COVID-19 status: We are open and accepting cases and appointments. Safety protocols must be observed.
Misdemeanor and Felony State and Federal Criminal Defense in San Diego, CA
As your criminal defense attorney, it’s not my job to tell you what you want to hear. It’s my job to tell you what you need to know.
Whether you are facing criminal charges, have suffered an emotional or physical injury at the hands of the police, or are a small business owner engaged in a legal dispute, you deserve a clear picture of what the legal system can and cannot do for you. I can give you a clear description of all possible options, along with a frank assessment of the costs, advantages and disadvantages of pursuing each option.
You will have peace of mind after you leave your first, free consultation with me because I will tell you exactly what you need to know. I will then put my skills at your disposal to achieve your goals ethically, efficiently and cost-effectively. More info
Find out more about my areas of practice
- Criminal defense — I defend clients charged with a range of criminal offenses in state and federal courts, including DUI, drug crimes, weapon offenses, violent crimes, and white collar crimes.
- Police misconduct — You have a right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, including excessive and unreasonable force used by police officers.
- Business litigation — I have advanced experience helping small- and medium-sized businesses resolve their legal disputes quickly and cost-effectively.
A Word About Bail in California
There is an option available for those persons who are not to afford both bail/a bail bond and the cost of hiring an attorney. In California, it is possible to post a home(s) as bail, as long as the home(s), all located in the state, have total equity worth twice the bail. This eliminates going through a bail bondsman and is relatively inexpensive. To find out more, call me for further details.
The right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution contemplates the services of an attorney devoted solely to the interests of his client. . . . “The lawyer owes ‘entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability,’ to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save by the rules of law, legally applied. No fear of judicial disfavor or public unpopularity should restrain him from the full discharge of his duty. In the judicial forum the client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land, and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense.”
Von Moltke v. Gillies (1948) 332 U.S. 708, 725-726, fn. 9.
“. . . defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. Our system assigns him a different mission. He must be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty. The State has the obligation to present the evidence. Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is. He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution’s case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying. In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.”
United States v. Wade (1967) 388 U.S. 218, 256-258.