Extraordinary Results - Law Firm Law Offices of Rudolph E. Loewenstein Attorneys Tustin, California

Extraordinary Results

In choosing a criminal defense lawyer, it is important to look at education, experience, philosophy, work ethic and even the chemistry between lawyer and client. Another way to evaluate an attorney is by looking at the results he is able to obtain. Every case has a disposition of some sort. Either the case goes to trial and therefore generates a verdict or is settled beforehand. In any event, each case is resolved in some manner.

Although past performance is no guarantee of future results, looking backward at Mr. Loewenstein's "track record" can give insight into the type of results he is able to get. Part of his success is due to 30+ years of experience in criminal law in Southern California and his familiarity with the courts, judges, deputy district attorneys, and fellow defense lawyers. Another important piece of this puzzle is Mr. Loewenstein's extensive knowledge of resources available to support the alternative sentences he often advocates. And, of course, there is no substitute for his plain old fashioned hard work and diligent and meticulous preparation.

What does all this mean? The simple fact that Mr. Loewenstein isn't afraid to take a case to trial, not to mention that those trials frequently result in not guilty verdicts, often results in the DA's thinking twice before proceeding. This can and often does generate more favorable settlements so that trial can be avoided.

It is Mr. Loewenstein's goal to resolve each case as successfully as possible. The following are examples of dispositions in some of his cases.

1.	The case: A 6'7" 275 pound man was accused of assault and battery and domestic violence against his 120 pound girlfriend. Evidence against him included physical injuries on the victim, broken eye glasses, 911 calls, victim statements and broken furniture. The maximum penalty: 1 year in jail and $2,000 fine The result: Jury trial ended in Not Guilty verdict.
2.	The case: A man was charged with a misdemeanor being under the influence of controlled substance and possession of drugs. Evidence against him included drugs found on his person. The maximum penalty: 1 year in jail The result: Case dismissed after successful motion to suppress the evidence was granted on the grounds of illegal search and seizure.
3.	The case: A medical doctor was charged with driving under the influence and abusing prescription medicine resulting in a vehicular accident. The evidence against him included a serious automobile accident, symptoms of intoxication at the scene and blood alcohol results. The maximum penalty: 6 months in jail The result: Dismissal of all charges
4.	The case: A marine was accused of attempted murder. He had been in a domestic dispute and he strangled his girlfriend to the point of unconsciousness. Evidence against him included her statements, and her physical injuries. The maximum penalty: Approximately 12 years in state prison The result: Jury trial ended in verdict of Not Guilty on all counts
5.	The case: A chiropractor was charged with multiple counts of felony fraud for paying referral fees to lawyers in return for getting business. The DA had run a sting operation and had video and audio tapes as well as cancelled checks showing payments. The maximum penalty: 3 years 8 months in state prison, $50,000 fine The result: Guilty plea to one count of misdemeanor fraud, informal probation, no jail time, payment of minimal court costs and $2,000 in restitution.
6.	The case: A drunken passenger in a car pulled over for DUI was charged with misdemeanor assault on two police officers. Evidence against him consisted of testimony of two police officers that he assaulted them. The maximum penalty: 2 years in prison The result: Jury trial ended in Not Guilty verdict after prior bad acts by the police officers were exposed. This verdict preserved the defendant's civil case against the city.
7.	The case: A construction contractor was accused of 20 counts of felony fraud plus enhancements for taking over $500,000 (which made him ineligible for parole) for under- declaring his payroll, thus cheating the State of California out of $900,000 in workers compensation payments. Comparison of money he declared on his payroll to the amount he paid in premiums showed a huge discrepancy. The maximum penalty: 20+ years in prison The result: Guilty plea to one count of misdemeanor fraud, no jail time, 7 months of electronic confinement, partial restitution which could be paid back over a period of time.
8.	The case: A man was charged with robbery and kidnapping for purposes of ransom and extortion. Evidence against him included eye witness statements, 911 calls and the fact that the alleged kidnapping victim was found in his car. The maximum penalty: Life in prison The result: Guilty plea to misdemeanor false imprisonment, credit for time served, no probation, no further jail time.
9.	The case: An 18 year old, drug addicted male burglarized over ½ dozen homes. One home was occupied at the time which increased the seriousness and penalty of the offense. He was caught with some of the stolen property and drugs. The maximum penalty: 17 years, 8 months in state prison The result: Probation and as a condition of probation he had to attend an 18 month residential treatment program for youthful offenders.
10.	The case: A man was accused of rape, robbery and receiving stolen property. He was caught with the stolen property from the victim's car. The maximum penalty: 15+ years in prison and lifelong registration as a sex offender The result: Jury trial ended in a Not Guilty verdict on all counts except for possession of stolen property. His sentence was a short stay in county jail and probation.
11.	The case: A juvenile was accused of sexual battery (touching for his own sexual gratification) on a fellow student. Evidence against him included the victim's statement and corroborating statements by the victim's friend, an alleged witness. The maximum penalty: 1 year in custody and up to 7 years of probation The result: The case was dismissed in the middle of trial. This dismissal was a direct result of cross examination by Mr. Loewenstein of the corroborating witness who admitted that not only did she lie to the police and to the court under oath, but that the alleged victim had asked her to do it.
12.	The case: At an Administrative Per Se Hearing conducted by the DMV a driver who had an alleged blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.26 (more than 3 times the legal limit) was defending her right to drive. An Administrative Per Se Hearing is conducted to determine if the police had probable cause to detain the driver, if the driver was driving with 0.08 BAC or greater and if the arrest was lawful. The Maximum penalty: Drivers license suspended for 4 months The Result: Drivers license suspension was set aside. We were able to cast doubt on when the blood was drawn, who collected it, under what conditions it was drawn, where it was kept and under what conditions it was stored for 3 days. By using the DMV hearing as a discovery tool, we were able to cross examine the forensic scientist and learn information that will be potentially very helpful in the driver's upcoming trial for vehicular manslaughter.