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!