Drug Cases and Drug Sales Cases

          Drug cases can be particularly challenging.  They usually fall into two categories, simple possession cases and drug sales cases, either possession of drugs for sales or actual sales.  Typically, the defenses are that the client wasn't aware of the presence of the drugs or in possession for sales cases, that it was, in fact, simple possession for personal use and not possession for sales.  That means that the trial is usually a contest between what the drug cop says happened versus what actually happened.  Most district attorneys' offices have deputy district attorneys that specialize in drug cases.  Because of all of those reasons, it is critical to have an attorney who is experienced in handling drug cases and knows the drug statutes well.  It, of course, helps to have an attorney who has experience beating drug charges and drug special allegations.  If you need to hire a lawyer for a drug case, you need a lawyer who has experience with drug trials and who has won drug trials that have gone before a jury.  Trial experience and success in trials is what makes successful negotiations possible so a case doesn't have to go to trial.  If the district attorney knows that the defense attorney is ready, willing and able to go to trial and has had success, they're more likely to resolve the case for a reasonable outcome.  Addison has done eighteen drug trials, including two meth lab trials.  His record of trial wins is unparalleled.  It is because of that record of trial wins that Addison can negotiate a beneficial outcome in this type of a case.

Addison's trial successes in drug sales related cases include:

Ruben T., RIF105368

• Charges: Possession of methamphetamine for sales (Health and Safety Code § 11378), felon in possession of ammunition (Penal Code § 12316(b)(1)) and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health and Safety Code § 11364), with two strike priors (Penal Code § 667(c)&(e)(2)(A)/1170.12(c)(2)).
• Exposure: Ruben was facing fifty years to life in prison.
• Outcome: The jury found Ruben not guilty of felon in possession of ammunition and possession of drug paraphernalia; the jury hung eleven to one in favor of acquittal on the possession of methamphetamine charge.  The case later settled for Ruben pleading guilty to simple possession of methamphetamine, and the district attorney dismissed one of the strikes, and Ruben was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison, although it was ridiculous for him to have to go to prison, it was much better than 50 years to life.

          This case was a battle from the beginning.  This trial was in 2004 when because of the Three Strikes law a person could easily get a life sentence for possession of a small amount of drugs.  The fight started by trying to get Ruben out from under the Three Strikes law with a Romero motion (a motion asking the judge to strike the strike priors so the defendant is not facing a life sentence) and a 17(b) motion (a motion to reduce the charges to misdemeanors so the defendant is not facing a life sentence).  Unfortunately the case had been assigned to Judge Charles Morgan, easily one of the worse judges in Riverside County.  A fair trial, or even basic fair treatment, was not something that was going to be had in Judge Morgan's courtroom.  Both motions that would have saved Ruben from a life sentence were denied by Judge Morgan.  That meant the case needed to go to trial in a courtroom where there would not be fair rulings and where defense counsel and the defendant could count on not being able to fully present a defense to the jury.  Judge Morgan presided over a trial where the district attorney was prosecuting a woman for using methamphetamine while she was breastfeeding her baby.  The attorney in that case said in the press that Judge Morgan was incompetent.  His assessment of the judge's ability was absolutely correct.

          The Sheriff's Department did a parole search of Ruben's home and found a coin purse with 16 grams of methamphetamine in it in a common area.  They found two digital scales and empty Ziploc bags in a Hello Kitty box.  They found $764 in Ruben's wallet; he had a fulltime job so the source of the money could be proved.  They went into a bedroom and found a used methamphetamine pipe with an additional half a gram of methamphetamine.  There were also four bullets in that bedroom's closet.  Addison and Ruben presented evidence that Ruben had a female roommate and that it was her bedroom, not his, where the items were found.  Despite the evidence that it was the roommate who had the drugs, the district attorney pressed on wanting to convict Ruben of possession for sales of methamphetamine with a theory that even if they lost that and he was only convicted of possession for personal use he would spend the rest of his life in prison.  The trial was only six days, not for a lack of trying to present a full defense, but because Addison and Ruben were shut down at every step trying to present their case.  However, there was something that Judge Morgan and the district attorney could not control, that was the jury.  They acquitted him of possession of ammunition and possession of drug paraphernalia.  They hung 11 to 1 in favor of acquittal on the possession for sales for count.  It looked like Addison and Ruben were going to have to gear up to try the again.  However, Ruben had already been in jail for more than a year when Addison got the case and because of Riverside County's crowded courts it had been almost two years by the time the trial ended.  Ruben decided to offer the minimum sentence with only one strike prior which meant that he would "do a turnaround" at Chino State Prison, the California Department of Corrections "reception center" for Riverside County.  The district attorney accepted that offer which meant that Ruben and Addison would not have to risk a life sentence in a second trial and Ruben would be home in a matter of months.

The verdict forms and Minute Order was where Ruben was saved from fifty years to a life prison sentence,

 and was sentenced to two years and eight months instead.

Willie M., RIF128452

• Charges: Possession of crack cocaine for sales (Health and Safety Code § 11351.5) with a gang allegation (Penal Code § 186.22(b)) and gang activity (Penal Code § 186.22(a)), with a sales prior (Health and Safety Code § 11370.2(a)) and seven prison term priors (Penal Code § 667.5(b)).
• Exposure: Willie was facing fifteen years and eight months in prison.
• Outcome: Willie was found not guilty of possession for sales and not guilty of gang activity.  He was only convicted of the conceded count of simple possession of crack cocaine.  Because that was the only charge for which he was convicted, he had to be released from jail, granted probation, and given drug treatment pursuant to Proposition 36.
  

The Verdict Form where Willie was found NOT GUILTY of all the charges that would have prevented him from getting Proposition 36 drug treatment and saved him from fifteen years, eight months in prison.

Adreian J., RIF115383

• Charges: Possession of crack cocaine for sales (Health and Safety Code § 11351.5), transportation of rock cocaine (Health and Safety Code § 11352(a)), possession of a weapon (a billy club) (Penal Code § 12020(a)(1), resisting arrest with force (Penal Code § 69), assault on a police officer (Penal Code § 243(b)) and destroying evidence (Penal Code § 135), special allegations of two prison term priors (Penal Code § 667.5(b) and two dope sales priors (Health and Safety Code § 11370.2(a)).
• Exposure: Adreian was facing fourteen years and four months in prison.

Outcome: Adreian was acquitted of possession for sales, was convicted of the conceded lesser included offense of simple possession for personal use, convicted of transportation of crack cocaine, was acquitted of possession of a billy club, was acquitted of resisting arrest with force, and only convicted of the misdemeanor lesser included offense of resisting arrest and misdemeanor destroying evidence.  He was sentenced to ten years in prison at half-time.  He is no longer in prison and was able to go home much earlier because of the won counts.

Ismael G., SWF003129

• Charges: Operating a meth lab (Health and Safety Code § 11379.6(a)), possession of meth for sales (Health and Safety Code § 11378), conspiracy to operate a meth lab (Penal Code § 182 and Health and Safety Code § 11379.6(a)), dumping waste from meth manufacturing (Health and Safety Code § 11374.5(a)), with three special allegations of being armed while committing a drug crime (Penal Code § 12022(c)), two allegations of possession of twenty-five gallons or ten pounds of meth (Health and Safety Code § 11379.8(a)(3)), an allegation of possession four kilos or 100 liters of meth (Health and Safety Code § 11370.4(b)(2)).
• Exposure: Ismael was facing twenty-eight years in prison.
• Outcome: Ismael was acquitted of conspiracy to manufacture meth, convicted of manufacturing meth, and acquitted of dumping waste from meth manufacturing; the allegations of being armed were found true, and all of the weight allegations were either found not true or not reached because of not guilty verdicts.  Ismael was sentenced to ten years in prison at half-time.  He has paroled from prison and gone home because of the won counts.  The district attorney presented the case as Ismael being the leader of the four co-defendants.  All the co-defendants were convicted of the weight enhancements and sentenced to more than twenty years.
  

Joe W., 1434677

• Joe Ward
• Charge: Being under the influence of an illegal central nervous system stimulant (Health and Safety Code § 11550(a)).
• Exposure: Joe was facing up to a year in county jail with a mandatory minimum of 90 days in jail unless he accepted Proposition 36 drug treatment.
• Outcome: Hung jury (6-6 split), the case was later dismissed by the district attorney.
  

• Have you done a drug case trial before?
• This question is important because a drug trial requires some specialized skills to deal with the testimony of the drug cops and to use an effective strategy in the defense of the case.
• Addison has done 18 drug case trials.
• What were the results of your drug trials?
• This question is important because if an attorney has won drug trials and saved clients from the long sentences that drug convictions can bring, that attorney has the experience and skills to handle a drug trial.
• Addison has won two drug trials where the client was only convicted of a conceded simple possession for personal use charge and acquitted of possession for sales.  The client in one of these two trials was sentenced to probation with Proposition 36 drug treatment.  He has had significant victories in other drug cases that saved the clients from much longer prison sentences.  He has eight acquitted drug counts, two hung jury counts and two counts dismissed during trial.  If you find another attorney who has done the number of drug trials that Addison has done and has had more successful outcomes than he has, and who has beaten drug cases and saved as many people from long drug prison sentences as he has, hire that person.  If you want the best possible chance of not going to prison and potentially going home when facing drug charges, you should contact me.
• Do you train other lawyers in your techniques for winning drug trials?
• This question is important because, typically, only the leading lawyers in a field are invited to conduct training for other lawyers.
• Addison was a speaker at the California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) homicide defense training in 2011 to train on my winning trials by humanizing the client method.  He has also given that same training at the Riverside County Public Defenders Office, the Riverside County Barristers, the Santa Clara County Public Defenders Office, the Santa Barbara County Public Defenders Office, and the San Francisco County Public Defenders Office.  He was a speaker at the CPDA homicide defense training in 2012 to train on utilizing a neuropsychologist in a homicide case.  The winning trials by humanizing clients' training teaches techniques that are easily utilized to win drug cases.
• How long were the drug trials you've done, and how many days of defense did you present?
• These questions are important because although some cases just call for a short trial, a short trial can also mean that the prosecution was not sufficiently challenged or that no defense was presented.  A drug case trial that lasts five or so court days is reason for concern because it's an indicator that the prosecution is not being thoroughly challenged and a complete defense is not being presented.
• Addison has spent 141 court days in drug case trials.   He has a success rate in drug case trials that is really unparalleled.