Skip to content


People v. Zachariah Rutledge, Sonoma County 2006, Mr. Nick’s client was falsely accused with 2 counts of murder, after Mr. Nick established the primary forensic evidence in the case was fraudulently manufactured the prosecution nevertheless pressed forward with the case. The Jury trial Result was Not Guilty on all counts. See,
People v. D. Griffin, Inyo County 2012, possession of controlled substance, Jury trial Result: Not Guilty
People v. D. Paul, San Luis Obispo County 2011, possession of controlled substance with intent to sell, Jury trial Result: Not Guilty.
People v. G. Kuburovich, Santa Clara County 2016, possession of controlled substance with intent to sell, conspiracy, money laundering, Jury trial Result: Not Guilty.
In Re A. Luster, defendant incarcerated with lengthy sentence (124 years), in 2010 Mr. Nick’s Habeas Corpus Petition to 2nd District Court of Appeal results in an Order to Show Cause being issued and hearing ordered; After a state habeas hearing the petitioner was resentenced to 50 years) The case is currently pending further appeals in the United States District Court.
City of Riverside v. IEPHWC 2011, Mr. Nick’s “petition for review” was granted by the California Supreme Court; the court eventually held that local government bans of medical marijuana collectives are not prohibited under California law. Mr. Nick advocates that aspects of Proposition 64 have modified this ruling.
Los Angeles County v. AMCC, 2nd District Court of Appeal strikes down total ban of medical marijuana collectives (the California Supreme Court eventually reversed this holding in another case argued by Mr. Nick before the California Supreme Court in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center.) Since 2008 Mr. Nick has litigated within the Coachella Valley community numerous medical marijuana business permitting and zoning cases.

Baldwin v. Placer County, 405 F.3d 778 (9th Cir 2005), is an important civil rights federal appellate court decision which was litigated and argued by Mr. Nick before the United States Court of Appeal in San Francisco; The county argued that officers could have believed that the emergency nature of the entry into the home justified the batteries on Mr. Nick’s client. However, the appellate court found that there was no emergency. Mr. Nick’s client was a practicing dentist. The court of appeal found that nothing indicated that the officers had reason to believe Mr. Nick’s client would resist or flee. The officers had stated no belief that the injured parties would be armed, and they mentioned no criminal history or conspiracy that could have justified such a belief. Also, the officers had no reason not to identify themselves before giving orders to Mr. Nick’s client. Thus, the court of appeal determined the officers violated the civil right of the injured parties to be free from battery by gun-wielding officers. Additionally, the court of appeal determined that one officer’s actions in placing his fingers at the throat of the wife constituted a separate battery that a reasonable officer would have known was excessive. The court of appeal found that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity and their motion to dismiss the case was properly denied by the federal district court. The court of appeal additionally found that Mr. Nick’s client established his civil rights were violated by the police presentation of a false affidavit in support of a search warrant. Thus, qualified immunity was properly denied.

B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir 2005); Mr. Nick’s client through his legal guardian, brought a federal civil rights suit against the high school attended by the child. Mr. Nick’s client was a student when he and others were told to exit their classrooms and were told to pass by a drug-sniffing dog. No drugs were found. The court of appeal ruled that a search had occurred through the dog-sniff, that the sniff was highly intrusive, and that under the circumstances, the search was unreasonable.
Mr. Nick has handled complex Federal criminal cases in all the Federal district courts within California including conspiracy to distribute narcotics, money laundering, tax code violations and public official corruption, and has handled federal criminal cases throughout the United States.
Visit personally with J. David Nick at either his San Francisco or Palm Springs offices and see for yourself why he is effective in the representation of all his clients.


One Comment

  1. Sandy Bradfield wrote:

    Thank you for taking Travis Klutts’ case. After reading about you I finally feel some hope. My son has endured 7 months in the SHU amid much harassment from prison staff, not to mention his lack of health care as punishment. Thank you for your help.

    Sunday, August 3, 2014 at 11:48 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *