Case Reviews

People v. Grant, Case No.~ An attempted murder prosecution, this case is commonly referred to as the “Vigilante Case.” This prosecution involved a defendant who shot a drug dealer in the back. Jim presented a “defense of neighborhood” defense, arguing an individual had the right to protect his neighborhood when the police could not. Jim convinced the judge to give the jury a modified jury instruction, allowing Jim an opportunity to make his argument and obtain a not guilty verdict for his client.

People v. Hanoukai, Case No.~ This case involved the first degree murder prosecution of an Iranian man who admittedly beat his wife to death. Jim presented the testimony of a sociologist regarding the patriarchal Iranian Jewish society, and convinced the judge to modify the “heat of passion” jury instruction. This allowed the jury to consider a defendant’s cultural background in determining the reasonableness of the “heat of passion” argument and adequate legal provocation . It has since become a defense that has been accepted in several jurisdictions.

U.S. v. Bajakajian, Case No.~ The case was argued and won before the United States Supreme Court. In this case the Supreme Court established for the first time in our nation’s history, a standard for applying the 8th Amendment’s “Excessive Fines” clause to forfeitures. In so doing, the Court ordered the return of almost $400,000 in currency seized from Jim’s client, which the Government fought to keep, even after it was proven the currency was from a legitimate source and intended for a legitimate purpose. This case has had a dramatic effect on new legislation, and has significantly curtailed the government’s abuse of forfeiture laws.

People v. Gomez, et al.,Case No. VA081956~ Mr. Blatt was able to convince prosecutors in this Bellflower case to dismiss charges against his client, Marin Gomez, who was charged, along with two other co-defendants, with three counts of carjacking, three counts of kidnapping for carjacking, and three counts of robbery, along with receiving stolen property, and personal use of a firearm by Mr. Gomez.

According to the police reports, the defendants stopped a truck at gun point, removed the three occupants, duct-taped them, and left them on the side of the road. The defendants were found later stripping the truck, and were positively identified during a field show-up. Mr. Gomez was alleged to have wielded the firearm, and was found with stolen property in his pockets.

Through investigation into a lead discovered by Mr. Blatt and Eduardo Madrid , counsel for co-defendant Onesimo Gonzales, a juvenile witness revealed that there was no carjacking, but a hotel drug deal gone awry. The defendants obtained possession of the truck not by carjacking, but as a result of the drug deal. One of the alleged victims had checked into the hotel, a fact which would’ve been unknown to the defendants unless they were at the drug deal, not carjacking. This was verified by the driver’s license and signature card the alleged victim provided when he checked into the hotel.

The defense shared the investigation results with the prosecution, who, after confronting its witness, dismissed the case against Mr. Gomez and the co-defendant. Mr. Madrid ’s client entered a plea merely to a felony with a firearm charge. Each defendant had been incarcerated on $1,000,000 bail for several months, facing several life sentences.

People v. Castleberry, Case No. PA042776~ Jim negotiated a “time-served” disposition for a defendant accused of numerous counts of attempted murder against police officers. The charges arose from a lengthy, high speed pursuit of Mr. Castleberry and his co-defendant, who was shooting at the pursuing officers as he drove. Although it appeared to the pursuing officers that Mr. Castleberry helped his co-defendant put on a gun belt and assist in the shooting, Jim convinced the prosecutor that Mr. Castleberry was guilty only of evading , leading to the “time-served” resolution of the case. Mr. Castleberry’s co-defendant faced murder charges.

People v. Jeknavorian, et al., Case No. BA240330 and BA25444~ Jim avoided state prison for his client, who was allegedly involved with several others in million dollar real estate investment fraud schemes. After investigation and research, Jim discovered that the “key” witness against his client may also have been involved in significant fraudulent activity. Jim disclosed the information to the DA on the eve of trial and the case went from state prison to 3 days in county jail. Additionally, Jim negotiated the return of all of his client’s seized funds , funds which were obtained as a result of allegedly fraudulent property sales.

People v. Ammari, Case No. PA041060~ The defendant was accused of threatening the victim, transferring the hand-gun to the shooter co-defendant, and driving the shooter co-defendant to and from the shooting. Additionally, the co-defendant accused Jim’s client of being the shooter. Evidence existed that the defendant provided the co-defendant with the firearm prior to the shooting, and said he “had the co-defendant’s back” prior to the shooting. The defendant made incriminating statements during an interrogation where the investigating officers pretended to conduct a polygraph exam, using a polygraph examiner, in which no exam was ever performed or even attempted. Jim’s client received a not guilty verdict; the co-defendant was convicted of murder.

People v. Douglash, Case No. PA044521~ The jury in this case returned not guilty verdicts on 11 counts of Child Molestation between the defendant and his stepdaughter. According to the allegations, the defendant molested his stepdaughter over 11 months. The prosecution presented evidence that the defendant’s wife, the victim’s mother, actually observed the defendant molesting the girl. The defendant received a not guilty verdict on all counts; his exposure was almost 32 years incarceration.

People v. Moreno et al., Case No. PA040557~ This case involved 18 defendants accused of stabbing a rival gang member to death. Six plead guilty to 1st or 2nd degree murder before trial. Five were found guilty in an earlier trial and received “Life without Possibility of Parole.” Jim’s client was among the remaining defendants. The prosecution’s case in Moreno fell apart as to all co-defendants after Jim’s cross-examination of the critical witness. A jury reached a not guilty verdict on 5 counts in favor of all 18 defendants.

People v. Freidman, Case No. 4HL01053~ Jim’s client was charged with misdemeanor assault, with intent to commit great bodily injury. Mr. Freidman allegedly “sucker punched” the B-list celebrity/comedian Andy Dick. Testimony indicated Jim’s client struck without warning, causing a broken nose and lacerations requiring more than 20 stitches. Four witnesses , including nightclub security, testified Jim’s client acted without provocation and was the aggressor. After a two week trial, the jury returned a not guilty verdict on one count and “hung” on another three counts. With an exposure of a year and a half in jail, the City Attorney then offered Jim’s client a Penal Code § 415 (fighting, noise, offensive words), no probation, and a $200 fine without penalty assessment.

People v. Hamby, Case No. LA043432~ Mr. Hamby was charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and infliction of great bodily injury. It was also alleged that Mr. Hamby was previously convicted of robbery, a strike. Mr. Hamby was facing almost 20 years in state prison. Testimony at trial indicated Mr. Hamby was involved in a melee outside a sushi bar after a dispute of the bar-tab erupted. Several witnesses indicated they observed Mr. Hamby swinging a walking cane, striking at least two of the participants . The jury “hung” as to all counts. Mr. Hamby ultimately entered a plea to a lesser charge, with no incarceration and a small fine.

People v. Murillo, Case No. PA045763~ Mr. Murillo was charged in this special circumstance murder case with a double homicide with the use of a firearm. After interviewing numerous witnesses, Mr. Blatt presented a “defense of others” defense at the preliminary hearing. Testimony indicated Mr. Murillo fatally shot two taggers/gang members who, during one evening, terrorized the patron’s of a San Fernando Valley nightclub. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the court dismissed the case and freed Mr. Murillo, who had been incarcerated with no bail for almost 1 year.

People v. Keesling, Case No. BA0257706~ Mr. Keesling was charged in a three strike prosecution with a violent, night-time home invasion robbery, during which he allegedly fought with the victims and struggled for almost 30 minutes over the hand-gun he allegedly used. Mr. Keesling was alleged, during the course of police investigation, to have been involved in a multitude of other Westside home invasion robberies. Mr. Keesling was acquitted on all counts.

People v. Blake, Case No. LA040377~ Mr. Blatt was selected by the trial judge as Special Master in the Robert Blake case. Mr. Blatt’s responsibility as Special Master was to oversee the Los Angeles Police Department’s Investigation into the burglary at the residence of Robert Blake’s attorney, M. Gerald Schwartzbach. The burglars stole Mr. Schwartzbach’s computer, which contained all his work-product for the pending trial.