The following presents a small sample of some of Ninaz Saffari’s Domestic Violence case results:
Pre-File: Client’s Ex Threatening to Prosecute for Intentional Transmission of STD, Potential 24 Mos. in Jail, Result: No Case
Investigation of B.S. (Los Angeles County -- 02/22):
Client was a top exec at a world-famous tech company originally based in the Silicon Valley, NorCal, who would lose millions of dollars in income if he was convicted of any crime, much less one involving the following allegations:
His ex-girlfriend and the mother of their baby claimed that he had intentionally – or at least recklessly – but in any event, knowingly -- infected her with genital herpes.
The ex-girlfriend was, therefore, determined to criminally prosecute him under the following misdemeanor:
Violation of Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 120290 (g)(1) (Intentionally Transmitting STD’s).
Four years ago, however, this offense would have been prosecuted as a felony with a possible penitentiary term if convicted thereof. Today, however, you will only be prosecuted for a misdemeanor with a max term of 6 mos. in jail, upon conviction for deliberately infecting someone with an STD to someone who was unaware of your STD-positive status.
California, you can be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in the county jail if you are proven in a court of law, and beyond a reasonable doubt, to have intentionally (and not merely recklessly) transmitted HIV/AIDS, herpes, or any other STD to an unknowing person.
Worst-case scenario: Six months in the county jail. However, with that conviction, the ex would automatically be entitled to a judgment against him in any subsequent civil case, which would likely result in the further loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Simple Battery (Cal. Penal Code § 242);
Battery Causing Injury to Specified Victim Not a Peace Officer (Cal. Penal Code § 243(b)-(c)(1)); and
Domestic Battery (Cal. Penal Code § 243(e)(1)).
The process: Client retained the Los Angeles Defense Attorney Law Firm’s (LADALF) Ninaz Saffari to derail the investigation & prosecution process.
Result: No prosecution ensued.
Pre-File: Client Facing Third Strike & Up to Life in Prison for Domestic Violence: Result: No Charges Filed
People v. N.C. (Gardena Police Dept. – 08/21):
Client’s sibling called 911 to allege that client had viciously beat her, and even attempted to strangle her. Minutes later, Gardena PD rushed to the subject residence and allegedly documented her visible injuries.
Client left the scene before GPD arrived and thereafter retained Ninaz Saffari on a Pre-File basis in anticipation of being arrested. Sure enough, after Ninaz spoke to the lead detective assigned to the case, she found out that client was to be prosecuted for:
felony Corporal Injury to Spouse, Cohabitant, or Fellow Parent (California Penal Code section 273.5).
Unfortunately, if convicted this would be client’s Third Strike pursuant to the state’s Three Strikes Law (Cal. Pen. Code § 667; Cal. Pen. Code § 667.5(c) (“Violent Felony”); & Cal. Pen. Code § 1192.7(c) (“Serious Felony”).
A Third Strike conviction would automatically result in a penitentiary term of twenty-five years to life.
In addition, the detective had targeted client for many years, once resulting in client going off to prison for a dozen after being convicted of a Second Strike. This time, the detective believed he had a sure thing in getting client convicted of his third.
Result: After Ninaz worked her magic, the detective decided not to forward the case to the District Attorney’s Office to prosecute.
Client Facing 9 Years in Prison for Domestic Violence; Result: Informal Diversion, No Jail
People v. E.B. (Inglewood Ct. – 07/21):
DA’s Office prosecuted client on the following felony charge:
Willfully Inflicting Corporal Injury on a Spouse Resulting in Traumatic Condition (Cal. Pen. Code § 273.5), which comes with up to 48 months in prison upon conviction;
Special Allegation (potential sentencing enhancement): Inflicting Great Bodily Injury (GBI) in a domestic violence situation (Cal. Pen. Code § 12022.7(e)), which could result in an additional 60 months in prison, or an overall of almost a decade.
Potential Strike enhancement: Felony was charged as a First Strike Offense (Pen. Code § 667(a)&(b), which would require client to serve at least two-thirds of his sentence, even accounting for exemplary behavior (as opposed to one-half without a Strike). In addition, if he was ever convicted of a Second Strike, then that underlying prison sentence would automatically be doubled.
Par for the course, Ninaz bombarded the assigned Deputy DA with solid motions, discovery demands, and a fast-track schedule for jury trial. However, the DDA fought back just as hard, going above and beyond what any other DV prosecutor had ever done in Ninaz’s 17 years’ experience defending such cases. This included subpoenaing client and the complainant’s very young children to testify against their father at trial.
Also working in the DDA’s favor was the fact that the People of California (represented by the DA’s Office) were also calling to trial two eyewitnesses to the alleged incident.
Result: Literally on the day before the jury trial was scheduled to commence, the DDA – who up until now had sworn she would never offer client any deal whatsoever – finally caved in and gave him Informal Diversion (Cal. Pen. Code § 1001.94). This consisted of 26 DV counseling sessions, after which his entire would be dismissed. No jail was required.
Pre-File: Client Expected to be Charged with Felony Domestic Violence; Result: Case Rejected
People v. I.M. (Pasadena Ct./Arcadia Police Dept. Investigation – 01/21)
Police had been investigation client for a potential domestic violence felony prosecution (in conjunction with the DA’s Office, of course). Indeed, the lead det. Ultimately transferred his file over to the DA’s for this very reason. As a result, client retained Ninaz.
Anticipated felony charge: Corporal Injury to Spouse, Cohabitant, or Fellow Parent (Cal. Pen. Code § 273.5) due to the complainant allegedly suffering significant and noticeable physical injury (client’s paramour). This also could have been charged as a Strike.
Worst-case scenario: Forty-eight months in a California penal institution (excluding any Strike or other sentencing enhancement).
The process: Ninaz never accepts as true anything the prosecutor or police ever tell her, including the supposed “facts” set forth in the latter’s reports. That’s why she (and often with her favorite private investigator) conducted their own comprehensive review of the allegations.
She was thereby able to put together a compelling package of information proving his innocence. Specifically, she learned that the complainant had made up the whole story, and that the “injuries” she had sustained were the direct result of rough consensual activity.
Still, this was a hard-fought victory – Ninaz had to make numerous overtures to the det. for approximately three mos. before he finally became convinced of client’s innocence. The det. even provided the same package to the District Attorney’s Office for careful review.
Result: Case rejected. In addition, in 36 mos., client would be eligible to have the arrest itself sealed off from public view or access.
Client Looking at Almost a Decade in Prison for Felony DV; Result: Informal Diversion, No Jail, Case to be Dismissed
People v. E.B. (Inglewood Ct. – 12/20)
DA’s Office prosecuted client for the following:
Felony Cal. Pen. Code § 273.5 (Corporal Injury on a Spouse, Cohabitant, or Fellow Parent);
Special Allegation -- Inflicting Great Bodily Injury (GBI) (Cal. Pen. Code § 12022.7);
Strike Offense (Cal. Pen. Code § 667(a)&(b) & Cal. Pen. Code § 1192.7).
Worst-case scenario: 8 yrs. in a California penitentiary – 36 mos. for Pen. Code § 273.5 + 60 mos. for the GBI Special Allegation. In addition, he could lose his chance to become a state-licensed insurance agent.
The process: Despite what less skilled and experienced criminal defense attorneys would consider to be overwhelming evidence, Ninaz kept pushing to prosecutor for trial, which included her filing many motions along the way.
Result: Just before the first day of jury trial, the prosecutor relented and provided client with a deal that was irresistible -- misdemeanor Pen. Code § 273.5; no incarceration or even summary probation; informal diversion with one year of weekly therapy meetings on an expedited schedule followed by case being dismissed. Thus, in as little as half a year, client’s record would be cleared and he would thereby be able to get his professional license.
Client Charged with Multiple Felony Counts of Domestic Violence; Result: Case Dropped on 1st Day of Jury Selection
People v. M.M. (Los Angeles Int’l Airport Ct. – 11/20):
Client facing multiple felony counts for Corporal Injury to Spouse, Cohabitant, or Fellow Parent (P.C. § 273.5) – all involving his ex-girlfriend.
In addition, client had a state license for his profession and, therefore, stood to lose far more than his freedom if convicted.
Worst-case scenario: One year in jail for each count if convicted and assuming judge ordered sentences to run consecutively. He also stood to have his license permanently revoked.
Result: Literally on day one of the jury trial, the Deputy DA in charge of the case dismissed it. Client walked out with his clean record, freedom, and career fully intact and unblemished.
Parents Each Facing a Dozen Years in Prison for Hot-Car Death of Toddler; Result: Diversion and No Jail, with Charges Dismissed thereafter
People v. P.L. and Z.L. (Pomona Courthouse – 02/18):
In a horrific and utterly unintended accident, the clients’ three-year-old daughter died after they inadvertently left her in a hot car.
Charge: felony Child Endangerment (California Penal Code section 273a).
Worst-case scenario: A dozen years in the pen for each client, plus loss of their other young children to the county’s Dept. of Children & Family Services.
The process: Ninaz went to great lengths to compile a package of exculpatory documentation to the prosecutor, who ultimately agreed that the child’s death had been the result of an accident and not due to any criminal act of the defendants. Therefore, they received Formal Diversion, so in the end, the charges against them were dropped.
Client Prosecuted for Felony Financial Elder Abuse, Possible 7 Years Behind Bars; Result: Formal Diversion then Dismissal, No Jail
People v. I.R. (Burbank Courthouse – 02/18):
Client was accused of siphoning off at least fifty thousand dollars from the complainant, who was at least 65 years old at the time, by racking up credit card purchases.
Charge: felony Elder Abuse (California Penal Code section 368).
Worst-case scenario: Seven yrs. in a California penitentiary and permanent loss of client’s California-issued insurance license.
The process: Ninaz pushed hard for months to get the prosecutor to agree to a plea deal that wouldn’t involve jail.
Result: Formal Diversion followed by full dismissal. Client’s license and career were saved.
Two Potential Life Sentences for Alleged Attacks on Two Women; Result: Reduced Plea, Out of Prison in as Little as Four Years
People v. M.D. (downtown LA Criminal Courts Bldg. – 01/16):
Ninaz’s client was definitely not innocent in this case – he savagely attacked his current lover with a knife.
Personal Use of a Dangerous Weapon During the Commission of a Felony (P.C. § 12022)
Inflicting Great Bodily Injury (GBI) (P.C. § 12022.7); and
Strike Offense (P.C. § 667(a)&(b) and P.C. § 1192.7).
To further complicate matters, after client bailed out of the Los Angeles County Men’s Jail, he allegedly sexually assaulted and domestically abused a different female complainant.
Felony Corporal Injury to Spouse, Cohabitant, or Fellow Parent (P.C. § 273.5); and
Oral Copulation by Force, Fear, or Threats (California Penal Code section 287).
Worst-case scenario: TWO life sentences with potential parole, not including any additional enhancements for the Special Allegations and Strike charge(s).
The process: As always, Ninaz kept the prosecutor on his heels, constantly driving for trial, all while legitimately creating burdensome work for the Deputy DA. Ninaz, with the judge’s approval of course, consolidated both cases and, after creating substantial doubt as to client’s guilt thereon, procured for him a greatly reduced plea for attempted Voluntary Manslaughter (California Penal Code section 192(a)).
Result: Just over eight years in prison without enhancements – with good behavior, he’ll be out in half that time.
Pre-File: Client Looking at a Year in County for Misdemeanor DV; Result: Case Rejected
People v. A.S. (Los Angeles Police Dept. Investigation – 03/16):
Client and domestic partner returned home from a boozy night on the town and, unfortunately, thereafter engaged in an argument that resulted in her dialing 911 to accuse client of DV.
However, when LAPD arrived on scene, the complainant showed no visible injuries. But that didn’t stop them from slapping the cuffs on client, who was charged with misdemeanor Domestic Battery (Cal. Penal Code § 243(e)(1)).
Worst-case scenario: Three hundred and sixty-five days in jail.
The process: Before he was formally charged, client retained Ninaz, who, of course, did her own investigation, the results of which she presented to the DA’s Office.
Result: Case dropped.
Client Facing Two Years in Jail for Domestic Battery; Result: Jury Acquitted Him
People v. M. H. (LAX – 06/14):
Charges: Two misdemeanor counts of Domestic Battery, each with a potential max jail sentence of 12 months (or two years total).
The process: The prosecutor wouldn’t budge on the charges, so Ninaz did what she does best – she tried the case before a jury (12 empaneled jurors plus two alternates) based on self-defense. In fact, she was so convinced of client’s innocence that in an uncommon strategy for her, she had him testify on his own behalf.
Result: Full acquittal.
Pre-File – Client Facing Five Years’ Incarceration for DV Charges in Two Separate Cases; Result: Both Cases Rejected
People v. A.S. (Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center -- 11/13)
Client and girlfriend had an ugly parting of the ways, thereby resulting in her falsely alleging that he had brutally beaten and injured her.
Felony Corporal Injury to Spouse, Cohabitant, or Fellow Parent (P.C. § 273.5);
Misdemeanor Domestic Battery (P.C. § 243(e)(1)).
Worst-case scenario: Four years in a Cal. penal facility (felony) plus 12 mos. in jail (misdemeanor).
Following his arrest but prior to him being formally charged, client retained Ninaz.
The process: The first thing she did was reach out to the lead det., who, unfortunately, had already transferred the file to the District Attorney’s Office for the filing of formal charges.
Ninaz and her favorite P.I. dived headfirst into comprehensively investigating the People’s allegations. As a result, they were able to collect a persuasive package of exculpatory evidence, over which she met extensively with the prosecuting Deputy DA.
Ninaz’s efforts paid off when the DDA acquiesced that client had only been defending himself against the complainant, who had clearly been the initial aggressor.
Result: Prosecutor rejected the case; however, he sent the file over to the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office) for potential misdemeanor charges. Fortunately, however, they also declined to prosecute.
Post-script: Two months down the road, the former girlfriend once again made the same false allegations against client. And so, for a second time, client was apprehended, jailed, and charged with the same exact counts. So once again, Ninaz and her investigator compiled a second exculpatory package that, once again, convinced the DA’s Office that he was innocent.
Second result: After yet again meeting with representatives of both the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office (DA’s Office) and the City Attorney, the case was rejected.
Pre-File – Client Investigated for Felony DV; Result: No Charges Filed
People v. R.M. (Airport Courthouse -- 11/13):
Client allegedly attacked and wounded his former romantic partner. Client knew he was about to be arrested and, therefore, hired Ninaz.
Charge: felony DV (on former lover).
The process: Ninaz immediately investigated the allegations and found that client had only been trying to protect himself from the complainant’s physical assault. Ninaz thereafter contacted the lead investigator for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).
After he reviewed her proof that the complainant was, in fact, the one who actually committed domestic violence, he agreed that client shouldn’t be charged with any crime. Unfortunately, however, the det. had already sent the case to the DA’s Office for consideration of filing a formal criminal complaint.
Result: The Deputy DA, after reviewing the material, agreed with the det. that client shouldn’t be charged and, therefore, notified Ninaz that no charges would be filed against him.
Client Found Not Guilty of Domestic Violence (was Facing 7 Yrs.) after Jury Trial
People v. N.H. (LAX Ct. – 08/13):
Client’s spouse had significant mental health issues which ultimately resulted in her cutting herself with a kitchen knife, then calling the police to blame it on him. Client was consequently arrested and jailed.
Charge: Multiple counts of DV.
Worst-case scenario: Almost eight years’ incarceration.
The process: Ninaz battled the prosecutor every step of the way until the case was tried before a jury. There, Ninaz had a videotape shown to the jurors which proved that client was actually the victim here. Also, Ninaz was able to destroy the putative victim on cross-examination by showing the jury all the conflicting lies she had told police and the prosecution in the months leading up to trial.
Result: The biggest count was dropped by the court, which thereby granted Ninaz’s Motion to Dismiss (California Penal Code section 995) based on lack of evidence. The jury then deliberated on the remaining counts, and thereafter acquitted client of all charges.
The Los Angeles Defense Attorney Law Firm (LADALF)
Ninaz Saffari, LADALF’s managing attorney, has successfully beaten hundreds of DV cases, ranging from simple misdemeanors all the way to case involving the purported victim’s death. As of the date of this writing (June 11, 2022), she has a perfect 5-star rating on both Google and Avvo.
If you have been accused or even charged with committing domestic violence, you should immediately call Ninaz for a free consultation. Regardless of whom you hire, however, please keep in mind that having a woman defending you is critical to your chances of success.