Homicide, Capital murder, murder and attempted murder

          If you're reading this because you or someone you care about has been charged with murder, you need to talk to an attorney who is experienced in defending murder cases and has had success winning murder cases.  District Attorneys charge first-degree murder because they believe that they have sufficient evidence to get a first-degree murder conviction from a jury, and the vast majority of the time, they are successful.  A client being found not guilty of murder and all lesser offenses is extremely rare.  Addison only knows of a handful of attorneys that have won a murder trial (not guilty of the homicide and all lesser included offenses).  He only knows of only three other attorneys in the state who have won two murder trials--acquitted of all homicide related charges, and none of them practice on the Central Coast.  He knows of no other attorney that has won three murder trials--acquitted of all homicide related charges.

           A murder case has many potential outcomes.  A conviction for first-degree murder with a special circumstance found true results in a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOPP).  A conviction for first-degree murder without a special circumstance found true carries a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years to life in prison.  A conviction for second-degree murder carries a fifteen-year to life sentence (a person can get probation for a second-degree murder conviction, but that is extremely rare).  In many cases, the jury will be given the option of a lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter; the maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction is eleven years.  A conviction for voluntary manslaughter in a murder trial is considered a very good outcome, an absolute victory.  Having an attorney with experience handling murder cases is critical because there are complex issues involved in murder cases, such as pathological evidence as well as mental defenses to attack premeditation, deliberation, and specific intent to kill.

           Addison has won three murder trials.  "Won" means his clients were acquitted of all homicide-related counts.  Winning a murder trial is a career event for a defense attorney; winning three is unheard of.  If the traditional definition of winning a homicide trial--saved from Death Row, acquitted of only a voluntary manslaughter or lesser offense, a hung jury on first and second degree murder, or any outcome that results in a determinate sentence, Addison has won nine murder trials.

          Addison knows of only three other lawyers who have won two murder trials--acquitted of all homicide related offenses, and none of them practice on the Central Coast.  He knows of no one else that has won three murder trials--acquitted of all homicide related offenses.  He knows of no other attorney on the Central Coast that has heard "not guilty" announced as the verdict on all homicide-related counts in two different trials, much less in three different trials. Using the conventional definition of a win in a murder trial, he has won nine murder trials.  He's done twelve murder trials.  That may not sound like a lot, but there are very few attorneys that have done that many murder trials.  Not counting the capital cases, where the clients were saved from Death Row, he has only had one client convicted of first-degree murder.

          Addison’s murder trial successes are:

Robbie C., RIF104021

• Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), attempted murder (Penal Code § 664/187(a), felon in possession of a firearm (Penal Code § 12021(a)(1), special allegations of personal use of a firearm (Penal Code § 12022.53(d), a prison term prior (Penal Code § 667.5(b), serious crime prior (Penal Code § 667(a) and three prior strikes (Penal Code § 667(c)&(e)(2)/1170.12(c)(2)).
• Exposure: Robbie was facing 171 years to life in prison.
• Outcome: There were two trials; the first trial ended in a hung jury, with the jury deadlocked at ten to two for acquittal. At the second trial, Robbie was found not guilty of all charges.

          This was a really challenging murder case.  The allegation was that Robbie shot at two men for no apparent reason killing one and wounding the other.  The case was made more challenging because Robbie had two strike priors, so if he was convicted of any one of the charges he would be sentenced to at least 25 years to life in prison.  So the felon in possession of firearm alone would result in a life in prison sentence.  What had in fact happened was that Robbie was confronted by his best friend who mistakenly believed that Robbie had become involved with his girlfriend.  The evidence presented at trial was that Robbie had grown up in South Los Angeles and when he was younger was an Eleven Eight East Coast Crips (Eleven Eight was for 118th Street in South Los Angeles and East Coast Crips did not have anything to do with the East Coast, it means the eastern side of South Los Angeles).  It was an environment where the slightest disrespectful act could have deadly results, so his best friend believing that Robbie was involved with his girlfriend was a very serious matter.  The evidence that Addison and Robbie presented at trial was that after his best friend confronted Robbie, the two separated and were about forty feet apart in the courtyard of an apartment complex.  His best friend was standing next to another man talking and Robbie was standing next to another man talking, they were all former Eleven Eight East Coast Crips gang members and all knew each other.  Robbie was the only person that was not armed.  All of sudden, his best friend pulled out his gun and began firing at Robbie.  The man Robbie was next to pulled out his gun to fire back, he got off some shots but then dropped the gun in the chaos.  While they were being shot at Robbie picked up the gun and also fired back.  Robbie's best friend and the man he was with were both shot, but Robbie best friend succumbed to his wounds.  There were many people in the apartment complex that heard the shootout and many people that witnessed only a portion of it.  The district attorney presented a theory that Robbie shot his best friend and another that they grew up with for no known reason.  The first trial resulted in a hung jury.  Robbie offered fourteen years just to avoid the risk of 171 years to life in prison.  The district attorney rejected the offer on the theory that he would be able to send Robbie to prison for life on the felony in possession of a firearm alone because Robbie had two prior strikes.  However there's an exception to felon in possession of a firearm--if a person's life is in danger and that person comes upon a firearm, he is allowed to possess the gun to defend himself.  The exception matched the facts of what had happened to Robbie.  At the second trial the jury acquitted Robbie of all charges and he went home.  However the district attorney wasn't done.  In the years that Robbie had been in jail waiting for both trials, he had gotten into a one punch jail fight.  The district attorney charged that jail fight as a felony assault so Robbie was again looking at twenty-five years to life in prison.  Addison wrote and argued a motion to reduce that charge to a misdemeanor.  The motion was granted and Robbie was given credit for time served.  Addison had saved Robbie's life a second time.

In another of Steele's high-profile wins, the defender secured a murder acquittal in October for Robbie Catchings, a Moreno Valley resident prosecutors said shot and killed a man at a Perris apartment complex in 2002.  Steele also persuaded a judge to reduce to a misdemeanor a felony assault charge against Catchings in a separate case that could have exposed the defendant to a life sentence under the three-strikes law.  Catchings walked free as a result.

. . .

Jenny Reis, a Corona woman who served on the jury that acquitted Catchings, said Steele's 'down-to-earth' evidence presentation helped his credibility with the jury.

. . .

She also said she could tell Steele 'thoroughly believed' in his client's innocence.

'He was so passionate,' Reis said. 'He reminded me of a parent defending [his or her] child.'

Robbie was also featured in a newspaper article covering when Addison was named Riverside County Public Defenders Office Attorney of the Year.

Public defender's office honors staff, Sonja Bjelland, The Press-Enterprise, Local B7, December 9, 2007.

   "The Riverside County public defender's office presented awards Friday night to a staff committed to providing opportunity and hope.

   Deputy Public Defender Addison Steele won the top award for his embodiment of what it means to fill that role, said Robert Willey, assistant public defender.  Steele spent 115 days in trial in 2007 and thanked the entire office for helping him win the case of Robbie Catchings, who was charged with murder and acquitted by jury.

   “As you can see, I didn't win a murder trial, we won a murder trial,” Steele wrote in an e-mail to staff, Willey said.

The newspaper article covering when I was named Riverside County Public Defenders Office Attorney of the Year.

After Addison and Robbie won the murder trial, the district attorney tried to give Robbie a life in prison sentence because he was a third striker and had gotten in a jail fight while he was waiting for his trial, the trial that he was acquitted of all charges.  Addison filed a series of motions, including a bail motion when the deputy district attorney on the case tried to have Robbie sent back to jail, a motion to dismiss the jail fight case, a motion to strike the strike priors, and a motion to reduce the jail fight charge to a misdemeanor.  The judge reduced the case to a misdemeanor.  Robbie pled guilty to the misdemeanor for credit for time already served, and it was finally all over.  Robbie was able to go home and take care of his ailing mother.

The first newspaper article about the district attorney trying to give Robbie a life sentence after they lost his murder trial.

An interesting side note about this article is that Jorge Estrada, whoever he is, had absolutely nothing to do with the case; his picture in the article is a copy editor's mistake.

This is the newspaper article that covered when Addison and Robbie beat the district attorney's attempt to give Robbie a life sentence after they had won the murder trial.

The Los Angeles Daily Journal article covering Robbie and Addison's three strikes victory.

The Los Angeles Daily Journal article covering the district attorney's failed attempt to give Robbie a life in prison sentence after he and Addison won his murder trial.

Jaray C., RIF127509

• Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)) with a gang allegation (Penal Code § 186.22(b)) personal use of a gun (Penal Code § 12022.53(b) and gun use in a gang crime (Penal Code § 12022.53(e)), two counts of attempted robbery (Penal Code § 664/211) with gang allegations (Penal Code § 186.22(b)), gun use in a gang crime (Penal Code § 12022.53(e) and personal use of a gun (Penal Code § 12022.53(b)), two counts of felon in possession of a firearm (Penal Code § 12021(a)(1)), five counts of robbery (Penal Code § 211) with gang allegations (Penal Code § 186.22(b) and gun allegations (Penal Code § 12022(a)(1)).
• Exposure: Jaray was only convicted of a few charges, all of which were conceded to the jury because they were on videotape.  He was acquitted of first-degree murder and the lesser degree of second-degree murder.  He was acquitted of all personal use of a firearm charges and was acquitted of all possession of firearms charges.  He was acquitted of all gang charges and allegations.  He was sentenced to four years and eight months in prison.  He served that time and went home.  He is now working and writing screenplays.

          This was a difficult murder trial because the district attorney applied a rarely used theory of first degree murder called provocative act homicide.  Jaray had grown up in Compton and when he was young was a member of the Santana Blocc Compton Crips.  After he had moved out of the neighborhood he ended up hanging out with a friend from his neighborhood that had been making a living robbing liquor stores.  That friend recruited Jaray to do a robbery with him.  Jaray's friend, another friend that would end up being Jaray's co-defendant, and Jaray set out to commit a liquor store robbery.  However, Jaray didn't want to carry a real gun, he instead had a realistic looking BB pistol.  During the robbery Jaray's friend held his gun to the merchant's head.  The merchant grabbed Jaray's friend's gun, pulled his own gun out that he had tucked into the back of his pants and shot and killed Jaray's friend.  He then shot Jaray in the back and buttocks as Jaray ran out of the store.  Jaray and his co-defendant, who stayed in the car as the getaway driver, were both charged with murder under the provocative act murder theory.  The district attorney's theory was that it was Jaray holding the merchant's girlfriend in order to keep her from running out of the store or calling the police that inspired the merchant to kill Jaray's friend, not the fact that Jaray's friend was holding a gun to the merchant's head.  An added twist to the case was that the district attorney had a snitch named McCoy that claimed that Jaray had done a series of other robberies.  When one of the merchants from one of the other robberies was testifying, Addison showed her a picture of McCoy and she identified McCoy as the person that robbed her, not Jaray.  She said that Jaray was definitely NOT the person that robbed and that McCoy was in fact the person that robbed her.  During closing arguments Addison argued that if the jury was looking for the person that committed all the other robberies that they had seen the real McCoy on the witness on the witness with his made up snitch story.  The jury acquitted Jaray of all the other charged robberies.  Addison and Jaray conceded that he was a participant in the robbery in which his friend was killed, but the jury agreed with the evidence that Addison and Jaray presented to show that the gun he had was a BB gun, which does not count for a gun enhancement, and that his former gang affiliation didn't have anything to do with the robbery.  The jury found both the gun allegation and the gang allegation not true.  Jaray was found guilty of the conceded charges and was to four years eight months prison.  Addison saved him from 71 years to life in prison.

The newspaper article covering Jaray and Addison's victory.   

Link here to read the press article about the trial victory. 

Jaray, Addison, and the investigator on the case after the verdict. 

Rudy R., 1358729

• Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), with an allegation that the murder was committed at the direction of, for the benefit of, or in association with a criminal street gang (Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1)), with three prior terms in prison alleged (Penal Code § 667.5(b)).
• Exposure: Rudy was facing thirty-three years to life in prison.
• Outcome: Rudy was acquitted of first-degree murder, acquitted of the lesser degree of second-degree murder, and acquitted of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, a gang allegation was not reached by the jury because of the acquittal on all charges.

          Rudy's case was particularly challenging.  The district attorney's theory of the case was that Rudy was a Northwest gang member and was, "The sergeant on the block," and that his co-defendant wanted to be in the gang, although at the same time they alleged that he was Guada gang member.  The district attorney postulated that Rudy called a hit on the decedent, which his co-defendant then carried out.  In fact, Rudy wasn't even a member of the Northwest gang and had never been a member of a gang.  He was from the neighborhood, but not a member of the gang.  The evidence that Addison and Rudy presented at trial was that Rudy was just a low-level drug dealer that was selling barely enough methamphetamine to support his own addiction and keep him in a cheap room at a residential motel that was a den of drug dealers and drug users.  The man that was killed had recently gotten out of prison and decided that he could extort money from Rudy by threatening him.  Rudy's co-defendant took offense to the man's threats and followed him for about one hundred feet as he left the motel.  His co-defendant then confronted the man and stabbed him in the neck.  The man succumbed to his wound there at the scene as police and first responders tried to save him.  The jury acquitted Rudy of all charges finding that there wasn't proof to support the district attorney's theory.  Rudy's co-defendant was convicted of second degree murder.

Below is the newspaper article on Rudy's acquittal.

Rudy, Addison and the investigator on the case, Steve Salazar, after the verdicts.

Anthony S., 1434089

• Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), with an allegation that the murder was committed at the direction of, for the benefit of, or in association with a criminal street gang (Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1)), with four special circumstances alleged, killing while lying in wait (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(15)), murder during a kidnapping (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(17)), murder with torture (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(18)) and killing while an active participant in a street gang to further the activities of the gang (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(22)), if A.J. was convicted of first-degree murder and any one of an alleged special circumstances was found true, the judge would have had to sentence him to live life in prison without the possibility of parole. 
• Exposure: A.J. was facing life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOPP).
• Outcome: There was a hung jury; the case was then settled for dismissal of the first-degree murder charge in exchange for a no-contest plea to kidnapping with a gang allegation and possession of drugs in the jail with nine years in prison.  A.J. is home now.

          This was a particularly long and grueling murder trial.  The press dubbed the case "The U-Haul Murder Trial" because the decedent's body was discovered in an abandoned U-Haul truck with his blood dripping out of the back of the truck.  There were originally 13 co-defendants, not all of which were charged with murder.  The plea negotiations parred it down to six co-defendants, all charged with murder, all with special circumstances that included torture and gang murder.  All six defendants were facing LWOPP sentences.  It was largest number of co-defendants in a murder trial ever in Santa Barbara County, and probably the state.  There wasn't a courtroom in the county large enough for the trial.  The largest courtroom in the county is at the Juvenile Court in Santa Maria, however it didn't have a jury box because juveniles do not have a right to a jury trial.  The courtroom was modified by having a jury box built in it.  However, even that was far too small for jury selection because of the several hundreds of prospective jurors would need to be called.  In a one defendant non-life sentence exposure case, the typical jury trial, there are a total of twenty pre-emptory challenges allowed, and typically a panel of 80 to 100 prospective jurors are called, depending on the type of case.  In this case there were 140 pre-emptory challenges allowed.  Many hundreds of potential jurors were called in.  The courts rented a warehouse on the Santa Maria Fairgrounds to conduct the jury selection.  Normally jury trials go four days a week, or even three days a week, so the judge can conduct other court business, that also allows the lawyers to work on the trial on the non-trial days as well, however this trial was specially assigned to a retired judge so the trial went five days a week, starting at 8:00 a.m. with a half hour lunch break and two fifteen minutes breaks, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, the trial was run on the same schedule that fast food workers experience, the lawyers had to scramble to handle their other matters, and had to work non-stop because of the lack of normal "down time," which isn't actually down time, it's time used for the trial.  After 79 court days of trial, on a five days a week schedule held over several months, the came back with verdicts.  The district attorney's theory was that the decedent was a drug dealer, and that he had been scamming customers as well as not paying "taxes" to the Mexican Mafia.  The district attorney believed that a co-defendant with the nickname (they said gang moniker) of Crazy Ray, had recruited a group to "check" (impose a punishment) on the decedent for both ripping off customers and for not paying a portion of his proceeds to the Mexican Mafia.  The believed that the group then tortured the decedent to death, rented a U-Haul, put his body in the U-Haul and abandoned it.  The incident occurred at a house that didn't belong to any of the people in Crazy Ray's group.  The house belonged to two people that testified as witnesses for the prosecution.  The defense presented was that Crazy Ray and his group was at the house, but they had left and that it was in fact the district attorney's two witnesses that had killed the decedent, and that after the fact they called upon Crazy Ray to help with the aftermath.  The defense was that he may have helped after the fact, but neither he nor anyone in his group did the killing.  The defense that was presented was that various members of the group had come and gone from the house, but none were there when the murder occurred.  The jury found the other five co-defendants guilty and found at least one special circumstance true, which meant that they all would have mandatory LWOPP sentences.  But that wasn't the case for A.J.  It was a hung jury on all counts for A.J.  It looked like A.J. and Addison were going to have to do the trial again.  The risk was getting the same LWOPP sentence that his co-defendants got, but the potential gain was to maybe go home after a second trial.  In the end A.J. resolved the case for a plea to kidnapping and nine years in prison, but it had taken so long to get to trial that he had almost half of that already served.  A.J. is home now.  He's the only one of the six that's home. 

Below is the newspaper article on A.J.'s outcome.

This is the rest of the article

These are the six lawyers who defended the six co-defendants. Their families call them “The real dream team.” They went seven months from when pre-trial motions started until verdicts were reached, and the families were extremely supportive and in court throughout the process.

A.J. and Addison went back to the courthouse, where the trial was held after A.J. had served a short prison sentence. 

They took a picture outside the courthouse, taking in the free air. A.J. wrote on the picture, “The best lawyer and the only lawyer I want defending me, I’m home today because of you, A.J.” 

Edward A., SWF003559

• Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), with personal use of a weapon (a knife) (Penal Code § 12022(b)(1)), with two prior terms in prison alleged (Penal Code § 667.5(b)).
• Exposure: Eddie was facing twenty-eight years to life in prison.
• Outcome: Eddie was acquitted of first-degree murder and acquitted of the lesser degree of second-degree murder. He was only convicted of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to fourteen years in prison.
  

This is the newspaper article covering our victory in Eddie's case.

And these are the verdict forms.

The jury's verdict finding Eddie NOT GUILTY of first-degree murder and NOT GUILTY of second-degree murder.

Frank G., 1351476

Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), special allegations of personal use of a firearm (Penal Code §§ 12022.53(d) and 12022.5(a)), gang allegation (Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1)), a prior prison term (Penal Code § 667.5(b)), serious crime prior (Penal Code § 667(a)), and a strike prior (Penal Code § 667(c)&(e)(2)/1170.12(c)(2)), Attempted Murder (Penal Code § 664/187(a)), special allegations of great bodily injury (Penal Code § 12022.7(a)) and personal use of a knife (Penal Code § 12022(b)(1)) and Gang Activity.

Exposure: 118 years and eight months to life in prison

Outcome: The resolved after opening statements for a determinate term of 26 years

This was a challenging case because Frank was charged in two separate incidents, a shooting that resulting in the murder charge and a completely unrelated stabbing that resulted in the attempted murder charge. What came out during trial was that the person that was shot was threatening and extorting money from Frank and a female friend of his. As a result of the threats and extortion Frank was armed with a gun. The incident occurred when the person that was shot attacked Frank with a knife and Frank fired at him in self defense. The other incident was an event when Frank wasn’t even present and it was brought out at trial who the actual stabber in fact was. After the opening statements district attorney realized that Frank had a strong self defense claim. The district attorney then offered to dismiss all the life sentence counts and settled the case for 26 years. It’s a long sentence, but it made it so the Frank could avoid the risk of having such a long sentence that he would be sure to spend the rest of his life in prison.

This is trial exhibit 103 that was shown to the jury during Addison’s opening statement. The blanket was left behind after the body was removed and is not where the body was found. The body was found closer to the knife, which is next to evidence tent number two on the left side of the photo.  The knife was right where it fell out of the decedent’s hand after he was shot in self defense by Frank after he attacked Frank with the knife.

Robert M., RIF135704

• Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)) with a special circumstance of gang murder (Penal Code § 190.2(a)(22)) with personal use of a weapon (a knife) (Penal Code § 12022(b)(1)), assault with a knife (Penal Code § 245(a)(1)) and gang crime (Penal Code § 186.22(a)).
• Exposure: Robert was facing life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOPP).
• Outcome: Robert was acquitted of first-degree murder, which meant that he could not be subjected to the special circumstance and could not get LWOPP.  The jury hung on second-degree murder and hung on the gang crime allegation ten to two in favor of acquittal.  A different attorney did his second trial, and he was convicted of second-degree murder and gang crime.

          This was a challenging murder trial because the incident was a fight in a crowded upscale sushi restaurant.  The evidence that was presented by Addison was that another person was the stabber and that stabbing was in self-defense.  The allegation was that Robert did the stabbing with a broken beer bottle, but that improvised weapon was not among the debris in the restaurant.  After 43 court days in trial, the jury acquitted Robert of first degree murder.  That meant that the gang special circumstance could not be reached, which meant that Robert could not get an LWOPP sentence.  The jury hung on second degree murder.  He was also acquitted of assault with a knife, which meant that the great bodily injury enhancement and the gang enhancement would not be reached on that count.  After the trial Addison was transferred to a unit in the public defenders office that exclusively worked on capital murder cases, so his case was reassigned to another lawyer in the office.  Robert's family didn't have confidence in that lawyer and hired an attorney to do the retrial.  That trial lasted two weeks and Robert was convicted of all the remaining charges.

Below is an exhibit that Addison used in his closing argument to emphasize that there was no broken bottle that could have been used as the murder weapon

.

Jaime A., RIF106552

• Charges: Murder (Penal Code § 187(a)), auto theft (Vehicle Code § 10851(a)) and possession of a stolen car (Penal Code § 496d(a)).
• Exposure: Jaime was facing twenty-eight years to life in prison.
• Outcome: Jaime was acquitted of first-degree murder; he was convicted of second-degree murder and auto theft charges.  He was sentenced to seventeen years to life in prison.  People sentenced to life here in California have very little chance of being granted parole.  However, those convicted of second-degree murder have twice as good a chance of being paroled as those convicted of first-degree murder.  Jaime has been paroled and is home now.
  

Ramon C., RIF120947

     The other capital trial was the case of Ramon C.  Raymond was accused of the execution style of killing a drug dealer.  In this case, Addison was lead counsel, which meant that he was responsible for all trial strategy decisions and guided the work of the other members of the defense team.  Again, his team did not just fight against the death sentence; they fought to win the case.  The district attorney's case was the testimony of a methamphetamine user who testified that Raymond shot and killed the drug dealer right in front of her.  The defense was that Raymond did not know the drug dealer and, therefore, would not have been allowed in the house, was outside when the shooting occurred, and that it was, in fact, the methamphetamine user district attorney's witness' ex-boyfriend who was the shooter.  Addison presented forensic evidence that showed that the methamphetamine user's story could not have been true.  The district attorney focused on Raymond's other accused violent crimes and his "eye witness."  The jury found Raymond guilty of first-degree murder and found the special circumstance true.  We then went into the second phase, where we presented medical evidence and called witnesses from throughout Raymond's life.  After a seven-month-long trial that was a battle at every step, the jury came back with a verdict, saving Raymond's life with a verdict of life in prison and rejecting the death penalty.

The newspaper article covering the victory that saved Raymond from the death penalty.

The Verdict Form where Raymond's life was saved by the jury finding for life in prison instead of the death penalty.

This is the Cebreros defense team that Addison led to Raymond's life verdict. Raymond is at the bottom middle, and Addison is at the bottom left.

This is trial exhibit 319 from Raymond's trial. It remains in Addison's office to this day. The exhibit was referred to throughout the trial as Mr. 319. He was presented by an expert witness that Addison had hired to explain the trajectory of the bullet and how the district attorney's snitch witness' testimony did not match the forensic evidence.

Questions you should ask an attorney that you are considering hiring for a capital murder case:

Have you done a capital murder case before?

• This question is important because capital litigation is a highly specialized field. It requires skill, knowledge, training, and experience far beyond a non-capital criminal case.
• Addison has done two capital trials.
• Have you done a capital murder case as lead counsel?
• This question is important because an attorney who has done a capital case as lead counsel has led and taken full responsibility for guiding the work of everyone working on the defense team and has developed and implemented a defense strategy in a capital case.
• Addison has done a capital trial as lead counsel.
• What were the results of your capital trials?
• District attorneys will typically only seek death in cases in which they are confident that a jury will return a death verdict; however, defending capital cases has developed into an almost scientific use of studies of and data on jurors, which has resulted in juries returning life verdicts more and more often.  So, this question is important because if an attorney has done three, four, or five capital trials and has just as many clients on Death Row, it says something about the attorney's skill level in capital cases.
• Addison saved the lives of his clients in both capital trials.  He has no clients on Death Row.
• Do you train other lawyers in your techniques for winning trials?
• This question is important because typically, only the leading lawyers in a field are invited to conduct training of other lawyers.
• Addison has been a faculty member at the annual Capital Case Defense Seminar in Monterey.  This is a nationwide conference and training for attorneys who practice capital defense.  Addison regularly lectures at training for other lawyers.
• How long were the capital trials, and how many days of defense did you present?
• These questions are important because a hallmark of deficient capital defense is a short trial with little or no defense being presented.  A capital trial that lasts ten or fifteen court days is reason for concern because it's an indicator that the prosecution is not being thoroughly challenged and a complete defense is not being presented.
• Addison has spent 138 court days in two capital trials where the prosecution was thoroughly challenged and aggressive and complete defenses were presented.