A case of mistaken identity

This past May, Natasha represented Mr. Felix on the charge of Aggravated Assault on a Police Officer. Her client was accused of firing a gun at a University of Arizona police officer from the passenger side of a stolen vehicle during a high speed pursuit through the university campus. The State relied on testimony from the driver of the vehicle and Mr. Felix?s alleged accomplice, to place Mr. Felix in the vehicle. The police were unable to locate any fingerprint or DNA evidence which could conclusively place Mr. Felix in the vehicle. The only evidence that Mr. Felix may have been in the vehicle was one fingerprint on a 44oz soda cup and the testimony of the driver.

Natasha successfully called into question the reliability and meaning of the fingerprint on the soda cup and through diligent cross examination exposed holes in the driver?s testimony. Natasha illuminated for the jury the driver?s extensive history of law enforcement contact an prior convictions. Natasha also persuaded the jury to disbelieve the testimony of the driver because he brokered an extremely lenient plea agreement in exchange for his testimony against Mr. Felix.

Thanks to Natasha?s thorough and detailed attacks on the scientific evidence and her passionate cross of the "snitch", the jury was unable to convict Mr. Felix resulting in a hung jury with 10 of 12 jurors voting to acquit. The case was not re-tried.

Along with local criminal defense attorney David Darby, Natasha successfully defended Arizonan?s rights to a trial by a jury of their peers in DUI/DWI trials. Ms. Manic and similarly situated Defendants were being denied their constitutional and statutory right to jury trials in DUI cases by judges of the Tucson City Court. Following the denial of this right to Mr. Darby and Ms. Wrae?s clients, they filed a pre-trial appeal known as a Special Action. Their Special Action was granted by Judge Frank Dawley of the Pima County Superior Court and the right to jury trial was affirmed. The State appealed his decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals who ruled in Natasha?s favor and assured Arizonans of their right to a trial by jury.

Now afforded her right to a jury trial, Natasha?s client, Ms. Tracey, proceeded to a jury trial where Natasha convinced over half the jury that Ms. Tracey was not guilty and the jury was hung, unable to convict Ms. Tracey. As a result, the case was later dismissed completely.

Natasha represented Mr. Hartley who was accused of knowingly writing bad checks in connection with a gem show business he ran every year. In fact, Mr. Hartley?s checks only bounced because they were written by other members of the business at the same time the business was going bankrupt as a result of an unforseen catastrophe involving faulty tent equipment, rented to Mr. Hartley.

Eager to present his case to a jury, Natasha requested a jury trial. Normally, offenses which do not involve jail time or the loss of a substantive right are not granted jury trials in Arizona. Natasha argued that because the crime of issuing a bad check found its roots in the common law crime of Theft that Mr. Harley should be entitled to a trial by jury as are individuals accused of Theft. N

Natasha was successful in seeking a jury trial over the State?s objection and tried the first and only bad check jury trial in the history of Pima County. During the trial, as a result of Natasha?s vigorous defense, the State was unable to convict Mr. Hartley and the charge was later dismissed.