Our Case Successes

Attempted Murder and Gang charges thrown out after 2 day Preliminary Hearing

12-23-2019. Prosecutors typically charge the most serious crime as Count 1. Today, our client, who was charged with attempted murder, gang and gun enhancements in count 1, was discharged on all attempted murder, gang and gun enhancements contained in Count 1.

Mr. Schweitzer is always checking for new laws and court decisions. Recent changes to the Penal Code as published by an Appellate Court on December 3, 2019, were shown by Mr. Schweitzer and found persuasive by the Superior Court. This may have been the very first time that anything like this has happened, due to the new law which limits the liability of persons who aid and abet in shooting incidents only to those who had the specific intent to kill or some other legal equivalent. Probable cause for neither were shown to exist.

It is important for all lawyers, especially criminal defense lawyers, to use every legal advantage. While the case against this client is far from over, the prospects of success at trial are far better with the Court's removal of attempted murder from the litany of charges. As a result of the ruling throwing out the attempted murder and a second serious felony count with gang allegations, bail has been drastically reduced.

Another DUI Case Dismissed February 4, 2015, Fresno Superior Court Case Dismissed

Our client was drinking and he was driving. His Blood Alcohol tested at well above .08% cutoff. But, here's the thing. The police officer who stop our client had no good reason for doing so. In fact, he observed our client with a cell phone in his hand. And, our client supposedly "manipulated the phone in a texting like manner". So, the officer stopped him. Now, it is illegal to text and drive. But in 2014, the courts made it clear that it is not illegal to use the GPS feature on a cell phone while driving. So, we filed a Motion to suppress (throw out) the breath test because it was the product of an illegal stop. At the hearing, the officer testified that he could not see what was on the phone screen when he observed our client tapping at it. Mr. Schweitzer then argued that because the officer could not distinguish a texting like manner from a GPS use, the elevated BAC% would not be admissible at trial. The Superior Court Judge agreed and made that exact order. So, without any evidence to show a jury, the prosecution's motion to dismiss the DUI was granted. CASE DISMISSED!!! Our client walked out of court with no fines, no conviction and no jail time whatsoever. All in a day's work here. When you are faced with a DUI or something far more serious, it pays to get a lawyer who really knows the law, and what to do with it and when to do it. DA's like to brag about 90% plus conviction rates. But that is not acceptable for us or our clients. When we can force a case can to be dismissed before trial, we go the extra mile to see that it is. Legal issues that are not obvious to you can often play a pivotal role in how your case ends. Our lawyers carefully analyze and weigh the possibilities in light of recent legal developments that can help our clients. We take victory wherever we can find it, and we work hard to find the "win" in every single case whether it ends in dismissal of some or all charges whenever possible. Nothing above is intended as a promise or guarantee. Every case is different. Choose a defense lawyer who is truthful enough to communicate this fact and smart enough to find the "win" in your case. No matter what has happened, we have the experience to deal with it, and we seriously want to help you avoid jail.

Schweitzer and Davidian Client, Accused No More Dismissal

In a recent Kings County case, Attorney Annie Davidian won the DISMISSAL of a case where our client had been charged with Mayhem, Domestic Violence, Assault by Means of Force Likely to Inflict Great Bodily Injury and an actual Great Bodily Injury enhancement. A person convicted of such charges can get life in prison. However, due in no small part to Ms. Davidian's advocacy, the case is no more. And, to top it all off, Ms. Davidian won this ruling at the preliminary hearing, in Kings County.

Fresno Superior Court Suppresses Methamphetamine, Shotgun and Paraphernaia on Mr. Schweitzer's Motion. Our client won the motion to suppress

On April 8, 2016, our client was parked at the end of a rural roadway near an outlying town in Fresno County. As he stood behind his automobile, a police cruiser rolled up with its spotlight trained on our client, who stood behind the car with his back to the police vehicle. Our client then walked towards the police officer who told him to stop. He asked for our client's identification. Our client did what he was told. The officer called in our client's driver's license and it came back with no wants or warrants. This roust was then prolonged as the officer investigated our client for the non-existent crime of public urination in a rural area. Another officer arrived and noticed that our client was wearing a clip on pocket knife. Our client was ordered to place his hands on the hood of his vehicle, and he complied. The pocket knife was removed and the detention kept going. Our client asked for the officer's name, and protested the treatment he was receiving. He was told that he might be arrested or let go, depending on his attitude. Then, the first officer frisked our client. He re-frisked our client's right front coin pocket several times. Finally, he handcuffed our client and placed his fingers into the coin pocket, retrieving a small quantity of suspected methamphetamine. While this is a citable offense in the State of California, the officers decided to take our client to the police station for booking. Before they did, they searched his automobile. In the trunk of the automobile, they found a shotgun. This too was seized. The car was impounded. The police could not produce any inventory sheet at our client's suppression motion hearing. At the police station, the client was cited out in the early hours of the morning. The police computer was down that morning, and they had let the fact that our client had been convicted of an earlier felony go un-noticed. Later in the morning, our client returned to the police station. After citing him out, the police learned that our client had a felony prior, and thus, he was prohibited from possessing the shotgun that they had seized earlier that morning. They then arrested our client and he was booked into jail with a high bail. Our client chose to have his preliminary hearing with the public defender. Then, the client hired us. Mr. Schweitzer researched the matter and brought a motion to suppress the suspected methamphetamine and the shotgun. Today, our client won the motion to suppress based upon the illegal detention of our client on April 8, 2016. While we are very happy that our client will not be facing trial with this damning evidence against him, we only wish we had been called into the matter sooner. Still, its a good day when we can make tainted evidence disappear due to the ongoing strength of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which still prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

Another Kings County Win for Annie Davidian Case Dismissed

In yet another Kings County preliminary hearing case, Davidian's client was charged with Assault by Means of Force Likely to Produce Great Bodily Injury (again, with an actual GBI enhancement alleged), Terrorist Threats, and Witness Dissuasion, all felonies. (3 strikes in one case, and an out on bail enhancement to boot.) Again, after hearing all of the DA's evidence, and listening to Davidian's arguments, the judge held that there was no probable cause to bind out client over for trial. So, lightening does strike twice in one place. CASE DISMISSED We just love winning at the preliminary hearing.

Drug Case Dismissed on Mr. Schweitzer's Motion Clovis, California-October 18, 2011 Dismissed

A driver accused of possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia has had his case dismissed by a Fresno County Superior Court Judge. While on routine patrol in March of 2011, a Sheriff "ran" the license plate on a BMW that he was following. His car computer told him that the license had expired so he stopped the BMW for no other reason. He did not look to see that the BMW actually carried a current valid sticker before contacting the driver. The driver told the deputy that he thought his license to drive had been suspended. (It was.) The deputy then asked the driver to get out of the car and obtained permission to search the driver. This search proved negative. Then, the deputy obtained permission to search the car. Inside, he located paraphernalia. He then placed the driver under arrest and went back to searching the BMW where he found more paraphernalia and a quantity of methamphetamine. The driver was charged with felony possession of methamphetamine and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Mr. Schweitzer filed a Motion to Suppress (throw out) the methamphetamine and the paraphernalia. Mr. Schweitzer alleged that the stop of the BMW was both warrantless and illegal under the Constitution of the United States. The District Attorney responded that the stop was lawful because the deputy had information from dispatch that the BMW's registration was expired. The District Attorney also brought a piece of paper that showed that the deputy actually got this information from his computer on the night of the stop. Mr. Schweitzer argued that the piece of paper was just that, a piece of paper, and that without any proof that the piece of paper was anything but hearsay, the DA must lose because the deputy had no warrant and no reasonable suspicion that the driver was doing anything illegal. The Court agreed, and the case against the driver was DISMISSED by the Court. The Court said that the Constitution must be obeyed regardless of what a warrantless search turns up. After wards, Mr. Schweitzer said that his client has been going to N.A. meetings twice a week, and he is over the "bad patch" in his life that led him to say no to drugs once and for all.

3-10-16 Fresno Superior Court - Bail Reduced by $590,000.00 on Mr. Schweitzer's Successful Motion. Bail reduction

Our client is a 19 year old man with no criminal record. He has severely impaired vision and needs glasses to see properly. He lives in a bad neighborhood, where shootings often occur, but he is not into gangs. He works at a local meat processing factory. He was charged with shooting at the police, and being in a gang. At $810,000, his bail was so high as to be unreasonable. Mr. Schweitzer entered a not guilty plea for him and set the matter for bail hearing today. At the bail hearing, the judge heard argument from Mr. Schweitzer and from the District Attorney. Mr. Schweitzer argued that even if our client did fire a shot, he did so while he was being chased by unknown subjects who only later were identified as undercover police officers. Mr. Schweitzer had the better argument and bail is now set at only $220,000. We hope that a bail reduction of $590,000.00 will allow our client to be reunited with his family soon, while due process over what truly occurred can occur in the courts.

Schweitzer & Davidian Do It Again. Reasonable Doubt = Victory Not Guilty

Hanford, August 3, 2011: Mr. Schweitzer argued that the alleged victim's injuries were self-inflicted. The DA argued that was impossible. After only an hour and a half of deliberation, a King's County jury found our client, accused of spousal abuse, attempted spousal abuse, battery and assault NOT GUILTY ON ALL FOUR COUNTS. At arraignment, the DA had offered our client a guilty plea to battery only, and a 52-week batterer's treatment program. The offer was soundly rejected by Mr. Schweitzer, and the case was set for speedy trial. With the DA's five witnesses, and only two for the defense, Mr. Schweitzer won the opening round with an order from the bench to protect the client's rights under the Constitution of the United States. The rest is now history. We are very happy for our wrongly accused client. Even though he didn't have to under the law, Mr. Schweitzer feels that he actually proved that the client is innocent, and that the jury's verdict agrees with him.