San Francisco & Bay Area Criminal Defense Lawyers

California, cannabis, and corruption recently squared off in United States v. Kimbrew .  The Ninth Circuit’s holding in United States v. Kimbrew , 2019 WL 6693744 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2019) clarified the reach of the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, which requires the existence of a quid pro quo agreement. A   quid pro quo is the exchange of something in return for something else. As a topical example , President Trump’s impeachment stems from an alleged quid pro quo: the White House purportedly attempted to leverage foreign aid in exchange for the investigation of President Trump’s potential political rival, Joe Biden. In the white collar crime context , a quid pro quo agreement occurs when “the defendant received, or intended to receive, something of value in exchange for an official act.” United States v. Silver , 864 F.3d 102, 111 (2d Cir. 2017). The Kimbrew court held that criminal liability attaches when a government official agrees to do something in an off...

The December 2019 issue of San Francisco Magazine features its annual list of Top Women Attorneys of Northern California based on Super Lawyers’ rankings. Jayne Law Group is proud to announce that founder Julia Jayne has been selected as a member of the Top Women Attorneys list in the Criminal Defense category.  

On November 25, 2019, the California Supreme Court overturned a 17-year-old exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. People v. Lopez holds “that the desire to obtain a driver’s identification following a traffic stop does not constitute an independent, categorical exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” People v. Lopez , No. S238627, 2019 WL 6267367, at *1 (Cal. Nov. 25, 2019). Before Lopez , police were “allowed … to conduct warrantless vehicle searches for personal identification documents at traffic stops when the driver failed to provide … personal identification upon request.” Id . The Court summarized the facts of Lopez as follows: police “responded to an anonymous tip concerning erratic driving.” Police were “(u)nable to locate the vehicle,” so they “asked dispatch to run a computer search of the license plate.” Police “then drove by the address where the car was registered,” but didn’t see a car matching the description. As such, p...

This article was originally published in the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer's White Collar Crime issue of The Champion, available here . Prosecutions alleging theft of trade secrets have been creeping upward since 2009. White collar practitioners must become fluent in the language of the Economic Espionage Act and be on alert that civil trade secret litigation can easily lead to criminal charges. Defense counsel should expect tailored and well-investigated cases by prosecutors unafraid to delve into highly technical and complex materials. I. Introduction With white collar prosecutions generally on the decline, one area is on the Justice Department's hot button list: theft of trade secrets. The perceived diversion of American innovation fits right in with the administration's interests and political aspirations. The result: the revival of the Economic Espionage Act ("the Act"). The Economic Espionage Act, enacted in 1996, criminalized t...