Law Offices of Kevin E. Mitchell      (415) 581-0885

If you KNEW better you would DO better! Many people think they will appear guilty if they don't talk. They believe that by giving an honest explanation of the situation, cooperating and answering questions, they can talk their way out of getting arrested. But, if you have ANY reason to believe you are going to be viewed as a suspect, DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE!! They cannot use your silence as evidence against you in court; they cannot even mention it.

Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson is remembered for his famous advice that "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances." Watts v. Indiana (1949) 338 U.S. 49, 59.  

Most officers don't like it when you don't talk to them and some will even become upset. Do not be intimidated! Those that do not respect your silence, certainly cannot be expected to respect your words. If someone accused you of criminal misconduct, the police are taking you to jail whether you talk to them or not.  By keeping quiet, you are acting lawfully, maintaining your right to be presumed innocent in court.

Be Advised: If someone directly accuses you of something that a reasonable person would immediately deny, you must speak up to deny it rather than remain silent, as the courts have interpreted your silence under such circumstances to be admissible in court as an adoptive admission that the accusation was true.

Simply tell the accuser they are wrong, without any further explanation, and ask for a LAWYER before you engage in any conversation with law enforcement. Tell them you understand that they have a job to do, but to please respect your rights. If they keep asking questions, just keep replying LAWYER.

Just because you blew a .08 or higher at the time of testing doesn't necessarily mean you were over the limit at the time of driving. No matter the facts, I find ways to better position my clients to fight the charges against them.

I have scrutinized hundreds of DUI police reports, each time, searching for factual scenarios that provide legal grounds for the Judge to deem the traffic stop unlawful. In some instances, I have been able to prevent breath test results and blood alcohol values from ever coming into evidence by filing motions to suppress. When granted, the motion to suppress usually results in a complete dismissal of the case and reinstatement of driving privileges at DMV. I have also filed motions challenging particular evidence or procedures, again resulting in dismissal or offers to plead to reduced charges, penalties and fines.

Inevitably, there are times when the DA won't dismiss the case, the court won't grant your motions and a jury trial is your only shot at vindication. When you exercise your right to a jury trial, you are asking a jury of your peers to decide your case. Because of the complexity of trial, you MUST have an experienced trial attorney by your side. As a trial attorney who regularly fights DUI cases, I am cognizant of the negative opinions many jurors hold at the outset of a DUI case, even before hearing any evidence. 

In order to combat those negative opinions, we use the incredibly important jury selection process to expose jurors who can't be fair and we excuse them, sending them on their way. I have extensive training on the jury selection process and the psychology of jurors. I have personally questioned thousands of prospective jurors in the courtroom before trial. As I endeavor to remain polished and proficient in this area, I have followed up with hundreds of actual jurors after their jury service concluded to find out what happened in the jury deliberation room. I firmly believe that cases can be won or lost during jury selection and I place a great emphasis on excelling in this very critical part of trial.

By investing my time attending DUI seminars, I received the benefit of extensive training from highly regarded experts in areas including the maintenance and operation of alcohol testing devices, the science applied by toxicologists to interpret alcohol test results, the tools and methods utilized by police and prosecutors to show impaired driving and the most effective ways to prevent suspension of driving privileges in the associated DMV proceedings. 

Be Advised: Unless you are on DUI probation, you can refuse when the officer tells you to blow on his portable breath test machine during your traffic stop. You can also refuse to perform the other field sobriety tests, you know, those silly finger-to-nose and walk the line agility drills that simply make you feel and look foolish.

Be Advised: You ARE required to blow into the stationary test machine at the station or provide blood or urine. If you refuse this test, the officer will notify DMV, who will impose a 1 year driver's license suspension pursuant to the law of Implied Consent.

A domestic violence (DV) prosecution focuses on one incident (usually) but that incident will have taken place against a backdrop of daily family life. Chances are there are many cherished memories of happy times. There are so many ways to defend against domestic abuse allegations, particularly when there are no visible injuries. The negative and burdensome consequences of a conviction in a DV case, which includes a 52 week counseling class, should cause you to pause before pleading guilty. These cases are heavily scrutinized by the Courts, such that even a dismissed DV case can come back to haunt and be used against you in a new case up to 10 years later, sometimes more. Even in petty cases, the accused is often viewed by prosecutors and judges as a sick person, in need of treatment. I have felt sickened myself, just witnessing the poor treatment of many of my clients in DV cases. Because of this perceived iniquity, I have become very well versed in the areas of law which provide my clients with the most protection when domestic violence is alleged against them. 

I represent people from all walks of life, any of whom could find themselves, at one time or another, transporting, ingesting or simply being in the presence of drugs. Most drug cases that we see in court involve relatively small quantities. Sometimes people use drugs to fill a void, to provide an alternate reality less stressful or painful than their own. Other times drugs provide a stepping stone to allow a well meaning, but financially strapped person to make enough change to dig out of debt and get back on their feet. Whatever the case may be, it is usually the background life situation that dictates and explains the conduct which lands a person in the cross hairs of a drug case. 

I understand people’s motivations, but just as important, I understand narcotics investigations. I know how to deal with the overzealous, self-righteous, “Denzel in Training Day” type of attitude exhibited by many officers who I’ve seen testify in narcotics cases. Born from a desire to resemble the “cool” cops they see portrayed on programs like “The Wire,” they exaggerate, fabricate and exhibit body language inconsistent with that of a truthteller. All in the name of justice, but the war on drugs is misguided. The ends do not justify the means. In my fight against the drug war, I examine the circumstances surrounding the collection, testing and retention of evidence, looking for ways to exclude evidence. At trial, I ensure that juries are informed of the issues involved in drug cases that make police officer testimony highly suspect. 

A criminal prosecution for murder typically boils down to the accused person’s whereabouts being traced, their motive established, their character berated and demonized by police interested in justifying an arrest and prosecutors interested in obtaining a conviction.  I am very familiar with how prosecutors and police portray the accused and I will expose their bias to the people in the courtroom who matter the most, the jurors.  If your case received media attention, I will draw upon my training and experience with journalists to minimize negative publicity, even appearing on the news to speak on my clients’ behalf, if necessary. 

In our society, we espouse the fundamental moral belief that no one has the right to take the life of another. But there are times when that fundamental tenet must yield to allow an individual to respond to a state of affairs that evokes fear of great bodily injury or death, either for their own life or for the life of another. Our society does not condone killing, but it conforms, under very limited circumstances, to proscribe a legal justification for taking a life. We must do this because our society also firmly believes in the right to self preservation, the right to live and get home safely to one’s family, the fundamental right to self defense. 

I will explain these concepts, as they apply to your case, to a jury. I will ensure that the 12 people who hold your future in their hands know the intimate details that explain what transpired leading up to the moment that changed everything in your life.  I will ensure that the jurors understand the instantaneous reactions of human beings acting in the heat of a single moment with circumstances presenting themselves in real time, often rapidly and unpredictably.

Self defense is a legal justification, not a moral one. There are some who stand their ground, ready to fight a would be attacker. There are also those who believe that violence is never called for. Self defense is available to good people and bad alike, so long as their conduct was a reasonable response to, and borne from, the fear of an imminent threat of harm or death. Some people hide behind the defense, while some assert it authentically. When properly asserted, self-defense can provide a justification for an otherwise unlawful attack upon another individual, even if it results in death.

There are members of our society from all walks of life, in all occupations, trades and professions, who will kill by evil design. You've seen it on the news when reporters interview their neighbors and they say things like, “Wow, him? He seemed so nice. I never woulda thought.”

You never know who might kill, but among those who would, you can be certain there are two types: Those who feel bad afterwards and those who do not. There are, unfortunately, some people who are devoid of decency. Simply unscrupulous, heartless, unable to feel. If the DA wants to convict you of murder, they may attempt to put you in that category, cast you in that light.

For those with a conscience, the bad feeling you get after killing exists even when the legal justification of self defense applies. It is critical to explain this dichotomy to the jury and to emphasize that the justification of self-defense exists, not to protect your ability to attack someone, but rather to ensure every person's right to protect themselves from harm and to make it home, safely, to their family, their children, their loved ones.

What it “looks like” is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I have persuaded jurors, time and again, to look past the letter of the law, evoking the spirit of the law to protect my clients even when there seemed to be no hope of victory in sight. I once lost a case at trial due to jurors’ improper consideration of information that was not presented in court. I filed a motion for a new trial, it was granted and my client was acquitted the second time around, despite the fact that it "looked like" he was guilty. Don't give up and convict yourself!!

"Because I say so." That was enough reason for you to listen to your parents, wasn't it? Not so much for a stranger you are thinking about hiring to ensure your freedom or to pursue an action against someone who harmed you.

Among the duties all attorneys owe their clients is the Duty of Loyalty. I strive to instill in each of my clients a strong feeling of support and allegiance. But, just like a house, trust must be built. It cannot be established by agreement, nor purchased for a fee. 

Trust is like a brand new sheet of paper. If it gets crumpled up, it can be straightened out again, but it's not the same. The creases and wrinkles never come out completely. But, steps can be taken to avoid wrinkles in the first place. The paper can be laminated, tucked away in a folder and sealed into a binder. I lock my clients' trust in a metaphorical safe and don't open it for anybody, unless and until my client tells me to.

It takes a certain type of advocate, one like me, who is actually interested in cultivating a relationship of trust and motivated to draw on that trust to empower my clients to openly and confidentially share their most personal and private thoughts and emotions, in order to figure out, without judging them, how they got into a situation and, more importantly, how to get out. 

I have personally tried over 40 cases to verdict as lead attorney, but I have participated in and contributed guidance to colleagues in many more. As a lawyer, there is no better way to acquire professional knowledge and skill than to go to trial. Prosecutors know which attorneys go to trial and which ones are dumptrucks. Many clients whom I advised to push the line to trial were initially scared by the proposition of losing. Some wanted to take deals, rather than take the risk. More often than not, I see the fear turn to delight because my reputation for and devotion to fighting cases results in dismissals and/or reduced charges on the eve of trial.