § 664/288(c)(1), with a lesser offense of battery (Penal Code § 242) and a lesser offense of assault (Penal Code § 240).
Exposure: Antolin was facing 48 years four months in prison.
Outcome: Despite a “confession,” Antolin was acquitted by the jury of all the felony counts and all the child molestation counts. He was only convicted of a misdemeanor assault for pushing one of the accusers into a bush.

This case was challenging because of the videotaped “confession.” The interrogation was held in English despite English being his second language and having very limited communication skills in English. Antolin had two nieces that accused of molesting them. The evidence that we presented at trial was that Antolin was in the process of becoming a U.S. citizen and his nieces knew that. They had a really trivial argument that resulted in Antolin pushing one of the nieces into a bush. They then declared that they were going to call Immigration and make something up that would keep him from becoming a citizen. The jury acquitted Antolin of all charges except the misdemeanor assault of pushing his niece into a bush which he admitted.

What particularly frustrated Antolin and his family was that the press had covered his arrest, but there was no press coverage at all when he was acquitted. He specifically asked Addison if there was a way that he could tell the world that he was found not guilty and that the jury concluded that the allegations were false allegations.

This is the first slide from Addison's closing argument.

This is the first of the twenty-six not guilty verdicts that Antolin had when the jury came back.

This is Antolin, Addison and the investigator on the case after the verdicts when Antolin came back to the courthouse to thank Addison for his work on the case.

Moreno

Thu, 07 Jul 2016 23:39:07 GMT

Daniel M. 1500744, he was facing life in prison and on June 13, 2016 Addison was able to resolve his case for just eight years

This was a very tragic child Molestation case that Addison handled

Urbina Serrano

Fri, 29 Apr 2016 04:39:34 GMT

Juan U.S. 1499805, Addison represented him until the Public Defender declared a conflict

This is was the "MS-13," or, "Operation Matador,"

multiple homicide case that Addison was on at the beginning of the case, then the Public Defender declared a conflict,

The most interesting thing about Addison's brief time on the case is that his photo with the client kept showing up in the press for years after.

This is paragraph text. Click it or hit the Manage Text button to change the font, color, size, format, and more. To set up site-wide paragraph and title styles, go to Site Theme.

Matthews

Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:36:33 GMT

Dequan M. 1489583, on September 2, 2015 Addison completed his preliminary hearing which lasted several days over two weeks

This is another homicide case that Addison handled for a while

Corizon

Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:06:32 GMT

This is an article where Christine took the lead addressing substandard medical care at the jail and was asked for commentary

This is an article where Christine was asked for commentary

This is the internet version of the above article

Solis

Tue, 04 Aug 2015 03:55:02 GMT

Anthony S., 1434089, on April 7, 2015 his murder trial resulted in a Hung jury and later and settled for nine years instead of the life without the possibility of parole sentence that the prosecution was seeking

This was the "U-Haul Murder Trial," as the press called it, Addison's client was the only one of the six co-defendants that has gone home, The other five co-defendants were convicted of charges that resulted in life without the possibility of Parole (LWOPP) There was a hung jury on Addison's client's portion on the case, the case then resolved for a kidnapping charge

Addison's client is now home

Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), with an allegation that the murder was committed at the direction of, for the benefit of, or in association with a criminal street gang (Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1)), with four special circumstances alleged, killing while lying in wait (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(15)), murder during a kidnapping (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(17)), murder with torture (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(18)) and killing while an active participant in a street gang to further the activities of the gang (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(22)), if A.J. was convicted of first-degree murder and any one of an alleged special circumstances was found true, the judge would have had to sentence him to live life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Exposure: A.J. was facing life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOPP).
Outcome: There was a hung jury; the case was then settled for dismissal of the first-degree murder charge in exchange for a no-contest plea to kidnapping with a gang allegation and possession of drugs in the jail with nine years in prison. A.J. is home now.

This was a particularly long and grueling murder trial. The press dubbed the case "The U-Haul Murder Trial" because the decedent's body was discovered in an abandoned U-Haul truck with his blood dripping out of the back of the truck. There were originally 13 co-defendants, not all of which were charged with murder. The plea negotiations parred it down to six co-defendants, all charged with murder, all with special circumstances that included torture and gang murder. All six defendants were facing LWOPP sentences. It was largest number of co-defendants in a murder trial ever in Santa Barbara County, and probably the state. There wasn't a courtroom in the county large enough for the trial. The largest courtroom in the county is at the Juvenile Court in Santa Maria, however it didn't have a jury box because juveniles do not have a right to a jury trial. The courtroom was modified by having a jury box built in it. However, even that was far too small for jury selection because of the several hundreds of prospective jurors would need to be called.

In a one defendant non-life sentence exposure case, the typical jury trial, there are a total of twenty pre-emptory challenges allowed, and typically a panel of 80 to 100 prospective jurors are called, depending on the type of case. In this case there were 140 pre-emptory challenges allowed. Many hundreds of potential jurors were called in. The courts rented a warehouse on the Santa Maria Fairgrounds to conduct the jury selection. Normally jury trials go four days a week, or even three days a week, so the judge can conduct other court business, that also allows the lawyers to work on the trial on the non-trial days as well, however this trial was specially assigned to a retired judge so the trial went five days a week, starting at 8:00 a.m. with a half hour lunch break and two fifteen minutes breaks, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, the trial was run on the same schedule that fast food workers experience, the lawyers had to scramble to handle their other matters, and had to work non-stop because of the lack of normal "down time," which isn't actually down time, it's time used for the trial. After 79 court days of trial, on a five days a week schedule held over several months, the jury came back with verdicts.

The district attorney's theory was that the decedent was a drug dealer, and that he had been scamming customers as well as not paying "taxes" to the Mexican Mafia. The district attorney believed that a co-defendant with the nickname (they said gang moniker) of Crazy Ray, had recruited a group to "check" (impose a punishment) on the decedent for both ripping off customers and for not paying a portion of his proceeds to the Mexican Mafia. The believed that the group then tortured the decedent to death, rented a U-Haul, put his body in the U-Haul and abandoned it. The incident occurred at a house that didn't belong to any of the people in the group with Crazy Ray. The house belonged to two people that testified as witnesses for the prosecution, Angel "Buddha" Escobar and his sister Marissa Escobar, who were put in the witness protection program. That means that the government paid to set the witnesses up with new lives in exchange for their snitch testimony. What the defense presented was that Crazy Ray and his group were at the house, but they had left and that it was in fact the district attorney's two witnesses that had killed the decedent, and that after the fact they called upon Crazy Ray to help with the aftermath. The defense was that he may have helped after the fact, but neither he nor anyone in his group did the killing. The defense that was presented was that various members of the group had come and gone from the house, but none were there when the murder occurred.

The jury found the other five co-defendants guilty and found at least one special circumstance true, which meant that they all would have mandatory LWOPP sentences. But that wasn't the case for A.J. It was a hung jury on all counts for A.J. It looked like A.J. and Addison were going to have to do the trial again. The risk was getting the same LWOPP sentence that his co-defendants got, but the potential gain was to maybe go home after a second trial. In the end A.J. resolved the case for a plea to kidnapping and nine years in prison, but it had taken so long to get to trial that he had almost half of that already served. A.J. is home now. He's the only one of the six that's home.

This is from when Addison was on television defending his client

This is the team of defense lawyers, the families called them "The real dream team"

This is one of the slides that Addison used in his closing argument

These are some photos taken by the press during the trial

This is A.J. and Addison after the trial

This is the press from when Addison won the trial

Here you can follow the press from the beginning of the case to the end

Griffin

Wed, 15 Jul 2015 04:28:27 GMT

Anthony G. 1477084, Christine handled his case

This is a case that Christine handled that proves the age old adage that if a person engages in a high speed chase in a recreational vehicle, that gets press

White

Wed, 24 Jun 2015 09:59:24 GMT

Lavell W. 1455141, Addison was his lawyer until Addison was hired by the Public Defender to handle a capital case

This is a murder trial that Addison handled for a while, the press took particular interest because the two defendants were Hancock College basketball players

Bailey

Wed, 27 May 2015 04:48:20 GMT

Phillip B. 1407513, Addison had this case until it was reassigned because he was hired by the Public Defender to work on a capital case

This is a complex case that Addison handled

Agustine

Sat, 16 May 2015 09:34:44 GMT

Gregorio A. 1453737, Addison handled his case until he was hired by the public to handle a capital murder case

This is another complex homicide case that Addison had

for a time at the beginning of the case

Pitcher

Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:24:03 GMT

This is a trial that Christine did, it was the first human trafficking trial in Santa Barbara County

Enriquez

Tue, 23 Dec 2014 04:50:11 GMT

Jesse E. 1453855, Addison had this case when it was first filed, it was assigned to a different attorney when Addison hired by the public Defender to work on a capital murder case

This is another very serious case that Addison handled

Macias

Sat, 06 Sep 2014 04:25:24 GMT

Another article where the reporter asked for Addison's expert opinion

This is the internet version of the above article

This is a case where the press asked Addison for commentary

Mollo

Sat, 31 May 2014 04:25:27 GMT

Nicola M. 1443221, on May 30, 2014 Christine conducted his preliminary hearing doing everything she could to draw attention to his mental health issues

This is a Bomb threat case that Christine handled

Joe W.

Mon, 05 May 2014 23:22:23 GMT

Joe W. 1434677, on May 5, 2014 had a hung jury, evenly split six for not guilty and six for guilty, Addison Wrote a Marin County Motion to Dismiss, but before the motion was heard the district attorney dismissed the Case

This is a trial that Addison won by way of a hung jury followed by a dismissal

Joe W.
Charge: Being under the influence of an illegal central nervous system stimulant (Health and Safety Code § 11550(a)).
Exposure: Joe was facing up to a year in county jail with a mandatory minimum of 90 days in jail unless he accepted Proposition 36 drug treatment.
Outcome: Hung jury (6-6 split), the case was later dismissed by the district attorney.

This is the first slide from Addison's closing argument. An addict snitch had told the police that someone was selling drugs out of Joe's house. The police then got a warrant based on that information. The snitch's information was not true, so as would be expected the police did not find any drugs or any evidence at all that drug sales were happening. However, when Joe's wife went to answer the door the police busted it open hitting her in the forehead with the door and injured her. After they realized that they had just raided a home and injured an innocent bystander, they decided that they would try to make a case that Joe was under the influence of drugs.

Six of the twelve jurors saw the case for what it was and stuck with their position that Joe was not guilty, which resulted in a hung jury. Addison then wrote a Marin County Motion to dismiss the case. The district attorney decided that rather than litigate the Marin County Motion, they would just dismiss the case.

This is the first page of the Marin County Motion.

This is Joe and Addison when they met up after the case was dismissed.

Godinez

Thu, 10 Apr 2014 04:10:31 GMT

Frank G., 1353476, On April 10, 2014 case settled after opening statements for a determinate Term

This is another murder that Addison had, this case was actually a win.

After Addison's opening statement, the Deputy district attorney wanted to the resolve the case.

Frank was on trial for murder and a separate attempt murder, and was facing 118 years to life in Prison.

Frank ended up with a determinate term for Manslaughter, which means that instead of a life in prison sentence,

He has a date that he knows he'll get out of prison.

Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), special allegations of personal use of a firearm (Penal Code §§ 12022.53(d) and 12022.5(a)), gang allegation (Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1)), a prior prison term (Penal Code § 667.5(b)), serious crime prior (Penal Code § 667(a)), and a strike prior (Penal Code § 667(c)&(e)(2)/1170.12(c)(2)), Attempted Murder (Penal Code § 664/187(a)), special allegations of great bodily injury (Penal Code § 12022.7(a)) and personal use of a knife (Penal Code § 12022(b)(1)) and Gang Activity (Penal Code § 186.22(a)).
Exposure: 118 years and eight months to life in prison.
Outcome: The case resolved after opening statements for a determinate term of 26 years.

This was a challenging case because Frank was charged in two separate incidents, a shooting that resulting in the murder charge and a completely unrelated stabbing that resulted in the attempted murder charge. What came out during trial was that the person that was shot was threatening and extorting money from Frank and a female friend of his. As a result of the threats and extortion Frank was armed with a gun. The incident occurred when the person that was shot attacked Frank with a knife and Frank fired at him in self defense. The other incident was an event when Frank wasn’t even present and it was brought out at trial who the actual stabber in fact was. After the opening statements district attorney realized that Frank had a strong self defense claim. The district attorney then offered to dismiss all the life sentence counts and settled the case for 26 years. It’s a long sentence, but it made it so the Frank could avoid the risk of having such a long sentence that he would be sure to spend the rest of his life in prison.

This is trial exhibit 103 that was shown to the jury during Addison’s opening statement. The blanket was left behind after the body was removed and is not where the body was found. The body was found closer to the knife, which is next to evidence tent number two on the left side of the photo. The knife was right where it fell out of the decedent’s hand after he was shot in self defense by Frank after he attacked Frank with the knife.

Here you can follow the press on the case

Ramos

Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:18:47 GMT

Rudy R., 1358729, Acquitted of all charges on March 27, 2014

These are the articles from the third time that Addison Got a full acquittal in a murder Trial

Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), with an allegation that the murder was committed at the direction of, for the benefit of, or in association with a criminal street gang (Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1)), with three prior terms in prison alleged (Penal Code § 667.5(b)).
Exposure: Rudy was facing thirty-three years to life in prison.
Outcome: Rudy was acquitted of first-degree murder, acquitted of the lesser degree of second-degree murder, and acquitted of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, a gang allegation was not reached by the jury because of the acquittal on all charges.

Rudy's case was particularly challenging. The district attorney's theory of the case was that Rudy was a Northwest gang member and was, "The sergeant on the block," and that his co-defendant wanted to be in the gang, although at the same time they alleged that he was Guada gang member. The district attorney postulated that Rudy called a hit on the decedent, which his co-defendant then carried out. In fact, Rudy wasn't even a member of the Northwest gang and had never been a member of a gang. He was from the neighborhood, but not a member of the gang. The evidence that Addison and Rudy presented at trial was that Rudy was just a low-level drug dealer that was selling barely enough methamphetamine to support his own addiction and keep him in a cheap room at a residential motel that was a den of drug dealers and drug users. The man that was killed had recently gotten out of prison and decided that he could extort money from Rudy by threatening him. Rudy's co-defendant took offense to the man's threats and followed him for about one hundred feet as he left the motel. His co-defendant then confronted the man and stabbed him in the neck. The man succumbed to his wound there at the scene as police and first responders tried to save him. The jury acquitted Rudy of all charges finding that there wasn't proof to support the district attorney's theory. Rudy's co-defendant was convicted of second degree murder.

This is a slide from Addison's closing argument, it sums up the entire case.

These are the verdict forms from when Rudy and Addison won the trial by Rudy being acquitted of all charges

This is the press from when Rudy and Addison won the trial

This is Rudy, Addison and the investigator on the case after the verdicts

You can follow the press here from beginning to end of the case

"The jury acquitted Mr. Brewer's co-defendant, 27 year-old Rudy Ramos [whose lawyer was Addison Steele],

of first-degree murder, second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter."

Kitt

Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:16:45 GMT

This is a rape case that Christine had

Maguire

Thu, 06 Feb 2014 04:19:06 GMT

Martin M. 1428983, on October 31, 2013 Christine resolved his case so he could go directly to the judge for a sentencing hearing because that was the better option then sentencing after a jury trial

This was an extremely challenging case that Christine handled

Xitumul

Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:22:47 GMT

Carlos X. 1428912, Christine handled his case, the District Attorney did not get the life sentence that the charges carried

This is an extremely complex child molestation case that Christine handled

Morris

Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:53:30 GMT

Avery M., 1424960, on December 3, 2013 Acquitted of attempted murder, only found guilty of Assault with a weapon with great bodily injury

This was a gang attempted murder case that Christine won

He was facing a life in prison sentence

He was only convicted of an assault

Charges: Attempted murder (Penal Code § 664/187(a)), assault with a car (Penal Code § 245(a)(1)), two counts of criminal threats (Penal Code § 422 X 2), hit and run with injury (Vehicle Code § 20001(a)), with a gang enhancement (Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1)(C)), a great bodily injury enhancement (Penal Code § 12022.7(a)), and a crime/bail/crime enhancement (Penal Code § 12022.1(b)).
Exposure: Avery was facing thirty-six years four months to life in prison.
Outcome: After a jury trial he was found not guilty of attempted murder and not guilty of both counts of criminal threats. The special allegations of committing a crime while released on bail and the gang enhancement where both stricken. He was sentenced to seven years eight months in prison. It is considered a victory to get a determinate term (a sentence without "to life," but that instead has a set release date), but it is considered an absolute victory to get determinate term under ten years.

Nicolas

Wed, 20 Nov 2013 04:20:18 GMT

Felix N. 1350158, on October 28, 2013 his trial started and didn't finish until November 21, 2013, one of the child molestation charges was dismissed during trial

This was an extremely complex child rape trial and murder for hire case that Addison fought despite how difficult it was

Jorge D.

Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:03:46 GMT

Jorge D. 1411049, on October 31, 2013, Jorge was found NOT guilty of all felony charges and all charges that required registering as a sex offender, he was only convicted of two counts of misdemeanor simple battery

This is a child molestation trial that Addison won,

his client was facing 45 years to life in prison,

he went home after the verdicts were read

Charges: Three counts of sexual acts with a child ten years old or younger, child rape (Penal Code § 288.7(a)) with lesser offenses of three counts of attempted sexual acts with a child ten years old or younger (Penal Code § 664/288.7(a)), lesser offenses of three counts of penetration of a person under fourteen (Penal Code § 289(j)), lesser offenses of three counts of attempted penetration of a person under fourteen (Penal Code § 664/289(j)) and lesser offenses of three counts of simple battery (Penal Code § 242).
Exposure: Jorge was facing forty-five years to life in prison.
Outcome: Despite a videotaped confession, Jorge was acquitted of all the child molestation-related counts by the jury. He was only convicted of two misdemeanor lesser offenses of simple battery (the other count of misdemeanor simple battery was dismissed by the district attorney when the jury was hung on that count). The two convicted counts did NOT carry sex offender registration. He was given credit for time served on the two misdemeanor counts.

This was a challenging trial because the investigating detective had coerced a false "confession." Jorge had asked for an interpreter for the interrogation, but that request was ignored by the investigating detective and the interrogation was conducted in English, Jorge's second language. The jury found the way the interrogation was conducted to be particularly offensive. The alleged victim testified that an uncle had molested her and that it wasn't Jorge, despite that the district attorney pressed forward with full confidence that he would secure convictions and a life in prison sentence because the alleged victim had initially said that Jorge molested her. The jury acquitted Jorge of all the charges except two counts of simple battery because Jorge told the jury that there were two times when he was bathing the child that he became frustrated with her not cooperating with taking a bath and that he set her in the bathtub a bit roughly. Those charges were NOT in any way molestation related.

Jorge and his family were very bothered that the actually child molester was not charged, they were also very bothered that Jorge was forever tainted by having been accused. They asked Addison if there was any way that they could have it known that the jury found that the allegations were false allegations and if there was any way to get justice for the victim by having the actual molester prosecuted.

This is the first slide from Addison's closing argument.

This is the first of the fourteen NOT guilty verdicts that Jorge's jury came back with acquitting him of all but two very minor charges.

Truman G.

Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:39:19 GMT

Truman G. 1463524 Hung jury on October 4, 2013, the case was later dismissed

This is was a battery trial that Addison won by way of a hung jury followed by a dismissal

This is paragraph text. Click it or hit the Manage Text button to change the font, color, size, format, and more. To set up site-wide paragraph and title styles, go to Site Theme.

This is the docket from when Truman's case was dismissed.

This is Truman, Addison and the investigator on the case when Truman stopped by the courthouse to visit Addison.

Passaro

Sat, 28 Sep 2013 22:08:25 GMT

This is an embezzlement case that Christine handled

Ramirez Ventura

Thu, 08 Aug 2013 04:22:01 GMT

Juan R.V. 1387054, on August 9, 2013 Christine won one of the rape counts and a great bodily injury allegation along with it as well as a residential burglary count

This is rape trial that Christine did,

When she got the case everyone involved said there was no defense because it was a cold case DNA hit,

She was the first person to actually talk to the client and found out that it was a one night stand the alleged victim later regretted

Avery E.

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:41:58 GMT

Avery E. 1411901, on April 30, 2013, found not guilty of two separate strike charges, assault with a with a weapon with great injury and assault with great bodily injury

This was an assault with a weapon and great bodily injury trial that Addison won

This is the first slide from Addison's closing argument. Avery was charged with two assaults in two separate incidents. One was against his abusive father and the other was a jail fight.

This is the first of Avery's two NOT guilty verdict forms. The first charge in and of itself was an alleged strike. The second charge was an alleged strike because there was a great bodily injury enhancement.

Alvarez Leon

Tue, 19 Mar 2013 03:57:32 GMT

Jonathan A.L., 1427175, on July 3, 2013 he was acquitted on all charges

This is a manslaughter trial that Christine won,

her client was acquitted of all charges

Charges: Vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence (Penal Code § 192(c)(1)) and speed contest resulting in great bodily injury (Vehicle Code § 23109(a))
Exposure: Jonathan was facing six eight months in prison.
Outcome: He was acquitted of all charges and went home.

This was a very sad case. Jonathan and two of his friends, Alex and Raul were out riding their motorcycles together on Foothill Road in Santa Barbara when Jonathan and Raul both were in a tragic accident and Raul was killed. Based on very little evidence, the police decided that the three of them were racing and charged Jonathan and Alex with Vehicular manslaughter. Christine's client could not afford bail and was in jail while she fought the case. That also meant that Christine elected to have a "speedy trial" without a time waiver (a waiver of the constitutional right to a speedy trial). After the district attorney was finished with his case Christine made a motion for acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence. The judge agreed with Christine's assessment and acquitted her client on all charges. Jonathan was released from jail and went home.

Below is the Minute Order from the acquittal

This is the press from when Christine won the trial and her client was acquitted of all charges

Here you can follow the press on the case from beginning to end

Realignment

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 06:54:22 GMT

Christine was asked by a reporter for her expertise on the criminal justice system's Realignment

Vaughn

Sun, 30 Jan 2011 04:51:52 GMT

Steven V. RIF134229, on November 9, 2010 after seven weeks in trial Addison was able to resolve his case for probation with credit for time served

This is another case that Addison took to trial but that resolved in the middle of the trial

Pacheco

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 06:21:19 GMT

When Rod Pacheco was the District Attorney in Riverside County Addison was often asked by the press for commentary on his policies and their impact on the criminal justice system

Cebreros

Thu, 16 Sep 2010 03:55:25 GMT

Ramon C., RIF120947, Saved from the death penalty with a life verdict on September 15, 2010

This is the Article from when Addison won a capital murder case by saving his client from Death Row

This was a seven month's long trial, it was a battle to save Addison's client from Death Row from the

beginning to the end

Amazingly this is all the press the case got, capital murder trials were so common in Riverside County that they didn't get much press

Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)) with a special circumstance of lying in wait (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(15)) with personal use of a firearm (Penal Code § 12022.53(d)).
Exposure: Raymond was facing the death penalty.
Outcome: The jury's verdict was life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOPP). The jury verdict saved Raymond from Death Row.

A capital case jury trial that Addison did, and won, was the case of Ramon C. Defense attorneys consider any case where the client is facing the death penalty and is saved from Death Row an absolute win. The fight before the trial was to was to beat the gang special circumstance. Addison wrote and argued the Penal Code section 995 motion to eliminate the gang allegation. The trial judge denied the motion, however the appellate court agreed that Addison was correct and eliminated the gang special circumstance.

Raymond was accused of the execution style of killing a drug dealer, Juan S. Addison was lead counsel, which meant that he was responsible for all trial strategy decisions and guided the work of the other members of the defense team. His team did not just fight against the death sentence; they fought to win the case. The district attorney's case was the testimony of a methamphetamine user, Lisha L., who testified that Raymond shot and killed the drug dealer right in front of her. The defense was that Raymond did not know the drug dealer and, therefore, would not have been allowed in the house, was outside when the shooting occurred, and that it was, in fact, Lisha, the district attorney's snitch witness' ex-boyfriend, Erick E., who was the shooter. Addison presented forensic evidence that showed that Lisha's story could not have been true. The district attorney focused on Raymond's other accused violent crimes and his "eye witness." One of the highlights of the trial was when Lisha admitted that she was not only high on methamphetamine when the incident occurred, but was also high on meth when she testified in court. When she came to court to testify she had an active arrest warrant. The judge ordered her remanded into custody. Addison filed a motion to play Lisha's jail calls in front of the jury, as Raymond's jail calls had been played in front of the jury, so the jury could hear Lisha, in Addison's words, "In her natural habitat." Addison's motion was denied so the jury did not get to hear what Lisha was really like.

The jury found Raymond guilty of first-degree murder and found the special circumstance true. Addison and his team then went into the second phase, where they presented medical evidence and called witnesses from throughout Raymond's life. After a seven-month-long trial that was a battle at every step, the jury came back with a verdict, saving Raymond's life with a verdict of life in prison and rejecting the death penalty.

There were so many murder trials in Riverside at the time, including capital murder trials, that Raymond's case, over the seven months that it was in trial, did not get any press coverage. It wasn't until the verdict saving his life came in that there was a small article in the paper. That article is below.

This is one of the slides that Addison used in his closing argument

This is the verdict form from when Addison and his team saved Raymond from the Death Penalty

This is the Cebreros team, it's the fact phase investigator, the motions and appeals attorney, the paralegal,

 Addison, Raymond and the Keenan Counsel Attorney

The story of Mr. 319

This is trial exhibit number 319 from Raymond's trial. He remains in Addison's office to this day. The exhibit was referred to throughout the trial as Mr. 319. He was presented by an expert witness that Addison had hired to explain the trajectory of the bullet and how the district attorney's snitch witness' testimony did not match the forensic evidence. While explaining the trajectory, the expert witness, Blaine Kern, used the Pythagorean theorem to explain where the gun would have to have been fired from at different distances to account for the trajectory of the bullet.

After the trial was over the clerk called Addison to tell him that he needed to go get Mr. 319 because they could not continue to store him. After taking pictures of him from all angles for the appellate record, Addison took Mr. 319 back to his office. He then called Blaine Kern and asked if Blaine wanted him back, to which he answered that he could no longer use Mr. 319 because he now had a hole in his chest with a dowel sticking out of it, not to mention that he had been written on when witnesses testified about him and of course also now had an exhibit tag on him. Addison offered to buy him from Blaine, but Blaine said that he didn't feel right charging Addison for him and offered to give Mr. 319 to him as a memento of the fight they had had together in court. However, Addison couldn't accept him as a gift because at the time he was a deputy public defender and couldn't accept gifts from clients or expert witnesses. Blaine then asked Addison if would store Mr. 319 indefinitely for him. Addison agreed to do that and Mr. 319 has been happily stored in Addison's office since 2010.

Mr. 319 is very spirted and enjoys being decorated for holidays and special events. He is below showing his Christmas spirit.

Mr. 319 has a sticker on his right chest. That sticker says, "Team Ramon Cebreros life verdict 09.15.10 a good to save a life." Addison's theme during his closing argument in the second part of the trial, the trial to determine if Raymond would get life in prison or the death penalty, was that, "Today is a good day to save a life." The jury clearly agreed with Addison, they came back with a life verdict.

Robert M.

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:16:12 GMT

Robert M., RIF135704, on February 19, 2010 Acquitted of first degree murder and a hung jury on second degree murder

This is a murder Trial that Addison won

It was a "special circumstance Murder"

So Addison first had to meet with the d.A. Death Penalty Committee and convince them not to seek death

Then at trial his client was acquitted of first degree murder

That meant the he could not be given Life in prison

without the possibility of parole

Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)) with a special circumstance of gang murder (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(22)) with personal use of a weapon (a knife) (Penal Code § 12022(b)(1)), assault with a knife (Penal Code § 245(a)(1)) and gang crime (Penal Code § 186.22(a)).
Exposure: Robert was facing life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOPP).
Outcome: Robert was acquitted of first-degree murder, which meant that he could not be subjected to the special circumstance and could not get LWOPP. The jury hung on second-degree murder and hung on the gang crime allegation ten to two in favor of acquittal. A different attorney did his second trial, and he was convicted of second-degree murder and gang crime.

At the beginning of the case nineteen year-old Robert Martin was charged with the murder of a white supremacist, with a gang special circumstance, the gang special circumstance made the case a life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOPP) case. He also had a gang enhancement, which added ten years to his exposure, an assault on the white supremacist's buddy and a substantive gang charge (a gang activity charge).

The defense started with a presentation at the D.A. staffing, the people who would decide if they were going to seek the death penalty, to convince the D.A.'s office not to seek death in the case. That resulted in the D.A. filing a notice that they would NOT be seeking death. The incident occurred in a crowded upscale sushi bar in Corona, California that would convert into a nightclub late at night. There were numerous witnesses that testified. The case was complex in that there was faulty handling of the DNA evidence, the gang expert made up his testimony, there was an intoxication defense and a forensic pathology expert was called to counter the coroner's inaccurate testimony.

The defense was that a "friend" of Robert's, Richard Casiano, was in fact the stabber, not Robert, that the stabbing weapon was in fact a broken beer bottle, not Robert's pocket knife that did not have any of the decedent's blood or DNA on it, and that Robert had done nothing more than get beat up by the decedent. A Penal Code section 1118.1 motion to dismiss the assault charge was granted. After a four month trial, Robert was acquitted of first degree murder. The jury hung on second degree murder and the substantive gang charge (ten to two for not guilty on both charges). Robert went from facing the death penalty to beating LWOPP with an acquittal and beating 25 years to life in prison with the acquittal.

There were 200 people in the sushi restaurant at the time of the incident and Addison's investigator found a good portion of them and got them interviewed, subpoenaed, and to court. Addison also hired and presented a pathology expert, DNA expert, gang expert and intoxication expert. What was left was second degree murder and a ten year gang enhancement.

Addison was moved into a different assignment, exclusively defense of capital murders, so the case was reassigned. Because they couldn't have Addison do the retrial, his family hired a different lawyer. Where Addison had fought for four months battling every aspect of the case, the hired lawyer put on a two week trial and went from Addison's ten to two for not guilty to a conviction for second degree murder and a true finding on the gang allegation. The judge struck the ten extra years for the gang enhancement and Robert was sentenced to fifteen years to life in prison.

At the time murder cases were so common in Riverside County that this case, despite being from an incident in an upscale sushi restaurant in Corona, California, being a death penalty eligible case, and then having a five month long jury trial trial with an acquittal on first degree murder, it got no press coverage whatsoever. Below is a press release that we made after the case was long over.

These are a couple of the closing argument slides that Addison used.

Part of Addison's argument was that there was no large piece of broken bottle for Robert to have used to stab the decedent. He emphasis was that Scotty didn't beam up the key piece of evidence. Scotty, the Star Trek character, is the basis of the pop culture phrase, "Beam me up Scotty." In Star Trek Scotty is Lt. Commander Montgomery Scott.

Below is another slide that Addison used in his closing.

The same County Coroner, a medical do ctor, that lied about his handling of the evidence, also testified that he could not read the decedent's x-ray, that he could not see the decedent's heart in the x-ray. The forensic pathologist that Addison hired to testify for the defense said that the decedent's heart was clearly visible in the x-ray and that any medical doctor should be able to easily read the x-ray.

Narine

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:20:02 GMT

Naresh N. RIF150466, Addison handled his death Penalty case until he was assigned to a death penalty unit and Naresh's case was not sent to that uniT

This is another capital murder case that Addison handled

Bio-Tox

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 04:08:53 GMT

These are articles from when Christine took the lead for hundreds of clients when there was a laboratory scandal

Mendoza

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:11:54 GMT

Alex M., RIF125661, Saved from the death penalty on February 23, 2009

This is the case where Addison and the motions attorney on the case saved his client from Death Row With a successful mid-Trial Motion that eliminated the Special Circumstance from the case, which in turn eliminated the death Penalty

Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)) with a special circumstance of torture (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(18)).
Exposure: Alex was facing the death penalty.
Outcome: During the trial a motion to dismiss the special circumstance of torture was granted, and because of that granted motion the case was no longer a death penalty. Alex was saved from the death penalty and is not on Death Row.

Alex was accused of the torture-murder of his girlfriend's young son. Unlike many capital trials, Addison and the defense team did NOT concede the murder and only fight to avoid the death penalty; they fought to win the case. The defense was that the child's injuries were inflicted before he was in Alex's care and if the jury believed they were inflicted by Alex he did have the intent to kill. The prosecution's case was all about the statements Alex made to the police, which, if believed, made the prosecution's case rather strong. The defense team presented expert medical testimony to support the position that injuries occurred before the child was in Alex's care. The district attorney focused on Alex's statements.

In the middle of the trial, Addison jointly wrote a motion attacking the evidence that had been presented for the torture special circumstance and asking the judge to dismiss it. It was a high-stakes motion: If granted, the case becomes a regular first-degree murder case; if denied, it remained a death penalty case, and the killing of a child is never a good defense death penalty case. This type of motion is rarely granted. The team argued the motion, and it was granted. Alex was saved from death row. Unfortunately, it seems that his statements were too much for the jurors, who found him guilty of first-degree murder. Alex was sentenced to twenty-five years to life in prison. The case started with his exposure being years on Death Row, followed by death by lethal injection. Instead, someday, he will have a parole hearing and may be able to go home.

Below is the cover of the motion that Addison wrote that saved Alex from Death Row

This is the minute order from when Alex was saved from the death penalty

This is the press from when Alex was saved from the death penalty

This is Alex's team

Here you can follow the press from the case from beginning to end

This is the teaser that was at the bottom of the front page or the Local section.

This is the article.

Castro

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:41:00 GMT

Dennis C. RIF126995, on October 20, 2008 he was found NOT guilty by the jury of all charges, which were forced oral copulation and rape, he was facing 80 years to life in prison

This is a rape trial that Addison won

Charges: Rape (Penal Code § 261(a)(2)) with special allegations of rape during a residential burglary (Penal Code § 667.61(d)(4)) and rape with use of a weapon (12022.3(a), and oral copulation by force (Penal Code § 288a(c)(2)) with lesser offenses, assault with intent to commit oral copulation by force (Penal Code § 220), battery (Penal Code § 242) and assault (Penal Code § 240) with special allegations of oral copulation by force during a residential burglary (Penal Code § 667.61(d)(4)) and oral copulation by force with use of a weapon (12022.3(a)).
Exposure: Dennis was facing 80 years to life in prison.
Outcome: Despite a DNA match and saying on the witness stand that he had raped Jane Doe, Dennis was acquitted of all charges and all lesser included offenses.

This was a cold case DNA hit case. It was reported as a break-in stranger rape. What came out at trial was completely different from that. It turned out that Dennis was a neighbor in the condo complex in which the complaining witness (who the prosecution referred to as "the victim") lived. He was a young skateboarder and she was an older woman with a child and a husband that wasn't home much. There were two witnesses that mattered in the trial, the complaining witness and Dennis Once the trial started, the complaining witness' story began to unravel.

She said that she didn't know Dennis and had never seen him before. There was evidence that he was always on his skateboard all over the complex, and Dennis said that he stopped and chatted with her many times while she was on her front porch and he was skating through the complex. He described many long conversations with her at her front porch and that it was clear that liked him despite their age difference.

She said that he broke into her home through the garage at the back of the condo right after her husband left for work at 5:30 a.m., and then entered through an unlocked door from the condo to the garage, but his fingerprints weren't on either the garage door or the door from the garage to the house. Dennis said they had arranged for an early morning rendezvous, and that the plan was for him to go to the front door at 5:30 a.m. as soon as her husband had left for work. He said that he showed up as planned and she let him in. The police didn't dust for prints at the front door because she told him that he entered and left through the back door.

The condo had no signs of forced entry and there was no sign of a struggle in the condo, nothing was out of place.

She said that he raped her at knifepoint with a twelve inch fixedblade knife and that he was holding it the entire time. He said there was never a knife, and no knife was ever found.

She said denied that there was consensual sex and said that there was never any kissing of any sort, just a rape at knife at knifepoint, but she didn't have an explanation for a hickey on her neck, both her husband and she said that her husband, an older man, didn't give hickies. She also had no explanation whatsoever for the hickey on her vagina, and again both she and her husband said that wasn't something he would do.

The forensic exam that was done after she reported being raped showed no signs of forced sexual intercourse.

When the police asked for her bedsheet so they could examine it for any fluids, hair samples, or any other forensic evidence, she said that he took the bedsheet with him. When it was pointed out that it didn't make sense that he wasn't seen by anyone fleeing the condo with a knife in one hand and a bedsheet in the other, she said that he rolled up, while still holding the knife in one hand. The police didn't check the washer for the bedsheet, they just took her at her word that he took the bedsheet with him. They did check the dumpster right outside the back of the condo, there was neither a bedsheet, nor a knife in it.

Dennis said that their rendezvous started with heavy kissing and led to him giving her oral sex. He said that hickeys were his thing when he was young, and that he enjoyed giving hickeys all over a woman's body but that he only had a chance to give her hickeys on her neck and vagina. He said that their rendezvous was going just fine until her baby that was in a crib in the room with them began to cry. He said that she then said that she wanted to stop having sex. He said that he then quickly ejaculated inside of her vagina. When asked why he did that he said he was being irresponsible ejaculating inside the vagina of his married neighbor with whom he had just started a sexual relationship. He said that when she told him to stop when the baby started crying that he didn't think she meant stop because she was no longer consenting to having sex, but just that she wanted to stop for a minute to attend to the baby, so he just thought it was best to just finish.

He said that she became upset with him for ejaculating inside of her and expressed worry about what she would do if he got her pregnant. She was upset that she had engaged in their brief affair, he said that it was clear that she felt guilty about cheating on her husband in their bed with her baby in the room. She told him to leave and that their affair that had just started was now over. He did just as she said and walked out her front door and walked back through the complex to his condo and respected her wishes and never went back to her condo. Years later he was arrested because of the DNA hit. When the police interviewed him he told them that he didn't know what they were talking about because they described a breakin rape, he didn't even make the connection with brief rendezvous he had with his neighbor.

In order to overcome the weaknesses in her case, the DDA came at Dennis with his, "Kidnapping for rape" prior. What in fact happened is that Dennis had been burned on a drug deal. He went to what he thought was the dealer's house, grabbed who he thought was the dealer's petite girlfriend with a plan to hold her until the drug dealer paid him back what he had ripped off from him. He put her in his car, drove about a block and figured out that not only did he have the wrong person, but he in fact had a kid. He immediately pulled over and got her out of the car. When he was letting her out of the car he dropped his wallet right there with his identification in it. It took the police about a minute to figure out who he was and where he lived and were able to easily go pick him up. Then he was faced with life in prison for kidnapping for rape if he fought the case or taking a deal to avoid the risk. He took a deal.

At one point it looked like the DDA had Dennis on cross examination. She asked him if he disrespected the complaining witness and he answered, "Yes," and then she asked if he had raped her, and he said, "Yes." When asked what he meant by that he said that at the time he didn't think she meant, "Stop," as in, "I am no longer consenting to having sex," but meant, "Stop, I need a minute to calm down the baby and we'll get right back to this." And that now, the time he was testifying at trial, he realized that what she meant was that the baby crying triggered her feeling guilty about cheating on her husband and the now, in hindsight, he realized that she meant, "Stop, I no longer consent," and that his understanding of the law is that's rape. It seemed like a subtlety that was going to be difficult to explain to the jury.

Then came the closing argument and the jury instruction that the whole case would turn on, this is copied directly from Addison's closing argument slide:

"Dennis in NOT GUILTY of rape if he actually and reasonably believed that Ms. Doe consented to the intercourse. The plaintiff has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Dennis did not actually and reasonably believe that Ms. Doe consented. If the plaintiff has not met this burden, you must find Dennis NOT GUILTY."

It turned out that the jury did understand the instruction and Dennis was found NOT guilty of all charges and all lesser included offenses.

"A Rialto man imprisoned for a 2002 kidnapping was found not guilty of raping a woman in 2001.

DNA evidence matched Dennis M. Castro to the rape case, but jurors said what happened didn't meet the legal requirements for a rape conviction.

Castro's father and sister cried and hugged after the verdict was read Monday afternoon in the Riverside Hall of Justice.

Castro faced 80 years to life in prison on top of the 13 years and eight months he is serving for the kidnapping, said Deputy Public Defender Addison Steele."

Christy

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 03:20:39 GMT

Jaray C., RIF127509, On September 18, 2008

Acquitted of all homicide related charges

These are the articles from the second time that Addison got an acquittal on All homicide related charges

Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)) with a gang allegation (Penal Code § 186.22(b)) personal use of a gun (Penal Code § 12022.53(b) and gun use in a gang crime (Penal Code § 12022.53(e)), two counts of attempted robbery (Penal Code § 664/211) with gang allegations (Penal Code § 186.22(b)), gun use in a gang crime (Penal Code § 12022.53(e) and personal use of a gun (Penal Code § 12022.53(b)), two counts of felon in possession of a firearm (Penal Code § 12021(a)(1)), five counts of robbery (Penal Code § 211) with gang allegations (Penal Code § 186.22(b) and gun allegations (Penal Code § 12022(a)(1)).
Exposure: Jaray was only convicted of a few charges, all of which were conceded to the jury because they were on videotape. He was acquitted of first-degree murder and the lesser degree of second-degree murder. He was acquitted of all personal use of a firearm charges and was acquitted of all possession of firearms charges. He was acquitted of all gang charges and allegations. He was sentenced to four years and eight months in prison. He served that time and went home. He is now working and writing screenplays.

This was a difficult murder trial because the district attorney applied a rarely used theory of first degree murder called provocative act homicide. Jaray had grown up in Compton and when he was young was a member of the Santana Blocc Compton Crips. After he had moved out of the neighborhood he ended up hanging out with a friend from his neighborhood that had been making a living robbing liquor stores.

That friend recruited Jaray to do a robbery with him. Jaray's friend, another friend that would end up being Jaray's co-defendant, and Jaray set out to commit a liquor store robbery. However, Jaray didn't want to carry a real gun, he instead had a realistic looking BB pistol. During the robbery Jaray's friend held his gun to the merchant's head. The merchant grabbed Jaray's friend's gun, pulled his own gun out that he had tucked into the back of his pants and shot and killed Jaray's friend. He then shot Jaray in the back and buttocks as Jaray ran out of the store. Jaray and his co-defendant, who stayed in the car as the getaway driver, were both charged with murder under the provocative act murder theory.

The district attorney's theory was that it was Jaray holding the merchant's girlfriend in order to keep her from running out of the store or calling the police that inspired the merchant to kill Jaray's friend, not the fact that Jaray's friend was holding a gun to the merchant's head. An added twist to the case was that the district attorney had a snitch named McCoy that claimed that Jaray had done a series of other robberies. When one of the merchants from one of the other robberies was testifying, Addison showed her a picture of McCoy and she identified McCoy as the person that robbed her, not Jaray. She said that Jaray was definitely NOT the person that robbed and that McCoy was in fact the person that robbed her.

During closing arguments Addison argued that if the jury was looking for the person that committed all the other robberies that they had seen the real McCoy on the witness on the witness with his made up snitch story. The jury acquitted Jaray of all the other charged robberies. Addison and Jaray conceded that he was a participant in the robbery in which his friend was killed, but the jury agreed with the evidence that Addison and Jaray presented to show that the gun he had was a BB gun, which does not count for a gun enhancement, and that his former gang affiliation didn't have anything to do with the robbery.

The jury found both the gun allegation and the gang allegation not true. Jaray was found guilty of the conceded charges and was to four years eight months prison. Addison saved him from 71 years to life in prison.

This is one the slides that Addison used in his closing argument. He argued to the jury that the police should have investigated McCoy as opposed to using him as a snitch.

These are the verdict forms from Jaray's acquittal

This is the press from when Jaray and Addison won the trial

This is Jaray, Addison and the investigator on the case after the verdicts

This is Jaray and Addison several years ago when Jaray visited Addison at the Santa Barbara Courthouse

This is the press from Jaray and Addison's murder trial victory, you can follow the press here from beginning to end

"On Thursday the panel reached verdicts on Jaray Christy, 26, and on Tuesday returned their votes on co-defendant Jerron Henderson, 21, both charged with murder in the fatal shooting of Marshawn Burns, 29, of Moreno Valley.

Jurors acquitted both men in the death of Burns, and also found them not guilty on counts of robbery and attempted robbery unrelated to the liquor store holdup.

They also found not true the enhancement allegations of gang activity in a violent felony.

. . .

The second key moment came when a prosecution witness, whom [co-defendant's attorney Darryl] Exum said was a gang member, was identified by a woman under examination by Christy's defense attorney Steele as the man who had robbed her--for a charge in which Christy had been named.

It was one of the robbery charges separate from the Alessandro Liquor holdup.

'That kind of lost the case for the prosecution as a whole,' Exum said."

. . .

'We ate up two months of a civil courtroom, where regular people from Riverside should have been having their injuries resolved and their contracts disputes resolved,' Steele said.

He estimated his client originally faced 71 years to life, and now faces perhaps a possible maximum of six years, four months."

Manzo

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:16:39 GMT

Jesse M. RIF153566, Addison handled his death Penalty case until he assigned to a death penalty unit and Jesse's case was not sent to that unit

This is another death penalty case that Addison handled

Timothy S.

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:07:34 GMT

Timothy S., BAF003806, On June 12, 2008, hung jury (11 to 1 for not guilty) on two counts of attempted murder of cops with bombs and dismissed by the judge, only convicted of conceded counts of possession of bombs

This is a double attempted murder of police officers

with bombs trial that Addison won

with an eleven to one not guilty hung jury

He was facing 58 years eight months to life in prison

He was sentenced to 12 years Eight months

at half time for the

Conceded possession of bombs ch arges

Charges: Two counts of attempted murder of police officers with bombs (Penal Code § 664(e)/187(a) X 2), two counts of assault upon a police officer (Penal Code § 245(c) X 2), use of an explosive device for attempted murder (Penal Code § 12308 X 2), six counts of possession of an explosive device in public (Penal Code § 12303.2 X 6), and six counts of exploding a destructive device (Penal Code § 12303.3 X 6). (He was also charged with an unrelated domestic violence incident. He pled guilty to those charges before the attempted murder of police officers with bombs trial began.)
Exposure: Tim was facing fifty-eight years to life in prison.
Outcome: . It is considered a victory to get a determinate term (a sentence without "to life," but that instead has a set release date), but it is considered an absolute victory to get determinate term under ten years.

Daniel H.

Thu, 22 May 2008 19:56:08 GMT

Danny H. RIF130179, on May 22, 2008 Found not guilty on all charges, he had two strike priors and five prison prison priors alleged

This is a domestic violence Trial that Addison won, his client was facing 30 years to life in prison, he was acquitted on all charges

This is the first slide from Addison's closing argument. Danny and his ex-wife were in her car with her in the driver's seat and him in the front passenger seat. She became frustrated with him and starting punching him. He defended himself, but come out far worse from the fight. There was blood all over the passenger side of the car and none on the driver's side. His ex-wife admitted that she hit Danny first and one witness described their history of "mutual combat." The deputy district attorney was relying on the jury focusing on Danny's record and prior conviction for domestic violence, which often works for DDA's at trial, but this jury was too intelligent and saw through the criminal history noise and found Danny NOT guilty.

This is the case print of Danny's and Addison's trial victory that saved him from spending the rest of his life in prison.

This is Danny, Addison and the investigator on the case shortly after the verdicts.

Catchings

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:58:34 GMT

Robbie C., RIF104021, on October 20, 2005 hung jury on all counts, then acquitted of all charges on October 17, 2007

This is the first time that Addison got

a full acquittal in a murder case,

After the acquittal the district attorney tried a second time to send his client to prison for life, Addison shut that down too

Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), attempted murder (Penal Code § 664/187(a), felon in possession of a firearm (Penal Code § 12021(a)(1) (has since been changed to Penal Code § 29800(a)(1)), special allegations of personal use of a firearm (Penal Code § 12022.53(d), a prison term prior (Penal Code § 667.5(b), serious crime prior (Penal Code § 667(a) and three prior strikes (Penal Code § 667(c)&(e)(2)/1170.12(c)(2)).
Exposure: Robbie was facing 171 years to life in prison.
Outcome: There were two trials; the first trial ended in a hung jury, with the jury deadlocked at ten to two for acquittal. At the second trial, Robbie was found not guilty of all charges.

This was a really challenging murder case. The allegation was that Robbie shot at two men for no apparent reason killing one and wounding the other. The case was made more challenging because Robbie had two strike priors, so if he was convicted of any one of the charges he would be sentenced to at least 25 years to life in prison. So the felon in possession of firearm charge alone would result in a life in prison sentence.

What had in fact happened was that Robbie was confronted by his best friend who mistakenly believed that Robbie had become involved with his girlfriend. The evidence presented at trial was that Robbie had grown up in South Los Angeles and when he was younger he was an Eleven Eight East Coast Crip (Eleven Eight was for 118th Street in South Los Angeles and East Coast Crips did not have anything to do with the East Coast, it means the eastern side of South Los Angeles). It was an environment where the slightest disrespectful act could have deadly results, so his best friend believing that Robbie was involved with his girlfriend was a very serious matter. The evidence that Addison and Robbie presented at trial was that after his best friend confronted Robbie, the two separated and were about forty feet apart in the courtyard of an apartment complex. His best friend was standing next to another man talking and Robbie was standing next to another man talking, they were all former Eleven Eight East Coast Crips gang members and all knew each other. Robbie was the only person that was not armed.

All of sudden, his best friend pulled out his gun and began firing at Robbie. The man Robbie was next to pulled out his gun to fire back, he got off some shots but then dropped the gun in the chaos. While they were being shot at Robbie picked up the gun and also fired back. Robbie's best friend and the man he was with were both shot, but Robbie best friend succumbed to his wounds. There were many people in the apartment complex that heard the shootout and many people that witnessed only a portion of it. The district attorney presented a theory that Robbie shot his best friend and another person that he grew up with for no known reason. The first trial resulted in a hung jury. Robbie offered fourteen years just to avoid the risk of 171 years to life in prison.

The district attorney rejected the offer on the theory that he would be able to send Robbie to prison for life on the felony in possession of a firearm alone because Robbie had two prior strikes. However there's an exception to felon in possession of a firearm charge--if a person's life is in danger and that person comes upon a firearm, he is allowed to possess the gun to defend himself. The exception matched the facts of what had happened to Robbie. At the second trial the jury acquitted Robbie of all charges and he went home.

However the district attorney wasn't done. In the years that Robbie had been in jail waiting for both trials, he had gotten into a one punch jail fight. The district attorney charged that jail fight as a felony assault so Robbie was again looking at twenty-five years to life in prison. Addison wrote and argued a motion to reduce that charge to a misdemeanor. The motion was granted and Robbie was given credit for time served. Addison had saved Robbie's life a second time.

This is Robbie, Addison and the investigators on the case after the verdicts

This is the docket from the acquittal (the clerk's office said that the "Lost" not Guilty verdict forms)

This is the docket from Robbie's acquittal Robbie was featured in an article in the Los Angeles Daily Journal that was done about Addison winning so many trials. Addison and Christine have been told, but have not been able to confirm, that the Los Angeles Daily Journal has never done an article like this about any other criminal defense attorney.

Riverside Public Defender Piles Up Victories: Three Full and Three Partial Acquittals in Nine Trials Win Him Special Recognition, Jason W. Armstrong, Los Angeles Daily Journal, Volume 121, Number 32, February 20, 2008.

In another of Steele's high-profile wins, the defender secured a murder acquittal in October for Robbie Catchings, a Moreno Valley resident prosecutors said shot and killed a man at a Perris apartment complex in 2002. Steele also persuaded a judge to reduce to a misdemeanor a felony assault charge against Catchings in a separate case that could have exposed the defendant to a life sentence under the three-strikes law. Catchings walked free as a result.

. . .

Jenny Reis, a Corona woman who served on the jury that acquitted Catchings, said Steele's 'down-to-earth' evidence presentation helped his credibility with the jury.

. . .

She also said she could tell Steele 'thoroughly believed' in his client's innocence.

'He was so passionate,' Reis said. 'He reminded me of a parent defending [his or her] child.'

Robbie was also featured in a newspaper article covering when Addison was named Riverside County Public Defenders Office Attorney of the Year.

Public defender's office honors staff, Sonja Bjelland, The Press-Enterprise, Local B7, December 9, 2007.

"The Riverside County public defender's office presented awards Friday night to a staff committed to providing opportunity and hope.

Deputy Public Defender Addison Steele won the top award for his embodiment of what it means to fill that role, said Robert Willey, assistant public defender. Steele spent 115 days in trial in 2007 and thanked the entire office for helping him win the case of Robbie Catchings, who was charged with murder and acquitted by jury.

“As you can see, I didn't win a murder trial, we won a murder trial,” Steele wrote in an e-mail to staff, Willey said.

You can follow all the press on the case from beginning to end here

After Addison and Robbie won the murder trial, the district attorney tried to give Robbie a life in prison sentence because he was a third striker and had gotten in a jail fight while he was waiting for his trial, the trial that he was acquitted of all charges. Addison filed a series of motions, including a bail motion when the deputy district attorney on the case tried to have Robbie sent back to jail, a motion to dismiss the jail fight case, a motion to strike the strike priors, and a motion to reduce the jail fight charge to a misdemeanor. The judge reduced the case to a misdemeanor. Robbie pled guilty to the misdemeanor for credit for time already served, and it was finally all over. Robbie was able to go home and take care of his ailing mother.

This is the first newspaper article about the district attorney trying to give Robbie a life sentence after they lost his murder trial.

Lowe

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:27:52 GMT

This was an extremely difficult rape case that Addison Handled, the press called it the "UCR Rapist Case"

Josef J.

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:41:29 GMT

This is Joseph J. RIF131284 on January 22, 2008 during trial his case was settled for dismissal of all the felony charges

This is a trial that Addison won by resolving the case during trial for dismissal of all the felony charges

Charges: One count of attempted child molestation (Penal Code § 664/288(a)) and one count of indecent exposure (Penal Code § 314.1).
Exposure: Josef was facing eight years in prison.
Outcome: After opening statements the attempted child molestation and indecent exposure charges were dismissed by the district attorney. Josef pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of child annoying, which now only require ten years of registration, so if he's gone back to court to petition to no longer register, he should no longer be a sex crime registrant.

Cobb

Sat, 13 Oct 2007 03:29:08 GMT

Albert C. RIF129534 on March 9, 2007 he was found NOT guilty by a jury on all charges, which included attempted murder, elder abuse and criminal treats

This an attempted murder trial that Addison won, his client was acquitted of all charges

Charges: One count of attempted murder (Penal Code § 664/187(a)), elder abuse (Penal Code § 368(b)(1)) and criminal threats (Penal Code § 422).
Exposure: Al was facing 11 years eight months to life in prison.
Outcome: He was acquitted on all charges by a jury.

"Albert L. Cobb, 66, of Riverside, was acquitted in March on all counts, including attempted murder. Prosecutors said he tried to suffocate his mother, who was in her 80s.

. . .

The incident stemmed from a confrontation in an assisted living home, said Steele, who represented Cobb. Jurors heard medical testimony that the mother's bruises were age-related, that she had cognitive impairment, and that she could be combative with her own son.

. . .

Cobb was one of five of Steele's clients who have been acquitted on all charges in Riverside County since 2003."

Tomas Z.

Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:09:45 GMT

Tomas Z., RIF131949, On June 25, 2007 Acquitted of three counts of attempted murder, only convicted of assault of with a gun and a gun enhancement

This is an attempted murder trial that Addison won,

His client was acquitted of Triple attempted murder,

He was saved from a 46 years to life in prison sentence

and was only sentenced to eight years for the lesser

crimes for which he was c onvicted

Robertson

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 04:03:08 GMT

Howard R. RIF115020, he was found NOT guilty of all charges and all lesser included offenses by a jury

This was a robbery trial that Addison won. His client was facing 52 to years to life in prison, he was found NOT guilty of all charges and all lesser included offenses

Charges: Robbery (Penal Code § 211) and residential burglary (Penal Code § 459) with four prison term priors (Penal Code § 667.5(b)), five serious crime priors (Penal Code § 667(a)) and five strike priors (Penal Code § 667(c)&(e)(2)(A)/1170.12(c)(2)).
Exposure: Howard was looking at fifty-four years to life in prison.
Outcome: Howard was acquitted of all charges and released from jail. He moved to Tennessee to live with his brother, made a living as a painter, trained defense lawyers on prison gangs, and even testified as a gang expert at a trial. He, unfortunately, was the victim of a river drowning accident. His family said that he died doing what he loved: Enjoying being free in the outdoors.

Enrique A.

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:08:35 GMT

Enrique A., RIF126653, On February 26, 2007 Acquitted of attempted murder, only convicted of assault with a gun and a gun enhancement

This is attempted murder trial that Addison won

Lee M.

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:29:35 GMT

Lee M. RIF123536, on January 11, 2007 he had a hung jury on child molestation charges

This a child molestation trial in which Addison got a hung jury and the most serious charges were later dismissed and the client got credit for time served and probation

Charges: Two counts of continuous child molest (Penal Code § 288.5), two counts of child molest (Penal Code § 288(a)), and two counts of child molest of a fourteen or fifteen-year-old (Penal Code § 288(c)).
Exposure: Lee was facing 40 years eight months in prison.
Outcome: There was a hung jury on all counts. Addison filed a motion to dismiss because the counts were hung. The judge granted the motion for the two most serious charges. Lee then pled guilty to the remaining counts to get out of jail and move on with his life after the judge indicated that he would give Lee credit for time served in jail if he pled guilty to the counts that were left.

Victor V.

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:27:01 GMT

Victor v. RIF131050, on October 25, 2006 found NOT guilty of all charges, he was first acquitted by the judge of Assault with a vehicle and then acquitted by the jury of hit and run, he was only convicted of a conceded DUI

This is a 50 years to life in prison trial that Addison won,

it was an alleged domestic violence hit and run

and assault with a vehicle

his client was only convicted of a conceded DUI

This is the final slide that Addison used in his closing argument.

This is the verdict form and the docket from Addison's trial win.

This client was saved from a sentence of 50 years to life in prison, he instead was released from jail and went home.

Willie M.

Fri, 01 Sep 2006 05:25:00 GMT

Willie M. RIF128452, on September 1, 2006 he was found NOT guilty of possession for sales and NOT guilty of gang activity

This was a gang drug possession of drugs for sales case that Addison won, because his client was only convicted of conceded simple possession of drugs, he got drug treatment instead of going to prison

Charges: Possession of crack cocaine for sales (Health and Safety Code § 11351.5) with a gang allegation (Penal Code § 186.22(b)) and gang activity (Penal Code § 186.22(a)), with a sales prior (Health and Safety Code § 11370.2(a)) and seven prison term priors (Penal Code § 667.5(b)).
Exposure: Willie was facing fifteen years and eight months in prison.
Outcome: Willie was found not guilty of possession for sales and not guilty of gang activity. He was only convicted of the conceded count of simple possession of crack cocaine. Because that was the only charge for which he was convicted, he had to be released from jail, granted probation, and given drug treatment pursuant to Proposition 36.

This is the final slide that Addison used in his closing argument.

This is the final docket, it doesn't show Addison as his attorney because after winning all the charges except the conceded simple possession of drugs, he could no longer be sent to prison and the court had to give him probation with drug treatment. He then had review court dates to assure that he was doing well in drug treatment and another attorney appeared for those review court dates.

Joseph T.

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 05:23:44 GMT

Joseph T. RIF126216, on June 5, 2006 he was found NOT guilty on all Charges

This is a robbery trial that Addison won,

his client was charged with robbery with a strike prior,

had he been convicted he was looking at 16 years in prison,

instead he was released from jail and went home

Charges: Robbery (Penal Code § 211) with a strike prior (Penal Code § 667(c)&(e)(2)(A)/1170.12(c)(2)), prison term prior (Penal Code § 667.5(b)), and serious crime prior (Penal Code § 667(a)).
Exposure: Joe was looking at sixteen years in prison. His case actually started out as a thirty-six years to life-in-prison exposure case because he was charged with two additional out-of-state strikes and an additional five year serious prior offense (nickel prior). Addison challenged those strikes and one of five year serious priors before the trial began and got them dismissed.
Outcome: Acquitted of all charges. Joe was immediately released from jail directly from the courtroom. Joe and Addison then went and had lunch, where he started a tradition of buying a carne asada burrito for the first meal back to freedom for his clients who have been released from jail after an acquittal.

This case was a challenge from the beginning. It started out as a 31 years to life in prison case. Joe had two out of state strike priors and one strike prior from California. Addison challenged the out of state priors and won, but that still left Joe's exposure at 16 years and his likely exposure if they lost the trial was 12 years. The district attorney was bitter about losing the opportunity to send Joe to prison for life, so there were no offers made and it was made clear that no offers from the defense would be accepted.

What made the numbers unacceptable was that the "robbery" was really an allegation of a glorified petty theft. It was Estes robbery, which means that it was a shoplifting with an allegation of force or fear against store worker. The allegation was that Joe went to a Barnes and Noble, went to the compact disks area, selected a couple of compact disks and tucked them into the back of his pants. The instore video did capture Joe in the store, but somehow missed him putting the compact disks in his pants. After looking through the compact disks and a checking out some books Joe left. He was followed out by the store's loss prevention person. The loss prevention guy stopped Joe and demanded that he lift his shirt to prove that he didn't have any compact disks tucked into the back of his pants. Joe, knowing that he hadn't taken anything, and feeling like he was being harassed because he was the only black person in the store, refused. The loss prevention guy claimed that Joe then said, "I've a piece," as if he was in an old gangster movie. Joe testified that he said, "You're a piece of shit, get away from me," and got in his car and left. The police pulled him over shortly thereafter and found compact disks in his car, just as everyone had compact disks in their cars back then, but none that were brand new or still in the store wrapping. The police of course also did not find a gun.

This district attorney was not deterred by the lack of evidence. She told the jury that the cameras weren't set up to capture every inch of the store, that the loss prevention should be believed because he didn't have any reason to lie, and that Joe must have ditched the compact disks' store wrapping somewhere along the way. The jury came back with NOT guilty verdicts for both the robbery charge and the lesser included offense.

One interesting thing that happened during the trial is that Addison got a court order to take photos inside of Barnes and Noble. They had a policy of not allowing anyone to take pictures in their store. Addison explained that it was a court order, not a request. They said that they would get their corporate counsel in New York on it. Addison explained to their lawyer in New York that it was a court order, not a request. He told his employees to not cooperate with the order. Addison called the New York lawyer and told him to look at map and find Corona, California. That's where the trial was. He explained that it's a two courtroom courthouse with a judge that he had been appearing in front of for years, and that if thought the judge would not issues warrants for the employees' arrests, he was wrong. He still told the employees to not cooperate with the court order. When the judge found out about that, he said that if the employees didn't comply with the court order within twenty-four hours he would in fact issue warrants for their arrests and send the courtroom deputy to pick them up, and not only that he would issue a warrant for the New York attorney's arrest and personally call the New York State Bar to let them know that an attorney had advised his clients to violate a court order. When the New York attorney heard that all of a sudden he decided it would be best to tell his workers to cooperate with the court order.

Another side note is that there was one juror that was holding out for a conviction. Criminal defense is one place where racial issues must be confronted. Pretending that race is not an issue when the accused person is black or brown is a mistake. Joe and Addison were very aware of the racial makeup of the venire, all the potential jurors, and the jury once it was selected. They were concerned that it was an all white jury except for one young black woman. There was concern that the one black juror would bond with the district attorney who was also a young black woman, but the thinking was that having at least one black juror was better than having an all white jury. It turned out that jury was the holdout wanting to convict. The jury foreman reported to the judge that there was one jury that was refusing to deliberate, she wouldn't discuss the evidence with the other jurors, she just stated that Joe was guilty and said that she would not talk about it. The judge then brought the juror out to ask if she was refusing to deliberate. She said that she had a relative that's a criminal, and that her relative was "just like" Joe, and that there was no need to talk to the other jurors because she knew the kind of person Joe was based on his similarity to her criminal relative. That was all kinds of reasons for her to be excused as a juror in the case. The alternate juror was called in and within minutes the jury returned with NOT guilty verdicts.

Another interesting side note was that Addison convinced the judge that Joe had to be released right there from the courtroom because the Court didn't have any jurisdiction to return him to the jail. That wasn't easy, the district attorney had a fit, it was going to be embarrassing to watch Joe walk out of the courtroom a free man after having tried so hard to have him sentenced to 31 years to life in prison. In the end the judge realized that he couldn't put Joe back into custody after he had been acquitted of all charges.

This is one of slide that Addison used in his closing argument

These are the verdict forms where Joe was found NOT guilty of the charge and the lesser included offense.

Nelson

Sat, 20 May 2006 20:57:26 GMT

This is a child molestation case that Addison handled, he even authored an editorial related to the case

Editorials

Sun, 02 Apr 2006 20:42:11 GMT

Addison has had editorials published

Addison has always been willing to defend clients in the press as well as in court

Addison wrote this editorial when he was starting his legal career, it's amazing how little has changed

In case there's any chance that it is not clear, this next editorial is a satire

Addison will defend his clients in the press no matter what the subject matter

Harvey P.

Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:21:44 GMT

Harvey P. RIF112764, on December 8, 2005 acquitted by the judge of all charges

This is criminal threats and assault with serious bodily injury (both charges were strikes) trial that Addison won

Edward P.

Mon, 05 Dec 2005 05:21:01 GMT

Edward P. RIF113339, he was found NOT guilty of all felony counts, two of which were strikes

This is a burglary and attempted Robbery trial that Addison won, his client was only convicted of conceded misdemeanors

Weinhart

Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:44:12 GMT

John W. RIF110175, on February 22, 2005 his trial ended with NOT guilty verdicts on some of the charges

This was the "Tiger Abuse trial," As the press called it,

that Addison did

In fact Addison's client wasn't even charged with "Tiger Abuse." He was charged with technical bookkeeping violations, because of the extensive records that must be kept for exotic animals, and tiger neglect. He ran a tiger rescue that cared for former show business exotic cats, there wasn't ever even an accusation that he abused a tiger. The district attorney wanted a long prison sentence. Addison fought and fought. He battled an onslaught of negative and incorrect press in the end the district attorney did not get the sixteen years prison they wanted. John and Addison beat some of the charges and he was sentenced to two years in the county jail .

Acosta

Fri, 29 Apr 2005 04:43:30 GMT

Jaime A., RIF106552, Acquitted of first degree murder

on may 23, 2005

This is a murder trial that Addison did,

he was able to save his client from a first-degree murder convictions, but he was convicted of second-degree murder,

he has since paroled from priso n

Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), auto theft (Vehicle Code § 10851(a)) and possession of a stolen car (Penal Code § 496d(a)).
Exposure: Jaime was facing twenty-eight years to life in prison.
Outcome: Jaime was acquitted of first-degree murder; he was convicted of second-degree murder and auto theft charges. He was sentenced to seventeen years to life in prison. People sentenced to life here in California have very little chance of being granted parole. However, those convicted of second-degree murder have twice as good a chance of being paroled as those convicted of first-degree murder. Jaime has been paroled and is home now.

This case was tragic because it involved three cousins. The cousins were drinking on Easter Sunday at remote part of a large park when the subject of a love triangle and how the family interacted came up. That led to an argument. Jaime testified that his cousin Pedro then attacked him and that his other cousin, Jesus, came to his rescue. The jury agreed with Addison that it was not a pre-meditated and deliberate first degree murder and acquitted Jaime of first degree murder. Unfortunately they believed that it was a second degree murder.

This is a slide that Addison used during his closing argument

This is the only press that the case got

This is the cover of the motion that Addison filed to try to get the judge to reduce the conviction to a manslaughter,

Unfortunately the motion did not work,

Jaime has since paroled from prison

Ronnell B.

Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:20:21 GMT

Ronnell B. RIF113393, on March 30, 2005 he was found NOT guilty of all charges and all lesser included offenses

This is a domestic violence trial that Addison won

Aguilar

Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:57:02 GMT

Edward A., SWF003559, Acquitted of both first degree murder and second degree murder on November 18, 2004

This is an article about a murder trial that Addison won,

Defense attorneys consider any murder that results in less than life in prison an absolute win

This client was only convicted of manslaughter, he served about ten years and went home

instead of serving the rest of his life in prison

Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), with personal use of a weapon (a knife) (Penal Code § 12022(b)(1)), with two prior terms in prison alleged (Penal Code § 667.5(b)).
Exposure: Eddie was facing twenty-eight years to life in prison.
Outcome: Eddie was acquitted of first-degree murder and acquitted of the lesser degree of second-degree murder. He was only convicted of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to fourteen years in prison.

This was case was quite a challenge. Eddie confessed to the killing of the decedent and gave great detail as to how the killing happened in his videotaped confession. He testified that he had been bullied by the defendant and that because of that he brought a kitchen knife with him when the decedent and him went to go buy methamphetamine. He testified that while they were driving to buy drugs he became frightened by the decedent. He grabbed the kitchen knife and stabbed the decedent in the torso. He said in the videotaped confession and on the witness stand, that the decedent asked him, "Why are you killing me Man?" His response was, "you've been killing me for years," stabbed the decedent a second time killing him. The jury agreed with Addison that it was not a first degree murder, nor was it a second degree murder, and that it in fact was a manslaughter. Eddie is home now and has not gotten in any trouble since parole from prison.

This is one of the PowerPoint slides that Addison used for the trial's closing argument

These are Eddie's acquittal verdict forms

This is the press from when Eddie was acquitted of first degree murder and second degree murder

This is Addison and Eddie about ten years after the trial

Here You can follow the press on the case from beginning to end

"When Edward Tony Aguilar stabbed a Winchester man twice last year--once in the throat--and killed him while he was driving, it wasn't murder.

After a week of deliberations, a jury at Southwest Justice Center found that Jon Willson was killed during a sudden quarrel and convicted Aguilar of voluntary manslaughter.

The verdict shocked the prosecutor and friends and family of the victim.

. . .

Aguilar, 38, of Menifee, showed little emotion as he listened to the verdicts that mean he'll someday be able to go home.

His attorney, Deputy Public Defender Addison Steele, said Aguilar and his family had hoped he'd be going home Thursday, had the jury agreed with the defense argument that Aguilar killed Willson in self-defense.

If Aguilar had been found guilty of either first or second-degree murder, he could have spent the rest of his life in prison. Now, the most time he can serve is 14 years in prison, his attorney said.

. . .

'I would have been happier if he had been able to go home today, but I'm still happy with this verdict,' Steele said outside the courtroom.

Willson was stabbed twice--first in the right side and then in the throat--while driving his pickup with Aguilar as the lone passenger April 10, 2003. Willson's body was found slumped in his pickup hidden in an orange grove in the Woodcrest area of south Riverside. Aguilar left it there and fled to an uncle's nearby home before he burned the clothes he worn during the slaying.

. . .

Steele said jurors told him that when they first began deliberating last week, they were split evenly in four ways: Three thought Aguilar was guilty of first degree murder, three second degree murder, three believed it to be voluntary manslaughter and three more felt he was not guilty because it was self-defense.

'They said they worked through every bit of evidence in there,' Steele said, 'I think they just came to the conclusion that Edward was afraid of Jon.'

Jurors also told him that Aguilar made the right decision to testify: 'They said they realize he contradicted himself several times, but they still came away thinking he was afraid.'"

This is the article from the sentencing

The judge was bothered that Addison's client had won the trial so he gave him the maximum for the lesser offense

this is called the victory tax

That's when the life sentence charge or charges are beaten and the judge gives the maximum for whatever is left

Renteria

Fri, 23 Jul 2004 18:14:47 GMT

Patrick R. RIF111175, on July 8, 2004 his trial started, Addison fought hard against the murder charge, unfortunately the evidence was too much to overcome, of the dozen murder trials Addison has done this is the only one he's lost

This is a murder trial that Addison did in the early 2000s

Ruben T.

Wed, 23 Jun 2004 05:19:53 GMT

Ruben .T RIF105368, on June 23, 2004 he had a hung jury on possession for sales of methamphetamine and NOT Guilty on felon in possession of ammunitioN

This is a possession of drugs for sales and felon in possession of ammunition trial that Addison won, the client was facing 50 years to life in prison and was only convicted of simple possession of drugs

Charges: Possession of methamphetamine for sales (Health and Safety Code § 11378), felon in possession of ammunition (Penal Code § 12316(b)(1)) and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health and Safety Code § 11364), with two strike priors (Penal Code § 667(c)&(e)(2)(A)/1170.12(c)(2)).
Exposure: Ruben was facing fifty years to life in prison.
Outcome: The jury found Ruben not guilty of felon in possession of ammunition and possession of drug paraphernalia; the jury hung eleven to one in favor of acquittal on the possession of methamphetamine charge. The case later settled for Ruben pleading guilty to simple possession of methamphetamine, and the district attorney dismissed one of the strikes, and Ruben was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison, although it was ridiculous for him to have to go to prison, it was much better than 50 years to life.

This case was a battle from the beginning. This trial was in 2004 when because of the Three Strikes law a person could easily get a life sentence for possession of a small amount of drugs. The fight started by trying to get Ruben out from under the Three Strikes law with a Romero motion (a motion asking the judge to strike the strike priors so the defendant is not facing a life sentence) and a 17(b) motion (a motion to reduce the charges to misdemeanors so the defendant is not facing a life sentence). Unfortunately the case had been assigned to Judge Charles Morgan, easily one of the worse judges in Riverside County. A fair trial, or even basic fair treatment, was not something that was going to be had in Judge Morgan's courtroom. Both motions that would have saved Ruben from a life sentence were denied by Judge Morgan. That meant the case needed to go to trial in a courtroom where there would not be fair rulings and where defense counsel and the defendant could count on not being able to fully present a defense to the jury. Judge Morgan presided over a trial where the district attorney was prosecuting a woman for using methamphetamine while she was breastfeeding her baby. The attorney in that case said in the press that Judge Morgan was incompetent. His assessment of the judge's ability was absolutely correct.

The Sheriff's Department did a parole search of Ruben's home and found a coin purse with 16 grams of methamphetamine in it in a common area. They found two digital scales and empty Ziploc bags in a Hello Kitty box. They found $764 in Ruben's wallet; he had a fulltime job so the source of the money could be proved. They went into a bedroom and found a used methamphetamine pipe with an additional half a gram of methamphetamine. There were also four bullets in that bedroom's closet. Addison and Ruben presented evidence that Ruben had a female roommate and that it was her bedroom, not his, where the items were found. Despite the evidence that it was the roommate who had the drugs, the district attorney pressed on wanting to convict Ruben of possession for sales of methamphetamine with a theory that even if they lost that and he was only convicted of possession for personal use he would spend the rest of his life in prison. The trial was only six days, not for a lack of trying to present a full defense, but because Addison and Ruben were shut down at every step trying to present their case. However, there was something that Judge Morgan and the district attorney could not control, that was the jury. They acquitted him of possession of ammunition and possession of drug paraphernalia. They hung 11 to 1 in favor of acquittal on the possession for sales for count. It looked like Addison and Ruben were going to have to gear up to try the again. However, Ruben had already been in jail for more than a year when Addison got the case and because of Riverside County's crowded courts it had been almost two years by the time the trial ended. Ruben decided to offer the minimum sentence with only one strike prior which meant that he would "do a turnaround" at Chino State Prison, the California Department of Corrections "reception center" for Riverside County. The district attorney accepted that offer which meant that Ruben and Addison would not have to risk a life sentence in a second trial and Ruben would be home in a matter of months.

Below is one of the slides from Addison's closing argument in Ruben's trial.

Below are the NOT guilty verdict forms from Ruben's case. The NOT guilty of count two, felon in possession of ammunition saved Ruben from a twenty-five years to life in prison sentence. The other charge, possession for sales of methamphetamine, where he faced an additional twenty-five years to life in prison had a hung jury, eleven to one for NOT guilty, and was later resolved for a plea to simple possession of methamphetamine.

Felipe P.

Fri, 02 Apr 2004 05:19:16 GMT

Felipe P. RIF108057, on April 2, 2004 he was found NOT guilty of all charges (he had been acquitted by the judge earlier in the trial of five of the ten counts of child molestation)

This is a child molestation trial that Addison won

Charges: Child molest by force or fear (Penal Code § 288(b)(1)) and ten counts of child molest (Penal Code § 288(a)).
Exposure: Felipe was facing 20 years in prison.
Outcome: Despite a videotaped confession, in the middle of the trial, Felipe was acquitted of five counts of child molest by the judge; he was then found not guilty of all the remaining counts by the jury. He walked out of the courtroom with Addison, returned to work, and got on with his life.

This case involved Felipe's teenage stepdaughter accusing him of molesting her. Felipe was fully engaged in the raising of his stepdaughter, including discipline such as taking away privileges for poor behavior, Felipe's wife, the teenager's mother, did not like to engage in disciplining the teenager, she was able to do whatever she wanted unless Felipe took charge of maintaining order. When the stepdaughter was getting to be an older teen she decided that she didn't like losing privileges because of poor behavior. She then made false molestation accusations. The challenge was that Felipe "confessed." However the jury saw right through the confession. The interrogation was in English despite Felipe asking for an interpreter and having limited understanding of English. The interrogator was a very large white man, 6'8" and loomed over Felipe at 5'4", the jury was very bothered by how the interrogation was conducted. Before the trial began the district attorney didn't understand why Felipe wouldn't accept her offer of six years prison when the case was in her opinion, "a slam dunk." It turned out that the both the judge and the jury quickly saw through accuser's story. During the trial, first the judge acquitted on about half the counts, then the jury acquitted on the rest of them.

When Felipe and Addison left the courthouse after the verdicts he was concerned that everyone knew that he was accused and no one would know that the judge and jury found that the allegations were false allegations.

Juan D.

Wed, 07 Jan 2004 07:30:56 GMT

Juan D. RIF109587, Addison handled his triple attempted murder case until he entered a not guilty by reason of insanity plea, the case was reassigned while Addison did a string of jury trials in a row

This is a triple attempted murder case that Addison handled

Madrigal

Thu, 15 May 2003 11:28:22 GMT

Juan M., RIF104979 voluntary manslaughter charge dismissed on May 14, 2003

This is a homicide case where Christine got all the homicide related charges dismissed with pre-trial hearings and motions

This is a case that CHristine had where she beat the beat the involuntary manslaughter chargE

The decedent's family wanted the district attorney to seek the death penalty in a case where there was clearly no intent to kill and there wasn't enough evidence to even support an involuntary manslaughter charge

This case was both tragic and strange. Juan was a young adult with a seventeen year-old girlfriend. The decedent suffered a one inch vaginal laceration while Juan and she were having consensual sex. That laceration led to an air embolism (air getting into the bloodstream) which reached her heart and caused her death. This is an extremely rare cause of accidental death. The district attorney charged Juan with involuntary manslaughter, burglary (entering his girlfriend's home with the intent to have unlawful sex because he was over eighteen and she was under eighteen) and penetration with a foreign object, which was another way of charging him for having sex with a seventeen year-old when he was over eighteen. The decedent's family was not happy with the charging decision, they wanted the district attorney to seek the death penalty. An element of involuntary manslaughter is engaging in dangerous conduct that led to a death. At the preliminary hearing the judge ruled that having sex is not a dangerous act, therefore the voluntary manslaughter charge could not stand. However the district attorney did not give up and refiled the charge anyway. Christine then had to beat the charge a second time with a granted motion (a Penal Code section 995 motion).

Henson

Tue, 04 Mar 2003 04:50:38 GMT

Daniel H. RIF108333, Addison did his preliminary hearing which got press coverage

This is another case that Addison had

Richard S.

Fri, 19 Jul 2002 05:18:21 GMT

Richard S. 1071841, on July 19, 2002 he was found NOT guilty of all felony counts except resist arrest and then at sentencing the judge then reduced that charge to misdemeanor

This is a domestic violence and resisting arrest trial that Addison won, his client was only convicted of misdemeanor charges

Derek H.

Wed, 06 Mar 2002 05:17:47 GMT

Derek H. 1073166, on March 6, 2002 he was found NOT guilty of battery on a police officer, the judge reduced the one felony conviction to a misdemeanor at sentencing

This was a felony resisting arrest, battery on a police officer and misdemeanor trespassing trial that Addison won, his client came away from the trial with only misdemeanor convictions

Mr. Holbert was convicted of felony resisting arrest. However the judge, after hearing the evidence at trial, reduced the charge to a misdemeanor and sentenced him to a misdemeanor disposition. That means that his "judgment of conviction" is a misdemeanor, which means that for ALL purposes the conviction is only a misdemeanor. For defense attorneys when there are felony charges in a trial case and the client comes away with only a misdemeanor convictions or conviction, that is considered an absolute victory.

ACLU

Sun, 11 Nov 2001 02:37:06 GMT

When he was a young deputy Public Defender Addison served on the board of the local ACLU chapter

This is an article about an ACLU event when Addison was serving on the board.

Kaleimamahu

Mon, 04 Jun 2001 05:17:00 GMT

Whiston K. 1015758, on June 4, 2001 he was found NOT guilty of all felony charges

This is a resisting arrest trial that Addison won

Collins

Sat, 21 Oct 2000 04:51:30 GMT

Joshua C. 1015802, on October 20, 2000 he resolved his case for nine months in jail and probation

This was Addison's very first press case

Lopez

Sat, 09 Oct 1999 03:56:31 GMT

Martin L., SB225068, Acquitted of both first degree murder and second degree murder on August 24, 1999

This is a murder trial that Christine won

when she was in her twenties

Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)) with a firearm allegation (Penal Code § 12022.53(d)).
Exposure: Marty was facing fifty years to life in prison.
Outcome: Marty was acquitted of first-degree murder and he was acquitted of second degree murder. He was only convicted of voluntary manslaughter, which is considered an absolute victory by defense attorneys. The amazing part of the outcome was that Christine convinced the judge to NOT impose a "victory tax." When a life sentence exposure case is won the defense attorney expects the judge to impose the maximum sentence for any lesser included offense or unrelated counts that were found guilty or to which a plea was entered. In plain English, if the client's life is saved, the judge will max him or her out on anything that's left. It is extremely rare for a judge to not impose the victory tax. What was left after Marty and Christine's victory was a maximum of twenty-one years in prison. The district attorney's expectation was that the victory tax would be imposed and that Marty would receive that maximum term. Christine prevailed against the victory tax and Marty was sentenced to ten years. After serving his sentence Marty returned home to live in the very same house where he had shot his abusive father. Unfortunately the trauma that Marty suffered overwhelmed him and he took his in life in that same house.

This was a tragic case. Marty testified at trial that he had witnessed his father abuse his mother his entire life. He also testified that on his twenty-first birthday, the day he was old enough to buy a gun, he did just that in order to protect his mother from his father. On the witness stand he said that his mom and dad got into an argument and that his father was threatening his mother. He went to defend his mother and pointed the gun at his father and told him to leave her alone. His said, "You don't have the balls to shoot me," and Marty fired. Although those facts sound like a first degree murder, Christine used what was at the time new technology, a PowerPoint presentation, and convinced the jury that it was not murder. Marty was acquitted of first degree murder and the lesser degree of second degree of second murder. He was only convicted of manslaughter with a gun enhancement. Getting a voluntary manslaughter when charged with murder is considered an absolute victory. Another interesting fact about this case is that Christine was a young attorney in her twenties when she did this trial. She was such a superstar young lawyer that she was assigned a murder case despite her age.

This is the Minute Order from when Marty and Christine won his trial

This is a postcard that Marty sent Christine after the trial

The press started covering this case toward the end of the trial, you can follow the press here

This is an article from when Christine had her client on the witness stand

This is the article form when Christine won the trial

This is the article from when Christine beat the Victory Tax and kept her client from getting a maximum sentence

Brown

Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:46:43 GMT

Christine was asked for her commentary for this article

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Hines

Thu, 20 May 1999 18:41:35 GMT

Toby H. SB228328, Christine did his trial when she was a young attorney

This is a pimping trial that Christine did when she was in her twenties

Gary H.

Wed, 10 Feb 1999 03:54:15 GMT

Gary H. SB225632, on February 10, 1999 the special allegations of great bodily injury and then the strike prior that made it a life in prison case were found NOT true

This was a life in prison trial that Christine won because she saved her client from spending the rest of his life in prison

Craig T.

Thu, 20 Aug 1998 05:14:54 GMT

Craig t. SB224840, on August 20, 1998 he was found NOT guilty as charged

This is a residential burglary trial that Christine won.

Christine's client had a strike prior, that meant that if they lost the trial he was facing up to 12 years in prison at 80%. He also had a petty theft with prior conviction because he had pleaded no contest to that charge. Once she had won the residential burglary charge, that only left the petty theft with a prior and the strike prior to content with. Christine got the strike struck and got the client probation with a treatment program.

Chavez

Thu, 06 Aug 1998 04:51:06 GMT

Peter C. SB225634, on August 5, 1998 he was held to answer and bound over to Superior Court after having a preliminary hearing

This is a very serious case that Christine handled when she was a young attorney

Dominguez

Sat, 20 Sep 1997 11:54:19 GMT

Jerry D. 453173, Christine handled his case and was eventually able to get it reduced to a misdemeanor

This is a possession of a bomb case that Christine handled when she was a young attorney

Bastian

Wed, 07 May 1997 04:08:58 GMT

Danette B. SB215844, on May 7, 1997 her case ended in a hung jury and was later dismissed

This is a child concealment trial that Christine won by way of a hung jury and a dismissal

Miller

Thu, 06 Mar 1997 18:03:42 GMT

Robert M. SB216551, on February 27, 1997 his trial finished after Christine fought and fought for him, the district attorney failed at getting him sent to prisoN

Staying with slightly odd animal cases, this was an assault trial Christine did when she was in her twenties,

It was an assault with a deadly weapon case,

with the weapon being a dog

The District Attorney wanted to send Christine's client to prison for ordering his rottweiler to attack someone

Christine fought the case, in the end the client got probation without any jail time

Sean M.

Wed, 18 Sep 1996 03:58:08 GMT

Sean M. 465485, on September 18, 1996 he was found NOT guilty as charged

This is a prowling trial that Christine won when she was a young attorney

Julia V.

Thu, 20 Jun 1996 03:59:29 GMT

Julia v. 463426, on June 20, 1996 her trial ended in a hung jury, the domestic violence charge was later dismissed in exchange for a no contest plea to disturbing the peace

This is a domestic violence trial that Christine won by way of a hung jury followed by a dismissal

Gregory B.

Wed, 15 May 1996 04:01:43 GMT

Gregory B. 460611, on May 15, 1996 he was found NOT guilty as charged

This was a DUI trial that Christine won, the defense was that the cop lied about seeing her client driving

Jay S.

Tue, 12 Dec 1995 04:03:52 GMT

Jay S. 457110, on December 12, 1995 he was found NOT guilty as charged

This was an assault with serious bodily injury trial that Christine won

bscq8960-5el8bceeoyokfdum

Florentino C.G.

Mr. 319

Article Links 2022 Mock Trial

Article Links 2021 Haobsh

Article Links 2020 Haobsh & BLM

Article Links 2019 Haobsh

Article Links 2018 Haobsh, Holzer, Byers, Etc.

Article Links 2017 Haobsh, Oliver, Blackmon, Etc.

Article Links 2016 Haobsh, Solis, Blackmon, Etc.

Article Links 2015 Solis, Holzer, Martinez, Blackmon, White, Etc.

Article Links 2014 Solis, Holzer, Maguire, Godinez, Kitt, Ect.

Article links 2013 Alvarez Leon, Solis, Maguire & Nicolas

Article links 2011 realignment

Article links 2005 Weinhart

Article links 2023 Mock Trial

UCSB Protests

Featured Article

Television

This Is the article from when Addison was named the California Public Defenders Association Defender of the Year Award

CPDA is a Statewide Criminal Defense organization, Defender of the Year is the Noble prize of Criminal Defense in California

Tyler M.

Tyler M. 25M-04632, on August 8, 2025 he was found NOT guilty by a jury of all charges and all lesser included OffenseS

﻿

This is a trial that Addison won where the client was saved from having to register as a sex offender

Awards

Murphy

Sanchez

County Budget

Mock Trial

Marquez

Alvarez

Santiago A. 1407388, on November 1, 2023 he was found NOT guilty by the judge of attempted murder

﻿

This is an attempted murder resentencing trial

that Christine won

Gutierrez Valtierra

Haobsh

Payan

Perlingos

Miles W.

Miles W. 20CR08197 on June 4, 2021 he was found NOT guilty of all felony charges which included a charge that is a strike, winning all strike charges is considered an absolute victory and winning all felony charges is even more so

﻿

This is a jury trial that Addison won with acquittals on all the felony charges

BLM

Gabriel V.

Gabriel V. 18CR03764, on April 8, 2019 he was found NOT guilty of all charges (on one charge he was found NOT guilty by the judge a few days before)

﻿

This is a domestic violence trial that Addison won

Rachel W.

An interesting feature of this trial was that it was Addison 100th Jury Trial

Byers

Jeannette S.

Lompoc Riverbed

Holzer

Mariano L.P.

Sarwary

Taylor

Highley

Hernandez

Oliver

Torres

Gault

Delgado

Cruz

Blackmon

Mora

Herrera

Montgomery

Martinez

Codey S.

Ibanez Herrera

Antolin I.H. 1461668, on August 1, 2016 found NOT Guilty by jury of attempted rape and all child molestation charges, he was only found guilty of misdemeanor assault

﻿

This is a multiple alleged victim child rape and child molestation case that Addison won

Moreno

Urbina Serrano

Matthews

Corizon

Solis