Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney

Practicing criminal defense law has proven to be the most rewarding experience in my life, and I could never imagine doing anything else.  I can’t think of a better way for me to help people than doing what I’ve been doing for the last fifteen years.  One of the driving factors in my career has been the fact that I always see the good in people.  I always believe that my clients are deserving of hope, and that’s it’s my job not only to protect them from a flawed prosecution, but to help them get another chance in life. 

I don’t make moral judgments about my clients; nor do I ever talk down to them.  I prefer to explain the facts of the case and their legal predicament in as straightforward a manner as possible.  I try to manage expectations, never promise more than what I know I can deliver, and usually seek to work closely with the client and his/her family members in preparing the defense.  In my experience, keeping in close touch with the client’s family is always critical, particularly when the client is incarcerated – not just for the defense but for the client and family’s peace of mind.  When I’m hired, my client and his/her family members are often going through the most traumatic time in their entire lives, so I appreciate their need to be updated of every step in what is often a long, complicated, and confusing process. 

Family counselor is only one of the hats I wear during the course of my practice, but it is certainly one of the most important.  I’ve seen firsthand the destruction of many families when the primary breadwinner is imprisoned or, in some cases, even deported.  Prison destroys families, so I am acutely aware of the tremendous faith and trust my clients and their relatives place in me.  This is why I fight so hard – each and every time, without exception.

In every single one of the sixty-plus criminal trials I’ve completed since 2005, I’ve felt that it’s our legal system that’s on trial as much as my client.  My role is to ensure that throughout every step of the police investigation and prosecution, my client’s rights have not been trampled upon and that he or she has received every possible protection afforded by our legal system.  I firmly believe that our legal system is the best in the world for the sole reason that these rights are provided to anyone who is accused of committing a crime, regardless of its nature and regardless of the client.  So I see myself as fighting for the system, and never against it.

And maybe that’s why I’ve enjoyed so much extraordinary success over the last decade-and-a-half.  The fact that most of my new clients are referrals from previous clients, or even from other attorneys who know what I can do, is a testament to this exemplary track record.

Sage advice from the late Lucchese crime family associate Jimmy “the Gent” Burke (played by Robert DeNiro in the 1990 film Goodfellas) – advice we recommend you follow if and when you are stopped by police for any reason.  As a matter of California law, when you are questioned by a police officer, sheriff’s deputy, CHP patrolman, DA’s Office investigator, or any other law enforcement official, you are only required to provide the following two items of information:

• Your name; and
• Your current residence address.

That’s it.  If the police press you for additional information about yourself or whatever you are doing at the time, tell them this:

“On the advice of my attorney, I respectfully decline to answer, and hereby invoke my lawful right not to answer, based on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.”

It is absolutely critical that you not say anything to the police when you are questioned because, as the famous Miranda warning goes, anything you say can and will be used against you in court.  All of your statements will go into the police report, and you can rest assured that the police officer will testify against you as to what you said.

Keeping your mouth shut also ensures that the police won’t be able to falsify any statements that they will later use against you.  And always keep this in mind: you will never be able to talk yourself out of trouble, much less an arrest.  In other words, the more incriminating statements you give to the police, the more difficult you make it for your attorney to adequately defend you.

Similarly, if the police attempt to search your person, vehicle, residence, or any other place or thing without a search warrant and seek your permission to do so, respond as follows:

“On the advice of my attorney, I respectfully deny you permission to search me/my vehicle/my home, and hereby invoke my lawful right to refuse permission based on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.”

Without a valid search warrant, the police – in the absence of probable cause – need your express permission to search your vehicle or residence.  This also applies to a search of your person where, if lacking reasonable suspicion, the police need your explicit consent to conduct a lawful search.

Additionally, as discussed above, if the police try to further question you at the station (or even on the way there), simply repeat your lawful right not to answer under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.  Then add the following:

“I also hereby respectfully invoke my rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution to contact my attorney and make my phone call.”

Once you assert these rights, the police have no choice but to stop questioning you.  Ideally, you would have an attorney on retainer so that you can also provide the investigating detective or officer with your lawyer’s contact information.  If you already have the Los Angeles Defense Attorney Law Firm on retainer, you would simply show them this [digital business card]:

[…]

At the Los Angeles Defense Attorney Law Firm, we always take offense when people dismiss these liberties as mere technicalities.  On the contrary, these are the most fundamental freedoms we enjoy in the United States, and particularly in California, where one’s federal Constitutional rights are further strengthened by the state’s own Constitution.  It is these very same black-letter civil rights that motivated the colonists to fight the American Revolution against their British oppressors, and which were codified as basic human rights in the federal Constitution.  It is these very freedoms which form the basis of our democracy.

But it’s in front of a jury at trial where Ninaz truly shines, and where she has enjoyed her greatest successes.  When was the last time you heard of a big-name lawyer actually going through a complete jury trial?  Hands down, she is one of the absolute finest trial lawyers in LA County.  Trials are what she has wanted to do since her first year in law school, and trials are what she has done since she started her first day with the Public Defender’s Office in DTLA.

In contrast to many of her contemporaries, Ninaz prefers to diligently push most of her cases towards trial, particularly if her client is in custody.  She often takes new clients who have been sitting in jail for months because their previous counsel simply continued the case for no apparent reason (aside from continuing to receive payments in the meantime). 

After so many trials, Ninaz has also become highly skilled at voir dire (jury selection), particularly in choosing open-minded, fair, and impartial individuals who will overlook even their own preconceived notions in determining the fate of her client.  Because she has personally practiced so extensively in every major courthouse in the county (from Lancaster to Long Beach, though largely in downtown LA), she is intimately familiar with the potential jury pools in each area.  Part of this insight is derived from her post-trial efforts to speak with interested jurors in order to better understand what swayed them in her client’s favor.  It is these kinds of extraordinary efforts that further distinguish Ninaz from her competitors.  She also rarely takes a case outside of the county, which has deepened her knowledge and familiarity with the judges and jury pools in these courthouse.

Once the final jury is impaneled (twelve jurors plus two alternates), Ninaz quickly earns the respect of the jury by launching into her opening statement where, in general, she matter-of-factly explains why her client is innocent and/or why the prosecution’s evidence falls woefully short of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  She understands that juries will usually make up their mind as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence at the conclusion of the opening statement, and therefore accords it the appropriate attention and seriousness. 

Further, she never makes promises to the jury unless she knows she can fulfill them in presenting her defense, and takes careful note of all such promises made by her opposing counsel.  She knows that a trial lawyer – whether a prosecutor or defender – who fails to present promised evidence will be taken to task during jury deliberations.

And within the context of a trial (and also at a preliminary hearing), Ninaz’s sharply honed cross-examination skills come into laser-focus.  Aided by a keen memory, an ability to think fast on her feet, and many months of exhaustive preparation, she is able to dissect, challenge, and contradict every pertinent inconsistency, inaccuracy, and falsehood uttered by the prosecution’s witnesses.  This particularly applies to police officers and detectives, whose recollections and sworn statements on the stand often differ significantly from those at the prelim and in their various written reports. 

Few of Ninaz’s contemporaries are as accomplished as she is when it comes to closing arguments.  This is where the fruits of her many months (or even years) of labor are finally borne.  This is her opportunity to systematically, thoroughly, and convincingly attack every piece of questionable evidence presented by the DA’s Office.  This is her time to highlight the glaring deficiencies in the statements made by the police and prosecution witnesses, including the DA’s own experts.  And, of course, it’s her chance to summarize all of her client’s own exculpatory evidence.

Nothing exhilarates Ninaz more than obtaining a not-guilty verdict and, in particular, seeing clients who literally haven’t seen the sun or breathed fresh air for months be finally set free.  To ultimately see her clients reunited with their families and ready to begin or resume productive lives is what drives her.  This is her inspiration.  This is her passion. 

And in instances where there is a hung verdict and the prosecutor sets a new trial date, Ninaz immediately begins preparing anew – but this time armed with all the evidence and transcripts from the entire first trial (and, if applicable, prelim).

The first thing PNCs (prospective new clients) notice when they first speak with Ninaz is how much more information she provides than her competitors.  She understands that for most people, the criminal process is terrifying and alien; therefore, she always takes extra time to patiently explain it in easily understandable layman’s terms.  (The fact that she speaks Spanish proficiently enables her to communicate particularly well with her Latino clients and their family members.)  By the end of the initial telephone call or meeting, the PNCs (and any spouses or relatives with them) are almost always left with the belief that Ninaz is more knowledgeable, experienced, and patient than her peers.

The second thing potential new clients realize is that Ninaz doesn’t give a hard-sell sales pitch, unlike the vast majority of big-name firms whose primary objective is closing the clients and getting their money at the conclusion of the first in-person meeting or even over the initial telephone consultation.  These other defense attorneys often make outrageous or even blatantly false promises, such as their representation that they will be able to get the case dismissed at the preliminary hearing.  Or these lawyers make ridiculous assertions such as about their supposedly close relationship with the judge or prosecutor, thereby implying that they can somehow sway the prosecution in their favor.  So if the lawyer you interview tells you something that sounds too good to be true, then it virtually always is.

Such misrepresentations are not only patently untrue but inherently unethical.  Ninaz doesn’t need to resort to such shameless tactics.  She doesn’t have numerous offices all over LA County or even the state, or many lawyers and staff, that require a huge monthly overhead.  She doesn’t have billboards overlooking freeways or late-night TV commercials.  As a consequence, she enjoys the luxury of selecting only those cases in which she believes she can have the most positive impact, and in which she can invest the maximum amount of time and effort.

So instead of employing slick pressure tactics, Ninaz prefers to plainly lay out the facts, the law, and potential defense strategies in such a manner that even the most unfamiliar individual will know what to expect as the case progresses.  She summarizes the outcomes she’s achieved in similar cases, but never as a prediction or guarantee as to what will happen in the PNC’s own situation (which would also be unethical).  Ninaz understands that the more information a client and his/her family have, the less anxious and fearful they will be as to what lays ahead.

Then, after hiring her, the first thing new clients notice about Ninaz is how communicative and responsive she is to them.  Unless she is in court or asleep, she promptly returns most messages within several hours.  Rarely do clients of big-name firms enjoy such near-immediate feedback.

The second thing new clients notice after they hire her is how well prepared and thorough she is at each and every court hearing.  She personally attends these hearings, and prepares and argues her own motions – something her big-name peers rarely do.  And she always thoroughly understands the particular law or laws at issue, and conducts her own legal research in preparing for each hearing.

At preliminary hearings (again, held only in felony cases), wherein the District Attorney’s Office seeks to convince the superior court judge that there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, Ninaz takes a different tact than many of her peers.  After having completed many hundreds of these hearings, she understands that the prelim (as it’s commonly referred to) is a mini-trial (with witnesses, cross-examination, presentation of evidence, etc.) that forces the prosecution to reveal its hand and allows the defense to keep its own cards close to the vest.  Ninaz also understands that prelims are very difficult to win (and is always upfront with her PNC’s about this reality), so will often reserve her most powerful exculpatory evidence in preparation of trial.  (Nevertheless, she has experienced considerable success at prelims, including having potential-life-sentence cases dismissed outright at that stage.)

Finally, unlike many if not most of her contemporaries, Ninaz will often put her clients to testify on their own behalf at trial.  She understands that juries want to hear directly from the client about what did or did not happen.  In other words, in many cases Ninaz will not simply limit her defense to attacking the prosecution’s witnesses and evidence, but will let her client tell their side of the story in their own words.  Juries always want a complete picture of the events at issue before deliberating, and so whenever possible, she will try to make that happen.