Pakneshan Attorney’s Office

The Pakneshan Firm is dedicated to representing clients accused, investigated or charged in state and federal criminal and administrative matters. The Pakneshan Firm is a Bay Area criminal and DUI law firm which has the experience, expertise and resources to handle all phases of your case. Our firm represents clients in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties.

The Pakneshan Firm has established itself as one of the Bay Area's premier criminal and DUI defense firms. We have a proven track record for getting the best possible results for our clients.

As a former Deputy District Attorney, Pezhman Pakneshan has prosecuted thousands of cases ranging from misdemeanors to serious felonies. As a prosecutor, he successfully handled over 1,000 DUI cases. Now, Mr. Pakneshan specializes in DUI defense and virtually every area of criminal law.

Mr. Pakneshan's experience as a former prosecutor makes him uniquely qualified to handle all types of criminal and DUI matters. Knowing how the prosecutor thinks gives him the opportunity to develop an effective defense designed to counter the government's strategy. Judges and prosecutors respect him because he knows exactly how the system works and he never allows them to take advantage of his clients.

Time and again, Mr. Pakneshan has gained dismissals, acquittals and reductions for his clients. He always strives to keep his clients’ criminal records clear. Mr. Pakneshan is one of California’s foremost authorities on how to clear (expunge) criminal convictions. He is committed to helping people who have been unfairly saddled with a criminal record to petition for expungement or to seal their record.

As an experienced criminal and DUI attorney, Mr. Pakneshan is committed to providing each client with the best possible legal representation. When you contact The Pakneshan Firm, your case won’t be passed off to a paralegal—rest assured that an experienced attorney will handle your case personally. Your case will be handled for a reasonable flat fee that you can afford.

If you have been charged with a crime or DUI, the District Attorney or the U.S. Attorney’s Office will aggressively prosecute you. You need experienced and aggressive legal representation to fight for your rights. Hire an experienced and aggressive criminal and DUI defense attorney who understands criminal and DUI laws, and knows what it takes to get you the best possible results. If you have been arrested, or know someone who has, now is the time to call.

For a free and confidential attorney consultation, call (415) 293-8454.

Education & Honors

Pezhman Pakneshan graduated with honors from UCLA and the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Mr. Pakneshan also received a Certificate of Study in Business and Public Policy from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He is a member in good standing with the State Bar of California.

Since receiving his law degree, Mr. Pakneshan has focused his practice on criminal and DUI law. Upon graduating from law school, he worked as a Deputy District Attorney. As a prosecutor, he successfully prosecuted thousands of misdemeanor and felony criminal and DUI cases and tried numerous jury trials. During that time, Mr. Pakneshan grew to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution of criminal and DUI charges.

As a prosecutor, Mr. Pakneshan handled over 1,000 DUI cases. Now, he specializes in DUI defense. Over the years, he has received extensive training by the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Forensic Services, in all aspects of DUI cases. That extensive training included alcohol extrapolation studies, as well as EPAS and Intoxilyzer analysis. He has also received extensive training and has experience handling DUI cases involving prescription medications and illegal drugs.

As a criminal defense attorney, Mr. Pakneshan specializes in virtually every area of criminal law ranging from misdemeanors to serious felonies.

Mr. Pakneshan's intricate knowledge of the criminal justice system affords his clients with unique "inside information" and gives him the advantage in defending criminal matters. Knowing how the prosecutor thinks gives him the opportunity to develop an effective defense designed to counter the government's strategy.

Mr. Pakneshan is also one of California’s foremost authorities on how to clear (expunge) criminal convictions. He is committed to helping people who have been unfairly saddled with a criminal record to expunge or seal their record.

Your Case Will Get Immediate Attention

Many criminal defense attorneys do not do anything before appearing at your arraignment for weeks, maybe months, after your arrest. By the time a court date has been scheduled, it may be too late to obtain critical evidence available for your defense. On the contrary, Mr. Pakneshan takes immediate steps to protect your constitutional rights and attempts to resolve the case with the prosecution before a court appearance is ever made.

We Don’t Just Plea Bargain

Too many criminal defense attorneys see your only option as a plea to the charges. Mr. Pakneshan believes that the best defense is a good offense. Therefore, he aggressively prepares the case by filing necessary motions and requests for pretrial discovery. He focuses on getting your case dismissed because the consequences of a criminal conviction are serious.

Experienced and Aggressive

Mr. Pakneshan will help you understand the best approach and strategy for the defense of your case. He takes the time to understand each client's specific situation and takes an individual approach to each case. He believes that a client should be treated with respect and integrity.

Communication, honesty, aggressiveness and legal expertise are all words that have been used to describe The Pakneshan Firm. Judges and prosecutors respect us because we know exactly how the system works and we never allow them to take advantage of our clients.

Getting arrested and being charged with a crime or DUI can have life changing consequences, so it is critical to have an attorney with experience defending these charges. Hire an experienced and aggressive criminal and DUI defense attorney who understands criminal and DUI laws, and knows what it takes to get you the best possible results.

The Pakneshan Firm provides every potential client with a free and confidential attorney consultation. Mr. Pakneshan will help you understand the best approach and strategy for the defense of your case. He takes the time to understand your specific situation and takes an individual approach to your case.

When you are facing criminal prosecution, you can't afford anything less than experienced and aggressive representation. Whether you have been charged with a misdemeanor that can ruin your record forever or a felony that can land you in prison for many years, your primary concern should be the quality of representation you will receive.

Attorneys charge fees for the cases they defend. The amount of that fee depends on the nature and complexity of the case. For example, what an attorney might charge for a murder case would be substantially more than the fee for a simple speeding ticket. Most experienced criminal and DUI attorneys get paid a flat fee for a particular case. That fee is based on the type of offense and the duration of the representation.

The Pakneshan Firm charges a flat fee for most criminal, DUI, traffic and expungement cases. We strive to ensure that our fees are reasonable and affordable. Our flat fee gives our clients an assurance that they will not be charged any additional fee than what was initially agreed. So even if the case takes ten court appearances, our clients are not charged any additional fees. Some firms bill the client by the hour, which means every second spent thinking about the case results in a bill to the client. We do not think this method of billing is fair in a criminal or DUI case, and therefore, do not engage in this form of billing. Because we charge a flat fee, you can be assured that your case will be resolved without having to worry about getting bills in the mail.

In many cases, The Pakneshan Firm can be retained over the phone to go to court on your behalf. We can fax or e-mail you the necessary paperwork and receive payment via credit card—you never need to step foot into our office.

Our goal is to make this process as convenient and painless as possible for our clients, while aggressively obtaining the best results. Depending on the type of case, you may never even need to step foot in a courtroom. This is important for clients who want to maintain anonymity or have busy work schedules. The Pakneshan Firm may be able to appear on your behalf in all of your court proceedings.

We encourage you to contact us for a free consultation. We have several offices conveniently located throughout the Bay Area.

Tel: (415) 293-8454
Fax: (510) 964-9144

SEND CORRESPONDENCE TO SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE

SAN FRANCISCO (MAIN OFFICE)
One Market Street
Spear Tower, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105

ALAMEDA COUNTY
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94612

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94597

MARIN COUNTY
4040 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, CA 94903

SANTA CLARA COUNTY
2033 Gateway Place, 5th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110

from

Russell Loren Goodrow

About Goodrow Law

The offices of Russell Goodrow and Goodrow Law were established by California attorney Russell Goodrow in 2007 after Mr. Goodrow spent several years working for the Department of Justice. Mr. Goodrow has been actively working on DUI cases through motion, trial, and appealing guilty jury trial convictions since 2004.

Specialized in many areas of the law; Mr. Goodrow’s principle practice areas include: DUI defense for California, Personal Injury, Landlord/Tenant, Contracts and Agreements, and many years supporting those seeking to establish and defend legal Cannabis Collectives.

Goodrow will not advocate for you in an area he’s not experienced in. Fortunately, he brings a diverse background to the table, allowing him to advocate for you in many areas of law.

What gives Russell Goodrow the edge is his complete understanding of the law and his determination to vigorously and tirelessly advocate and defend his clients to an acceptable resolution.

The Law Offices of Russell Goodrow offers free initial consultations. Services include:

·         Asset Protection

·         e-Discovery Services

·         Auto Accident

·         Civil Litigation

·         Class Action Suits and Defense

·         Consumer Advocacy and Protection

·         Contracts

·         Criminal Defense

·         DUI/DWI

·         Harassment

·         Personal Injury

·         Probate

·         Products Liability

·         Wills and Trusts

Law Offices of Russell Goodrow * Experience you can trust

DUI : PERSONAL INJURY : LANDLORD/TENANT : LEGAL CANNABIS COLLECTIVE ADVOCACY

Goodrow Law is committed to providing vigorous legal representation for our clients. Our experience in DUI, Personal Injury, Landlord/Tenant, and Cannabis Collective establishment and representation is unique and unparalleled in California. As your attorney it is our job to maintain our standards of excellence in ethical, fair minded, and aggressive support for your cause or action. Call us right now at (805) 769-8065 and let's get started.

·         (805) 769-8065

·         Russellgoodrow@goodrowlaw.com

·         Monday-Saturday

·         8am - 8pm

·          

·          

·         The Law Chambers Building
@ 345 Franklin Street

·         San Francisco, CA 94102

·         Driving Directions

from

Severa Laurance Keith

Law Offices of Severa Keith specialize in felony and misdemeanor defense throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and Northern California.  We represent clients in all criminal matters, including complex felonies, crimes of violence, drug crimes, marijuana offenses, robbery, burglary, theft, DUI and driving offenses, battery, domestic violence, fraud, resisting arrest, hate crimes, vandalism, and misdemeanor offenses.

We have the experience to intelligently develop your defense, professionally work with the courts, and aggressively protect your interests.  You can be confident in the representation Severa Keith and her team provide.

Our approach is to get to know our clients so that we can help you get through the toughest legal problems.  Our goal is to provide you with all the information you need to understand your case every step of the way and to get you the best possible resolution.

Experience

Severa Keith has successfully represented hundreds of clients in the Bay Area and throughout California since 2001.  Prior to establishing her firm, Ms. Keith worked at the San Francisco Office of the Public Defender, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Bredhoff and Kaiser, PLLC.

Ms. Keith holds a Juris Doctor Degree from Stanford Law School, and a Bachelor of Arts, with Honors, from Stanford University.  

She is licensed in the State of California, the Northern District of California, and Washington, D.C.

Severa Keith is a member of the California Public Defenders' Association and the Bar Association of San Francisco.  She is on the Board of Directors of Women Defenders.

Email Telephone Fax Address Location Accessible byBART- Civic Ctr StationMUNI Lines- 9, 12, 14, 14L, 47

info@keithlawoffices.com (415) 626-6000 (415) 865-0376 179 11th Street, Second Floor San Francisco, California 94103

from

John David Forsyth

OVERVIEW: Meet John D. Forsyth

John D. Forsyth is a San Francisco native. His education is entirely local: St. Brendan Elementary, Saint Ignatius College Preparatory, U.C. Berkeley and Hastings College of the Law.

John is a tribally enrolled member of the Covelo Indian Community in Mendocino County. His family still resides on the Hoopa Valley Reservation in Humboldt County. During law school John spent his summers working there for the tribal attorney and environmental protection division. That experience instilled his desire to stand up for the rights of those who lack a voice against the government.

After graduation from law school, John spent 2 years with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office assisting in the prosecution of white collar crimes. Since then John has dedicated himself to defending those accused by both state and federal agencies. In the last 10 years nearly 90% of this work involved accusations of sexual misconduct and other serious violent felonies.

John has served on the faculty at the Stanford Law School Trial Advocacy Program since 2001 and for the past 2 years has served as a guest judge at the Stanford Law School Moot Court Trial Competition.

EDUCATION

Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, California
Juris Doctorate, December 1993

University of California, Berkeley, California
Bachelor of Arts, English Literature and Native American Studies
June 1989

Saint Ignatius College Preparatory, San Francisco, California
Class of 1977

St. Brendan Elementary, San Francisco, California
Class of 1973

PUBLICATIONS

“California Criminal Procedure and the Native Defendant”
News from Native California, Volume 12, nos 1 – 4.

A series of magazine articles detailing a step-by-step guide for Native defendants and how they can be affected by the criminal justice system.

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Stanford Law School Advocacy Skills Workshop
2002 to present

Instructor for law school program designed to teach 2nd year law students trial techniques and skills.

Stanford Law School Moot Court Competition
2007 to present

Judge for national moot court trail competition.

RECENT CLIENT CASES

San Francisco Superior CourtClient was arrested for felony domestic violence causing bodily injury which is a strike. Client was also charged with felony domestic violence from a similar incident that had occurred the year before with the same woman. The previous incident had been charged the year before as misdemeanors and dropped by the district attorney when the woman refused to cooperate. California law allows domestic violence charges to be re-filed within 6 months of dismissal. The district attorney illegally re-filed the former charges as felonies because the 6 month time limit for dismissed charges had run as had the one year statute of limitations for misdemeanors. The case proceeded to preliminary exam where the charges from the previous incident were dismissed. Cross examination of the victim revealed that she had drank 6 shots of whiskey in a 45 minute period before starting a fight with the defendant. The victim also testified that the client had threatened to kill her while he strangled her. This was a fact she did not report on the night of the incident. Further cross examination revealed that the victim had filed for a civil restraining order and had stated under perjury that she had suffered injury and bruising to her neck that required medical attention for days after the incident. The victim had posted photos of herself on Facebook at a party days after the event. The photo showed her drink in hand with a low cut dress that revealed no bruising to her neck. Investigation of the victim revealed she had two prior DUI convictions and the night of the incident she went straight to a bar with the defendant after attending her drinker driver class. Investigation also uncovered the fact that the victim had provided false information to her attorney regarding her alcohol consumption for one of her DUI arrests. All of this information was made available to the district attorney prior to trial. As a result, the district attorney dropped all felony charges and settled the case for a single misdemeanor with no jail. FELONY STRIKES DISMISSED. NO JAIL.

Alameda County Superior CourtClient was arrested and charged with 2 counts of misdemeanor child molest. Client was facing sex registration for life. The incident occurred on a Southwest Airlines jet awaiting take off at the Oakland Airport. The client allegedly touched 2 children who were unaccompanied on the jet. The flight attendant pulled his hand away from one of the children and told him not to touch the children. An argument ensued and she called the Alameda County Sheriff at the airport. The sheriffs escorted him and the children from the jet and interviewed them. The sheriffs then called the children's father back to the airport and had him execute an illegal citizen's arrest. The defense moved to dismiss the case due the illegal citizen's arrest. California law empowers a citizen and a peace office to make arrests for misdemeanors that occur only in their presence. The motion was denied and the case proceeded to trial on a time not waived basis. The facts revealed that the defendant's acts consisted of merely patting the girl on the leg and tickling the boy under his chin. There was no evidence of a sexual motive or intent as required by law. On the first day of trial the district attorney settled the case for a misdemeanor battery, no jail time and probation. SEX CHARGES DISMISSED. NO SEX REGISTRATION. NO JAIL.

San Francisco Superior CourtClient was arrested after traffic stop with 7 lbs of marijuana. Both he and his girlfriend were in possession of current medicinal cannabis cards. However, the law limits the amount of medicinal marijuana a person can possess or grow. The client was also part of a collective of designated caregivers and qualified patients. That allowed the client to transport and/or possess more marijuana as it was for purposes of use by the entire collective. This evidence was presented to the district attorney immediately. The district attorney declined to file any criminal charges. CHARGES NOT FILED. CASE DISMISSED.

San Francisco Superior CourtClient was arrested after a traffic stop with 1 lb. of marijuana. He did not have a current medicinal cannabis card. Client was a designated caregiver to an AIDs patient who did have a current card. The law now requires that designated caregivers have a greater role in the qualified patient's life beyond just supplying medicinal marijuana. Evidence of the relationship between the client and the patient was immediately presented to the district attorney. CHARGES WITHDRAWN. CASE DISMISSED. The Office of John D. Forsyth is assisting the client in the development of a medicinal marijuana collective that will be in compliance with the Compassionate Use Act.

Superior Court of San FranciscoClient was charged with felony assault and allegations of causing great bodily injury. This is a strike offense in California. Client is a high profile civil attorney from Chicago who was in San Francisco for vacation with his wife and daughter. After watching the USC/Stanford game at a local sports bar with the USC Alumni Association, the family tried to catch a cab back to their hotel. The client stepped into Shang Hai Kelly's saloon to use the restroom. He was immediately confronted by a drunk patron and his friends who began to verbally abuse and profanely ridicule him. This was all because he was wearing USC regalia. As he was leaving the bar the drunk patron and one of his friends confronted the client again and threatened to "kick his ass." The client grabbed a beer glass and smashed it into the face of one of the drunks and punched the other sending him to the floor. As he tried to leave the area, both he and his family were followed by the drunk and 4 of his friends. They assaulted the client in the street punching and kicking him in the head. The drunk suffered over 100 stitches to his face from the beer glass. The client suffered brain injury and cracked ribs. San Francisco Police reviewed the surveillance video from the bar and determined that the client had delivered the first blow. He was arrested and charged with strike felonies. The drunk retained a civil lawyer who threatened suit. The case proceeded to preliminary exam where an aggressive posture of self-defense was presented. The client's wife and daughter described how he was savagely beaten by 5 men in the street. The drunk patron denied doing any assault to the client and claimed he only said "Boo USC" at the bar. At the close of the preliminary exam the court found that this was a case of mutual combat and that the client had a right to defend himself. CASE DISMISSED.

Superior Court of San FranciscoClient was charged with possession for sale of Oxycontin and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Client had 4 prior convictions that resulted in prison terms. Client faced certain time in state prison. The defense focused on the fact that the client had a legitimate prescription for 120 Oxycontin per month as he was confined to a wheelchair after being shot 6 times. The defense also focused on the search warrant that was served on the client's home in Marin County where a firearm, photos of the client using a firearm at a pistol range and over $13,000.00 in cash were seized. At the preliminary exam the investigating police officers contradicted each other in their testimony regarding an alleged "controlled buy" of one pill by an informant from the defendant. One officer testified that the informant was under observation from the time he met with the defendant until he met with the officers. The other officer testified that he could not say if the informant was kept under surveillance the entire time. Both officers again contradicted each other as to how a storage locker in the garage of defendant's home in Marin County was searched during service of the warrant. The defense filed a motion to dismiss the charges based upon a lack of jurisdiction over the firearm as no evidence was produced that linked the firearm with any criminal activity in San Francisco. In addition, a motion to suppress all of the evidence seized at the client's home due to lack of probable cause for the warrant and that the search of the storage locker had exceeded the scope of the warrant was filed. After review of the defense motions the district attorney dismissed all charges.CASE DISMISSED.

Superior Court of San FranciscoClient was charged with 2 counts of indecent exposure and one count of child endangerment after he was arrested near a high school while urinating in public. Client had a prior arrest and conviction involving indecent exposure 10 years before. The district attorney planned to introduce that evidence at trial. The client faced jail time and lifetime sex registration if convicted of indecent exposure. The defense focused on the 15 year old girl who called 911 and the investigation by the police of the incident. The district attorney refused to turn over training records from the officers regarding their training and experience interviewing child witnesses. The court ordered the production of the records and granted a defense motion for sanctions for failure to produce the records. The case proceeded to trial on a time not waived basis. On the first day of trial the district attorney dropped all sex charges against the client. The client pleaded to a misdemeanor with probation and no jail. SEX CHARGES DISMISSED. NO LIFETIME SEX REGISTRATION.

Siskiyou County Superior Court
The People v. Suzanne Dorene Little 

Superior Court of San FranciscoClient is a prominent Bay Area physician and was arrested for felony domestic violence and felony child endangerment. A conviction for any of these charges jeopardized his license to practice medicine. Client and his former girlfriend have a 5 y/o child that they share informal custody and care of. The girlfriend picked up the Client and the child from the Oakland Airport smelling of alcohol. When the Client insisted that he drive the car an argument ensued. The girlfriend struck the Client in the face. The Client did not report this to the police. 5 days later the boyfriend of the child's mother told police that the Client had physically abused the child and her mother. The mother confirmed this false allegation. The police arrested the Client and served him with a protective order that prevented him having contact with his child. The Office of John D. Forsyth immediately got to work and advised the district attorney of several facts including that the incident occurred in Alameda County and that the woman actually committed physical violence. The district attorney contacted the woman and confirmed this. The district attorney declined to file criminal charges as a result. CASE DISMISSED.

Superior Court of San FranciscoClient is a single mother of a 3 year old child. She was arrested and charged with misdemeanor domestic violence and child endangerment after she assaulted the father of the child. The criminal court issued a "stay away" order which prevented the client from contacting her child. The case proceeded on a time not waived basis directly to trial. The facts revealed that the father of the child had instigated an argument with the client. She refused and called 911 ordering him from her apartment. He then used a key he had to her apartment and entered. He took the 3 year old child from the apartment without permission. She assaulted him in her efforts to stop him. The father of the child told the police 3 different stories claiming the child ran out of the apartment into his arms. The defense investigation revealed he had assaulted the client on a previous occasion when she refused to argue with him. His statements to the police avoided all responsibility for his actions and blamed the client for her bad parenting skills. The 911 recording revealed she had ordered him from the apartment and demanded her key back. On the day of trial the district attorney dismissed the case. CASE DISMISSED. The client picked up her son that very day.

San Francisco Superior CourtClient is a 64 year old Viet Namese father and grandfather living in the Bay View District of San Francisco with his family. Police officers were conducting surveillance of a local parolee who was seen leaving the client's home. The parolee was searched and found to be in possession of 1 1/2 ounces of marijuana. The police then forcibly entered the client's home and conducted a warrantless search which turned up over 18 lbs. of marijuana, a shot gun, ammunition, a silencer and $42,000.00 in cash. Police then coerced the client and his 32 year old son to sign a consent form to allow the illegal search. The police took no regard that the neither the client nor his son could read English. While in custody the client falsely confessed to the marijuana being his. He did this in order to save his son from possible deportation from the U.S. The case proceeded on a time not waived basis. The Law Office of John D. Forsyth filed a motion to suppress all evidence and statements by the client due to the illegal warrantless search. On the day of the preliminary hearing, the court demanded the district attorney bring the Narcotics Division supervisor to an in chambers conference. The case was settled for a misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana for the client and his son's case was dismissed thereby avoiding an possible immigration consequences. FELONY CHARGES DISMISSED. NO JAIL.

Superior Court of San FranciscoClient was charged with felony domestic violence, assault with force likely to cause injury with an enhancement alleging serious bodily injury. The client had a prior conviction for domestic violence. Client was facing a felony strike conviction and a likely jail sentence. The complaining witness, his wife, went to a local hospital and was treated for a broken arm that she reported to the emergency physician had been caused when the client struck her with a suitcase. Client was interviewed by the police and admitted that he had a fight with his wife and was forced to defend himself after she scratched his face. He admitted to grabbing her arms in that effort. He also admitted that the wife had engaged in a tug of war with him with a suitcase. He told the police his mother-in-law had treated him for the cuts to his face caused by the wife. The wife prevented the police from speaking with the mother-in-law and recanted her story. As the case proceeded to preliminary exam, the prosecution relented and settled the matter for a misdemeanor and no jail. NO FELONY STRIKE CONVICTION. NO JAIL.

Superior Court of San FranciscoClient owned and operated a local day spa. Three separate women claimed they were touched inappropriately on their breasts and genitalia during massages by the client. He was charged with three felony counts of sexual battery. After the arrest more women came forward claiming similar assaults. Client faced multiple sex charges, the possibility of consecutive state prison terms and sex registration for life. The trial strategy involved expert witnesses who could demonstrate that the techniques used by the client were appropriate and acceptable within the industry. Long time women clients were prepared to testify he had never touched them inappropriately during massages. All offers by the district attorney were rejected and the case proceeded to trial. On the second day of trial the case settled for a single misdemeanor charge of battery and probation.NO FELONY SEX CHARGE CONVICTION. NO SEX REGISTRATION. NO JAIL.

Solano County Superior CourtClient was charged in 2006 with attempted 1st degree murder and faced a sentence of 25 years to life. Client had attended a party with 3 other young men. The client and his companions were forcibly ejected from the party by two adults. One of the adults was shot at point blank range with a handgun. Initially neither the victim nor his family cooperated with police. The client was not identified during any of the photo line ups shown to witnesses in the weeks following the shooting although one of his companions was. The young woman who threw the party and her friends conducted an investigation on their own and later made identifications of the client almost 2 months after the shooting. The victim identified client at the preliminary exam as the one who shot him. In June of 2008 the Law Office of John D. Forsyth took over the case. The time waiver was withdrawn and the case was set for trial within 60 days. The investigation revealed that one of the two uncles involved with ejecting the client and his friends from the party knew that the client was not the shooter and had said as much to other witnesses. The uncle refused to cooperate with the police and the defense investigation. It was revealed that the young woman who threw the party lied to police about knowing one of the client’s companions that night. The defense theorized that this other young man was the actual shooter and both the victim and his family knew it. They had falsely accused the client in an effort to force him to give up his friend as the shooter because they feared retaliation. All offers from the court and district attorney were rejected and the case proceeded to trial. The victim and his family were subpoenaed by the defense. On the eve of trial the victim stated he was unsure who the actual shooter was. CASE DISMISSED.

San Francisco Superior CourtClient was charged with misdemeanor assault on two police officers and resisting arrest. Client was with a group of people who had chartered a party bus to go to nightclubs in San Francisco as part of a birthday celebration. Outside of a club several drunken men tried to get on the bus and began assaulting two of the women in the party. Client and his friend attempted to help the women and were grabbed from behind by the cops beaten with batons. The police reports stated that the client had attacked and assaulted a police officer in the street and the other officers came in to assist subduing him. The defense investigative team immediately began interviewing witnesses who stated that 4 to 5 police officers beat the defendant so hard with their batons that you could hear the blows to his head from 40 feet away. Witnesses also stated that the client suffered a severe blow to his scalp, which was bleeding so profusely that blood had to be wiped from his eyes and face. Witnesses described how the client was “hog tied” by police and left bleeding on the sidewalk while a police officer rested his knee in the client’s back and smoked a cigarette. All of this was presented to the judge and prosecution. Client was granted diversion with CHARGES DISMISSED. The Law Office of John D. Forsyth, in conjunction with the Law Office of Paul J. Smoot, is currently pursuing a civil lawsuit against the San Francisco Police Department and the City of San Francisco.

San Francisco County Superior CourtClient was a Yurok tribal member from Humboldt County. He and two friends were arrested in San Francisco in possession of 6 pounds of marijuana. The client admitted that 3 pounds of the marijuana were his. He was charged with felony possession for sale and felony transportation of marijuana. Client is a legitimate medical marijuana user. Our office filed a motion challenging the recent changes to the medical marijuana law that only allows possession of ½ pound (8 oz) of marijuana by medical users. The basis for the motion is that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215) was put into law by the voters of California. Our state constitution does not allow the legislature to make changes to laws that are enacted by popular vote unless the law specifically allows for such. The case proceeded to preliminary exam where the court would have to rule on our motion. The district attorney reduced the charges to misdemeanor possession and a $100.00 fine. No restrictions were placed on the client’s ability to continue to use medical marijuana. FELONY CHARGES REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR. NO JAIL. Special thanks to the office of William Panzer for his gracious help and support in this case.

Note: Exactly one week after this case was settled the California Court of Appeals ruled that the legislative changes to the Compassionate Use Act that limited medical marijuana users to only possessing 8 oz. of marijuana were unconstitutional.

Sacramento County Superior CourtClient was charged by his estranged wife with felony sexual battery and sexual penetration with a foreign object. He was facing serious jail time and lifetime sex registration. Investigation revealed that wife was bi-polar and had falsely accused client of child molest in the past. Defense investigators discovered that wife had admitted she made up the accusation of sexual assault in an effort to retain custody of the 4 children. At preliminary exam the defense called client’s stepdaughter to the stand who testified that her mother admitted the false accusation to her. One felony was reduced to a misdemeanor at preliminary exam and case was set for trial. All settlement offers by the district attorney were rejected and the case moved forward. CASE DISMISSED. Client’s other misdemeanor charges for domestic violence were also dismissed in Alameda County.

MAKING CONTACT

To learn more about our services, please contact:

The Law Office of John D. Forsyth
2431 Fillmore Street
San Francisco, California 94115

Phone: 415.401.0729
Fax: 415.401.7609
Email: info@forsyth4defense.com

John D. Forsyth
Attorney at Law

Email: john@forsyth4defense.com

from

Peter Anthony Fitzpatrick

ACCOMPLISHED

Having represented over 10,000 criminal clients, with over fifteen years of experience as a respected and successful San Francisco Criminal Defense lawyer, and having tried over forty cases to verdict, Peter is committed ensuring his Client’s Constitutional rights are protected during any interaction with city, state, or federal governmental agencies. Regardless of the notoriety, severity, or complexity of each particular case, as a sucessful and experienced criminal defense attorney Peter understands the emotional drain litigation causes on a plaintiff or defendant participant. Peter works closely with a team of investigators, jury consultants and other top experts he has assembled over the course of his practice. Peter is equally adept at handling complex white-collar cases, sensational murders, and the full range of less serious criminal cases. In recognition of his success at thorough preparation, shrewd strategizing and courtroom skills , Peter was named as a lawyer that other criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors, and police officers would choose to represent them should the need arise. For information about some of Peter’s newsworthy cases please see the News page.

COMMITTED

Peter has focused his professional development upon attaining an expertise in trial practice. To this end he lived for three weeks on a ranch in Dubois Wyoming attending famed trial lawyer’s Gerry Spence’s nationally acclaimed Trial Lawyers College and regularly refreshes his practical trial skills.

RESPECTED

Peter received his Bachelor of Arts with a major in History and a minor in Philosophy from Saint Mary’s College of California. He received his Juris Doctorate from Golden Gate University with a specialization in Litigation. He has since served as an Adjunct Professor of Criminal Trial Skills at the Hastings School of Law Trial. He is admitted to practice in the State of California and a number of federal courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.

Peter’s admirers include judges (“He is exceedingly prepared, leaves no stone unturned,’”—unnamed judge,) prosecutors, and defense attorneys.

Among defense lawyers, his fans include some of the most experienced attorneys in the Bay Area and the country.  ”Peter Fitzpatrick is one of the most tenacious and aggressive trial attorneys I have ever known.  I would highly recommend him to handle any criminal matter.”   Teresa Caffese, former Chief Attorney, San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, Named as a Top Women Litigator by the Daily Journal.

Criminal Defense

Defending your rights in San Francisco:

Facing criminal charges can be terrifying to anyone.  You, or your loved one’s, life and liberty are on the line – it is critical that you speak with skilled, qualified attorney who will prepare an aggressive defense strategy in order to protect you, or your loved one’s, constitutional rights and future.  An experienced, highly skilled defense attorney may mean the difference between a prison sentence and reduced or dismissed charges.  San Francisco Criminal Defense lawyer Peter A. Fitzpatrick is a highly-acclaimed litigator who has the experience and legal knowledge that one needs when facing serious criminal charges.  Mr. Fitzpatrick works closely with every client throughout the entire criminal process in order to achieve the best possible results for their case.

Regardless of whether someone is facing a misdemeanor charge or multiple serious felony charges – they should have the best possible defense to help ensure that they are not the victim of overzealous prosecutors and overly harsh punishments and consequences.  Our firm defends the following types of criminal cases:

• Criminal Defense
• Appeals / Post Convictions
• Arson
• Assault / Battery
• Child Abuse
• Criminal Threats
• Domestic Violence
• Drug Offenses
• DUI Defense
• Federal Crimes
• Felony Defense
• Fraud Crimes
• Hate Crimes
• Kidnapping
• Murder / Manslaughter
• Sex Crimes
• Stalking
• Theft Offenses
• Third Strike Cases
• Vehicular Manslaughter
• Weapons Charges
• White Collar Crimes

Choosing the Right San Francisco Criminal Defense Lawyer

My firm has extensive experience handling a wide range of criminal defense cases in San Francisco.  I understand that you are worried about your, or your loved one’s, future, which is why I’ve devoted my firm to protecting the rights of those who have been accused of criminal offenses. Let my unparalleled dedication to excellence in the field of criminal defense work for you.

Contact San Francisco’s Premier Criminal Defense Attorney at the firm today.

1500 20th Street
San Francisco, CA 94107

(415) 920-0423 Ext. 3  (Office)

(415) 271-9508              (Mobile)

Email: Peter@PAFLAW.com

from

Matt A. Sullivan, Esq.

As owner of the Law Office of Matt Sullivan, Mr. Sullivan has extensive litigation experience in complex criminal defense matters. Prior to opening his own office, he worked for a private criminal defense firm in San Francisco, and for the Marin County Public Defender’s Office as a deputy public defender in the trial rotation.

He earned his law degree from the University of San Francisco Law School where he took numerous courses in criminal law and procedure. He also was a contributing writer for the USF Law School Forum. 

Some of Mr. Sullivan’s significant criminal defense victories:

• The successful defense of an economist charged with numerous drug crimes in Marin County, California. She was acquitted of all counts at trial.

• The successful defense of a college athlete charged with obstructing an officer in Santa Clara County. After extensive negotiations with the prosecution, all charges were dismissed. 

• The successful defense of a Russian martial artist charged with a DUI in Marin County. He was acquitted of all counts after a five day jury trial. 

• The successful defense of a college student charged with resisting arrest, assault on an officer, and criminal threats in San Francisco County. After extensive investigation and negotiations with the prosecution, this client was granted diversion and if he completes the diversion program the case will be dismissed. 

• The successful defense of a young mother in Marin County, California who was arrested for obstruction and resisting arrest. This case received local news coverage. One of the officers involved had used excessive force in a prior incident, shocking a man with a taser into unconsciousness. That man was called as a defense witness and testified for the defense. After a five day jury trial, in which both sides called use of force experts as witnesses, the jury was hopelessly deadlocked and unable to reach a verdict. All charges were subsequently dismissed after the prosecution elected not to seek a retrial. 

• The successful defense of an engineer charged with assault and battery in Alameda County. Initially, the prosecution threatened to add an additional charge of car theft. After extensive negotiations with the prosecution, the client was granted diversion and if he completes the diversion program successfully the case will be dismissed.

• As co-counsel with another attorney, Mr. Sullivan successfully represented a client charged with annoying or molesting a minor as a third strike in San Mateo County. This client had seven prior felony convictions. The first trial ended in a mistrial when it was discovered that the prosecutor had suppressed numerous discoverable items. The second trial ended in a hung jury after a 5 week trial. The jury was unable to convict on either count. The client had been facing 50 years to life. After the second trial also ended without a verdict, the DA decided to dismiss the case and the client was released from jail. 

• The successful defense of a student charged with assault with a deadly weapon and gang allegations in San Mateo County. This client was a passenger in a car from which her friend allegedly fired a weapon at a rival gang member. After a number of hearings and motions were filed, this case was appropriately dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the client was released from jail. 

• The successful defense with co-counsel of a man charged with multiple felony sex counts in San Mateo County. He was facing up to 40 years in prison. The pre-trial offer was 14 years and 2 strikes. After years of working on this man's case, through numerous hearings and motions, this man was offered credit for time served, and allowed to plead to two offenses, neither of which required lifetime sex registration. He was released from custody after serving 3 years and is not required to register.

• The successful defense of a woman charged with multiple felony counts of credit card fraud and identity theft in San Francisco County. Motions to disclose the informant's identity and to challenge the search of the client's property were filed. After the motions had been filed, and after extensive negotiations with the prosecution, this client, who had a serious drug problem, was admitted into drug court diversion and sent to a treatment facility. If she successfully completes drug court diversion all felony charges will be dismissed. 

• The successful defense of a property manager charged with a DUI in Marin County. The case went to trial and the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The case was subsequently dismissed.

• The successful defense of a businessman charged with domestic violence with injury in Alameda County. On the day of trial, and after extensive negotiations with the prosecution, domestic violence charges were dismissed and the client was allowed to plead to a minor misdemeanor offense. 

• The successful defense of a homeowner charged with maintaining a drug house and possession of drugs in Santa Clara County. After a number of hearings and motions were filed, all charges were dismissed.

• The successful defense of a client with co-counsel charged with complex real estate fraud and tax charges involving the sale of a home in San Francisco County. This case involved almost a million dollars in transferred assets and thousands of pages of financial documents. Numerous motions were drafted, including search motions challenging the multiple search warrants issued, motions to challenge the rulings at the preliminary hearing, and motions to raise statute of limitations issues. This client was facing approximately 12 years in prison. After numerous hearings and legal motions, this client received a credit for time served offer and was released from custody without being sent to state prison. 

• The successful defense of a client with co-counsel charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and marijuana in federal court. Client was facing up to 20 years in federal prison. After many months of work on the case, careful review of numerous audiotapes, videotapes, and evidence, extensive negotiations with the U.S. Attorney, and multiple meetings with client, a plea deal was reached wherein client was allowed to plead to 6 years. 

Mr. Sullivan is often asked by other attorneys to consult with them on serious criminal cases and to draft motions on their behalf. He has worked extensively on federal drug conspiracy cases, federal extradition, bank robbery, financial fraud cases, and sex cases. 

He is a member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Fourth Amendment Advocacy Committee, the Bay Area Trial Lawyer’s College, and the CPDA. He is admitted to practice law in all courts in the State of California, and in federal Court in the Northern and Eastern District of California. 

Law Office of Matt Sullivan

1112 Bryant Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: (415) 879-1256
Fax: (415) 618-0073
E-mail:

info@mattsullivanlaw.com

from