The New York Criminal Defense Attorney

Drivers Should Never Leave the Scene Unless They Fear For Their Own Safety, Warns a Noted New York Criminal Defense Lawyer

2009-03-26T06:09:00.001-07:00

Photo by Sidkid via Flickr

NEW YORK, NY (March 24) – You’re driving up Sixth Avenue at night in Manhattan. You see a rare opportunity to make some time as one traffic light after another begins changing from red to green in perfect sequence. You press down hard on the accelerator as your vehicle picks up speed with each passing second. Then, before your foot can reach the brake pedal, a man carrying a briefcase is suddenly standing right in front of you, as if from out of nowhere. You hear a sickening thud. It all happens so fast, so unexpectedly. Now what? Do you stop and call for help? Or, do you leave the scene of the accident as fast as you can, hoping no one saw your car strike the unfortunate pedestrian who is now lying motionless in the street?

According to Steve Brill, a New York criminal defense lawyer, in cases involving serious pedestrian knockdowns it is not at all uncommon for the driver, in a moment of panic, to think that if they can escape without being identified, it might be possible to avoid facing what they fear are dire legal and financial consequences.

In 2007, hit-and-run drivers killed 38 people in New York City, and 17 of those cases were never solved.

“Unless the driver believes that remaining at the scene may jeopardize his or her own safety,” Brill strongly advises, “the driver should never leave the scene of an accident. They should stop their car and call the police immediately. Then I strongly suggest the next call they make should be to an attorney.”

Leaving the scene of an accident is the event that triggers potential criminal charges and exposes the driver to longer jail time and license sanctions.

“With the popularity of cell phones with built-in cameras,” Brill said, “drivers involved in a pedestrian knockdown are almost always identified by someone. In the past, far more hit-and-run drivers got away with it. But that is very rarely the case anymore.”

Brill explained that the degree of the crime and severity of the penalties for leaving the scene of an accident almost always depends on the condition of the driver and the facts surrounding the incident.

“For example, if someone leaves the scene of an accident where only property is damaged,” Brill said, “the driver could be arrested on a minor misdemeanor charge."

“On the other hand,” he continued, “if it is alleged that the driver was drunk, or driving recklessly and someone is injured, or killed, the potential penalties and license sanctions will be the most severe."

As a New York criminal defense lawyer, Brill has seen hit-and-run cases where the District Attorney’s office went so far as to charge the driver with second-degree murder based on allegations of ‘depraved indifference’ to human life. “In each of these situations,” Brill said, “the driver was accused of driving drunk and causing an accident that killed someone.”

Brill further explained that in pedestrian knockdown accidents involving serious injury, or death, part of the investigation done by the NYPD will include efforts to determine whether to charge the driver with criminal behavior.

“I get calls from people all the time,” Brill said. “They have just hit someone with their car and don’t know what to do next. When I get these calls, I always advise the person not to say anything to the police, or the DA’s office, or to any law enforcement official, until I get there. “If not,” he said, “the driver risks making a statement that could be incriminating.

“While we are unable to advise a client to run from the scene,” he added, “we have advised clients to exercise their 5th amendment right to remain silent and not volunteer any information. If the NYPD wants to make an arrest, that is their prerogative. But our clients do not have to make their job any easier.”

Prominent New York Criminal Defense Lawyer Says Cover Up Could Be Worse than the Crime for Pitching Great Roger Clemens

2009-02-17T09:15:00.000-08:00

NEW YORK, NY (Feb. 17) – If a perjury indictment is returned against 7-time Cy Young Award winner Roger Clemens, one noted New York criminal defense lawyer fully expects the federal government to make an example out of the superstar pitcher in a bid to deter anyone in the future from lying during a congressional hearing.

“This could turn out to be a perfect example of how the cover up is worse than the crime,” said Steven Brill, a New York criminal defense attorney and partner in the New York litigation firm of Sullivan & Brill. In a February 12, 2009 article out of the Associated Press, a retired FBI agent is quoted as saying that perjury cases involving high-profile defendants are becoming more common, telling AP: “It used to be we didn’t mess with these kinds of cases. Everybody lied to us. Then, they got Martha Stewart on lying, and it became the flavor of the month.”

“Even if he is found guilty of having taken performance-enhancing drugs back in 1998, 2000 and 2001,” Brill said, “from what I’ve seen I don’t expect Clemens to be charged with the underlying drug crime. But there is no question that he will suffer because of his celebrity if a perjury indictment is handed down by the grand jury.

“Congress does not like to be lied to,” Brill warned. “If he is convicted of perjury, he could be facing jail time.”

Brill said that if Clemens is indicted and the case goes to trial, Clemens lawyer, Rusty Hardin, will probably focus most of his energy on trying to discredit Brian McNamee, Clemens’ former trainer and principal accuser, so that no credible evidence exists that could support a perjury finding against Clemens.

“If Clemens stands by his statements,” Brill explained, “and McNamee is shown to be a liar, then the perjury charge cannot stand.”

Looking ahead at what will probably happen to Clemens, Brill said that once a witness gives sworn testimony that contains untrue statements on a material matter in a case, there is not much more that can be done to avoid criminal prosecution.

“For this reason, we always advise our clients of the risks and consequences of testifying falsely, “Brill said. “It is human nature for some people to lie when they are under fire and their future is on the line. If we get the sense that a client is traveling down that road, we strongly advise the client not to testify at all.”

According to Brill, state and federal perjury charges are infrequent because it is hard to prove that an individual willfully lied about a material matter.

“In a perjury case,” he explained, “the government must present evidence that proves not only that the defendant testified falsely, but that he or she willfully made a statement which the defendant did not believe to be true and that the matter about which the defendant is testifying falsely is a material matter in the case.

“Clemens lying about his address or the names of his kids wouldn’t count,” Brill said.

Prominent New York Criminal Defense Attorney says Self-defense Argument Best Hope for Burress

2008-12-23T09:19:00.000-08:00

NEW YORK, NY (December 23, 2008) -- Despite Mayor Bloomberg’s political grandstanding and calls for him to get the maximum sentence, a self-inflicted bullet hole in his leg, an illegal gun possession charge, his arrogant, knuckleheaded behavior on and off the field, and a publicity-conscious District Attorney looking to set him up as the poster-boy for illegal hand gun possession in hopes of warding off others who would conceal an illegal weapon, the most important argument Plaxico Burress’ attorney must make in his defense is that his client was carrying the gun for self-defense, and believed he was at risk of serious injury or death, the very real dangers a star professional athlete faces every day on the streets of New York, according to Steve Brill, a prominent New York criminal and illegal hand gun possession defense attorney.

“If Burress was my client,” Brill said, “I would immediately discuss the self-defense matter with the DA and make them see that my client felt his life was in danger and that carrying a gun was his best and only option to protect his person and property. I would drive home the fact that Burress did not possess the gun with the intention of using it unlawfully.”

Brill emphasized he would make sure that the DA is aware of Richard Collier, a player for the Jacksonville Jaguars who was shot 14 times, lost his leg and was paralyzed as a result of the shooting. And of Sean Taylor, a player for the Washington Redskins, who was sleeping when 3 individuals broke into his home and shot and killed him. And of Darrent Williams, a player for the Denver Broncos, who was shot and killed while he was sitting inside his limousine.

“Athletes have real fears based on real cases,” Brill said. “The DA must be convinced that Burress had these fears and possessed a gun to protect himself from dangerous people who target famous people, like NFL football players.”

To have any credibility with the DA, and probably later with a judge and jury if his case goes to trial, Burress’ public image could also work against him and might need some polishing.

“He needs to say and do things that will make him look remorseful and willing to do what he can to make it right,” Brill said. “Whenever he’s in public I would have him surrounded by his family as much as possible. And while it is unconventional to have a client make a statement, in this case he cannot deny he had a gun, so I would have him make as many statements as possible about his fear of injury and remorse for causing this spectacle.

“Remember,” he emphasized, “intending to use a weapon for self-defense, when there exists a risk of serious injury or death, is not an unlawful intention. Burress could still be convicted of possession of a weapon, but that is a less serious offense with less jail time.”

As for trial tactics, Brill has some advice for Ben Brafman, Plaxico Burress’ defense attorney:

There is no question there will be a tendency for the DA to treat Burress disproportionately than other non-celebrity defendants. It should be Brafman’s goal to persuade the DA from caving in to outside pressure. He needs to hammer home the fact that it is unfair and contrary to the mission of the DA’s office to make an example out of Burress.

Have Burress maintain as low a profile a possible so as not to tarnish his public image any further.

Start right now preparing his client on how to best convey his mental state when he was in that nightclub. There are some cases where the criminal defense attorney knows he’s not putting his client on the stand. Then there are some cases where the attorney doesn’t know whether, or not, their client should testify. Then there are cases like this one involving Burress, where he must testify in order give his defense lawyer a much better chance at winning.

Brill also warns Brafman to be aware of the impact of the media on judges and juries in high-profile criminal cases like this one.

“In the fight between the media and protecting your client, the media always wins,” Brill explained. “Instead of fighting the frenzy, I would join it by using the media to show my client in the best possible light.

“It will be a tough balance for Brafman,” Brill added. “On the one hand he needs to justify his client’s possession of the weapon as a necessity due to his celebrity. On the other hand, when it comes time for punishment, he wants the DA to treat Burress like any other defendant. That’s a hard sell.”

As for Mayor Bloomberg, Brill said he thinks it was inappropriate for the Mayor to say what he said about Burress. “Cleary,” Brill said, “the Mayor used the Burress matter to make a statement that would further him politically. The Mayor should respect the judicial process and let it work. By him getting involved, it may put pressure on the DA’s office, which in turn is unfair to Burress. By the Mayor making his one-sided statements, he has made himself a factor in influencing an impartial jury. In any case that is wrong.”

Hate Crime vs. Ordinary Criminal Assault is in Eye and Ear of Beholder, Says New York Defense Attorney Steve Brill

2008-11-20T13:36:00.000-08:00

(NEW YORK, N.Y., Nov. 20) – Police on eastern Long Island are investigating reports that more than a dozen cars were spray painted with racist graffiti; 10 days later seven white teenagers reportedly insulted an Hispanic man with racial slurs before attacking and killing him at a Long Island Railroad station; St. Joseph and La Salle Universities are currently investigating two racially charged incidents over the last two weeks where a gang of white male students punched a young black woman on campus and used racial slurs to describe Barack Obama.

“There is no question that when people lose their jobs and make less or no money they look for someone to blame, and sometimes they resort to violence,” warned Steve Brill, a New York defense attorney who has worked on numerous hate crime cases in his career.”

In a recent New York Times editorial dated November 11, 2008, the writer points out that, “The atmosphere began to darken when Republican politicians decided a few years ago to exploit immigration as a wedge issue. According to the editorial, now that the economy is in free fall, the possibility of scapegoating is deepening Hispanic anxiety.

“Furthermore, “Brill emphasized, “If an individual is of the personal belief that his or her economic plight is due to another race or nationality, as irrational and mistaken as that is, you have the precondition for an escalation in the incidence of hate crimes.”

The police in Patchogue, NY, said the seven teenage boys allegedly involved in the murder of Marcello Lucero had been driving around town looking for Latinos to beat up. According to The New York Times, a prosecutor at the arraignment quoted one of the young men as having said,“Let’s go find some Mexicans.”

In his experience, Brill said while there are no clear statistics on the subject, it is safe to say that most minorities end up on the losing end of hate-based criminal behavior.

“Over the years that I’ve been involved in criminal defense work in New York,” he said, “I’ve learned that when a hate crime is charged, it is not always clear that race is the motivation for the attack. There is rarely a cut and dried motivation for a race-based attack. Most of the time when a non-race-related event occurs, like one that precipitates a fight, race creeps in during the course of that aggression, particularly in times when the preconditions for hate crime behavior exist.”

Brill noted that while most hate crimes involve groups of individuals as the alleged attackers, in most instances not all of the members of the group are equally culpable.

“As a defense attorney in New York,” he said, “I always make sure that the District Attorney doesn’t automatically prosecute the case as a hate crime merely because a group had a fight and one member of the group felt emboldened to make racist comments. Others members of the group should not bear the same criminal responsibility as the instigator, or leader, of the group.”

Brill points out that there is a fine line separating ones very strong political beliefs and committing crimes motivated by race.

“Simply because other members of the group are present when some of the group use racial epithets,” Brill said, “does not mean that those racial epithets should be attributable to all.

“From the point of view of the alleged attackers in the Patchogue train station incident” he added, “the more evidence their lawyer is able to show the District Attorney, or the jury, that the crime was not about hate or racism, the degree of the crime and the underlying sentences could certainly be lessened.

Brill explained that the “degree” of the crime exposes defendants to less, or more severe, sentencing guidelines. The example he used is Assault in the Third Degree, an A misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum of one year in a city jail, like Rikers. On the other hand, if the incident is charged as a hate crime he said it becomes an E felony punishable by a maximum of 1-½ years-to-4 years in an upstate prison.

“In order for members other than the leader of the gang to be held criminally responsible for a hate crime,” he said, “the prosecutor must prove that other gang members shared the same criminal intent as the main actors of the gang. Standing around and watching should not lead to criminal liability unless other gang members were acting in a way that furthered the crime.”

Stronger gang members always lead the followers, he emphasized. “It must be remembered,” Brill said, “that criminal law attempts to punish criminal intent. If less vocal followers of the group do not bear the same criminal intent as the leader, then their crime should not rise to the level of a hate crime. Once the case is no longer tried as a hate crime,” Brill said, “the defendant is not exposed to enhanced sentences under the hate crime statutes.”

Steven Brill, a partner in the New York law firm of Sullivan & Brill, tried the first ever “assault as a hate crime” case in Queens, New York.

“My client and his cousin, two Puerto Rican teenagers,” he said, “had a dispute with two African American teenagers. During the course of the fight, the “N” word was used. In young urban society, that word has non-racist connotations. In fact, very often kids refer to each other more by that word than by their own names. In light of that fact, I was able to argue that in spite of the use of the N word, my client was not motivated in any way by racism. For better or for worse, the N word in certain circumstances can possess non-hateful and non-racist connotations. I did for my client what any defense attorney should do in these cases – make every word that sounds racist, non-hateful and non-racist.

“When you strip away the unintended racial overtones of words,” he concluded, “it leads to doubt as to whether a defendant’s motivation legally supports a hate crime. All that was left then,in my case, was a fight among teenagers, which is clearly a better place to be for my client than to be charged with a hate crime.”

New York DWI Defense Lawyer Steve Brill Says Courts Abuse Celebrity's Rights

2008-11-19T09:24:00.000-08:00

He Also Has Advice for Joba Chamberlain’s Attorney

NEW YORK, NY (Nov. 19) – If Yankee pitcher Joba Chamberlain is convicted of driving while under the influence, a Nebraska court, in addition to enforcing the mandatory jail sentence of anywhere from 7-to-60 days, could revoke his license, making it impossible for the star right hander to drive himself to the opening game against the Cleveland Indians on April 16, 2009, in the new Yankee Stadium, according to Steve Brill, a New York City defense attorney who has handled all types of DWI cases.

“The courts could also mandate an alcohol treatment program for Chamberlain,” Brill said, “requiring him to attend classes. While unlikely, the classes could potentially interfere with his place in the Yankee lineup for part, or all, of the season.”

The 23-year-old starter, with a wholesome reputation, was arrested near his hometown of Lincoln, Nebraska on October 18 for driving under the influence of alcohol, the Nebraska state patrol said.

“If I was defending him,” Brill explained, “I would make sure that Joba is not treated worse than anyone else in similar circumstances, which can happen, if some aggressive prosecutor decides to use him as an example.”

Brill said he knows that as a public figure there is a tremendous amount of pressure on Chamberlain to speak.

“I would make sure he understands,” Brill warned, “that anything he says will most likely end up hurting his case.”

Brill explained that most of the time DWI cases are resolved with negotiations between defense attorneys and District Attorneys.

“But celebrity is always a sensitive situation,” he said. “The goal of the defense is to convince the DA and the Court that a famous defendant must be treated as fairly as anyone else. In DWI cases especially, the DA has the tendency to throw the book at celebrities in order to use their celebrity to send a message to society.”

Brill said that should the evidence confirm that Joba was legally intoxicated, he would advise Chamberlain’s lawyer to focus heavily on minimizing any sanctions, or penalties, and to advise Chamberlain to remain silent and not make any statements to the press.

He said the fact that an open bottle of booze was found on the front seat of his car will make his lawyer’s job that much harder and the DA’s job that much easier.

“The open bottle,” Brill said, “is independent evidence that the person was actually drinking while driving, which makes it hard to argue that the person was not driving in an impaired or intoxicated condition.”

Brill said that when Chamberlain goes before the Nebraska court in December his lawyer’s top priority should be to keep the first time offender out of jail.

“At the same time,” he said, “his lawyer should fight to keep Chamberlain’s criminal and driving records clean, help him maintain a valid drivers license, pay only minimum fines and help keep him out of alcohol treatment, unless the facts of the case make it clear that an intervention program would be in his client’s best interest.”

Brill advises anyone who is arrested on a DWI charge – celebrity or otherwise -- to seek legal advice.

“There is a significant need,” Brill urged, “to have a good lawyer who knows the law and procedures as it pertains to DWI crimes.”

He said that while some sentences are mandatory, there is a wide range of guidelines within those mandatory sentences.

“A license suspension is mandatory,” he explained, “but there is flexibility in the length of time of the suspension. The same can be said for the fine.”

Brill said that a good lawyer can make the difference between a client sustaining a criminal record and no criminal record; between an alcohol program and no alcohol program; between community service and no community service; between a seized vehicle and the release of that vehicle; between having driving privileges and no privileges.

“DWI laws are strict and getting stricter in every state,” Brill said. “Even in his home state, where he is something of a hero, Chamberlain could conceivably have license problems and run the risk of sustaining a criminal record for life. A lot will depend on how his attorney handles the case.”

Brill pointed to an example of one client of his New York defense law firm, Sullivan & Brill, who was stopped for driving erratically.

“In police paperwork,” Brill explained, “the driver was alleged to have all of the characteristics of being drunk – slurred speech, watery eyes, alcohol on his breath. The driver was taken to the precinct and asked to submit to a breathalyzer test. In New York the NYPD videotapes breath and sobriety tests. After pressuring the DA, we got a hold of the videotape and saw that our client looked and acted sober. He was steady and in control. His speech sounded normal and he appeared to understand what was going on. Despite what the arresting officer allegedly observed, the videotape saved the day for the client. No jury could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that our client was intoxicated. The DA was forced to reduce the charges and we negotiated a deal that involved very minimal sanctions.”

Noted New York Defense Attorney Warns Assault Victims like Subway Motorman Maurice Parks to Keep their Mouths Shut

2008-10-13T12:40:00.000-07:00

NEW YORK, NY, (October 13, 2008) -- If a mugger assaults you on a city street, or a robber breaks into your home, or car, while you’re in it and you defend yourself and your family with deadly force, you could end up in more trouble with the law than your attackers, warns Steve Brill, a noted criminal defense lawyer in New York City. Brill was commenting on a highly-publicized situation recently involving Maurice Parks, a New York City subway motorman who was mugged in January on his way home from work and is now facing a grand jury indictment for second-degree murder that could land him in prison for the rest of his life.

Brill, a partner in the law firm of Sullivan & Brill in New York City, explained that in the case against Mr. Parks it is all about timing.

“In situations like these,” Brill said, “the law states that deadly physical force used against a victim must be imminent in order for that victim to be justified in using physical force in return.”

Prosecutors claim that Mr. Parks chased and stabbed to death an innocent bystander after Parks’ attackers had fled the crime scene and seconds after he had made a call to 911. Although police had originally ruled out filing homicide charges against Parks in the January episode, ruling the killing as an act of self-defense, prosecutors later presented their case to a grand jury claiming that Mr. Parks misled the police by saying he acted in self-defense.

The district attorney’s office,” Brill explained, “may conduct its own investigation about an event at any point in time and come to a different conclusion from a police officer as to whether a crime has been committed.

“When the case turned against Parks,” Brill added, “he was placed at an extreme disadvantage given the amount of admissions he made. These admissions are now fair game for the district attorney to use against him.

Brill, who has handled numerous cases where clients have been justified using some level of force in order to protect themselves, warns victims of an assault to keep their mouths shut when speaking to the authorities until they speak to an attorney.

“In cases like these it is difficult to remain silent,” Brill said. “The defendant always has the tendency to explain why they reacted the way that they did. Invariably, however, a defendant will say something, or be misunderstood to say something that could easily compromise a claim of self-defense.

“Defense of self-defense is so extremely fact sensitive, “ he added. “Any statement by the defendant carries enormous weight and attention. It is always better for the victim to speak with an attorney first.”

Brill conjectured that if he were defending Mr. Parks in this case he would need to establish that in Mr. Parks mind he believed that in order to save his life he had to use deadly force despite the fact that his actions against the alleged bystander occurred after the initial attack.

“The first question I would ask my client,” he added, “is to describe for me, in detail, the way in which he felt his life was in jeopardy when he was robbed.”

Brill explained that laws regarding self-defense in New York State, and in all other jurisdictions throughout the US, prohibit the use of deadly force for revenge or retribution. Deadly force can only be used for self-protection.

“The saying, “An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth,” Brill added, “is a saying based on the idea of retribution and revenge, which is exactly what the law of justification attempts to prohibit.”

Top New York Criminal Defense Attorney Advocates Treatment Over Incarceration for Small-time Drug Felons

2008-10-13T11:25:00.000-07:00

NEW YORK, NY (October 13, 2008) -- Ashley O’Donoghue was the victim of an unfair system that denies judges the right to judicial discretion and treats most people who are arrested for a drug offense as if they were stereotypical drug kingpins like Scarface and Pablo Escobar, according to Steven Brill, a leading New York criminal defense attorney who advocates for reform that focuses more on drug treatment as an alternative to jail sentences.

Mr. O’Donoghue, who was sentenced to serve 7-to 21-years for a drug conviction, a penalty mandated by New York's controversial Rockefeller Drug Law, is part of a petition drive and education campaign that The New York Times recently reported is aimed at generating public support to urge the State Legislature to repeal the draconian laws.

“In December of 2004,” Brill explained, “then Governor Pataki enacted the Drug Law Reform Act, which slightly lowered most drug sentences and changed the mandated minimum terms for the sale of 2-to-4 ounces of a heroin and cocaine, an A-1 drug felony. But the new law did not restore judicial discretion, which was taken away by the Rockefeller Laws, or provide funds for community based drug treatment programs.”

According to recent government figures, most drug arrests in New York City are the result of buy and bust operations that target poor neighborhoods with high drug sale rates. Court papers show that some people have been arrested and put away for years for selling no more than a couple grains.

“In these types of sting operations,” Brill said, “the NYPD ends up targeting mostly addicts who sell drugs on the street to get more money to use. For these people, jail is not necessarily the answer on how to deal with drug crime.”

“Furthermore,” Brill added, “if a defendant had been convicted of a prior drug felony and was arrested a second time, the mandatory sentence was harsher than most sentences for people who had committed violent crimes.”

And who benefits by these overcompensatory laws?

“Certainly not the drug addict or small-time user/dealer,” Brill said. “You can’t even say that communities have benefited because the individuals who received these harsh sentences were not necessarily people who were likely to ruin communities. The only real way to benefit society is to provide treatment to these individuals so their addiction subsides.”

One of the major problems with the Rockefeller Laws, according to Brill, is that a person who was merely a cog in the wheel of a much larger drug organization was treated disproportionately from the real leaders and drug king pins.

“Under the old laws,” Brill said, “judges had no discretion to sentence a small-time dealer and user to a non-jail sentence like a drug program unless the district attorney gave it their blessing. The DAs office is a political branch of government and sometimes decisions and policies are made for political reasons and not to meet the ends of fairness and justice.

“This lack of discretion,” Brill charged, “is a slap in the face to our legal system. Judges are the only independent and objective body in a criminal case. It is more important in drug cases that judges be free to deal with defendants with a strict eye toward justice and fairness.”

Many studies have shown that drug reform since the adoption of the Rockefeller Laws has not produced a major change in prison population and it has resulted in the release of a smaller number of A-1 felony offenders than was anticipated. The legislature,” Brill advises, “should focus on taking some discretion out of the hands of the DA and set a quantity requirement for B felony sale cases, similar to federal law, so that small time sellers are not subject to disproportionately severe mandatory jail sentences.”

As a leading criminal defense attorney in New York who spends the majority of his time in court defending the rights of individuals who run afoul of the law, Brill once represented a woman who was charged with selling $40 worth of crack cocaine -- about four hits. It was her second similar offense in five years, and as a result she was facing a mandatory 31/2 -12 years.

“The woman was clearly an addict,” Brill said, “and her family had retained us to help. Our first task was to convince the DA that she was an appropriate candidate for treatment, not jail. After weeks of negotiations, we were able to present to the DA our client's job and education history, her family background and her clear substance abuse problem. The District Attorney, who basically wanted to lock her up and throw away the key, ultimately was persuaded by our argument and as a result we were successful in negotiating a deal where the client entered a drug treatment facility.

Upon successful completion of the treatment, the DA agreed to allow her to come back to court where her guilty plea would be replaced with a reduced charge. She got the help she needed, her family was happy and she stayed out of prison.”