It was alleged that our client and two to three co-suspects were involved in a verbal altercation at a Starbucks with a Starbucks employee. It was further alleged that later that same day our client and the co-suspects returned to the Starbucks when the employee was leaving for his shift and repeatedly stabbed him with a knife outside of his place of employment. The employee was then rushed to the hospital and ultimately survived the injuries from the wounds.
Our client was later arrested and charged with a violation of Penal Code section 664/187(a), “Attempted Murder,” Penal Code section 245(a)(1), “Assault with a Deadly Weapon,” and Penal Code section 245(a)(4), “Assault with Force Likely to Cause Great Bodily Injury.” If convicted, our client was facing a potential life sentence for the charges.
From the beginning of our representation, our client was adamant that he was not involved in the stabbing incident and had gone home prior to the incident. Surveillance evidence provided by the prosecution showed footage of our client at the scene of the Starbucks during the initial verbal altercation. Two witnesses also identified our client as being present and involved in the stabbing. Our office subpoenaed surveillance footage outside of the Starbucks that may have captured the stabbing incident to potentially exculpate our client, however this footage did not exist. We also canvassed neighboring businesses for footage and no camera had recorded the incident.
Our office hired a cell phone expert to conduct a thorough “Cell Phone Extraction” examination of our client’s cell phone to assist in uncovering potential exculpatory information such as location data or other means of proving our client was not at the second incident. By doing the extraction, our office was able to obtain cell phone data information tending to exculpate and demonstrate our client’s innocence. Our office also subpoenad phone records from our client which revealed that during the relevant time frame of the stabbing he was “facetiming” his father.
We presented this information to the prosecution and the prosecution conducted their own independent review of the cell phone extraction data. After a review of this information, the prosecution informed our office that they were going to dismiss the charges against our client!
At an advanced court hearing, the prosecution completely dismissed all charges against our client!
This is an incredible result for our client that saved him from a potential life sentence!
DISCLAIMER:
The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Escovar Law, APC or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction. The information on this website is a communication and is for informational purposes only. The facts of every case are unique and nothing on this page or on this website should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. The information on this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship and viewing of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. The result portrayed in this advertisement was dependent on the facts of this case. Results will differ if based on different facts.