Click to call 602-307-0808 24/7 Click Here for Free Consultation

Fraud Lawyer Gets 61 Felony Charges Reduced to One Felony Charge

Scottsdale, AZ. April 21, 2010 – Fraud Lawyer David Michael Cantor’s Office was able to get 61 felony charges, ranging from Fraud Schemes to Participation in a Criminal Syndicate, reduced to a plea of a simple charge of Class 6 Undesignated Felony of Possession of a Forgery Device.

Fraud Lawyer Cantor’s associate was representing Ms. Dye, who was employed at a tax return preparation business which her step father owned, in the case of the State of Arizona v. Dye. Dye had been directed by her stepfather to prepare numerous tax returns and to sign the documents with his name and a social security number that did not belong to either her or her stepfather. This resulted in over $1,000,000 of tax losses to the State and Federal Government. Dye was ultimately charged with 61 felony counts and was potentially exposed to over 200 years in prison.

“DM Cantor worked hard to provide evidence to the Assistant Attorney General that Ms. Dye was unwittingly dragged into this scheme,” said Fraud Lawyer David Michael Cantor. “As a result our office was able to get 61 felony charges reduced to just one and we were able to keep Ms. Dye from being sentenced to any jail time.”

Fraud Lawyer Cantor’s associate presented evidence to the Arizona Assistant Attorney General that Dye was unwittingly pulled into the scheme, and ultimately resolved the case with a plea of a Class 6 Undesignated Felony of Possession of a Forgery Device. Dye received six months of supervised probation, with the charge being designated as a Misdemeanor upon completion of probation, and was able to avoid serving any jail time.


Fraud Attorney Gets 103 Felony Charges Reduced Down to Four Misdemeanors

Scottsdale, AZ. April 21, 2010Arizona Fraud Attorneys at David Michael Cantor’s Office was able to get 103 Felony counts, ranging from sale of unlicensed securities to fraud schemes and theft, reduced to 4 outright misdemeanors and earn their client unsupervised probation with a low level of restitution as opposed to jail time.

The legal team at DM Cantor were brought on torepresent Mr. R, a prominent estate planning attorney in Scottsdale, AZ, in the case of the State of Arizona v. Mr. R. Mr. R was an unwitting partner to a concert promoter who was selling investment contracts with a high rate of return. Rosepink invested his own money, his family’s money and assisted in many of his clients investing their money with the promoter. The promoter eventually stole $25,000,000 and absconded.

Fraud attorneys at DM Cantor were able to provide evidence that Mr. R was a victim and should not be treated as a co-conspirator due to the fact that he also lost a large sum of money.

“Mr. R was clearly the victim of this crime as opposed to a perpetrator,” said Fraud attorney David Michael Cantor. “Our firm was able to provide evidence that proved this to the judge and as a result we were able to get 103 felony charges reduced to four misdemeanors.”

Ultimately, Mr. R’s case was resolved with four counts of a Class 6 Open Felony for Solicitation of Sale of Unregistered Securities. On the day of sentencing the judge designated all four felony counts as outright misdemeanors. Mr. R was placed on unsupervised probation with a low level of restitution and was able to avoid serving any jail time.


Arizona Criminal Attorney Gets Breath Alcohol Readings Suppressed

Phoenix, AZ.  March 8, 2010Arizona DUI lawyers David Michael Cantor’s office was able to get the breath alcohol readings suppressed in the case of State v. Norton. The Downtown Justice Court suppressed Norton’s breath alcohol readings of .136 and .125.

Norton was arrested for an alleged DUI and asked to speak with an attorney in private. An associate for Arizona criminal attorney Cantor was able to provide evidence that when Norton was placed in a private phone room he nervously chewed on several fingernails. The officer, who placed Norton in the phone room, claimed he “watched Norton the entire time” in order to perform a “deprivation period” prior to the breath test. The “deprivation period” requires that the suspect does not ingest anything or regurgitate prior to a breath test. The State’s expert stated that anything—including fingers in the mouth – violates the required deprivation period.

“The officer failed to properly perform a ‘deprivation period’,” said Arizona criminal attorney David Michael Cantor. “Due to this fact, we were able to get the reading suppressed and a non-DUI plea for our client.”

As a result of the evidence provided by Arizona criminal attorney Cantor’s associate, the judge suppressed the readings and this resulted in a non-DUI plea being offered to Norton.


DUI Attorney Offices Should Look at the Impacts of Melendez vs. Massachusetts on DUI Defense

Any DUI attorney worth his legal fees will know how Melendez vs. Massachusetts impacts DUI defense. The defendant was charged with possessing and trafficking cocaine, evidenced by several bags that the prosecution held as evidence. The defense had 3 certificates of analysis that said the mentioned evidence was cocaine. The defense argued against the inclusion of the evidence, as its validation came through certificates and not a presentable witness who could be cross examined, as a DUI attorney might cross examine an arresting office in a DUI case.

The objections were overruled. The issue was whether the Crawford case applied in the Melendez case and whether the affidavits would be testimonial and whether the defendant had the right to cross examine this testimony under the 6th amendment. The court ruled that affidavits were testimonial statements, and that analysts served as witnesses under the 6th amendment. These analysts could therefore be cross examined by a DUI attorney.

More specifically, the Melendez case does illustrate that there are better ways for a DUI attorney to challenge or verify the results of a scientific test, as the Constitution guarantees only a single way- that of confrontation. A DUI attorney still does not have the right to suspend the Confrontation Clause when a preferable trial strategy is available. In this regard, the court rebuffed the state’s claim that scientific testing is both “neutral” and “reliable.”

As any DUI attorney knows, forensic science is not free from manipulation. It shouldn’t be taken at face value. In the issue of a DUI case, the level of intoxication forms the crux of the trial. This evidence needs to be based on more than police officer testimony, but other factors such as breathalyzer and performance of sobriety tests. A DUI attorney has the duty to question all available evidence in a court of law in the interest of his or her client.

Confrontation is designed to weed out not only fraudulent testimonial evidence, but incompetent evidence as well. The Melendez decision rejects the notion that the documents in question qualified as traditional official or business records. The court decided that by requiring testimonial evidence to substantiate the scientific determinations that “the sky won’t fall.”

A DUI attorney knows how the Melendez case makes it clear that the operator of the state’s chemical test is a necessary witness. However, the court does not make people who routinely work and maintain the lab equipment expert witnesses. The court does not need to hear the testimony of anyone who tested the sample or the testing equipment.

In the case of DUI law, the testimony of the acting police officer is often all a DUI attorney has to work with. When it becomes a matter of one word against the other, a conviction becomes that much more difficult. Police testimony can be called into question if not backed up by empirical evidence such as a Breathalyzer.

A good DUI attorney will know how to use the conclusions of the Melendez case to question key evidence in a DUI trial. Put your rights first by knowing how the court has decided in the past.


Arizona Not Guilty Verdict in Driving Under the Influence of Ambien Case

Scottsdale, AZ.  March 5, 2010 – David Michael Cantor’s office earned his client a not guilty verdict on the charges of driving under the influence of Ambien (i.e., DUI Drugs) in the case of State v. Niederer. A Scottsdale City Court jury found Niederer not guilty of the stated charges.

Cantor’s associate provided evidence that Niederer did well on field sobriety tests and that any mistakes observed were due to the effects of pain and fatigue Niederer was experiencing as a result of strep throat and not Ambien. The jury found that the Gas Chromatograph device utilized by the State to test Niederer’s blood was questionable and the State did not bring in any maintenance or calibration records on that particular device.

“We were able to provide evidence that Niederer did quite well on the field sobriety tests and any ill effects were not the cause of Ambien,” said David Michael Cantor. “As a result we were able to earn a not guilty verdict for our client.”

During cross examination of the State’s criminalist who analyzed the blood, an associate for Arizona criminal lawyer Cantor was able to get the criminalist to testify that she would perform poorly on a field sobriety test due to the fatigue and pain caused by a recent root canal. Another State’s expert admitted that although Niederer had Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (an involuntary jerking of the eyes due to a neurological dysfunction). Ambien could cause this eye dysfunction without causing any driving impairment.

Due to the evidence provided by David Michael Cantor’s associate, the Scottsdale City Court jury returned a not guilty verdict on the charges of driving under the influence of drugs.


A Good Criminal Lawyer Saves You the Hassle of an Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel

Any criminal lawyer will tell you that the ineffective assistance of trial counsel is one of the most frequently raised claims in state and federal post conviction petitions. Considering the state of most state funded counseling these days, this is hardly surprising. Many state attorneys refuse to investigate their cases before trial, never meet with their clients before the trial, or fail to file any motions or object to inadmissible evidence during the trial. The circumstances of your case come down to the quality of your criminal lawyer. Choosing one may be the most important legal decision you make.

The American Bar Association released a recent conclusion that indigent defense in this country has reached a state of crisis. Many defenders are forced to handle well over a thousand cases a year, more than 3 times the ABA says a criminal lawyer can adequately handle. In this challenging tax economy, public defenders in many communities simply don’t have the funds to give their clients the adequate defense the Constitution demands.

Added to this burden, the very structure of our state and federal post conviction review systems further contributes to the problem instead of providing a solution. Procedural efforts to review it make it difficult for defendants to challenge the effectiveness of their criminal lawyer. As a result, there is really no way of prosecuting criminal lawyer incompetence, which leads to a system of unaccountability on the part of a community funded criminal lawyer.

Problems with State Post Conviction Review Procedures
Many states require defendants challenging the ineffective assistance of their trail counsel must do so through post conviction review, rather than on direct appeal. Most states limit direct appeal to statements and actions directly reflected by the trial record. Because proving ineffective assistance of trial counsel often depends upon a criminal lawyer and his or her failure to do something, the legal proceedings need to take in more than just the direct appeal.

Defense attorneys are given very short time windows to file such motions (often in as little as 30 days), so the defense they get to represent them is often the same one who is the subject of the motion, which creates a conflict of interest. It is very difficult to make a case in such the limited time period allowed.

Clients also have difficulty making legal claims asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel because they have no Constitutional right to counsel on post conviction review. A client who must then represent himself during a post conviction review has to blindly deal with filing deadlines, substantiating evidence and prosecuting the case, which is beyond the capabilities of most of the accused.

The value of a quality criminal lawyer
The solution is to be represented by a reputable criminal lawyer from the beginning. While state funded lawyers may fulfill the state’s need to provide legal counsel, it is far from adequate legal counsel. If you need a criminal lawyer, any investment you can make in your case is worth the effort. A good lawyer can create a much more beneficial outcome that will make post conviction review completely irrelevant.

Money for quality legal advice is money that is well spent. When considering your future, get the best criminal lawyer you can afford, even if it means taking out a loan or other investment to fund the means.


When a Sex Abuse Attorney Encounters a “Repressed Memory” Case

One disturbing issue a sex abuse attorney comes routinely in contact with in the court room is the issue of “repressed memory.” Sadly, this pop psychological theory gone mad has put many innocent people behind bars and is still a reality today.

The concept of repressed memories first emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s. What started as a pop fad spilled into the legal field and became an issue regularly faced by a sex abuse attorney. Repressed memories typically result when a woman seeks counseling, and her counselor helps her “discover” past memories of sexual abuse. She perhaps suffers from a variety of issues, and he suggests that her inability to maintain relationships may be caused by a past sexual abuse, which she then remembers with much do praise from the counselor.

The trouble with “repressed memory” is its actual validity in the legal field when a sex abuse attorney encounters it. The patient receives affirmation and attention from the counselor, therefore grounding the story as evidence for a sex abuse attorney to contend with. The patient is under duress about events that happened decades ago and is naturally upset. Laws set up in the 1980s required counselors to contact the authorities in these instances, who would then build cases that prosecuted perfectly innocent people.

Perfectly normal people needed the help of a sex abuse attorney. Luckily, the myth of “repressed memory” began to be exposed in the 1990s. Many counselors and child psychologists didn’t accept the theory on face value, and prosecutors became nervous at prosecuting them. Still, it occasionally remains an issue today, as a sex abuse attorney will still come across it from time to time.

The case of Dr. Earl Bradley
In February of 2010, a Delaware Grand Jury returned a 160 page indictment of Dr. Early Bradley, including 471 counts of sexual crimes involving 103 children. Bradley sought the legal services of a sex abuse attorney. The police have asked to interview all the children involved. The problem is that many of the parents of these children maintain that their children were emotionally unaffected and that the trial experience would only be traumatic for them.

The prosecutor cites the “repressed memory” issue as a reason to do the interviews, maintaining that the process may uncover other instances of wrongdoing that would prove helpful to the prosecution. Yet the myth of repressed memory is well known to your average sex abuse attorney. Stories based on emotional disturbance in a counseling session have questionable authenticity. While they may prove helpful to a counseling session, they have no place in a court room before a sex abuse attorney.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder
Luckily, more judges and prosecutors are seeing the inherent faultiness of repressed memories, so they are becoming less common, although they still surface from time to time. A sex abuse attorney should always make a point of highlighting the vast amount of doubt created in a repressed memory instance, as it has no place in a court room. Until a higher court decides to make a concrete ruling on repressed memories, they will always come into question. All we can use to protect clients from them is our own common sense, from the judge to the jury.


Arizona Criminal Attorney Earns a Verdict of Not Guilty of DUI and a Hung Verdict on the Charges of DWI

Scottsdale, AZ.  March 4, 2010Arizona Criminal Attorney David Michael Cantor’s office earned his client a verdict of not guilty of DUI and a hung verdict on the charges of DWI in the case of State v. Levitz. A Scottsdale City Court jury found that Levitz was not guilty of DUI (impaired to the slightest degree) and they hung on the issue of whether he had a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher (i.e., DWI).

According to a BAC test, Levitz blood alcohol content was a .120 but criminal attorney David Michael Cantor’s associate was able to provide concern of the fact that the test analyst for the City of Scottsdale used an alcohol based hand sanitizer prior to testing the blood sample. In addition, Cantor was able to show that the criminalist did not properly put on gloves prior to the testing.

“The test analyst did not properly follow the necessary procedures before conducting the blood alcohol content test and the field sobriety test showed that Levitz was not impaired,” said criminal attorney David Michael Cantor. “We were able to provide this evidence to the jury and they returned successful verdicts for our client.”

Criminal attorney David Michael Cantor’s associate was able to provide evidence that the field sobriety test showed that Levitz was not impaired. Levitz had only four cues on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (i.e., the Eye Test) which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states is indicative of being a .05 BAC. Because the scientific community will testify that all people are impaired at a BAC of .08, but below that level many people are not impaired, the jury found Levitz not guilty of DUI.

Due to the fact that Levitz was found not guilty of being impaired to the slightest degree, it is unlikely that the State will retry the charge of DWI because the not guilty verdict necessarily indicates that Levitz’s BAC was not a .08 or higher.


Click to Watch Important Questions to Ask when Hiring a Lawyer

Request a Free Consultation

Fill out the form below to recieve a free and confidential intial consultation.


Arizona Defense Law Firm Associations and Awards
DM Cantor

Call 24/7 602-307-0808

40 N Central Ave, Ste 2300
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Click here for Directions

For Family Law questions please go to Cantor Law Group.
[contact-form-7 id="8868" title="Exit Intent"]