Naser Nekumanesh Lawyer Reviews & Ratings - Fresno

Naser Nekumanesh Bio
My approach to the practice of law is simple:. 1. Practice Compassionate listening and understanding. I can represent you best when I know what it is that you seek out of your case.. 2. Thourougly examine the facts of the case, investigate as necessary. I know my cases inside and out.. 3. Tailor creative, aggressive and logical persuasive arguments and persuasively present them to the Court and Jury.. 4. Above all else, advocate for the rights of you, the Client.. Please take a moment to review some of Naser Nekumanesh' HIGHLIGHTED VICTORIES and JUDGMENTS. 2022 Felony Assault with a Deadly Weapon Jury Trial Win (Fresno County)Client was charged with Assault with a deadly weapon (a knife), in violation of Penal Code section 245(a)(1). The client was facing over 4 years in CDCR (prison). Attorney fought the case at jury trial, and ultimately the jury came back with a unanimous verdict of not guilty as to the felony count. The Felony count was dismissed, and Client avoided time in prison. Client was found guilty of a misdemeanor offense; however, he was released from custody.. 2022 Family Court Win ($47,500 judgment in favor of Client)Client hired Attorney to handle their disputed divorce. Client’s husband had fraudulently disposed of assets after the Divorce was filed, and was claiming now that he no longer had any money. Attorney propounded discovery on the ex-husband and discovered that the Client had sold their mutually owned vehicle, and then used those funds to purchase several high risk Call options in the stock market. He eventually lost $35,000. At Court, Ex-husband filed a motion against Client for attorney’s fees and costs. That motion was denied. Attorney filed a counter motion requesting sanctions against ex-husband as well as Attorney’s fees and Costs. Judge ruled in favor of client. $35,000 in sanctions, and $12,500. Awarded for Attorney’s fees and costs.. 2021 Dispensary Robbery Case Jury Trial Win (Fresno County)The client was charged with two counts of Penal Code section 211 (Robbery). The client had a lengthy criminal history, including a prior strike conviction under California’s aggressive Three Strikes law. Client was in custody in Fresno County Jail prior to and during the jury trial. Client asserted his innocence and the case centered on mistaken identity. Attorney hired an identity expert to testify at trial. After 9 hard fought days at Jury Trial, the jury came back with a 8 not guilty to 4 guilty verdict. This is known as a hung jury. Since the prosecution was unable to prove its case against the Defendant unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt, the case was dismissed. Client was released from Fresno County Jail and his freedom restored that very same day, as the Jury verdict. One amazing note of this case is that approximately one year later, Attorney Naser Nekumanesh received a phone call from Client. The client simply stated: “you saved my life”. I am forever honored to have helped Client forge a new future for himself.. 2021 DVTRO COURT TRIAL WIN (Fresno County)In 2021 Client’s wife filed a request for a domestic violence temporary restraining order. Client’s wife simultaneously filed for divorce and filed a motion with the court for sole legal and sole physical custody of their two minor children. Client’s wife had made all sorts of heinous accusations against Client. One claim was that Client had choked her while they were in the car, picking up a child from school. At Court trial Attorney intelligently and creatively cross examined the witness. Ultimately the witness admitted that Client had in fact, not choked her, but instead was using his arm as a method to prevent her from taking the child out of his car seat, while Client was driving the vehicle. Client’s wife had in fact engaged in the dangerous activity. A DVTRO was not granted against client. Because of this, Client was able to avoid the burdensome requirements imposed under Family Code section 3044, and he was ultimately able to keep joint physical and joint legal custody of their children.. 2021 DVTRO WIN (Fresno County)In 2021 Client hired attorney because her children’s father, who had been absent for several years began stalking and threatening Client. Client was living in a state of fear and was constantly looking behind her back, as she genuinely feared that her ex might kidnap their kids or worse. Attorney empathetically handled Client’s case. The ex evaded service of process, and was doing everything that he could to stall the Court process. Attorney was able to get an order from the Court to serve the ex via publication. Following that Attorney secured for Client a full DVTRO, thus protecting both her and the children from this abusive person.. 2020 DVTRO COURT TRIAL WIN (Kern County)Client was being accused of making threats against their neighbor. Attorney cross-examined all necessary witnesses that the Petitioner brought forth against Client. After the testimony, Attorney argued successfully that there was no reasonable basis for believing that an threat had been made, nor that the Petitioner reasonably feared for their safety. CASE DISMISSED. 2019 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE DISMISSED (Fresno County)Client was facing multiple felony Domestic Violence charges including Penal code section corporal injury to a spouse, as well as Penal code section 422 criminal threats. Client was facing over three years in prison, and was facing a Strike, under California’s Three Strikes Law. Attorney and Client retained the services of a private investigator. As a result of that investigation, the attorney negotiated the case brilliantly. The Charges and case were ultimately dismissed in its entirety. Client pled to a misdemeanor, completed an anger management class, and when he came back for a review six months later, the entire case was dismissed.. 2019 DUI Dismissal on Motion to Suppress pursuant to Penal Code section (Fresno County)In 2019 Client was charged with first time DUI in violation of Vehicle Code section 23152(a) and Vehicle Code section 23152(b). Prior to the filing of the defense motion, the prosecutor offered Client to settle the case for the lesser charge of wet and reckless pursuant to vehicle code section 23103/. Attorney filed Motion to Suppress and at that motion, Attorney cross-examined the arresting offer. The officer’s testimony was largely inconsistent with the statements made by that same officer in his police reports. As a result, Attorney was able to argue that the stop made by the officer was not legally justified. Case dismissed.. 2018 Assault Jury Trial Win (Fresno County)In 2018 client was at a family and friend barbecue when someone’s ex and their friends showed up to start some trouble. Later Client and his friend went to that individual’s home to discuss what had happened earlier. Those individuals started a fight and ultimately a man was pushed, and that push caused the man to fall back, hitting his head on the concrete with great force. There was no direct evidence, or testimony that credibly linked Client with this crime. At jury trial, the jury came back hung, a mistrial was declared, and the Case was DISMISSED.. 2018 DVTRO COURT TRIAL WIN (Fresno County)While Nekumanesh Law Firm often represents the accused. In this case, Client was being harassed by a former business associate. This business associate came to the Client’s place of business and threatened Client with a gun. Although the business associate denied the claims and stated that he did not even own a gun. On cross examination, Attorney elicited from the business associates wife, that he in fact did own a gun, and that gun matched the description of the gun that Client stated was used to threaten him. DVTRO granted!. 2016 Solicitation of Prostitution Jury Trial Win (Kern County)Client was charged with solicitation of prostitution in violation of Penal Code section 647(b)(2). The case was charged as a misdemeanor and so Client was facing 180 days in the Bakersfield County Jail. Worse, a conviction would have required the Client to register as a sex offender. The Client’s future opportunities would have been extremely negatively impacted. After 4 days of jury trial, Attorney argued that there was never an agreement for the exchange of money for sex. In fact, Client had engaged the individual as an exotic dancer, not a prostitute. The jury came back and hung 7 guilty and 4 not guilty. A mistrial was declared and as a result the case was DISMISSED.