The featured article is the latest notable article
or press release
The Haobsh Case
This is Christine being featured on 48 Hours
Watch the it 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.
This case was built on the complaining witness (what the DDA's the "victim") accusing Florentino and his two co-defendants 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 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.
This 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 enough so that a case that could not resolve before the trial started could now settle.
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.
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 they happened to be in. She also place 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 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 buys 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 much 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 even find that Adam coerced Betty into working. However, 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 there 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. 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). 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. 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
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.
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 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 c0-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.
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 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
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, work 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
High School Mock Trial
The Haobsh Case
The UCSB Protesters Case
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.
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)).
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
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 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 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
The Haobsh Case
The Payan Case
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
