Past Success Stories

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 massage therapist was charged with solicitation of prostitution [Penal Code Section 647(b)] and exposing her genitals to an undercover police officer. The police were monitoring the massage and had the ability to tape record the entire encounter and chose not to do so.

    The maximum penalty: Loss of her professional massage license issued by the California Massage Therapy Council (CMTC) (and therefore her livelihood) and one year in Los Angeles County Jail.

    The result: The case went to jury trial and Defendant was found NOT GUILTY of all counts. Her professional license was restored by the CMTC.

  2. The case: A male Defendant was accused of sexual penetration by foreign object (his finger) of an intoxicated unconscious woman, a violation of Penal Code Section 289 (d).

    The maximum penalty: Eight years in prison and lifetime sex offender registration per Penal Code Section 290.

    The Result: The case went to a jury trial where the defense was able to prove that the so-called victim was not unconscious and the Defendant could reasonably interpret her behavior as granting consent. Defendant was found NOT GUILTY on all counts.

  3. The case: A defendant with a prior conviction for DUI was charged with two separate DUI's in the same night. He was accused of being under the influence of Ambien.

    The maximum penalty: Two years in jail

    The Result: The case went to trial where a defense of sleep driving and involuntary intoxication was presented. The Defendant was found NOT GUILTY on both counts.

  4. The case: A man was charged with multiple counts of elder abuse for misappropriating money from his client, who happened to also be his aunt.

    The maximum penalty: 3 + years in prison with a special allegation that he would HAVE to go to prison and not county jail.

    The result: The man paid the money back, pled guilty to 1 misdemeanor count, got credit for time served (12 days) and had to perform 100 hours of community service.

  5. The case: An 83 year old man was charged with 1st degree murder with an enhancement of using a deadly weapon in the commission of the crime. The man was in a rehabilitation center recovering from hip surgery when he killed his 94 year old roommate by beating him to death with a closet rod.

    The maximum penalty: 26 years to life in prison

    The result: The man pled guilty to 2nd degree murder with an enhancement, was given credit for the 220 days time served and was allowed to go home on lifetime probation. The judge remarked at sentencing that in the 30+ years he had served as a deputy district attorney, a private attorney and a judge, he had NEVER seen a defendant convicted of murder be given probation.

  6. The case: A truck driver was accused of violating California Vehicle Code Section 23105(a) when he lost control of his big rig and smashed through a residential wall, severely injuring the homeowner. The truck driver was speeding in a residential area when he became lost. A witness saw him drift to the right and drive straight into the block wall of a home without slowing down. When interviewed the client (driver) told the police he was lost and had been looking down at his GPS at the time of the accident. The case proceeded through Preliminary Hearing where a judge found there was enough evidence to go to trial.
    The maximum penalty: 6 years in State Prison

    The result: Motion to Dismiss (Penal Code Section 995) granted. The Defendant was set free.

  7. The case: A massage therapist was accused of prostitution in a police sting operation. Evidence against her included the undercover officer's personal testimony that she offered to perform oral sex on him, agreed on an amount to be paid, and opened a condom. A search of the massage salon conducted immediately after the "bust signal" was given by the officer in the massage room revealed a condom on the floor, other condoms collected at the scene, multiple cell phones, the defendant's attempted flight from other officers serving a search warrant, attempted destruction of evidence, a notepad with notations on the massages given, and recovery of pre-recorded money used to pay her for her offer of oral sex.

    The maximum penalty: 6 months in jail and several thousand dollars in fines, including AIDS Education classes, testing and counseling.

    The result: Jury trial resulted in Not Guilty verdict in 30 minutes.

  8. The case: A man was charged with being under the influence of controlled substances (Health and Safety Code section 11550(a)) and two probation violations for other drug related offenses.

    The maximum penalty: 2 years in jail with a minimum of at least 90 days in jail mandatory.

    The result: DA dismissed the controlled substance case and the court found no probation violations.

  9. The case: A man was charged with assault with a deadly weapon as a result of a "road rage" incident. The defendant was accused of getting into a traffic collision and then coming out of his car swinging a crowbar striking another motorist in the head.

    The maximum penalty: One year in jail and related loss of employment.

    The result: Case Dismissed.

  10. The case: Defendant was charged with having a DUI after being convicted of another DUI within the last 10 years.

    The maximum penalty: 1 year in jail

    The result: Electronic confinement, no jail time.

  11. The case: Defendant was charged with petty theft and failure to appear resulting from stealing a memory card from a store.

    The maximum penalty: 1 year in jail

    The result: Case dismissed.

  12. The case: Petty theft from Fry's Electronics Store.

    The Maximum penalty: 6 months in jail

    The result: Case dismissed.

  13. The case: Defendant was found in the passenger seat of his car stopped on the side of the road. The motor was running and he had thrown up inside the car and out onto the street. He was arrested for being drunk in public in violation of Penal Code Section 647(f).

    The maximum penalty: 6 months in jail, loss of job and over $1000 in fines and penalty assessments.

    The result: Case dismissed

  14. The case: A woman was accused of violating Penal Code 32, accessory after the fact to attempted murder (Penal Code Section 664/187(a)). This young woman, mother of an infant, was an associate of a gang. After a shooting she hid the shooter in her home providing him shelter from the police who were searching for him.

    The maximum penalty: 3 years in prison

    The result: Case dismissed

  15. The case: Defendant charged with resisting arrest and assault on a police officer. A complaint was made to the Huntington Beach Police Department that someone in Defendant's house had been driving recklessly. The police responded and forcibly entered the Defendant's home, arrested Defendant's girlfriend and Defendant when he tried to stop the police from attacking his girlfriend.

    The maximum penalty: 2 years in jail and thousands of dollars in fines.

    The result: Case dismissed.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. The case: An 18 year old, drug addicted male burglarized over 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.