Results

Results

At The Law Office of A.D Williams, we don’t just say we are the best, our results show it.

The following is just a small sample of some our success and does not include the countless number of cases dismissed at various stages of criminal proceedings.  We respect our client’s confidentiality so some names appear as “anonymous” for clients who do not want to be listed on our results page.

People V. R. Johnson

Mr. Johnson was charged with battery on a peace officer causing great bodily injury after allegedly attacking several peace officers and breaking one officer’s finger. He was looking at a maximum of 19 years in state prison and was offered 9 years and a “strike” just prior to trial. Mr. J. exercised his right to jury trial.

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of all charges.


People v. Titiriga

Mr. Titiriga was charged with DUI after consuming a large quantity of alcohol and getting involved in a serious collision that landed him in coma and injured his passenger. Mr. Titiriga’s family was adamant that he was not the driver although the only witness to the event placed him as the driver. Mr. Titiriga exercised his right to a jury trial.

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of all charges.


People v. C. Johnson

Mr. Johnson was charged with commercial burglary. Due to his prior record, he was facing a maximum exposure of 9 years in state prison. His crime was caught on surveillance camera and he made a confession to the arresting officer. Mr. Johnson exercised his right to a jury trial.

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of all charges.


People v. Allen

This client was charged with assaulting a neighbor with his car. The Mr. Allen claimed that the client attempted to run him over after a heated argument. The client exercised the right to a jury trial.

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of all charges.


People v. Mendoza

Mr. Mendoza was charged with domestic violence after he allegedly fractured his wife’s wrist during an alleged attack. Mr. Mendoza exercised his right to a jury trial and his wife and three children all testified against him.

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of all charges.


People v. Kamminga

Mr. Kamminga was charged with possession of methamphetamine for sales and possession of a weapon with narcotics. The methamphetamine was found in Mr. Kamminga’s room in a bag belonging to Mr. Kamminga  The gun was also found in his room and the arresting officer alleged Mr. Kamminga confessed to both the gun and the methamphetamine. Mr. Kamminga exercised his right to a jury trial.

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of all charges.


People v. Faust

Mr. Faust was charged with felony assault causing great bodily injury when he allegedly launched an unprovoked attack on his girlfriend’s adult son. Mr. Faust was offered five years in prison and a “strike” to resolve his case. Mr. Faust chose to exercise his right to a jury trial.

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of all charges.


People v. DeCarlo

The client was pulled over for a routine traffic violation. When officers searched the vehicle, they discovered a concealed firearm. The client exercised his right to a jury trial that resulted in a “hung jury.” The client later resolved his case for a lesser charge and sentence.

OUTCOME: 8-4 Jury Hang


People v. Nguyen

Client was charged with possession of marijuana for sales, a felony. The client refused to accept the offer before preliminary hearing. After successful cross examination of the narcotics detective, the case was dismissed.

OUTCOME: All Charges DISMISSED


People v. Felik

Mr. Felik was charged with assault with a deadly weapon when he allegedly followed a woman onto a metro bus and stabbed her in the stomach. He exercised his right to a jury trial.

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of all charges.


People v. Hicks

Mr. Hicks was charged with attempted residential burglary after allegedly attempting to enter into his ex-girlfriend’s house with a shotgun. Mr. H. was offered five years and a “strike” to resolve his case. Mr. H exercised his right to a jury trial. After successful cross examination of the prosecution’s first four witnesses, Mr. H was able to resolve his case for a misdemeanor vandalism and was immediately released from custody.

OUTCOME: Felony charges DISMISSED


People v. Whitwright

Mr. Whitwright was charged with assault with a deadly weapon after he allegedly cornered his daughter’s boyfriend in a bathroom and stabbed him in the upper torso. Mr. Whitwright was facing a life sentence because of his prior strikes. However, Mr. Whitwright chose to exercise his right to a jury trial in which his daughter testified against him.

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of all charges.


People v. D. Johnson

Mr. Johnson and his friend were charged with residential burglary and criminal threats, both strikes, after a neighbor identified him as the man she saw break into her house and threaten her and her family. The co-defendant in the case plead no contest to a strike prior to trial, but Mr. Johnson chose to exercise his right to a jury trial. After successful cross examination of two key prosecution witnesses, Mr. Johnson resolved his case for a misdemeanor that was later dismissed.

OUTCOME: All charges DISMISSED


People v. Kasczmazyk

Ms. Kasczmazyk was charged a DUI and chose to exercise her right to a jury trial. After successful cross examination of the arresting officer, it was proven that officer testifying in the case was dishonest in his representation of the facts.

OUTCOME: All charges DISMISSED


People v. M. Bradley

Mr. Bradley was charged with domestic violence after allegedly choking his ex-wife. His ex-wife, estranged child and law enforcement officers all testified against Mr. Bradley He exercised his right to a jury trial and 11 of the 12 jurors voted him NOT GUILTY.

OUTCOME: All charges DISMISSED


People v. Confidential

This client was charged with a DUI after crashing into several vehicles in a Ralph’s parking lot in Glendale. Witnesses saw the client staggering and using slurred speech as he wrote “confession” notes to the owners of the wrecked vehicles. The client exercised the right to a jury trial.

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY  of all charges


People v. Legge

Client was facing a probation violation and looking at an immediate revocation of probation and jail time. The client agreed to fight the allegations and proceed with a full-on probation violation hearing. The prosecution put on 3 witnesses, and after successful cross examination and argument the client was found NOT IN VIOLATION of probation.

OUTCOME: WON PROBATION VIOLATION HEARING


People v. Barron

Mr. Barron was charged with 1st degree murder and attempted 1st degree murder after shooting his niece and her boyfriend. There were allegations that Mr. Barron and the victims argued earlier in the week and again on the day of the shooting. The shooting was captured on the 911 call.

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of 1st Degree Murder and 1st Degree Attempted Murder


People v. Claiborne

Mr. Claiborne was charged with residential burglary, a strike after he was identified by a neighbor as one of the individuals leaving a property with an armload of property. Through thorough defense investigation and tenacious representation, Mr. Claiborne was released from custody and his case was dismissed outright.

OUTCOME: All Charges DISMISSED


People v. McConohay

Client was charged with possession of an illegal narcotic found in her room in her belongings. She admitted to LASD deputies that the baggie was hers. She exercised her right to a jury trial and the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. The case resulted in “hung jury” and the case was later dismissed.

OUTCOME: All Charges DISMISSED


People v. Medrano

Client was charged with several drinking violations. Mr. Medrano exercised his right to a trial, electing to go with a trial by Judge instead of trial by jury. Two LASD deputies testified against Mr. Medrano.

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY


People v. Householder

Mr. Householder was charged with a 3rd time DUI after registering a BAC well over the legal limit. Mr. Householder was actively on probation for two prior DUI’s. A neighbor witnessed him speeding through the neighborhood and crashing into a curb. Mr. Householder exercised his right to a jury trial which resulted in which 8 of 12 jurors voted him not guilty.

OUTCOME: 8-4 for NOT GUILTY


People v. J. Castro

The client was charged with a misdemeanor, but the prosecution failed to prosecute his matter in a timely manner. The matter was set for a violation of Mr. Castro’s right to a speedy trial. The motion was successfully argued and the case was dismissed.

OUTCOME: All charges DISMISSED


The results posted on this page do not guarantee the success or outcome of your case. Every case is unique and the results may vary from case to case. By posting the successful case results above, it is not intended to give the impression that WAM achieves dismissals and “not guilty verdicts” in most of the cases the firm handles. It is merely intended to demonstrate some of the firm’s outstanding results.

Disclaimer

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

You may contact us by telephone or through our email. In the event you choose to inquire by email, please send a brief message that contains all of the following: (a) your name, address and telephone number; (b) the name(s) of any entity or entities with which you are affiliated; (c) a brief, nonconfidential description of the general nature of the services in which you are interested; (d) the name(s) of an individual or entity that you believe may be adverse to you in connection with the matter as to which you require services.

PLEASE NOTE: Despite appropriate precautions, email and other forms of electronic communications cannot be completely protected against disclosure to someone other than the intended recipient. As a result, we cannot and do not make any representation that emails transmitted are entirely private. You should not transmit any information by email that you deem to be confidential until you have established an attorney-client relationship with the firm. By accepting the terms of this Disclaimer, you acknowledge that the firm has no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you transmit to us unless we have already agreed to represent you or we later agree to do so.

CLOSE