The firm has defended scores of cases, has tried dozens of them and has achieved exoneration at trial in virtually every type of criminal case. During all stages of representation we are careful to protect, not only the client's legal interests, but his or her privacy. Accordingly, the only cases listed here by name are those which resulted in published opinions. A few of the many favorable results the firm has obtained are:
The successful defense at trial of a man charged with fatally shooting the abusive former boyfriend of his common law wife;
Acquittal at trial of a client charged with fatally shooting a suspected intruder;
The successful defense of a lawyer accused of being at the center of the savings and loan scandal of the 1990's in the Lincoln Savings/American Continental Corporation investigation. Following months of litigation the client suffered neither criminal conviction nor any other professional or administrative sanction;
Acquittal, following trial, on all of the many charges lodged against a college professor accused of defrauding the United States Government;
The successful defense of the first death eligible homicide case to be qualified by the United States Attorney General for federal capital prosecution in the Northern District of California;
Dismissal of criminal charges against a former vice president of a major energy company in the first known prosecution under the Federal Commodities Exchange Act;
The successful defense at trial of a young mortgage broker accused of an area wide fraudulent mortgage scheme;
Acquittal at trail of a client charged with importation of 56 tons of hashish in what was, at the time, the largest hashish importation case to have been filed in the Northern District of California;
Successful defense at trial of a client charged in a 9 ton cocaine importation conspiracy case, which was, to date, the largest cocaine importation case filed in the Northern District of California;
Exoneration following trial of a client charged with possession for sale of 350 kilograms of cocaine after federal agents had recovered of that amount of cocaine from her residence;
Reversal of a respected medical doctor's conviction for illegally writing scores of drug prescriptions;
Within the last several years we represented prominent clients in two of the most highly publicized sex crime investigations in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. In one of those cases the firm successfully defended the client's privacy interest in sealed documents against motions to unseal them on First Amendment grounds made by the news media before the United States District Court and, later, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We then resolved the case successfully for the client.
In addition to those cases discussed above, we have obtained acquittals at trial for numerous clients in a broad range of criminal cases, from state charges of robbery and assault to federal charges of fraud and arson.
The firm has litigated over a hundred appeals before the state and federal courts and obtained numerous reversals of convictions on behalf of the firm's clients. A number of these published cases serve as legal precedent, including:
United States. v. Castaneda, 16 F.3d 1504 (9th Cir. 1994), a money laundering prosecution where our client's conviction was reversed and which sets forth the standard for admission of co-conspirator statements at trial;
United States v. Jerome, 942 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1991), where our client's conviction for operating a continuing criminal enterprise was reversed and which states the standard for when, without request from the defense, a trial court must instruct a jury that it must unanimously agree no the specific act which forms the basis for a continuing criminal enterprise charge;
United States v. Gomez-Rodriquez, 96 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), where dismissal of the indictment against our client was affirmed and where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals redefined the meaning of the term "aggravated felony" as a basis for a criminal immigration violation;
People v. Roberts, 2 Cal.4th 271 (1992), a murder prosecution where, on appeal, the California Supreme Court invalidated the standard jury instruction for proximate cause in criminal cases and established the standards for the current correct instructions.
Cotsirilos & Campisano, LLP
250 Montgomery Street
Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94104-3420
Phone: 415-397-2373 | Facsimile: 415-397-8680
Se habla español
Our law firm represents clients throughout Northern California and nationwide, including the San Francisco Bay area, the Northern District of California, Silicon Valley, and including, but not limited to the cities of Alameda, Albany, Antioch, Benicia, Berkeley, Burlingame, Campbell, Castro Valley, Citrus Heights, Concord, Cupertino, Daly City, Danville, Dublin, El Cerrito, Fairfield, Foster City, Fremont, Fresno, Hayward, Humboldt, Lafayette, Livermore, Lodi, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Manteca, Martinez, Menlo Park, Milpitas, Modesto, Mountain View, Napa, Newark, Novato, Oakland, Pacifica, Palo Alto, Petaluma, Pleasant Hill, Pleasanton, Redwood City, Richmond, Roseville, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Francisco, San Jose, San Joaquin, San Leandro, San Mateo, San Pablo, San Rafael, San Ramon, Santa Clara, Santa Rosa, Sacramento, Saratoga, Sausalito, Suisan City, South San Francisco, Stockton, Sunnyvale, Union City, Vacaville, Vallejo, and Walnut Creek. We also serve California counties including Alameda, Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Tehama, Tuolumne, Trinity, Yolo, and Yuba County.