Appellate Successes
We never quit.
When necessary, we keep fighting for our clients on appeal. Below are some of our successes in Courts of Appeals.
2024: California Court of Appeal No. D080998
Doyle et al. v. Metropolitan Transit System
Reversing trial court for granting directed verdict, remanding for new trial
2024: Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, Appellate Division Case No. 23IA900024C
People v. Dorsett
Reversing conviction on First Amendment grounds and remanding to trial court with instructions to dismiss
2018: U.S.C.A. Case No. 17-50128
United States v. Spanier
Reversing white-collar fraud convictions for misinstruction of the jury on omissions theory of fraud liability and fiduciary duty to disclose
2018: U.S.C.A. Case No. 15-50445
United States v. Millan
Reversing white-collar fraud conviction because the government had been allowed to present forensic accounting testimony and exhibits without complying with expert-witness rules of evidence and Fed. R. Evid. 1006
2018: U.S.C.A. Case No. 17-50176
United States v. Baptista
Vacating conviction in case involving international kidnapping allegations, holding that district court erred in refusing to permit withdrawal of guilty plea after new evidence came to light
2016: U.S.C.A. Case No. 14-50567
United States v. Garcia
Government conceded error after opening brief filed. Conviction vacated and remand granted
2016: U.S.C.A. Case No. 14-50306
United States v. Spanier
Dismissing indictment and remanding case to a different district court judge for a determination of whether dismissal is with or without prejudice
2012: U.S.C.A. Case No. 10-50459
United States v. Johnson
Reversing bank-robbery conviction due to trial judge’s appearance of bias with instructions to assign to a new judge for retrial
2011: U.S.C.A. Case No. 09-50472
United States v. Cardenas
Reversing illegal re-entry conviction for structural error on an evidentiary ruling; and reversing aggravated identity theft conviction for both a fatal variance in the indictment and allowing the jury to convict on the basis of a legally inadequate theory