John Raphling

John Raphling will be directing our Criminal Defense practice. He has been handling criminal cases since admission to the bar in 1993 after graduating from Harvard Law School. He spent ten years in the Los Angeles County Public Defenders office as a trial lawyer. In that capacity, he has represented literally thousands of criminal defendants, including those prosecuted in juvenile courts. He has extensive experience with criminal cases ranging from murder to petty theft, including drug offenses, including medical marijuana cases, kidnapping, sex crimes, violent crimes, theft and fraud, prostitution, gang cases, offenses involving police misconduct and just about any other type of criminal case that is brought to court. Since leaving the public defenders, he has continued to represent criminal defendants in private practice. He deliberately keeps his caseload low so that he can give each case all the attention and time that it deserves.

Mr. Raphling has a long established reputation as an aggressive advocate for his clients' interests. He is known for his thorough investigations and his persistent approach to obtaining discovery and litigating all aspects of his clients' cases. His philosophy is to prepare each case assuming that it will go to trial. That preparation often leads to favorable settlements, including outright dismissals, reductions of charges and probationary sentences. Otherwise, Mr. Raphling has a proven track record of effectiveness in trial. He has tried five murder cases to jury without a loss. He has tried approximately sixty cases to jury and another 160 juvenile adjudications.

In addition to, and as part of, his trial preparation, Mr. Raphling will explore every possible legal avenue to achieve success in your case. He is an expert in search and seizure law and has successfully litigated dozens of suppression motions based on police violations of his clients' Fourth Amendment rights. He has litigated Speedy Trial (6^th Amendment) issues, Miranda/Coerced confession issues, bail motions, 995 motions, Hitch/Trombetta (destruction of evidence) motions, Pitchess and other discovery motions, motions to quash and traverse search warrants, Romero motions, and other types of motions that emerge in the course of criminal cases.

Mr. Raphling also understands that insuring the best possible results in a criminal case also involves the concept of "mitigation." Even if the prosecution can prove guilt, there are usually factors which explain why the crime occurred or positive factors about the accused which should be presented to the court on his clients' behalf. As a defense attorney, Mr. Raphling will be sure to investigate all of these factors, including mental health issues, family background, positive community involvement, work history, in order to present his clients most favorably and insure a just outcome. Work on mitigation is done hand in hand with work to win the case outright on the merits. Both are essential parts of the representation.

Mr. Raphling will personally handle all criminal cases for the firm. He will meet with clients directly, conduct or supervise all investigations, appear in court for all substantive appearances, personally argue all motions and actually try the case. He will discuss all tactical and strategic decisions with his clients to be certain that their interests are being met. Mr. Raphling does not guarantee a favorable outcome in your case, as no ethical lawyer can make such a guarantee considering all the variables that go into a criminal case. However, he does guarantee that you will receive excellent representation and that he will do all that he can to get you the best possible results.

Sample of cases recently handled by Mr. Raphling

People v. AH: Defendant accused of 1^st Degree Murder, with gun and gang enhancements. Evidence against defendant included a tape-recorded confession, an eyewitness identification, as well as testimony from a gang detective as to his gang involvement and motivations. The case was tried to a jury. Mr. Raphling presented evidence that the confession was coerced by the detectives, who threatened and manipulated AH, a 16 year old boy with a very low IQ. He also showed that the eyewitness had little opportunity to observe the murder and was unsure of his identification, and that the gang evidence was greatly exaggerated. Result: Not guilty verdict/full acquittal.

People v. CL: Defendant accused of 1^st Degree Murder in a drive-by shooting, two counts of attempted 1^st Degree Murder. The evidence in this case included an eyewitness identification of CL and the car used in the murder by the twin brother of the man killed, who knew CL prior to the shooting, as well as evidence of motive. Mr. Raphling presented evidence to show that the identification was very uncertain, but that the detectives had encouraged the witness to make it, despite the fact that the witness did not have an opportunity to see who did the shooting. Result: The case was tried twice with hung juries (8-4 for not guilty and 6-6); the prosecution then offered a manslaughter plea for seven years.

People v. SR: Defendant was accused of Felony Resisting of a Police Officer, as a Third Strike, exposing him to a 25 to life sentence. Following the preliminary hearing, Mr. Raphling filed a 995 motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of SR's guilt. The trial court denied that motion, so Mr. Raphling filed a writ to the Court of Appeals. Result: The Court of Appeals granted the writ, finding that there was no probable cause to hold SR. The case was dismissed.

People v. DK: Defendant accused of two counts each of Felony Resisting of a Police Officer and Battery on a Police Officer. After extensive litigation, including a discovery motion, Pitchess motion, 995 motion, suppression motion, the case was ready for trial. Result: The prosecution dismissed the case rather than go to trial.

People v. EB: Defendant accused of Assault with a Gun, including entering the complaining witness' house with a gun. The charges exposed EB to approximately 20 years in prison. In this case, following thorough investigations, Mr. Raphling determined that there was no factual defense. He then prepared a mitigation presentation, including evidence of EB's extensive record of community service as well as his personal history which explained why the crime had occurred and what steps were being taken to insure no future recurrence. Result: The judge agreed to a probationary sentence.

People v. LW: Defendant accused of two counts of Resisting Arrest. Mr. Raphling extensively litigated discovery, including Pitchess and Vela motions and formal discovery motions. He investigated and located percipient witness who would provide helpful testimony, and prepared LW for his own testimony. Result: After we announced ready for trial, the prosecution offered LW an infraction (the equivalent of a parking ticket).