CASE RESULTS

Our client “Derrick” was the subject of a Los Angeles Police Department Sex Crimes unit investigation for suspicion of felony Sexual Battery (California Penal Code section 243.4(a)).
By the time Derrick hired us, the detectives not only had already forwarded the matter to the District Attorney for prosecution, but actually arrested Derrick. As a result, he was facing 48 months in a California penitentiary.
We immediately went to work with our private investigator and thereby were able to collect substantial evidence proving the Derrick’s innocence. We then took this package and met with the detective, who, after reviewing the evidence, agreed that the matter should never have been forwarded for prosecution. In fact, the detective even called the prosecutor had told him that he (the detective) had made a mistake and believed Derrick should not have been arrested.
Result: The prosecutor agreed with the detective after reviewing our evidence and dropped the charges.

This was a Pre-File case. The client was investigated for Sexual Battery against a hotel housekeeper. Ms.Saffari contacted the detective investigating the case and provided her with evidence to support the client's side of the story. She also had the client take a polygraph test, which he passed. After providing evidence of the polygraph to the District Attorney, the D.A. rejected the case and declined to file charges.

The client was charged with felony Robbery (a Strike, which is a violent felony) and was facing 26 years in prison. The client had a previous Robbery conviction and was on parole. His previous lawyer got the client an 8-year-prison offer on the felony Robbery charge, which would have resulted in a second Strike on his record for the new case. Ms. Saffari reviewed the police report, the transcript of the accusers' testimony, and the LAPD officers' body-cam footage. She presented evidence of inconsistencies in the case to the District Attorney, as well as problems with the accusers' credibility, and pushed the case to a jury trial. The Robbery charge was dismissed and the client received a no-jail, no-probation deal for Receiving Stolen Property (a reduced charge). The client avoided having a second Strike on his record.

The client was charged with 12 felony counts of Lewd Acts Against a Minor, and was facing a total of 10 years in prison. The client's previous attorney continued the case for 10 months with no results while the client was in custody. After taking the case, Ms. Saffari filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the violation of the client's speedy trial rights. After several hearings on the motion, and after she had the case set for a jury trial, and within 2 months of her taking the case, the client was released with time served and no probation. Ms. Saffari negotiated a reduced plea to Unlawful Sex with a Minor, with all other charges dismissed.

Client was arrested at LAX for possession of child pornography after police discovered allegedly incriminating images on his iPhone. After it was discovered that he allegedly forwarded at least one of these images to another person, and posted one or more of these images on a chat room site, he was formally prosecuted for the following offenses:
Possession of Child Pornography (California Penal Code section 311.11(a)); and
Distribution of Child Pornography (California Penal Code section 311.1(a)).
As a result, he was facing six years in prison, as well as mandatory lifetime sex-offender registration (California Penal Code section 290(b)).
In addition, because the client was a foreign national, even a misdemeanor conviction would have resulted in him being deported.
Fortunately, however, Ninaz Saffari, LADALF’s lead attorney, was able to negotiate a greatly reduced plea to one count of Second-Degree Commercial Burglary (California Penal Code section 460), a charge which wouldn’t affect his immigration status if ultimately dismissed.
Even better, after the client successfully completed his probation, which included counsing and community service, Ninaz was able to get his burglary conviction expunged.
Result: final charge dismissed, client ended up with a clean record.

Suspect received a letter from a sex crimes detective from the LA County Sheriff’s Dept. informing him that he was under investigation for allegedly molesting a four-year-old child, and that he was wanted for questioning. If charged, he would be prosecuted for a felony – specifically, Lewd or Lascivious Act: Child Under 14 Years (California Penal Code section 288(a)), which carries an eight-year maximum sentence, as well as mandatory lifetime sex-offender registration (California Penal Code section 290(b)). Suspect hired LADALF founding attorney Ninaz Saffari, who immediately conducted her own investigation. After compiling sufficient exculpatory evidence, Ninaz contacted the detective, who was receptive, but who informed her he was conducting the investigation jointly with the DA’s Office. Ninaz then contacted the assigned Deputy District Attorney and, with the exculpatory evidence, convinced him to formally decline charges. Result: case dismissed. 

Client’s family retained LADALF’s Ninaz Saffari after learning that he had been investigated for allegedly sexually abusing a four-year-old extended-family member dozens of times over an extended period. As a result, the client, who was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents, was now facing the following potential charges:
Lewd Acts with a Minor Child Under 14 (California Penal Code section 288); and
Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child (California Penal Code section 288.5).
Ninaz immediately contacted the investigating detective who informed her that he had already transferred the matter to the DA’s Office for filing charges. Indeed, the detective had even issued the client a summons to appear in court.
Ninaz had numerous conversations with the detective, as well as the family, which was understandably extremely concerned and adamant about the client’s innocence (as was, of course, the client himself). As usual, Ninaz conducted a thorough investigation, and ultimately convinced the detective that the potential case was, at best, extremely weak.
Result: DA’s Office declined to prosecute.

Client’s family retained LADALF’s Ninaz Saffari after learning that he had been investigated for allegedly sexually abusing a four-year-old extended-family member dozens of times over an extended period. As a result, the client, who was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents, was now facing the following potential charges:
Lewd Acts with a Minor Child Under 14 (California Penal Code section 288); and
Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child (California Penal Code section 288.5).
Ninaz immediately contacted the investigating detective who informed her that he had already transferred the matter to the DA’s Office for filing charges. Indeed, the detective had even issued the client a summons to appear in court.
Ninaz had numerous conversations with the detective, as well as the family, which was understandably extremely concerned and adamant about the client’s innocence (as was, of course, the client himself). As usual, Ninaz conducted a thorough investigation, and ultimately convinced the detective that the potential case was, at best, extremely weak.
Result: DA’s Office declined to prosecute.

The four-year-old daughter of a family friend, as well as the purported victim’s mother herself, called LAPD to report that the girl had been sexually molested by “Arthur”.
As a result, Arthur was arrested on suspicion of Lewd Acts with a Minor Child Under 14 (California Penal Code section 288), which carries a maximum prison sentence of eight years.
By the time Arthur hired us, as we learned after we immediately reached out to the detective, was that the file had been sent to the DA’s Office for the filing of a formal charge.
As always with Pre-File cases, we immediately conducted our own thorough investigations, the results of which included the mother’s text messages, as well as other exculpatory information.
This evidence convinced the detective that there were serious credibility issues with the purported victim and her mother. Better yet, it did the same with the assigned prosecutor, who fortunately had not yet filed the case.
Result: The DA’s Office notified us that the case had been rejected and no charges would be filed.