Attorney Michael M. Levin

Daniel F. was charged with murder after a fatal crash in Los Angeles. The prosecution charged it as a Watson murder, claiming implied malice: that earlier that evening he had sideswiped another driver’s Jeep, injured her and driven off, and that he was fleeing that first collision when the fatal crash happened. He was also charged with felony DUI causing injury and felony hit-and-run for the first collision. Second-degree murder carries 15 years to life.

The police report’s finding of fault in the first collision was based on the other driver’s statement; the report listed no physical evidence, and officers found no video. At the preliminary hearing she testified about what happened and described the damage she said his car had done to her Jeep. Michael Levin then put into evidence photographs of her Jeep taken by AutoSpotter months earlier, which showed that the damage she attributed to Daniel F. was already there.

The prosecution added a charge of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. The court then granted the defense motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence (Penal Code section 871), throwing out the murder, DUI-injury and hit-and-run charges and holding him to answer on the manslaughter count alone. Daniel F. later pleaded to vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, without gross negligence, and was sentenced to probation.

Jose S., a late thirties father of two young daughters, was charged with two counts of sexual battery against a ten-year-old (alleged) victim. He had no prior criminal history. Jose S. was roommates with the father of the alleged victim. One night, Jose S. came home with a friend after bar-hopping and made a lot of noise. The roommate burst out of his room and beat up Jose S.

After he threw Jose S. and his friend out of the apartment, the roommate called the police and accused Jose S. of having had inappropriate contact with his daughter. Despite Jose S. being badly bruised, the police (who immediately believed the story the roommate told) overlooked the fact he had been beaten and treated him like a deviant and a criminal. Likewise, the prosecutor’s response to the question “why don’t you prosecute [the roommate] for beating up Jose S.?” was “because he deserved it for what he did.”

Despite a psycho-sexual evaluation in which it was clear that Jose S. had no interest in little girls, the prosecutor was adamant that the only possible settlement of the case would result in life-time registration as a sex offender. It would have been bad enough to suffer a conviction for a crime he didn’t commit, but Jose S. was determined not to become subject to being a registered sex offender.

The case went to trial in Long Beach, a very conservative venue. Notwithstanding the prosecutions best efforts to paint Jose S. as some sort of a deviant, attorney Michael Levin was able to convince the jury that the roommate’s accusation was merely a means of taking the spotlight off himself for beating up Jose S. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on all counts after just two and one half hours of deliberation. Jose S. was able to get back to his life as a law abiding citizen.

Sandra H., barely 21, was the designated driver for an outing with two of her closest girlfriends, whom she had known since elementary school.  Driving home on the Northbound 5 freeway in Glendale, late at night, her car went into a skid from the number one lane all the way across the freeway to the embankment, where the car stopped when it hit a tree.  All three people in the car were knocked unconscious.  When assistance arrived, they had to use the “jaws of life” to peel back the metal to extract the occupants.  As is normal, the person with the most minor injuries (and who is presumed will have the best chance of survival) is removed first and the person least likely to survive is removed last.  Sandra H. was removed last.

All three young women were hospitalized.  Sandra H. remained in a coma for quite some time.  When she came out of the coma, she found out that one of her closest friends, Jeanette M., had suddenly died as the result of brain swelling resulting from the accident.  Sandra H. was understandably distraught.  Then the district attorney’s office decided to charge Sandra H. with vehicular manslaughter, under the theory that Sandra H.’s driving must have been (somehow) responsible for the accident that led to Jeanette M.’s death.

Over a year of back-and-forth negotiations with the district attorney’s office ultimately was unable to satisfactorily resolve the matter.  Finally, the matter went to trial in Glendale, with Michael Levin as trial attorney.  The trial lasted over a week, with the prosecution contending that their “experts” had ascertained that:

1. Sandra H. was speeding, based on the skid marks;
2. Sandra H. was intoxicated, based on conjecture; and
3. Their experts had ruled out a mechanical failure of the steering or braking systems as a cause of the crash.

Michael Levin was able to show the jury that the prosecution’s “expert” on the skid mark had not performed the necessary calculations correctly, and therefore couldn’t prove that the car was speeding.  He was able to prove that Sandra H. had not consumed any drugs or alcohol.  Mr. Levin was also able to completely discredit the prosecution’s claim that they had ruled out mechanical failure when he got the expert to admit that he had only checked for hydraulic leaks (and nothing else) before concluding the steering and brakes were functional.

Following a brief deliberation, the jury not only returned a unanimous verdict of NOT GUILTY, several of the jurors made a point of telling Sandra H. that it could have happened to any one of them and that she should not hold herself responsible for her friend’s tragedy.

Randy J., a 48 year old ex-convict, was accused of various sex acts with high school girls, as well as contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The prosecutor described Randy J. as a “sexual predator” and highlighted Randy J.’s extensive criminal history (including two terms in state prison) as proof that he was a deviant and the jury should find him guilty. The case was set in Burbank, a conservative venue. The prosecutor would settle for nothing less than life-time registration as a sex offender and jail. Despite all efforts to settle the case, no accommodation could be reached and the case went to trial.

The prosecution called a number of high-school students as witnesses. Their testimony conclusively proved that Randy J. associated with the group of high-schoolers, that he had on at least one occasion purchased alcoholic beverages at their request for a party, and that he was both present at and highly intoxicated at that party. But was he involved in inappropriate sexual conduct with the minors, or was his lack of judgment limited to purchasing their alcohol and attending?

After a bitterly contested trial, the only count on which Randy J. was convicted was for furnishing the alcoholic beverages. The jury acquitted Randy J. on the contributing to the delinquency of a minor charge and deadlocked on the sex charges (which the court then dismissed). He was not required to register as a sex offender and was not subject to the humiliation of such a conviction.