San Francisco Superior Court
Client was arrested after a police informant made statements that he was solicited by the client to assist in the murder of another tenant in client’s building. Investigation and preliminary exam testimony revealed that the informant had numerous drug convictions and was facing state prison due to a recent arrest. Further, the evidence at the preliminary exam was insufficient to hold client for a felony charge.
CASE DISMISSED after a motion by the defense.
Solano County Superior Court
Client was charged in 2006 with attempted 1st degree murder and faced a sentence of 25 years to life. Client had attended a party with 3 other young men. The client and his companions were forcibly ejected from the party by two adults. One of the adults was shot at point blank range with a handgun. Initially neither the victim nor his family cooperated with police. The client was not identified during any of the photo line ups shown to witnesses in the weeks following the shooting although one of his companions was. The young woman who threw the party and her friends conducted an investigation on their own and later made identifications of the client almost 2 months after the shooting. The victim identified client at the preliminary exam as the one who shot him. In June of 2008, the Law Office of John D. Forsyth took over the case. The time waiver was withdrawn and the case was set for trial within 60 days. The investigation revealed that one of the two uncles involved with ejecting the client and his friends from the party knew that the client was not the shooter and had said as much to other witnesses. The uncle refused to cooperate with the police and the defense investigation. It was revealed that the young woman who threw the party lied to police about knowing one of the client’s companions that night. The defense theorized that this other young man was the actual shooter and both the victim and his family knew it. They had falsely accused the client in an effort to force him to give up his friend as the shooter because they feared retaliation. All offers from the court and district attorney were rejected and the case proceeded to trial. The victim and his family were subpoenaed by the defense. On the eve of trial the victim stated he was unsure who the actual shooter was.
CASE DISMISSED