Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/59030795/Pre-Trial-Motions-Example
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 13:32:40
Document Index: 192276729

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1538', '§1538', '§1054', '§1054', '§1054', 'arth 2']

Pre Trial Motions Example | Motion In United States Law
ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinPre Trial Motions ExampleUploaded by MitchMotion In United States LawProsecutorDiscovery (Law)Motion To SuppressDefendant0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentChapter 1PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS
MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY Motion for Pretrial Discovery 3
MOTIONS REQUIRING TESTIMONY Motion to Suppress Evidence pursuant to P.C. §1538.5 15 Common Law Motion to Suppress Evidence 24 Motion to Exclude Trombetta Advisement and Response 32
MOTIONS CHALLENGING THE ARRESTING OFFICER’S OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS; SUPPRESSION OF ADMISSIONS FOR LACK OF CORPUS DELICTI; AND EXCLUSION OF HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS Motion to Exclude Testimony concerning the Arresting Officer’s 38 Opinions and Conclusions about (1) Definitions of the Law, (2) Whether the Law has been violated, (3) Defendant’s guilt or innocence Motion to Suppress Statements for Lack of Corpus Delicti 44 Motion to Exclude Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Observation and/or 48 Blood Alcohol Correlation
MOTIONS CHALLENGING THE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF THE DUI INVESTIGATION AND CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS Motion to Exclude PAS Test 54 Motion to Exclude Irrelevant Chemical Test Results (If PAS admissible) 72
REFUSALS Motion to Exclude Chemical Test Refusal: "Confusion" Doctrine 77
"HOUSEKEEPING" MOTIONS Motion to Limit Comments of the Prosecutor 81 Motion to Preclude Prosecutor from Conferring with Prosecution Witness 85 Motions to Vacate a Prior 89
ROADBLOCK/SPOT CHECKS Motion to Exclude Evidence Based Upon Unlawful Roadblock/Spot Check 97
Aggressive pretrial motion practice is an important part of our representation strategy. There are numerous meritorious pretrial motions that can be filed in a driving under the influence case. Our office files between 5 and 10 pretrial motions in most of the cases we take on. A successful pretrial motion can result in the case being dismissed, reduced or, at the very least, the prosecution’s case being weakened. This chapter contains some of the pretrial motions that we frequently file. Generally, we file pretrial motions that attack all of the evidence gathered at each of the critical stages of the driving under the influence case. In many instances, we will file several different types of motions attacking the same piece of evidence. For example, we file a P.C. §1538.5 motion to suppress evidence and also a common law motion to suppress evidence attacking among other things, the chemical test results. We challenge the admissibility of the defendant’s statements at trial through the common law motion to suppress as well as Evidence Code Section 402 motions and corpus delicti motions when appropriate. By using this multi motion approach, you can increase the chances of eliminating the evidence you want out. This approach also informs the prosecution at an early stage that you are ready to zealously defend your client and that this is not going to be just another "routine DUI case". The success of each one of these motions depends on the facts of each individual case and the climate of the court that the case is before. The motions illustrated here are by no means all inclusive. They are just representative of some of the things that we currently do.
Trialnot.dui\book\motions2
The type of pretrial motions that you file is limited only by the facts of your case and your own creativity. We want to expressly thank Richard Erwin, (of blessed memory) Richard Essen, William Head, John Henry Hingston III, Michael Fremont, and Gary Trichter whose ideas we used in preparing some of the following pretrial motions.
DEREK A. DANIELSON* LAW OFFICES OF MYLES L. BERMAN
*Derek A. Danielson, Esq. is a graduate of the University of Western Ontario, School of Law. Mr. Danielson is "Of Counsel" to the Law Offices of Myles L. Berman concentrating in the defense of DUI cases. Prior to his association with Mr. Berman, Mr. Danielson practiced for over 20 years in Toronto, Canada as senior partner in the Law Offices of Danielson and Fox, an internationally recognized firm specializing in the defense of all criminal matters. Mr. Danielson has conducted over 4,000 criminal trials, and has successfully argued cases at all levels of appellate courts in Canada. He has tried over 500 DUI cases.
MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY.
In most driving under the influence cases, the only discovery that the defendant receives is a police report, test results and a DMV printout. These documents alone are inadequate, in most cases, to put together a proper defense. Accordingly, we use a comprehensive
discovery motion to obtain other items necessary for the defense of a case. Penal Code §1054 requires that an informal request for discovery be made before a formal motion can be brought. In fact, many courts will reject a motion for discovery unless the defendant can show that a previous informal request was made. Therefore, by changing the format of the below attached document and changing the title from "Motion for Pretrial Discovery" to "Defendant’s Informal Request for Discovery" and serving said document on the prosecution at the time of arraignment, the requirements of Penal Code §1054 are satisfied. If you do not get discovery as a result of the informal request you can change the format of the document back to "Motion for Pretrial Discovery" and file it as such.
LAW OFFICES OF MYLES L. BERMAN DEREK A. DANIELSON, BAR NO.: 170093 9255 Sunset Boulevard Suite 720 Los Angeles, California 90069 (310) 273-9501 Attorney for Defendant,
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE COUNTY OF
CASE NO.: ) ) NOTICE OF MOTION AND Plaintiff, ) MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY ) CONTAINING NOTICE, MOTION vs. ) AUTHORITIES, DECLARATION AND ) COMPLIANCE ORDER ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE PRESIDING AND TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
court, the defendant, by and through one of his/her counsel, will and hereby does move this Honorable Court for a discovery order compelling the prosecuting attorney to tender complete discovery to the defendant based upon the following: // // // //
formsdad\comlaw
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. STATUTORY PROVISIONS
California Penal Code Section 1054.1 reads as follows: §1054.1 Information to be disclosed by prosecution. The prosecuting attorney shall disclose to the defendant or his or her attorney all of the following materials and information, if it is in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or if the prosecuting attorney knows it to be in the possession of the investigating agencies: (a) The names and addresses of persons the prosecutor intends to call as witnesses at trial. (b) Statements of all defendants. (c) All relevant real evidence seized or obtained as a part of the investigation of the offenses charged. (d) The existence of a felony conviction of any material witness whose credibility is likely to be critical to the outcome of the trial. (e) Any exculpatory evidence. (f) Relevant written or recorded statements of witnesses or reports of the statements of witnesses whom the prosecutor intends to call at the trial, including any reports or statements of experts made in conjunction with the case, including the results of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons which the prosecutor intends to offer in evidence at the trial.
California Penal Code Section 1054.7 reads in relevant part: The disclosures required under this chapter shall be made at least 30 days prior to the trial, unless good cause is shown why a disclosure should be denied, restricted, or deferred. If the material and information becomes known to, or comes into the possession of, a party within 30 days of trial, disclosure shall be made immedi- ately, unless good cause is shown why a disclosure should be denied, restricted, or deferred. "Good cause" is limited to threats or possible danger to the safety of a victim or witness, possible loss or destruction of evidence, or possible compromise of other investigations by law enforcement.
// // II.
Documents Similar To Pre Trial Motions ExampleSkip carouselSample Standard Pretrial and Trial Defense MotionsNotice of motion and motion for pretrial discovery compliance orderPre Trial Motion Practice995 Writing Sample - Affirmative DefenseMOTION in Limine - General CriminalPretrial Criminal Motions ChecklistMotion+to+Dismiss+for+Lack+of+Corpus+DelictiSample Beneficiary Statement Request Under California Civil Code Section 2943Sample Deposition Notice for California Divorce Carlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintSample Petition to Compel Arbitration for CaliforniaSample Offer to Compromise for California pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998Sample California Complaint to Stop Foreclosure Sale by Trustee Criminal law Suggested AnswersDBC[Doc 1220] 3-29-2015 Tsarnaev's Motion to Admit Statements by Party OpponentICTY, Prosecutor v Anto Furundžija (Judgement) IT-95-171-T (1998)MARCELO VS. C.AJoint Sheduling ReportBoies Schiller Opposition Brief Rule 26f Conf StampedLindsey Reply Brief (Prosecutorial Misconduct)United States v. Ortiz, 10th Cir. (2011)Legal PrcedureMotions During Trial of a Criminal CaseWA SupCrt Discovery Sanctions CaseUnited States v. Perez-Herrera, 86 F.3d 161, 10th Cir. (1996)Voltage v. Doe - 14-cv-01872, Opinion 4/9/1509-30-2016 ECF 1378 USA v RYAN BUNDY - ORDER DENYING MOTIONS (#1206, #1207, #1208,#1209, #1211, #1212, #1213, #1224)Rule 110Aztec Steel Company, A. F. S. C. O., Inc., Atlantic Steel Fabricators, Inc., Fairmont Steel Corporation, Etc. v. Florida Steel Corporation, 691 F.2d 480, 11th Cir. (1982)Documents About Motion In United States LawSkip carouselForeclosure Case Killer!- An Allonge Is Not Admissable Evidence of Bank’s OwnershipMichaud/Playpen Hearing TranscriptMotion to Dismiss Complaint, Motion to Vacate Clerks Default and in the Alternative Motion for Summary JudgmentWORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF WWE’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONSJanuary 2017 Order Executive Amnesty Case14-2066[1]Rocket Docket Annihilator - DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTBlurred Lines Post Trial OrderFarrellMortgage Assignment Fraud - U.S. Bank National Assoc., As Trustee v. Ernest E. Harpster Sl-2007-CA-6684-ESTrump Election Complaint To Intervene - Colorado Electors LawsuitORDER Granting Motion to DismissMotion - Substantiated Allegations of Foreclosure Fraud That Implicates the Florida Attorney General’s Office and The Florida Default Law GroupTILA Rescission Success Without Tender - HENRY BOTELHO, Plaintiff, V. U.S. BANK, N.a., As Trustee for the LXS 2007-4N Trust, DefendantApple's Bait App SettlementSilk Road Appeal BriefFlorida Rules of Civil ProcedureJane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. U.S.Art Cohen v. Donald J. TrumpKEYES v OBAMA - Notice of Voluntary Dismissal - Drake & RobinsonRHODES v MacDONALD - 8 - MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages, Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief and Application for TRO - Gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.8.0Juan Luis Avalos-Avalos, A205 834 943 (BIA Dec. 31, 2013)Dearie v. GannonLIBERI v TAITZ - 91 2009-08-03 TAITZ Motion for Rule 11 SanctionsOpinion Granting SJ MotionOctober 24, 2013 Class Cert OrderGrazzini-Rucki v. Rucki Trial Transcript7-06-2016 ECF 840-1 USA v SHAWNA COX - Attachment Letter to Counsel From Defendant CoxUS Bank v Ibanez Memo of Decision Denying US Bank2009 order on Holy Land Foundation unindicted coconspirator listMore From MitchSkip carouselAdam Weishaupt's Illuminati_ Proofs of a Conspiracy AgainstCIA Psych Ops in Guerrilla WarefareEng Driver FormPower Tube Biasing Operation Manual 15-01-08So. Cal Edison - Smart Meter InstallationIlluminati Conspiracy, Order of the Illumined Wise MenPrivacy Survey AgendaWilliam Cooper - The Origin Identity and Purpose of Mj12We will rule undisputed over the world - Rabbi RibnovichUFO's The.document.that.Got.william.cooper.killed..0Street Magic Tricks From Ellusionist for FreeSharon Position Against JewsRabbi 1Hollow EarthHollow Earth 2Computer ForensicsChristChrist JesusBorgesse - World Republic 1953The PolesTitle 1Writ Mandate CaseThe California False Claims ActRules CrimShow Cause ContemptReliefFromJudgnentProcedure Filing Suit