Paul Goyette, Managing Partner at G&A recently represented Chris Gold: CCSO’s Vice President in a criminal trial that would have cost him his career, reputation and entire way of life. To watch the video on YouTube, click Criminal Trial Client Testimonial

Paul Goyette and his trial team have put their expert trial skills to good use and have pieced together an extraordinary winning streak in high profile criminal defense cases dating back to 1995.

An El Dorado county jury took only 45 minutes to find Christopher Gold Not Guilty of four felony and misdemeanor counts of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and battery. That extends the winning streak to 30. Paul and the G&A trial team have received favorable verdicts 30 cases in a row!

How are Paul and the G&A trial team able to achieve such extraordinary results?

• First, its talent. Paul is an extraordinarily talented trail lawyer and has the uncanny ability to develop a positive and favorable relationship with the jury and gain favorable results for his clients. The key to any successful trial practice is to get the jury to know, like and trust Paul, his client and his case. There’s no text book to read as to how to best accomplish his goal. Paul has developed a unique system over many years of establishing credibility, trust and confidence with all the people I the courtroom, but most importantly, the jury. Simply put -the unique talents of Paul and the trial team cannot be created by any amount of law school education, training or even experience. By comparison, professional athletes such as Tim Lincecum in baseball or LeBron James in basketball are successful for many reasons including work ethic, focus, and competitive zeal. However, each athlete relies on pure talent that simply cannot be duplicated by other athletes regardless of how hard they work or completive they play. Paul and the G&A trial team use that talent, along with unparalleled preparation and a relentlessly competitive approach to accomplish the goal: winning

Who does Paul and Trial Team Represent?

• Paul and G&A admittedly represent a certain type of client that has the ability to win. The G&A team does not represent career criminals, gang bangers or even petty thieves. Paul and the G&A team represent clients who have enormous career and financial ramifications at stake -not to mention those clients don’t have the experience and skills to cope with jail or prison time. They represent high profile clients including elected officials, police officer and other public safety employees, corporate executives and celebrities. Paul and G&A represent clients who MUST WIN THEIR CASES.

For Chris Gold’s Video Testimonial, click here Chris Gold\’s Video Testimonial

 It took an El Dorado County jury just 45 minutes to acquit Lt. Chris Gold of two felony and two misdemeanor charges related to an off duty altercation he was involved in with his former father in law. 

  The background of this case includes an ugly divorce and child custody battle between Mr. Gold and his former wife.  Things got so bad that Mr. Gold’s ex-wife, as well as his ex mother-in-law and father-in-law began making horrific allegations of misconduct against. Mr. Gold.  All of those allegations have been thoroughly investigated and the result has been that Mr. Gold has been awarded full custody of his daughter, and Mr. Gold’s ex-wife is only given very limited supervised visitation of the daughter every week.

On April 17, 2009, Mr. Gold and his mother, Ms. Mary Gold, met Mr. Fagundes in a parking lot for a visitation exchange of Mr. Gold’s daughter.  Mr. Fagundes delivered the daughter to Mr. Gold, but at the time he did so he repeated the allegations that he and Mr. Gold’s ex-wife were making against Mr. Gold at the time.  An argument broke out which led to an altercation.  Mr. Gold put his hands on Mr. Fagundes’ arms, attempted to move him to the other side of the vehicles, away from Mr. Gold’s daughter.  Mr. Fagundes pushed Mr. Gold back and shoving continued between them.  At one point, Mr. Gold did a leg sweep take down of Mr. Fagundes, holding onto his arms.  He placed Mr. Fagundes on the ground.  Mr. Gold straddled Mr. Fagundes as Mr. Fagundes continued to fight.  Mr. Gold used his hand and knees in an effort to control Mr. Fagundes’ hands.  At one point Mr. Gold put one hand on Mr. Fagundes’ upper chest/neck area to hold him to the ground.  Throughout this time Mr. Gold and Mr. Fagundes were yelling at each other.  Mr. Gold continued to yell for Mr. Fagundes to stop fighting.  Finally, Mr. Fagundes stopped fighting and Mr. Gold got up from the ground.  Mr. Fagundes immediately followed him and Mr. Gold retreated to his car. 

 Just prior to the altercation, Mr. Gold asked Mary to call the police.  Mr. Gold had been required to call the police on Mr. Fagundes several times in the past because Mr. Fagundes threatened Mr. Gold during child custody exchanges.  Mr. Gold, Mary, and Mr. Gold’s daughter left the scene and met sheriff’s deputies down the street for an interview. 

  There were several eyewitnesses to the altercation.  Not surprisingly, each eyewitness saw the case somewhat differently.  Some witnesses saw Mr. Gold punching Mr. Fagundes repeatedly in the face.  Even Mr. Fagundes agreed that he was never punched by Mr. Gold.  Each eyewitness, however, witnessed Mr. Gold with one or two hands around Mr. Fagundes’ neck.  Mr. Fagundes alleged that he lost consciousness and requested an ambulance take him to the hospital.  As a result of Mr. Fagundes’ complaint and the testimony of the eyewitnesses, felony charges were filed against Mr. Gold alleging that he had assaulted Mr. Fagundes with force likely to result in great bodily injury. 

At the start of trial, Judge James Wagoner made key evidentiary rulings that shaped the trial.  Specifically, Judge Wagoner excluded any and all references to the allegations of misconduct that Mr. Fagundes and Mr. Gold’s ex-wife had been making about him.  In addition, Judge Wagoner excluded any reference to the conversation and argument between Mr. Gold and Mr. Fagundes at the start of their altercation as it related to Mr. Gold’s alleged misconduct.  One key piece of evidence that was introduced was the testimony of Mr. Gold’s daughter where she overheard Mr. Fagundes say that he was going to fight Mr. Gold prior to their altercation of April 19, 2009. 

Three important factors led to the winning of this case.  First, Mr. Gold and his mother, Mary, both testified consistently and effectively regarding how they perceived Mr. Fagundes on April 19, 2009.  Mary Gold, in particular, noted how angry Mr. Fagundes was on that day and stated that in all of the years she known Mr. Fagundes she had never seen him in such a state.  Next, the defense team was able to exploit inconsistencies in the witness observations and maximize the effect of statements made by Mr. Fagundes that were consistent with Mr. Gold’s theory of self-defense.  Finally, Mr. Gold’s defense team was able to effectively cultivate a positive relationship with the jury throughout the course of the trial.  The jury liked and believed lead defense counsel and, consequently, believed Mr. Gold, persuaded by defense’s theory of self defense. 

Jury trials are often won or lost by the type of jurors selected for the panel.  Mr. Gold’s team was lucky to have a pool of smart, analytical jurors who were able to break down and understand specific parts of the evidence and apply their common sense to reach a sensible conclusion.

Taken from the closing arguments:

“What was this case about?

1.It’s About Perception, or rather Misperception

2.It’s About Self Defense

 But it’s really about: What adds up and what makes sense.”

We’ll elaborate in the next few days, it’s a great story with a successful win  that pertains to all of our clients, so stay tuned!

FEDERAL COURT JURY ACQUITS SHERIFF’S CAPTAIN OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND FALSE STATEMENTS 

            A Jury of five men and seven women took less than one hour to acquit retired Captain Raul DeLeon on five counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice and false statements to a federal investigator.  Mr. DeLeon’s trial was in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, before Judge Oliver Wanger.  Mr. DeLeon was represented by Paul Q. Goyette and a team of lawyers of Goyette & Associates, Inc., and was a member of the Legal Defense Fund. 

            The United States Attorney indicted Mr. DeLeon on one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice (18 USC § 1512(c)(2)(k), and four counts of false statements to a Federal investigator (18 USC § 1001).  All counts arose from the FBI’s ongoing investigation of former Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Deputy Bob Holloway.  For a number of years the FBI has been investigating Bob Holloway regarding his association with outlaw motorcycle gangs and, particularly the Hells Angels.  Mr. Holloway was a deputy for the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department for approximately fifteen years.  He left law enforcement on a disability retirement in 1985.  Shortly thereafter he opened a motorcycle shop in Deniar called Road Dog Cycles.  For many years, law enforcement investigators heard rumors that Mr. Holloway and Road Dog Cycles were involved with the Hells Angels.  The FBI has been investigating Mr. Holloway since approximately 2003. 

MR. DELEON’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HOLLOWAYS

          Mr. DeLeon’s worked as a law enforcement officer for 30 years.  He attained the rank of captain in the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department and enjoyed an exemplary and decorated career.  Mr. DeLeon first met Mr. Holloway in the 1970s when Mr. DeLeon was an explorer with the Department.  Mr. DeLeon and Mr. Holloway worked as beat partners off and on until Mr. Holloway’s retirement. 

            After Mr. DeLeon was promoted to Captain Mr. Holloway’s wife, Kathy Holloway worked as Mr. DeLeon’s secretary at the Department.  Kathy Holloway worked as Mr. DeLeon’s secretary for approximately three years.  While he worked with Kathy Holloway, Mr. DeLeon described his relationship with Mr. Holloway as very friendly.  However, since 1985, they had very limited contact where Mr. DeLeon only physically saw Mr. Holloway three times.  One of those times was when their families were coincidentally on the same ship for a Mexican cruise.  That cruise, in the winter of 2005, was organized by the travel agent in the Modesto area.  The travel agent’s husband was a deputy and, she organized numerous law enforcement families to go in the cruise. 

MR. DELEON BECOMES A TARGET OF THE FBI

            For reasons that probably have more to do with petty political rivalries than sound law enforcement tactics, the FBI targeted Mr. DeLeon as a possible leak of confidential law enforcement information to Holloway.  Unbeknownst to Mr. DeLeon, the FBI had obtained a wiretap order for all of the Holloway phones.  On September 19, 2007, Mr. DeLeon was escorting a new HR Director to different locations around the County.  During this time, he saw Mr. Holloway driving his pickup truck.  Mr. DeLeon did a friendly vehicle stop on Mr. Holloway.  Mr. DeLeon spoke to Mr. Holloway for about five minutes and asked Mr. Holloway to say hello to his wife Kathy.  Following this vehicle stop, Holloway called his wife to tell her about his meeting with DeLeon.  Since the FBI was monitoring the phone calls they immediately recognized DeLeon’s name.  The FBI now targeted the third highest ranking official in the Sheriff’s Department. 

THE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA

            As a means of laying a trap for Mr. DeLeon, the FBI served a phoney Grand Jury subpoena on DeLeon referencing a phony Grand Jury hearing.  The Grand Jury subpoena asked DeLeon to provide records of Kathy Holloway’s employment with the Department, which had ended about two years before.  The subpoena did not contain any instructions, confidentiality notices, a proof of service, or other documentation.  It was simply as single page document.

            Once he received the subpoena, Mr. DeLeon was immediately confused.  He had never had to work with the Grand Jury subpoena and he was not the custodian of Kathy Holloway’s personnel records.  In an effort to comply with the subpoena, Mr. DeLeon naturally starts asking questions.  Mr. DeLeon spoke with the Assistant Sheriff and the Sheriff who were in on the plot with the FBI.  Neither the Assistant Sheriff nor the Sheriff could give Mr. DeLeon any information as to how he should comply.  They both denied knowing anything about the subpoena, leaving Mr.l DeLeon even more confused as to what it was about.  Over the next several days, Mr. DeLeon made a number of other inquiries about how he should comply with the subpoena. 

HOLLOWAY CALLS DELEON

            In what will probably be the unluckiest phone call Mr. DeLeon will ever receive, Bob Holloway called him at the Department on October 16, 2007.  The call is put through to Mr. DeLeon and, of course, is being monitored by the FBI.  Holloway tells Mr. DeLeon that an employee of his, Danny Dugranrut had called about a search warrant that was being executed at Dugranrut’s home.  Holloway called Mr. DeLeon to find out which law enforcement agency was executing the warrant and, to organize the surrender of Mr. Dugranrut, if in fact, he was wanted.  During this conversation, Mr. DeLeon naturally asked Mr. Holloway about the Grand Jury subpoena he recently received involving his wife.  Mr. Holloway knew nothing about the subpoena.  Mr. DeLeon told Holloway that he would look into the warrant and call him back. 

            Mr. DeLeon then spoke briefly with the Watch Commander and determined that no department warrants were being executed at that time as described by Holloway.  A short time later, Mr. DeLeon calls Holloway back and passes this information along.  Mr. DeLeon concludes the conversation by saying “I just can’t help you Bob,” where Holloway responds he would call other law enforcement agencies to obtain the necessary information.

            Later that afternoon Holloway left a voice mail message for DeLeon that he had obtained the necessary information through other law enforcement sources and the Ceres Police Department.  Mr. DeLeon never returned Holloway’s call and has not spoken to Holloway since. 

THE DUGRANRUT BULLETIN

            On October 18, 2007, Mr. DeLeon saw a bulletin in the briefing room with the name and picture of Mr. Dugranrut.  The bulletin stated that while Mr. Dugranrut was not wanted he was affiliated with the FBI and was under investigation.  The bulletin contained the name and number of a task force member.  Immediately upon seeing the bulletin, Mr. DeLeon telephoned the task force member and reported his conversations with Mr. Holloway of October 16^th.  Mr. DeLeon had a lengthy conversation with the task force member about Mr. Holloway, Mr. Dugranrut, even the Grand Jury subpoena he received regarding Kathy Holloway.  Mr. DeLeon expressed his interest to help the task force in anyway that he could. 

MR. DELEON MEETS WITH THE FBI

            On November 1, 2007, the FBI called Mr. DeLeon.  The investigator complained that DeLeon had compromised or blown the Grand Jury hearing because he had been talking to so many people about the subpoena.  Obviously, Mr. DeLeon responded that he was simply trying to comply with the subpoena and it wasn’t a confidential document anyway.  Mr. DeLeon argued that he could talk to anybody he wanted to in his efforts to comply with the subpoena. 

            The FBI investigators continued to communicate with Mr. DeLeon.  On November 20, 2007, Mr. DeLeon met with the FBI investigators at his Sheriff’s Department office for approximately an hour and fifteen minutes.  The investigators wanted to meet with Mr. DeLeon to discuss possible leaks of information within the Sheriff’s Department.  Mr. DeLeon readily agreed to meet with the investigators and express significant concern if there was a leak of information within the Department he certainly wanted to help find it and stop it.  Unbeknownst to DeLeon, all of his communications with the FBI investigators were secretly tape recorded and he was the target of the investigation. 

            During their meeting Mr. DeLeon and the investigators spent well over an hour discussing Holloway, Road Dog Cycles, the Grand Jury subpoena, Danny Dugranrut, and other various law enforcement matters. Mr. DeLeon legitimately believed he was helping the investigator in an important law enforcement investigation. 

THE ARREST AND INDICTMENT

            The United States attorney sought and obtained an indictment against Mr. DeLeon on June 11, 2008.  Following the Indictment, the arrest of Mr. DeLeon was an example of not only the epidemic of discriminatory prosecutions against law enforcement officers, but the extraordinary efforts prosecutorial agencies will go through to demean and humiliate them.  Mr. DeLeon was arrested as his home on July 15, 2008at approximately 8:20 a.m. There were approximately eight FBI supervised officers in the street when he was ordered out of his house.    The FBI blocked off his street, and, short of tanks and black helicopters, treated him as if he was on Americans’ most wanted list.  Mr. DeLeon was then transported, along with numerous escort vehicles, to the Stanislaus County Public Safety Center wher he was placed in a maximum security cell.    This was a facility that just a few months a before he had been I charge of. Then Mr. DeLeon, along with other arrested defendants, was transported at high speed from Modesto to Fresno.   There were at least three escort vehicles with their red and blue lights on the entire trip down to Fresno  Mr. DeLeon was booked into a holding facility near the US District Court in Fresno.  Of course, and by design, it was Friday afternoon.  Therefore, Mr. DeLeon had to spend the weekend in jail before he could be released the following Tuesday.  U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger was apparently not as concerned about any threat Mr. DeLeon posed since he released on his own recognizance. 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

            Goyette & Associates, Inc., filed numerous pre-trial motions including a Motion to Dismiss the entire case for outrageous government conduct.  Goyette & Associates, Inc., argued that the use of a phoney Grand Jury subpoena and a sham Grand Jury hearing were an outrageous form of entrapment and the case should be dismissed.  Goyette & Associates, argued that Mr. DeLeon had absolutely no predisposition to commit any crime let alone the five felony counts contained in the Indictment.  Judge Wanger denied the Motion on the grounds the Indictment turned on Mr. DeLeon’s specific statement of November 20, 2007, that the government alleged to be untruthful.  Judge Wanger noted that the Government did not indict Mr. DeLeon for corruption or the leak of confidential law enforcement information but rather, took advantage of his willingness to cooperate and determined that certain statements through the course of his cooperation were lies.  Simply put, the FBI investigators’ conduct did not force Mr. DeLeon to speak truthfully or untruthfully during his cooperation with them.  The case was then set for trial.

THE TRIAL AND VERDICT

            The trial took place between April 28, and May 1, 2009, before Judge Wanger.  Goyette & Associates, purposely selected a highly educated, sophisticated jury.  Virtually all members of the jury had some college education while a few had Masters Degrees and Phd.s.  Most of the jurors were business owners, managers, and supervisors. The jury heard all of the evidence including key excerpts from numerous wiretap phone calls between Holloway and various parties including Mr. DeLeon.  The key witness in the entire case was Raul DeLeon himself.  Once on the witness stand, he calmly and professionally explained his entire involvement with the case.  He explained two mistakes of fact he made at the meeting with the FBI investigators on November 20^th.  Jurors later commented that Mr. DeLeon’s careful and calm testimony proved to be very believable to them, along with the Government’s inability to provide any evidence linking Mr. DeLeon with any conspiracy to obstruct  justice                                                                                                                         

            It took the jury less than one hour to acquit Mr. DeLeon on all counts.  Following the verdict, the entire jury stayed to speak with the Government’s lawyers, Paul Goyette and Mr. DeLeon and the DeLeon Family.  The jury carefully listened to the evidence and applied it directly to the law as described in the jury instructions.  By doing so, the jury was able to take highly complicated principles of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and make sensible decisions.

            Mr. DeLeon was visibly relieve after the verdict was read, “I have been living a nightmare for the past 17 months and I am just so happy that it is finally over”, he said.  “This ordeal has been extremely difficult on my entire family but they all stood by me because they knew that I was innocent.”  “I have dedicated 30 years of my life to the law enforcement profession and I believed in the justice system, this verdict just reaffirms my belief in that system” he added.

Correctional Officer Julie Newlin was found not guilty by a Solano County jury on Thursday, March 26, 2009 of 32 counts of workers’ compensation fraud, insurance fraud, and theft. Officer Newlin is a correctional officer for the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California.

The ordeal began for Officer Newlin on February 26, 2006 when she was injured during a use of force incident with an inmate. At that time, a diabetic inmate who weighed approximately 350 lbs. became agitated and uncontrollable. Several officers, including Officer Newlin went hands-on with the inmate in an effort to control him. The officers were successfully able to pull the inmate to the floor. Unfortunately, the inmate landed squarely on Officer Newlin’s right hand. After the inmate was subdued, Officer Newlin realized that her hand and wrist were injured. She reported her injury to her supervisor and was taken to the medical clinic. From the medical clinic she was taken to the local hospital emergency room where she was x-rayed and placed in a cast. Officer Newlin was then scheduled to visit her primary treating physician in approximately two weeks. From this point, she began a long series of doctor visits through the worker’s compensation system. It is important to note that Officer Newlin’s Sergeant filed a worker’s compensation claim on her behalf, just after her injury.

The InvestigationEven though Officer Newlin was clearly unable to work and for reasons that are not entirely clear, the Department and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier, State Fund, began an investigation almost immediately after Officer Newlin’s injury. It’s unclear why State Fund and the Department would initiate an investigation so early. However, it appears to have been motivated by the fact that Officer Newlin’s partner and roommate were also off of work from CDCR at the same time. Investigators obtained many hours of Subrosa video between April and July, 2006. The Subrosa video shows Officer Newlin doing a wide variety of day to day tasks from washing her car to picking up and carrying her one-year old niece.

The Doctor VisitsAfter her injury, Officer Newlin began a long process of being bounced back and forth between doctors. At first, her doctors concluded she simply had a strained wrist. Those doctors put a cast on Officer Newlin and ordered medication and rest. After the cast was removed, the doctors recommended Officer Newlin use her hand in an effort to regain range of motion and strength.Officer Newlin’s wrist injury had improved in 2-3 months. As time went on, the real injury emerged. Officer Newlin noticed she was having difficulty using her right thumb. Her right thumb hurt, was weak, and unstable. Officer Newlin began seeing more specialized doctors.

Finally, a hand specialist concluded that Officer Newlin had a torn Ulnar Collateral Ligament (UCL) in her right thumb and that surgery was required to fix the injury. On December 1, 2006, Officer Newlin underwent surgery where doctors found that she had a grade 3 (severe) UCL tear in her right thumb. The doctor repaired the UCL. Officer Newlin then began the recovery process. Her doctors advised her that it could take up to one year to recover from the surgery before she could return to work. Fortunately for Officer Newlin, she was able to return to work in June, 2007. Throughout the entire process, Officer Newlin strongly argued that she wanted to go back to work as a correctional officer. Officer Newlin rejected an offer of vocational rehabilitation or alternative training for another type of career.

Throughout her injury, Officer Newlin attempted to use her baton and attempted to practice with her own hand gun at the shooting range. The biggest problem Officer Newlin experienced was that her damaged thumb would not allow her to properly use the baton or qualify with her weapons. Once Officer Newlin had her surgery and recovered from that surgery, she was able to use her weapons and was able to qualify at the shooting range.

The defense called Dr. Allen Hassen to offer contrary testimony to the Prosecution’s doctors. Officer Newlin also testified at length on how she hurt her hand. Officer Newlin testified about the long series of medical appointments and surgery. Most important, Officer Newlin testified about duties as a correctional officer and why she could not return to work until after she recovered from her surgery.

Numerous interesting trial issues arose during the course of the proceedings. In particular, the parties fought over whether the jury should be allowed to view the entire Subrosa videotape even though the Prosecution only showed the doctors (and consequently the jury) a few selected minutes. The defense also made a contentious motion for dismissal at the end of the Prosecution’s case under Penal Code Section 1118.1. Superior Court Judge E. Bradley Nelson, denied the defense’s motion while referring to it as a “close call.”

Officer Newlin’s case shows how far some prosecutorial agencies and insurance companies will go to prosecute officers. The Department, the Prosecution and the insurance company spent 3-5 times the value of Officer Newlin’s entire claim in her investigation and prosecution. In many cases the Prosecution forces an under-represented defendant into a plea bargain arrangement where they are required to repay some portion of the worker’s compensation benefits they receive. The lawyers of Goyette & Associates, Inc. view Officer Newlin’s case as yet another example of discriminatory prosecution practices against public safety employees. Fortunately for Officer Newlin, the jury saw the truth. Officer Newlin hopes to return to work in the very near future.