|State v. Edgar
HUNG JURY: DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY CAUGHT ON VIDEOTAPE DELIVERING ONE KILO OF COCAINE.
Mr. Martinez was charged with the delivery of 1 kilogram of cocaine to a confidential informant. The transaction was on videotape while several officers conducted surveillance. Following the delivery, a high-speed chase ensued where the driver tossed a wallet out the window whose contents included the defendantís driverís license. The defendant was arrested a few months later. He testified that he lost his wallet approximately one month before the delivery. After a long deliberation, a mistrial was declared since the jury remained deadlocked (7-5) in favor of acquittal.
v. Jose Vargas
HUNG JURY: DEFENDANTíS FINGERPRINTS FOUND ON SEVERAL PACKAGES CONTAINING OVER 13 POUNDS OF COCAINE.
Defendant testified that he drove from Yakima to Spokane (3 hours) to purchase $100.00 worth of clothes for a job that he was starting in 6 months. While shopping he ran into a casual acquaintance and was invited to a party. While at the party, the acquaintance took him to one of the bedrooms and handed him a grocery bag. The defendant asked what was inside. He was told over $100,000.00 worth of cocaine. As a result, the Defendant had 16 fingerprints on 6 packaged kilos of cocaine. Police even found him asleep next to drugs. He explained to the jury that his curiosity caused him to touch the drugs. The jury voted 11-1 in favor of finding the defendant NOT GUILTY. Fortunately, when the defendant was retried two months later, the jury returned a NOT GUILTY verdict in less than 15 minutes.
v. Placido Martinez
v. Alberto Mellin
CASE DISMISSED: POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DELIVER 1,000 POUNDS OF MARIJUANA
T he defendant was charged in the United States District Court, District of Nebraska. He had no ties whatsoever to Nebraska but Mr. Trejo was able to successfully argue that he should be released from custody and not be detained pending trial. Bond was set in the amount of $500.00. An informant identified the defendant as the ringleader and source of the marijuana. Eventually, the case was dismissed. The defendant did not cooperate with the prosecution.
|State v. R.
CASE DISMISSED: POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE.
The defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Police arrived at a residence in order to execute a search warrant. During the search they found a substantial amount of methamphetamine. The defendant was visiting at the time. The woman living at the home told police that the drugs they found belonged to the defendant. The defendant denied the drugs belonged to her. Case dismissed with prejudice on day of trial.
|State v. Gabino
CASE DISMISSED: POLICE MISCONDUCT IN ONE KILO OF COCAINE CASE.
Mr. Calderon was arrested several months after an alleged delivery of 1 kilogram of cocaine. He was allegedly in the getaway car described in the matter of State v. Edgar Martinez discussed above. Mr. Calderon proceeded to trial. After the jury was impaneled, the chief investigative officer showed the informant a single photograph of the defendant ďto make sure that he was the right person.Ē The defense immediately argued a motion to prevent the informant from making an in-court-identification of the defendant as a result of the unduly suggestive photo identification conducted by the detective; i.e. only showing the informant a single photograph of the defendant and asking ďis this the guy.Ē After the court conducted an evidentiary hearing, all charges were dismissed as a result of the overly suggestive photo identification process used by the police officer.
|State v. Uriostegui
MISTRIAL GRANTED AGAINST PROSECUTION DURING DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT.
During the defendantís opening statement, Mr. Trejo explained to the jury that the prosecution had entered into a written plea agreement with the informant. He showed the agreement to the jury and pointed out a specific paragraph that outlined how the prosecution could have required the informant to take a lie detector test. This infuriated the prosecutor and chief detective. The prosecutor jumped up during the defense opening and proclaimed, ďWe will have the informant take a polygraph right now if the defense will stipulate to its admissibility.Ē The defense immediately argued for a mistrial. It was granted. The defense sought to have the case dismissed based on the intentional misconduct by the State after the jury was impaneled. The trial court denied the motion and the defense filed an interlocutory appeal with Division III. The appeal was denied and the case remanded for trial. Fortunately, the defendant was found NOT GUILTY when he was retried.
|State v. Godofredo
CASE DISMISSED: MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA BASED ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GRANTED.
Prior to retaining Mr. Trejo in this indecent liberties sex case, three different attorneys represented Mr. Gabino. Despite handwritten notes in his file that read "Mr. Gabino refuses to plead guilty, . . . interview the victim fast,Ē no one ever took the time to conduct such an interview before the defendant plead guilty. On top of that, Mr. Gabino pled guilty only after he was misinformed that he would be eligible for a Special-Sexual-Offender-Sentencing-Alternative (SSOSA). This program would have allowed him to serve a few months in jail rather than several years in prison. After becoming the defendantís attorney, Mr. Trejo immediately interviewed the victim who stated that she previously told the investigating officer that the defendant inadvertently touched her when they were playing. The trial court determined that the defendant had not received the effective assistance of counsel and allowed the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. After the matter was affirmed on appeal, the prosecution dismissed the case with prejudice.
|State v. Martin
CASE DISMISSED: POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE 3 KILOS OF COCAINE.
An informant and undercover officer in Tacoma, Washington arranged for the delivery of 3 kilos of cocaine in Yakima. Numerous telephone calls were made between Tacoma and Yakima in order to arrange for the delivery of the cocaine. The calls were intercepted in violation of Washington State law. All charges against Mr. Mendoza were dismissed with prejudice as a result of the illegal interception of conversations between the informant and defendants. Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courtís dismissal.
v. Salvador Lierra
CASE DISMISSED: POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DELIVER MULTIPLE OUNCES OF COCAINE.
The police executed a search warrant at the defendantís residence. After finding drugs at his home, and charging him with serious felony offenses, the defense conducted a hearing to determine the admissibility of the defendantís post-arrest statements. During this hearing it became apparent that the detectives violated the Washington State Knock-and-Announce Rule when they entered the residence. At the end of the hearing, a Motion to Dismiss was orally presented to the trial court. Despite a continuance for the prosecution to prepare for this new argument, the court agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice.
|State v. Eldemira
MULTIPLE MARIJUANA AND COCAINE CHARGES DISMISSED.
A confidential informant working for the North Central Washington Narcotics Task Force allegedly purchased one ounce of marijuana from defendant and her son. The confidential informant wore a body wire, enabling a task force officer to record the conversation. Subsequently, the informant purchased 9 one-eighth ounce bags of marijuana and cocaine from the defendantís son while the defendant was present. Once again, the informant wore a body wire so the Task Force could also record this transaction. Castellanos claimed at trial that, although she was with her son on both dates, she did not assist in a drug deal. Several of her charges were dismissed when the State rested. The defendant was only convicted of lesser charges. Instead of 10 years in prison, she received a 2-month sentence.
|State v. Norma
CASE DISMISSED: DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS.
This was a double jeopardy case where the defendant was charged with multiple counts of delivery of cocaine. A search of the home uncovered additional quantities of cocaine. Ms. Torralba subsequently became a fugitive for nearly four years. In the interim, the prosecution filed a civil lawsuit and obtained a default judgment that resulted in the forfeiture of the defendantís mobile home. After the defense filed a Motion to Dismiss, the State agreed to entry of an Order of Dismissal without even a hearing on the motion.
|State v. Filomena
CASE DISMISSED: WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF BUILDING CONTAINING METH LAB.
A Deputy Sheriff entered a detached garage without a warrant. Inside the detached building was an extremely large pot of methamphetamine cooking over a burner. However, there were no exigent circumstances to justify the deputyís eagerness and curiosity to see what was going on inside the building. As a result, the evidence was suppressed and case dismissed. The defendant was immediately released from custody and the State did not appeal.
|The aforementioned cases are a sampling of the individuals Mr. Trejo has represented. He has been involved in hundreds of other cases involving First Degree Murder, Assaults, Drugs, White Collar Crime and other serious crimes. Of course each case is different and no guaranteed outcome can be given on any case.|
|State v. Charles
HUNG JURY FIRST DEGREE MURDER TRIAL.
The defendant, a former gang member, was at home working with his father on the family car. Several gang members approached. One of them was carrying a knife with a blade several inches long. He yelled at the defendantís father, ďI am going to shank you.Ē The defendant ran inside and returned with an AK-47 Assault Rifle. He fired several shots down the street, killing one. At the first trial, the jury was hung. Tragically, when the defendant was retried, the defendant was convicted due in large part to the trial judge refusing to allow the defendant to argue that he fired the rifle in self-defense.
MR. TREJO IS THE WARRIOR YOU NEED TO FIGHT FOR YOU
|State v. Adolfo
CASE DISMISSED: DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS.
This was the first case dismissed in Yakima County State Court based on a claim that the criminal charges violated the double jeopardy protections under the State and Federal Constitution. The city-county narcotics unit seized and forfeited approximately $400.00 worth of electronic equipment prior to the defendantís criminal trial where he was charged with violating the Washington State Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Although the law has since changed, this defendantís case was dismissed with prejudice and he was released from custody.
v. Sotero Aguilar
CASE DISMISSED: DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS.
This was one of the first federal Indictments dismissed in Washington State based upon a claim that the criminal prosecution was barred by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution due to a prior civil forfeiture proceeding. Although the law has since changed, this defendantís case was dismissed with prejudice and he was immediately released from custody.