Case Results

  • PEOPLE V. S.D.: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE DISMISSED IN TRIAL, CLIENT ALLOWED TO PLEAD TO STRAIGHT RECKLESS DRIVING

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Outcome:
    DUI Dismissed, Client Allowed to Plead to Reckless Driving Only
    Description:
    In Santa Barbara County, while in trial on DUI, I was able to get my client the reduction to a straight "reckless driving" (not a "wet reckless" involving alcohol) that he had wanted all along. We got this by arguing a motion, pushing the case forward to trial, and having our forensic toxicology specialist ready to go for the defense. We further pressured the D.A. to agree to sentencing terms that were even more favorable than the standard sentence for reckless driving, so that my client further benefited by saving one year on his term of probation and saving money on his fines.
  • PEOPLE V. T.M.: CLIENT FOUND NOT GUILTY IN THEFT TRIAL

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Dec 05, 2014
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty at trial
    Description:
    In this case, I represented my client in a court trial on a charge of theft from a store. After exposing witness identification issues involving the loss prevention officer and police officer, my client was found Not Guilty!
  • PEOPLE V. J.O.: $20,000 PLUS THEFT REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR, PROBATION ONLY

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Outcome:
    Client sentenced to Probation, No Custody and charge reduced
    Description:
    In the case of a taking of over $20,000 from a position of trust as a caretaker/ assistant, I was able to get my client's charge reduced to a misdemeanor (with full restitution), get her probation only with absolutely no custody time and some limited community service
  • PEOPLE V. C.M.: CLIENT FACING MULTIPLE FELONIES GETS 1 YEAR TREATMENT IN LIEU OF 7 YEARS PRISON

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Outcome:
    1 year residential treatment instead of close to 7 years in prison
    Description:
    My client facing multiple charges arising from her drug addiction, including possession, fraud and theft, was facing prison when she received the chance to participate in Drug Court. However, a new case was filed which then kicked her out of Drug Court. We continued to fight and appealed to another Court to get my client the treatment alternative she deserved to turn her life around. With the new alleged offense, she was facing close to 7 years in prison! Not only did she avoid any time in custody on multiple serious felony charges, she successfully completed treatment. I am so pleased to report is on a completely different road today.
  • PEOPLE V. M.Q: CLIENT RECEIVES PROBATION ONLY IN FRAUD CASE IN EXCESS OF $15,000

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Outcome:
    Probation only, no custody time
    Description:
    Client charged with receiving benefits under false pretenses in an amount in excess of $15,000 received Probation Only and no custody time in a case where she was not able to make full restitution. Client continues to pay monthly and do well on probation.
  • PEOPLE V. N.L.: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CHARGE REDUCED, PROBATION ONLY, EXCEPTION GRANTED FOR SHORTER CLASSES

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jan 05, 2015
    Outcome:
    Domestic Violence Charge Reduced, Probation only, no custody time, an exception outside of the statutory requirement awarded by the court as to classes
    Description:
    A client charged with domestic violence received a reduced charge, probation only, no custody time, and a much shorter course of classes (10 anger management) as opposed to the 52 week DV classes statutorily required. This was a very unusual disposition. We were able to make a persuasive argument to the court on sentencing based on factors such as the circumstances of the offense, the lack of history and the fact that the client and the complaining witness had since participated in relationship counseling together.
  • PEOPLE V. E.L.: RESISTING ARREST CASE DISMISSED

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Mar 17, 2014
    Outcome:
    case dismissed
    Description:
    After we filed a motion on the illegal arrest of my client, the case was dismissed. In this case, my client made some verbal commentary to officers in the course of his friends being arrested and was unjustly arrested.
  • PEOPLE V. E.A.: HIT AND RUN CASE DISMISSED

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Outcome:
    case dismissed
    Description:
    A client was charged with hit and run in a store parking lot. The client did not know that she had hit anything, giving her an excellent defense. Also, there was an issue as to whether damage could be established.
  • PEOPLE V. J.C.: HIT AND RUN CASE DISMISSED

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Mar 14, 2013
    Outcome:
    case dismissed
    Description:
    In another Hit and Run case, a client was having a panic attack when, after impact, he drove away from the scene of an accident that occurred while he was driving. Arguing that my client lacked the required intent based on his compromised mental state at the time, we were able to get this case dismissed
  • PEOPLE V. A.M.: THEFT CASE DISMISSED FOR NAVAL OFFICER

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Outcome:
    case dismissed
    Description:
    In this case, I represented a naval officer whose career would have been ruined by these false accusations made by his soon-to-be ex-wife. By arguing the bad motive of the complaining witness, the weaknesses of the case, and my client's stellar record to the prosecution, we were able to get charges dropped.
  • PEOPLE V. A.T.: JUVENILE CRIMINAL THREATS CASE DISMISSED

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Outcome:
    case dismissed
    Description:
    My client, a good kid who had done well in school, was falsely accused of criminal threats, which allegedly occurred in the course of trying to protect her sister from being bullied. We successfully argued to get her case dismissed with one counseling class. As a result, the client avoided a conviction on her record and later was even able to get into the U.S. Naval Academy!
  • PEOPLE V. T.B.: CLIENT AVOIDS CONVICTION FOR FELONY DRUG POSSESSION BY PARTICIPATING IN SHORT-TERM DRUG COUNSELING

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Outcome:
    case dismissed
    Description:
    Under the Diversion program, Client who possessed methamphetamine for personal use received the chance to avoid having any conviction on his record by participating in a program called Diversion, where he completed 3 1/2 months of out-patient drug counseling and otherwise continued to do well for a two year period. Upon successful completion of that term and counseling, his charges were dismissed. Avoiding a conviction allowed him to move on with his life in a positive direction! Diversion is an opportunity for all first-time, personal use drug offenders.
  • HUNG JURY IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE ACHIEVED FOR CLIENT IN DUI TRIAL

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Feb 04, 2002
    Outcome:
    case dismissed
    Description:
    My client, a long-distance truck driver whose career would have been ruined by a conviction, was charged with a .12 DUI with an accident. I was able to get him a hung jury in favor of the defense and his case was subsequently dismissed by the prosecution. In this case, we were able to get evidence through our investigation that was critical in establishing drinking pattern and thus cast doubt on whether my client was at .08% bac at the time of driving. We also were able to successfully argue that the vehicle struck was parked partially in the lane of traffic on a dark street, defeating the prosecutor's argument that only an impaired driver would have struck it. We also brought out how my client's medical issues would have compromised both his performance on field sobriety tests and possibly the validity of the breath sample itself.
  • PEOPLE V. V.L.: HUNG JURY IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE ACHIEVED FOR CLIENT IN FELONY DRUG POSSESSION AND TRANSPORTATION TRIAL

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jul 08, 2002
    Outcome:
    case dismissed
    Description:
    My client was the driver of the car and the only one in the car. A small amount of meth was found at his feet, literally, on the driver's side floorboard. Our defense was that the drugs were not his and he did not know they were in the car. Through investigation, we brought out that the registered owner of the car (which my client had just borrowed) had a conviction for possession of methamphetamine in that same car, arising from an incident that occurred in the same timeframe within which my client was stopped. Further, under cross-examination, I was able to catch the officer in an inconsistency. He admitted to me that the drugs were not in full view out on the floorboard where he had claimed in his police report, but were instead off to the side and partially hidden by the trunk release button. This was critical because it supported our argument that it was a reasonable possibility that my client did not even see those drugs and that they were not his. After the jury was hung 9-3 in favor of the defense, the case was dismissed by the prosecution
  • PEOPLE V. MR. L: NOT GUILTY IN JURY TRIAL FOR CLIENT CHARGED WITH FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty at trial
    Description:
    A client charged with felony domestic violence (serious conduct with serious injury) and a reported history was found Not Guilty at jury trial. This case could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There were no witnesses. We, as the defense, introduced expert psychiatric testimony that was helpful to the defense. Also there was time gap between the alleged incident and when it was later reported, a time gap during which the complaining witness was observed to be engaging in actions which could have caused injury.
  • PEOPLE V. W.S.: SUCCESSFUL TERMINATION AFTER ABSCONDED FROM PROBATION

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Outcome:
    Successful Termination of Probation and Expungement
    Description:
    A local business owner, an upstanding member of the community with many character references, allegedly "absconded" from probation ten years ago. Although he complied with the terms of his DUI probation in important ways, he failed to check in with probation for continued monitoring during the 3 year grant of his 1st offense DUI probation. Client was facing a custody sentence of 30 days in jail! By arguing how my client had turned his life around and highlighting all the positive aspects about his case and about him personally, we were able to get the court to agree to a successful termination of probation! Thereafter, we were able to get my client's record expunged, which means that his conviction was removed from his record. The purpose of an expungement is to make sure that clients will not be unfairly limited by their past mistakes and can move forward into a brighter future.
  • PEOPLE V. E.S.: CLIENT WITH .17 DUI GETS HIGH BLOOD ALCOHOL ALLEGATION DROPPED, AVOIDS CUSTODY TIME FOR ENHANCEMENT

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Outcome:
    DUI special allegation dropped, improved sentencing
    Description:
    We successfully argued to the prosecutor to get the high blood alcohol allegation dropped for our client, which was a big benefit to the client. As a result, he avoided the standard 10 day enhancement for high bac and also avoided the longer 9 month alcohol education class. Happily, he only had to do the 3 month class for regular DUI.
  • PEOPLE V. L.L.: CLIENT WITH HIGH BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL DUI CHARGE GETS NO ADDITIONAL CUSTODY, COMMUNITY SERVICE ONLY

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Aug 12, 2013
    Outcome:
    No Additional Time for High Blood Alcohol Special Allegation
    Description:
    A client received the chance to do community service, in lieu of the standard 10 day enhancement, for a DUI with an alleged high blood alcohol enhancement for BAC over .20%.
  • PEOPLE V. J.R.: CLIENT RECEIVED NO CUSTODY TIME IN DUI CASE

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Outcome:
    No Custody Time in DUI
    Description:
    In a recent case for a client charged with 1st offense DUI, we ran motions for illegal arrest, delayed prosecution, suppression of the illegally obtained sample. At the time the client came to me, his case had already gone beyond the arraignment court and was set for trial. Generally, the standard offer in the arraignment court is 48 hours of jail or 5 days of work release - although I have been able to get my first offense DUI clients credit for time served. However, once the case is set for trial in Dept. 13, the offer generally goes up. Despite the fact that we were set for trial and ran every good motion in the client's case, we were able to get from the prosecutor an offer that was better than the standard offer in the arraignment court. I was still able to get my client the No Custody Time (or credit for time served) offer. This was a giant relief to the client. Also, half-way through his 3 year term of probation, we plan to get him early termination of probation and expungement of his conviction. This will remove the burden and restrictions imposed on him by probation and allow him to move on with a clean slate.
  • PEOPLE V. J.W.: DUI WITH HIGH BLOOD ALCOHOL SPECIAL ALLEGATION RESULTS IN CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Outcome:
    Client Avoids Any Jail Time Despite High BAC Enhancement
    Description:
    I am pleased to report that, in a high BAC DUI where my client was hit with a special allegation of .15% or higher, we were able to defeat the standard 10 day enhancement for high BAC. Through the use of investigation of the scene to establish the timeframe for driving and consultation with our forensic toxicology specialist, I was able to make a persuasive argument to the court that the Special Allegation could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the client was not required to serve any time in custody and, importantly, avoided the standard 10 day sentence for a high BAC special allegation.

DISCLAIMER

The case results reported involve individual clients' experiences with the Law Office of Jennifer Zide. They are not to be taken as warranties or guarantees of the outcome in your particular case. Results depend on many factors, including the unique facts of your individual case.

Why Choose Us?

  • Free Case Evaluations
  • Fight to Protect Your Rights
  • 10 Years of Criminal Defense Experience
  • Previous Public Defender in Mendocino County
  • Experienced Forensic Toxicology Specialist Available to Consult On Your DUI Defense at No Additional Charge