Case No. 865256 – David M.


David was bipolar, schizophrenic and had ADHD at the time he committed auto theft.  We filed a Notice of Insanity Defense & were preparing to try the case on our Insanity defense when we obtained a Dismissal at Pre-Trial Conference.


Case No. 1326096 – Juan S.


We presented Juan to the Grand Jury as a victim of fraud, not a thief, in naively buying a stolen Tahoe from an individual for $8900 cash without getting documenting paperwork except a title – which turned out to be fraudulent. His prior criminal history was problematic but we were able to argue none of it was for theft or fraud-related offenses. As a young buyer anxious to own his first car not in someone else’s name, he did everything wrong which combined with a great quantity of incriminating circumstantial evidence to be overcome. We had to combat the presumption of truthfulness and infallibility on the part of police who either lied or erred in relevant factual statements allegedly made by Juan and who ludicrously mis-characterized some of his statements as inconsistent. His first mistake was buying the car on emotion only – great looks/great price- without driving it or checking the VIN no. against the fake title or even looking to see if the VIN was visible. Every possible objection was anticipated and explained – the reason for the rushed purchase (afraid the seller would find a buyer willing to pay his asking price), the reason no radio was in the car, no paper plate, and a host of other apparent red flags. The most difficult piece of evidence to overcome was found when police inspected it in his garage after tracking it using its installed GPS. There they found an alleged Tahoe steering column on the ground and a work lamp inside the car. We carefully proved the police were mistaken or lying in this and documented the history of the column as well as the fact it was not from a Tahoe. We disproved alleged inconsistent statements regarding the source of the cash by using banking and other source documents (as well as pointing out that – technically and linguistically – there inconsistency). The details of the timing and reason for certain events were relevant to our strategy and defense such as intended date to transfer the title and purchase insurance in his mother’s name; these we proved by family testimony. We laid the predicate for his credibility and for many of the facts of the case using coherent family and friend testimony and work and education records. We attacked item by item the lies and/or misconstrued statements in the Offense Report. Finally we presented a credible and documented explanation for every shred of evidence the State thought they could make their case on. For every argument the State was ready to advance, we were prepared with a proven counter-assertion. We made a compelling Grand Jury presentation to the great relief of an innocent man victimized and robbed of his hard-earned cash by a slick auto thief.

I Juan S. would definitely recommend Carl Haggard as your lawyer because he really helps you on defending in any way he can and also because he recently got my case no billed because of his expertise and the great lawyer he is. I recommend him 100%!!!
Juan S.


Case No. 883454 – Robert P.


[Due to its age, this Case History is no longer archived; case synopsis and details of our defense are no longer available.]


Case No. 883216 – Jesse J.


[Due to its age, this Case History is no longer archived; our in-house case synopsis and details of our defense are no longer available.]