Criminal Defense Attorneys in Chino, CA
Over 60 Years of Combined Experience

Recent Verdicts and Settlements

Case Results

With over 60 years of combined experience representing clients facing all manner of legal issues, The Madrid Law Firm has a history of successful case results. Working with those facing criminal charges, dealing with personal injury and wrongful death claims, as well as those who have had their civil rights violated, we offer a wide range of legal services.

To review our positive case results for each area of law, click below:

Contact our office for the help you deserve; call returned promptly!

Case Results


Client, who was married, was involved in an extra-marital affair with a co-worker. Co-worker was separated from her husband. Co-worker's husband found out about the affair, showed up at client’s home and exited his vehicle at client's driveway brandishing a .38 caliber revolver. Client’s children, ages, 1, 4, 5 & 6, were outside playing. Client rushed husband, a struggle ensued over the gun and gun discharged. Client grabs the gun away from husband. Husband rushes client and grabbed the gun by the barrel. Client fired two shots at the husband while husband was pulling at gun from barrel. Husband goes down and starts to get up when client continues firing until gun is emptied. Client in a panic left the scene. Client remained a fugitive for 25 years. Client was apprehended 25 years later and charged with First Degree Murder, facing 25 years to life in prison. Family retained the Madrid Law Firm. After a full blown jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on the Murder charge, but found client Guilty on the lesser included offense of Voluntary Manslaughter. The Father-Daughter team of Ed Madrid and Erica Madrid-Murray tried the case with Erica taking the lead.


Client and wife were having ongoing marital problems. Client and wife engaged in an argument that escalated with the the wife physically lunging, attacking and striking Client. Client left the house and called the police. While the police were on their way, wife scratched herself and banged her face into a door later claiming to the police that client had struck her. Client was arrested for domestic violence. Client had to post $50,000.00 bail. Client retained the Madrid Law Firm. Erica took the lead. After a one-week jury trial, client was found NOT GUILTY!!


Client rented the bottom unit of an apartment. The 2nd story was used to grow and cultivate marijuana plants. The landlord lived in the front house. Police arrested client and landlord. Total recovered was 1000 marijuana plants along with the all the grow and cultivation equipment. At the time of the arrest, police also recovered over $70,000.00 in cash. Client retained the Madrid Law Firm. Ed took the lead and after a grueling two-week jury trial, client was found NOT GUILTY.


Client, a parolee, was engaged in an argument with this live-in girlfriend. Client allegedly struck the live-in girlfriend, ripped out the telephone from wall and allegedly threatened live-in girlfriend that if she called the police, he would harm her and child. The police were called. Police remained outside and through their PA system told client to exit the apartment and surrender himself. As client started walking down the stairs, he allegedly pushed an officer and attempted to flee. He was chased, tackled and tazed repeatedly. Client was charged and prosecuted Domestic Violence, Criminal Threats, Dissuading a Witness, Fleeing, and Assault and Battery on a Police Officer, all felonies. Because of client’s past criminal history, client was looking at double digit state prison time. Erica was trial counsel. After a grueling two-week jury trial, the jury returned a NOT GUILTY verdict on all counts. Erica walked out of the courtroom with her client.


Client heard that his infant child had been taken by his ex-wife to a residence known as a drug house. Client believed that the residents of this house engaged in unlawful drug and marijuana use and did not want his child exposed to this environment. Client walked into the residence without knocking, picked up his infant child and left. Client was carrying child like a football. Police were called. Police pursued client’s vehicle until he pulled over. Client was still holding child like a football with no infant car seat. Client was arrested and charged with child endangerment. Case proceeded to trial. Erica took the lead. Not Guilty.


Client’s co-worker and other party devised a plan to extort money from their company’s CEO. Co-worker asked client for some personal information regarding the CEO and his family, which client innocuously gave to him. Client had no knowledge, information or idea that co-worker and other party were planning and conspiring to extort money from CEO. The co-worker called CEO and stated, “We are soldiers for of a Mexican Cartel. We know where you, your wife and children live (named wife and children) and if you don’t deliver $500,000.00 to us, we are going to kill you all.” CEO reported extortion plot to police. Police arrested client, co-worker and other party. Client was then fully interrogated by police but they failed to read her Constitutional rights to her prior to the interrogation. The interrogation was video-taped. Client retained the Madrid Law Firm. At the preliminary hearing, Ed moved to strike client’s entire statement for violation of her constitutional rights. The judge granted the Motion and case was dismissed. [While client was innocent of any wrongdoing, the police and prosecuting attorney insisted that because she had given personal information about the CEO to co-worker, she was an accomplice. Their assumption was factually and legally wrong!]


Client, a patron at a casino, was playing the slot machines, having a few drinks, flirting and joking with different cocktail waitresses. Sometime during the evening, security officers approached client and alleged that he had inappropriately touched one of the cocktail waitresses. Client denied it. Client was arrested for misdemeanor sexual battery. A sexual battery carries a Penal Code section 290 registration requirement, which means that upon a conviction, client has to register as a sex offender under Megan’s Law. Under Megan’s law, the public has access to information on registered sex offenders throughout California via the internet. If Client had plead guilty to sexual battery, he would have had to register on this website among sexual predators, rapists, child molesters, etc. Client retained the Madrid Law Firm. After a thorough investigation, the lawyers for the Madrid Law Firm were able to demonstrate that client’s conduct did not rise to the level of a sexual battery and were able to argue successfully that client’s conduct was tantamount to a benign misdemeanor that carried no registration requirement. Case resolved. When legal troubles knock on your door, it makes a big difference who is in your corner. Go with experience, dedication and commitment - the Madrid Law Firm!


Client, a young single woman, was involved in a romantic relationship with a man who had a live-in girlfriend and child. Client and live-in girlfriend found out about each other. Shortly thereafter, an unknown woman jumped a fence into the live-in girlfriend’s apartment complex, approached the girlfriend’s vehicle in the open carport, and poured bleach into the gas tank of girlfriend’s Mercedes Benz. There was video surveillance showing a woman jumping the fence and carrying a container of bleach. The fuel system was damaged. Our client was wrongfully accused of this crime and charged with Vandalism. Client denied any involvement or wrongdoing. Facing jail time, Client retained the Madrid Law Firm. Erica conducted a thorough investigation, which pointed to the client’s innocence. The District Attorney’s office refused to acknowledge exculpatory evidence, and Erica geared up for battle. Prior to starting trial, the Judge warned our client she would likely face jail time if she proceeded to trial and lost. This is a very common tactic used by the Courts and prosecutors to scare and coerce defendants into pleading and not fighting their cases. The case proceeded to trial. Erica spent two days engaged in pretrial motions and selecting a jury. After jury selection, the district attorney approached Erica with a “Godfather Offer”-An Offer Client Couldn’t Refuse. Case resolved. In any case, civil or criminal, it truly matters who is in your corner. Go with the experienced, effective and aggressive trial lawyers of the Madrid Law Firm, who are not intimidated by the system when facing adversity!!


Client picked up a DUI [Driving Under the Influence] case. Client, a former combat soldier who served a tour in Iraq, suffers from PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.] PTSD is a mental health condition that's triggered by a shocking, terrifying and dangerous event; either experiencing or witnessing it. PTSD can cause flashbacks, nightmares, severe anxiety, frustration and depression. It can interfere with ability to cope with stressors associated with holding down a job, maintaining relationships and can lead to substance abuse problems-alcohol or drugs. Erica was able to demonstrate and prove successfully that client was suffering from PTSD, over objection by the district attorney, and that it was stemming from his combat service in the United States Military. Upon successful completion of a diversion program, the charges will be dismissed. Client would have lost his job if forced to plea. Choosing the right lawyer is critical in any case. The results speak for themselves. Semper Fi.


Client owns a lumber yard. One of his wholesale providers authorized client to store, market, and sell several pallets of teak lumber on a consignment. Client provided purchase orders to provider on all sales he made, and the provider, in turn, would prepare invoices. Provider believed that his teak wood was being stolen. Provider hired a driver to pick up the balance of the pallets of teak wood at our client’s warehouse. Driver signed a Bill of Lading acknowledging the amount of teak wood that was loaded onto the truck. Days later, Provider accused our client of fabricating the amount of teak wood loaded onto the truck, notwithstanding that the Provider’s driver signed off on the Bill of Lading. Provider called the police, and claimed that our client misrepresented the amount of teak wood loaded on the truck, and that our client was never authorized to sell the teak wood. Provider never provided the documentation (Bill of Lading or Invoices to the Police). Police took a report, which resulted in the District Attorney’s office filing felony criminal charges against our client (a businessman with no prior criminal record). At the first court appearance, the Madrid lawyers argued successfully to the court that this was a civil dispute and that our client should be released on his own recognizance. The Judge agreed. This saved our client thousands of dollars because it meant he did not have to post bail. At the pretrial conference, the District Attorney’s initial offer was to plea to the felony grand theft charge and serve 180 days county jail. Once the Madrid lawyers provided all the documentation to the District Attorney’s office which included the Bill of Lading, emails from the Provider authorizing our client to sell the wood, purchase orders, and invoices, the District Attorney agreed that no crime had been committed. Case Dismissed! Having the right lawyers in your corner makes all the difference in the world.


Client went over to girlfriend’s home to visit his infant child. While there, a dispute arose between client and his in-laws. His in-laws engaged him in a shouting match and as he walked away from the mother-in-law with his infant child in his arms, the mother-in-law grabbed his arm and began to pull his hair. He pushed mother-in-law back. Father-in-law hears the commotion and runs towards client in a menacing manner ready to strike client. Client reacts by striking father-in-law resulting in a broken nose. Police were called. Client was arrested for a felony assault. Client retained the Madrid Law Firm. At the first court appearance, prosecutors were seeking a state prison sentence because of serious injuries to father-in-law. Erica pushed the case to a preliminary hearing and fought relentlessly for the client. As a result, the case was resolved with client having to do no jail time. No matter what type of case you have, it makes a world of a difference who is representing you. Like Mark Twain said, “It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.”


Our client was questioned in April 2016 by the police regarding an alleged incident that occurred between him and an Uber driver in January 2016, which was a bogus complaint at the outset. At the time of questioning, the police obtained our client’s name, address, phone number, driver’s license number, and employment information. The police submitted their report to the District Attorney’s office. The District Attorney filed charges in June 2016, and set an arraignment date in June 2016. Neither the police nor the district attorney’s office ever arrested, issued a citation, sent a letter, or gave any notice whatsoever to our client that charges had been filed against him. At the arraignment, an arrest warrant was issued for our client for his failure to appear in court. A year and a half later (January 2018), our client learned, through a background check, that an outstanding arrest warrant existed. Client hired the Madrid Law Firm. The Madrid Law Firm recalled the warrant and filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Violation of our client’s Speedy Trial Rights (Serna Motion). The Judge granted the Motion and dismissed the complaint due to the District Attorney’s failure to justify their unreasonable delay in notifying our client of the charges. Our client is a free man. This is a classical example of when the system fails and you have the right law firm representing and protecting your rights.


At the end of a residential lease and after client moved out, the landlord called the police and claimed that client had stolen his appliances and vandalized his house. The landlord had not been to the residence in over 10 years. There were no appliances and the residence was in condition of normal wear and tear that normally occurs over a span of 10 years. The police immediately and without any investigation issued a warrant for felony grand theft and two counts of vandalism. An arrest warrant was issued for client. Client retained the Madrid Law Firm.

At the preliminary hearing, Ed cross-examined the landlord and had him concede that client did not steal anything from him or vandalize any of his property. The judge refused to dismiss the charges and the district attorney continued with the prosecution. Ed then made a P.C. 995 to dismiss and even though this second judge stated that prosecution had a very weak case, he would not dismiss. The battle continued. The district attorney wanted client to plead to a felony and serve 180 days in jail. On the eve of trial, the DA contacted Ed and agreed to dismiss all felony counts.


Client, a professional dancer, was involved in a traffic accident and subsequently arrested for DUI (Driving Under The Influence.) This was client 3rd DUI. The judge set bail and client was facing 120 days in jail, community labor, a host of fines, 3 years probation and an extended alcohol program. Client retained the Madrid Law Firm. Erica filed a suppression motion. Erica went toe to toe with the arresting officer and established that the accident was not client’s fault, client passed all field sobriety tests, and under cross-examination, officer admitted that he never smelled an odor of alcohol even though he stated so in his report. On further cross-examination, Erica impeached the officers with their own body cams that client’s consent to the PAS device was coerced. Motion granted! Case Dismissed!!


Our client was questioned in April 2016 by the police regarding an alleged incident that occurred between him and an Uber driver in January 2016, which was a bogus complaint at the outset. At the time of questioning, the police obtained our client’s name, address, phone number, driver’s license number, and employment information. The police submitted their report to the District Attorney’s office. The District Attorney filed charges in June 2016 and set an arraignment date in June 2016. Neither the police nor the district attorney’s office ever arrested, issued a citation, sent a letter, or gave any notice whatsoever to our client that charges had been filed against him. At the arraignment, an arrest warrant was issued for our client for his failure to appear in court.

A year and a half later (January 2018), our client learned, through a background check, that an outstanding arrest warrant existed. Client hired the Madrid Law Firm. The Madrid Law Firm recalled the warrant and filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Violation of our client’s Speedy Trial Rights (Serna Motion). The Judge granted the Motion and dismissed the complaint due to the District Attorney’s failure to justify their unreasonable delay in notifying our client of the charges. Since the filing of the charges, the police and District Attorney’s knew our client’s address, phone number, and place of employment, but did nothing to bring him to court.

Imagine if client had been pulled over for a traffic violation and hauled off to jail on a warrant he knew nothing about? Since the prosecution delayed more than one year, the Judge ruled that our client was prejudiced by the delay, and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Our client is a free man. This is a classical example of when the system fails and you have the right law firm representing and protecting your rights.


Our client and his girlfriend got into an argument. Our client decided to leave his residence to avoid any further confrontation. His girlfriend tried to attempt to stop him from leaving by placing her arms on the lowered window of the passenger side of the vehicle, as our client began to drive away. When he saw her hanging on the window, he immediately stopped the vehicle. The police arrived. As a result, she sustained injuries to the inside of her arm. Our client's girlfriend then filed a Request for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order and alleged that our client inflicted injury upon her. At the hearing before the Judge, Erica established, through cross-examination, that our client did not inflict any injury to his girlfriend, but rather the girlfriend caused her own injury by attempting to physically prevent her boyfriend from driving away. The request for the restraining order was DENIED!


Our client was arrested for DUI and retained the MADRID LAW FIRM to represent him. Erica, as she does with all of her DUI cases, requested a DMV hearing on behalf of her client. Upon review of the police reports, it seemed unclear as to how the arresting officer determined that her client was allegedly traveling 50 mph in a 35 mph zone. Erica subpoenaed the arresting officer and, through cross-examination, established that from the arresting officer's vantage point, he could not have estimated the client's speed and therefore, his opinions of speed were based on speculation, conjecture and creative writing of his police report. The arresting officer had no legal basis to pull our client over and the stop was deemed illegal as a matter of law. The DMV hearing officer agreed and the suspension was SET ASIDE! Client will retain his driving privilege.


As a result of a road rage incident, plaintiffs were wrongfully shot multiple times by an off-duty police officer and wrongfully arrested for assault with a deadly weapon. Following the wrongful shooting of the plaintiffs, the off-duty officer falsely claimed that plaintiffs assaulted him with pepper spray and guns, which culminated in the wrongful arrest of the plaintiffs. The district attorney declined to prosecute plaintiffs.

The Madrid Law Firm together with Steve Brown, Esq. of Brown & Lipinsky filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the individual off-duty officer, his police department and the City.

Result: 7-figure settlement in favor of the Plaintiffs.


Police officer received an anonymous tip that plaintiff was conducting drug trafficking and prostitution at her restaurant. Police Officer showed up at plaintiff's restaurant without a search warrant and demanded to search premises. Plaintiff refused and demanded a search warrant. Officer stated he didn't need a search warrant and against plaintiff's protests, searched the premises. Officer forced plaintiff, who was disabled, to ascend stairs and open an office/warehouse located above restaurant. Plaintiff complied. Officers searched and found a warehouse full of boxes and used restaurant equipment. Plaintiff's disability was exacerbated.

The Madrid Law Firm filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against this officer, his police department and the City.

Result: Settlement in favor of the Plaintiff


Ed Madrid gets felony case dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing. Client was charged with two counts of Criminal Threats (Penal Code Section 422) and one count of Attempted Extortion (Penal Code Section 524). During our initial interview with our client, she told us that she gave a statement to the police, her statement was audio recorded, and she was never advised of her Miranda rights. She further stated that she was not asked to sign the Miranda Consent Form until AFTER her interrogation. Ed Madrid requested the audio recordings. The District Attorney's office failed to respond to the request. Ed Madrid filed a discovery motion, which prompted the Deputy District Attorney to turn over the recording. The recording corroborated the fact that our client was never advised of her Miranda rights prior to questioning. The arresting officer admitted during the preliminary hearing that our client was not advised of her Miranda rights, and was not given the consent form until after the interrogation. Given that there was insufficient evidence against our client, the case was DISMISSED.

JURY RETURNS VERDICT OF "NOT GUILTY" IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE: Our client was arrested and charged with Penal Code Section 243(e)(1)-Domestic Violence. Our client maintained his innocence from day 1. The district attorney's offer was 60 days in county jail plus domestic violence terms. After a contentious 4-day trial, the jury deliberated for 45 minutes and returned with a verdict of NOT GUILTY! Kudos to Erica L. Madrid, Esq. who never weakens and fights for her clients.

Diversion for Domestic Violence Case: Client was arrested for a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code 273.5(a) (domestic violence) for allegedly striking the mother of his child. Client denied the allegations. The offer included a guilty plea to Penal Code Section 273.5(a), 3 years summary probation, a 52-week Batterer's Treatment Program and a criminal protective order for the alleged victim. Team Madrid set the case for trial. On the eve of trial, Team Madrid negotiated an agreement wherein the client will attend 30 sessions of domestic violence classes and upon completion, the charges will be dismissed. As a result, the client will not suffer a criminal conviction!

DISMISSAL FOR POSSESSION FOR SALE CHARGES: Our client was at a local bar when he allegedly offered to sell Ecstasy to a security guard. The security guard called the police and detained our client until the police arrived. The police thereafter seized our client's cell phone, went through his text messages, after which our client was arrested for Possession for Sale of a Controlled Substance, a violation of Health and Safety Code Section 11378 and being Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance, a violation of Health and Safety Code Section 11550. Our client's state prison exposure was a minimum of 16 months, and a maximum of 3 years. Believing that the seizure of our client's cell phone, and its contents, was illegal, The Madrid Law Firm filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence pursuant to Penal Code Section 1538.5. Prior to the hearing on the motion, The Madrid Law Firm was able to negotiate a Proposition 36 disposition for the client wherein the client will complete a drug rehabilitation program in lieu of any jail time whatsoever.

DISMISSAL OF ARMED ROBBERY CHARGES: Our client was arrested in East Los Angeles for allegedly committing an armed robbery, a violation of Penal Code Section 211. The police contended that three young bald Hispanics wearing white T-shirts held up and robbed an individual at gunpoint. Our client, a young, bald, Hispanic, who happened to be wearing a white T-shirt on the day in question, was subsequently arrested. Upon interviewing our Client in jail, our client explained to us that he was not even in the area at the time of the alleged robbery, but rather he was at the Stonewood Mall in Downey. Then, after leaving the mall, he stopped to put gas at an ARCO station near the mall. Erica armed herself with Subpoenas and went to the Mall and the gas station and secured their videotapes. Both videotapes showed the client at the mall and gas station at or near the time of the robbery. Both Ed and Erica met with the Deputy District Attorney and showed him the exculpatory evidence coupled with Google Maps showing the distance from the location of the robbery in East L.A. and the location of our client at the time (Downey, CA). Client was, thereafter, immediately released from custody and the case was DISMISSED!! The Client's family, after hearing the result in open court, cheered, clapped, and cried tears of happiness!

NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS: Client's 4-month-old child had been taken by his mother to a house where the residents smoke marijuana prescribed and recreationally. Client was outraged because he did not want his child exposed to marijuana second-hand smoke. He drove to the residence to pick up his child. He had no car seat in his vehicle. Over the family's objection and protest, client took the child out of the house and carried the child like a football as he drove away from this residence. The mother flagged down a police officer who gave chase to client. Client was pulled over. Client was charged with Child Endangerment in violation of Penal Code Section 273a(b) and Evading in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 2800.1. The district attorney offered client to plead guilty and 4 months in jail. Erica L. Madrid said "No Way!" After a grueling three-day jury trial wherein Erica asserted the Defense of Necessity, the jury returned a NOT GUILTY VERDICT on both counts.

DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES: Client was charged with violation of Penal Code Section 288(c)(1), a felony, with lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor. Before coming to the Madrid Law Firm, client was told by her prior attorney that she had no defense, plead guilty, go to jail for 1 year and register as a sex offender for the rest of her life. Her prior attorney had filled out all the necessary forms so client could plead guilty. Client told prior attorney, "I didn't do anything." Prior Attorney stated, "It doesn't matter. You have no defense." Client was wrongfully accused of having oral copulation and sexual intercourse with a minor. Erica L. Madrid took the lead, propounded discovery, thoroughly investigated the parties and circumstances and handled the preliminary hearing as a mini-trial. The hearing established that client was the victim of the minor and that the minor appeared to have actually raped the client, which culminated in a dismissal of all charges.

NOT GUILTY ON RAPE CHARGE: Client met girlfriend after he received a golden parachute retirement settlement from his company. Client and girlfriend moved in together. Client bought her furniture, jewelry, valuable paintings and prints, new car and took her on many vacations. After money ran out and client told girlfriend they were both going to have get jobs to continue living at the standard they were accustomed, girlfriend balked at the idea. An argument ensued and girlfriend physically attacked client. After client calmed her down, they made up. Later that night, she sneaked out, called police and claimed that she had been raped by client. Client arrested and held on no bail. Client's family retained 1st attorney. Attorney after taking their money and doing no discovery, said no hope, no defense and to plead guilty. Attorney met with client on a brief occasion and told him the only option is to plead guilty. Family fires attorney and retains Madrid Law Firm. Ed was lead attorney. After a full-blown jury trial, jury came back with Not Guilty verdict.

NOT GUILTY ON RAPE AND KIDNAPPING CHARGES. Client and his ex-wife were trying to reconcile their differences. An argument ensued and client struck and beat his wife. He then threatened to throw her in the trunk of his car. He then took wife from Riverside County to San Bernardino County. Client then took ex-wife to hospital as she had sustained a broken bone during their fight. The ex-wife reported that client had beaten her, kidnapped and raped her. The DA filed Rape with Kidnapping charges and a Kidnapping with Rape charges giving the client an exposure of two consecutive life sentences. During the trial, client conceded that he struck his wife and took her against her will. The jury found the client guilty of domestic violence and kidnapping, which gave the client a total of 6 years in prison rather than the two consecutive life sentences the DA was seeking. A big victory for client!

DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES: Client was engaged in a fight with the alleged victim. A third party came from behind the alleged victim and struck him over the head with a skateboard. The victim was severely injured, which required emergency treatment at local hospital. Client and third party were arrested and charged with P.C. 245-Assault with Deadly Weapon. Client retained Madrid Law Firm. Erica Madrid took the lead. After much investigation, Erica successfully negotiated a complete dismissal of all charges.

NOT GUILTY ON ALL FELONY CHARGES: Client allegedly struck his girlfriend, tore her phone out of the wall, threatened to kill her kids, and attempted to flee from officers when they arrived. As he attempted to flee, the officers fired a Taser gun on the client and while disabled on the ground. They proceeded to tase him for over 30 seconds. Client was charged with Domestic Violence-Penal Code 273, Criminal Threats-Penal Code 422 and Felony Fleeing-Penal Code 69. Client was deemed a Parolee-at-Large. Erica took the lead as trial counsel. After a grueling jury trial, the jury returned a Not Guilty verdict on all felony counts.

NOT GUILTY ON MARIJUANA CULTIVATION CHARGES: Client, a tenant, was arrested and charged with possession and cultivation of marijuana. The sheriffs found 1,000 marijuana plants and a full grow operation on the second story of his residence. Client resided on the 1st story. Client and his landlord were both charged with cultivation of marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11358. After a grueling two-defendant jury trial, the jury returned a Not Guilty verdict on the cultivation of marijuana charge.

NOT GUILTY ON VANDALISM CHARGE: The rank and file of Client's company were on strike with company. A picket [employee on picket line] broke headlight of company tractor-trailer. Security chased him but could not catch him. Client was standing by watching when security turned around and accused client of having broken headlight. Client was arrested. Union attorneys told client to plead guilty and they would pay the fine. Client refused. Client wanted his day in court. Client fired union attorney and hired the Madrid Law Firm. Ed was the lead attorney. After a full-blown jury trial, the jury came back with a Not Guilty verdict in 5 minutes. The bench officer opined that this was the fastest verdict in county history and perhaps the State.

DISMISSAL OF MURDER CHARGES: Client was arrested for allegedly killing two individuals on a drive-by shooting. The incident was characterized as gang-related. Madrid Law Firm treats preliminary hearings like mini-trials. Madrid Law Firm filed numerous discovery requests and motions regarding the forensic evidence that was recovered from the scene and the alleged auto involved in this incident. At the preliminary hearing, all forensic evidence was vigorously challenged, which included GSR, fingerprints, bullets, and casings. Following the preliminary hearing, a motion was filed to dismiss all murder charges and before the motion was heard, the district attorney dismissed all charges and the client was released forthwith.

DISMISSAL OF VEHICLULAR MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES: Client and his best friend were traveling on a highway in the State of New Mexico. Client's vehicle lost control and vehicle crossed center divider and hit the oncoming vehicle head on. One of the occupants of the other vehicle was killed and Client's friend was killed. All parties were found outside of the vehicle. Client was under the influence of alcohol. After an extensive investigation, discovery motions and a contentious preliminary hearing, the Vehicular Manslaughter Case was dismissed, as the prosecution was unable to establish that client was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.

DISMISSAL OF ALL FELONY COUNTS: Team Madrid was retained to represent a client stemming from a domestic violence dispute charged with multiple felony criminal threats. Client was re-arrested and additional felony charges were brought for allegedly stalking the alleged victim and in addition to the criminal charges, restraining orders were sought against the client. Team Madrid stepped in and secured a dismissal of all felony counts.

FELONY REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR: A client had a verbal exchange with a police officer over a traffic ticket dispute. After the police officer threatened to seize the client's tractor and trailer, he cited the client for multiple infractions. Client then left upset, allegedly called the police department on his cell phone, and allegedly advised the dispatcher that if he saw this certain motor officer on the street he was going to run him over. Client was arrested for felony criminal threats. After Team Madrid filed a P.C. § 995 Motion to Dismiss, the matter was reduced to a misdemeanor and ultimately resolved.

CASE DISMISSAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION: Client was arrested for DUI on the 4th of July. According to the report, the client had a .17 & .18 blood alcohol level. Additionally, the officer stated multiple traffic infractions, including failing to yield for oncoming traffic, causing near collisions, weaving, and driving on the wrong side of the road. Team Madrid secured the videotape, which demonstrated no traffic infractions at all. Team Madrid filed a P.C. § 1538.5 Motion to Suppress, which was granted. Criminal case was dismissed. Team Madrid then filed a civil rights action against the officer and police department. The case settled.

DISMISSAL OF ALL CHARGES: Client and co-defendant were arrested for felony vandalism. The client and co-defendant defaced private and public property, by tagging and painting graffiti throughout the County. Team Madrid was able to negotiate a civil compromise with the district attorney culminating in a dismissal of all charges.

Why Hire Madrid Law Firm?

  • Experienced

  • Dedicated

  • Successful

Contact Us Today!

All Consultations are Free and Confidential
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.