In Criminal
Woman Charged with Grand Theft Larceny, Burglary & Robbery - Client placed on 3 years probation and public service.
Client decides to enter a retail department store with a friend to steal some designer jeans. She is viewed and recorded on the security camera placing three pairs of expensive jeans into a bag (worth $700). They both leave the store and her friend tries to runaway from security. Client places her hand on one of the security guards to stop them from hurting her friend. She is charged with Grand Theft, Burglary, and Robbery, felonies.
At her first readiness hearing, I was able to convince the prosecutor to allow the client to plead to a grand theft charge as a felony, with the understanding that in 18 months it would be reduced to a misdemeanor.
At sentencing, client was placed on three years unsupervised probation, ordered to perform 20 days of Public Work Service and 100 hours of volunteer work. Client received no jail.
Client Served with Temporary Restraining Order - dismissed.
I represented a husband and wife who were served with a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and an order to appear at a Restraining Order Hearing before a Superior Court Judge. The crisis was apparent when my clients explained their current career objectives; the wife was actively studying her way through nursing school, and the husband's past as a military police officer was allowing him to apply for a mid-level position in a local law enforcement agency. It was essential that we defend against allegations of a single woman who claimed my clients yelled at her and pushed her once at a company party.
After cross-examining the plaintiff and her one witness, I presented our case before the Judge. In closing, I demonstrated to the Judge that both of my clients had no role, hence no liability, in the current action brought by the woman. Unfortunately, in our current legal system, the burden of proof needed by a plaintiff in such an action is relatively low. It was a huge relief, and a great sense of satisfaction knowing that my clients will be able to pursue their dream without fear of having any future licensure problems.
Client charged with a DUI - Client was found not guilty on all charges
Client was charged with a DUI. The city attorney's office was adamant about their case and would not offer any 'deal' at all. We decided that taking the case to a jury trial was the best option.
Client was stopped by police officers in an alleyway behind a local bar. Client was sitting in the passenger seat of his vehicle. The vehicle was on, the engine was warm, and the car was blocking a portion of the alleyway. There were also beer cans surrounding the area around the vehicle.
It was argued that our client was not driving the vehicle while he was intoxicated, and therefore he was innocent; the jury agreed. The jury found that there was not enough evidence to rebut our claim that the client had not driven the vehicle at all since consuming alcohol.
Client was found not guilty on all charges.
Abuse Charges Dismissed At Trial
A. H., age 12, claimed that she received a black eye and a punch in the face at the hands of her 4 foot 11 inch, 94 pound stepmother. The stepmother, H.H., vehemently denied the abuse charges. Nevertheless, the case was reported to the County Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA). In desperation, H.H. retained Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center to defend her.
The county lawyers tauntingly said "Just go ahead and plead, the Judge always sustains our petitions." After reviewing the case, attorney M.D. determined that "a plea deal" would not be in the best interest of the client and requested a trial instead. The Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center investigative team interviewed 30 witnesses to create a defense. It turned out that A.H. was a state Tae Kwon Do champion who had defeated a 14-year-old boy for her title. Additionally, A.H. had been under the care of a family therapist and a psychologist. She had been diagnosed with "Oppositional Defiant Disorder." Moreover, it was discovered that A.H. had falsely reported several other episodes of violence as well.
During the presentation of the State´s case, attorney M.D. cross examined the State´s key witness and impeached the testimony. The effect was devastating. Upon completion of the State´s case, M.D. made an oral motion to dismiss the physical violence charge. The motion was granted even before the firm had presented its defense. The trial continued on the sole remaining psychological abuse charge. When the county attorney presented the closing argument fraught with logical traps and "half-truths," attorney M.D. quickly responded. During the defense attorney´s close, M.D. pointed out the fallacious reasoning and false assumptions in the State´s case. The Judge smirked and M.D. knew the stepmother had won. The judge dismissed all the abuse charges. Both the father and mother broke into tears and left satisfied that justice had been done.
Driving Under the Influence
Client CG, who is a member of the military, was charged with Driving Under the Influence with a Blood Alcohol Level of .15. This charge carried a fine of over $1600.00, enrollment in the First Conviction Program, and a DUI on his record which will remain for 10 years. Additionally, Client CG faced administration separation from the military if convicted of a DUI.
Client CG was spotted by law enforcement stopped on the side of the freeway. When the officer approached CG's vehicle, the engine was off, keys were not in the ignition and Client CG was asleep at the wheel. The officer asked client to step out of the vehicle, administered field sobriety tests and determined that client CG was under the influence. The officer asked CG to drive his vehicle off the highway to a safer location. Client CG was then taken to the station and given a blood test which registered at a .15.
Client CG met with attorney CS to discuss possibilities of his case and stressed the importance of continuing his military career which would end if he were convicted of a DUI.
CS aggressively and diligently conferred with the District attorney assigned to the case and pointed out the lack of evidence regarding actual driving while under the influence and the questionable actions of the officer.
CG pleaded to a charge of a driving/reckless and was required to pay a fine of $500.00. Most importantly, Client CG was able to remain in the military without the stigma of a DUI.
Jury Trial Results in Not Guilty Verdict
RV was charged with driving under the influence under statutes VC §§ 23152(a) and 23152(b). He was looking at a forfeiture of his driver´s license since he refused to take a chemical test. The police officer that arrested RV found him in the driver´s seat of his vehicle with the door closed. The key was in the ignition with it turned to the "on" position. The hood was warm, but the engine was not running. Lastly, the vehicle had abruptly stopped and was blocking a portion of the alleyway. Several empty beer cans littered the inside of the vehicle and also covered the ground around the vehicle. To make matters worse, RV had a blood alcohol level of 0.23 over double the legal limit.
At trial, the attorney TS was able to convince the jury that RV never drove the vehicle after becoming intoxicated. The attorney proved that the client drove to the alleyway, parked his vehicle, went into a bar, came out of the bar, bought a case of beer and continued to drink with a friend near his car that was still parked in the alleyway. The jury returned a not guilty verdict on all counts. If you have been charged with a serious crime please call us immediately. We are here to help.
In Injury
$4.85 Billion Vioxx Settlement
Victims of the dangerous drug Vioxx shared a monumental $4.85 billion victory against pharmaceutical giant Merck yesterday. The agreement established two separate settlement funds, one for stroke victims and another for heart attack victims. Eligibility for these funds is to be determined on an individual basis.
If you or a loved one has suffered a stroke or heart attack as a result of using Vioxx, contact our lawyers today to find out if you qualify for financial compensation.
In Bankruptcy
Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center is a National Leader
Since January 2006, Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center has filed over 371 cases. This fact makes the firm among the leaders in bankruptcy filings nationwide. In the months of June, July, August and September 2006, the Bankruptcy Attorneys at the Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center have filed 165 new bankruptcy cases in San Diego. As a result, Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center is one of the largest Bankruptcy filers in California under the new Bankruptcy laws and our experienced Attorneys continue to find creative ways to help people with financial problems. If you have questions on Bankruptcy, Debt Consolidation or simply want to reduce your credit card bills, please call now for a free evaluation.
Credit Counseling Requirement Causes Needless Worry!
Though the bankruptcy courts are upholding the mandatory credit-counseling requirement for debtors seeking a bankruptcy discharge, Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center has been quite successful in assisting our clients in fulfilling the credit-counseling requirement. Since the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 became law last year, bankruptcy courts have dismissed cases when debtors fail to obtain credit counseling before the filing of their bankruptcy. Furthermore, the courts have held that most debtors do not qualify for a waiver even under exigent or emergency circumstances like a pending foreclosure sale. At Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center, we have sought to streamline the process and make it the least burdensome upon our clients as possible. Call for a free consultation. We are here to help.
The Automatic Stay Ends After 30 Days If Debtors Had a Previous Case Pending Within One Year
Before Bankruptcy reform, the automatic stay acted like a federal protective order staying creditors' actions in the collection of certain kinds of debt. Now, the automatic stay can now end after only 30 days for some people. That is, if a debtor had a bankruptcy case pending during the year preceding the bankruptcy filing, the automatic stay may only be in effect for 30 days. It appears that the Bankruptcy Courts lack a uniform approach on whether the stay ends for all creditors or just selected ones. Likewise uncertainty exists whether the stay ends to all property of the debtor or just certain property. The experienced staff of Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center has handled these difficult issues and others. Call for a free appointment. We want to help.
Firm Files a Substantial Number of New Bankruptcy Cases
In the months of May, June, and July 2006, the Bankruptcy Attorneys at the Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center have filed 181 new bankruptcy cases in San Diego. As a result, Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center is one of the largest Bankruptcy filers in California under the new Bankruptcy laws and our experienced Attorneys continue to find creative ways to help people with financial problems. If you have questions on Bankruptcy, Debt Consolidation or simply want to reduce your credit card bills, please call now for a free evaluation.
Please note the law requires petitioners to complete the consumer credit counseling as well as a post bankruptcy education course.
