About Our Firm
We take a different approach to practicing law
We are small firm with a big reputation. One of our firm pledges states that we intentionally take on fewer cases so that we can continue to provide personal service to all our clients. We also intentionally remain a small firm so that our clients always know who it is they are working with. Many of the larger firms fail to provide personal service for this very reason. With us, you know who we are and you know who it is that is working on your case. When you hire Nicco Capozzi to represent you it will be him in court not a junior associate or new attorney. We pride ourselves on detail oriented and results driven representation.
We handle only a select few types of cases and this has allowed us to become expert in those fields. We handle cases in state and federal criminal defense, appeals, expungements, post-conviction remedies, asset forfeiture, and certain types of litigation cases. These are the only types of law we practice. You can learn about each practice area by selecting them above in the navigation bar. For each field we consistently rank as one of the best local law firms. Click below to watch a video about why we stand apart from the rest.
Our client reviews speak for themselves. We have a reputation of being one of the most respected and capable defense firms in the Central Valley. We have earned this reputation through tireless efforts in defending our clients' rights, liberties, and property.
We Get Better Results For Our Clients
We consistently get the best results in criminal law and litigation cases. We do this through our experience handling a multitude of case, the expertise of attorney Nicco Capozzi and his staff, and our positive reputation with judges and other attorneys. Clients leave us positive reviews because we put their interests first, always and because we approach the practice of law differently than other firms. We run a modern and efficient law office that meets the demands of our current clients. Learn more about our firm's values and about why do things different.
Felix v. United States
Client had money taken from him after traffic stop. Government refused to give it back, claiming it had a "scent" of marijuana and thus illegal connected to crime. We challenged the asset forfeiture and got it all back.
United States v. Zarate
Client was charged with illegal use of a laser pointer; specifically, it was alleged he targeted an aircraft with the laser. Client faced up to five years in prison. we argued for much less and the judge eventually gave him one year.
United States v. Castro
Mr. Capozzi was one of two attorneys working on this case. He was in charge of the research and writing portion. After a lengthy jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty — Client had been charged with murder.
United States v. Mata
State police illegal took clients money after simple traffic stop (asset forfeiture). We filed a claim for return of the property with the Drug Enforcement Administration. They initially refused to give it back but after presenting our case, all the money was returned.
United States v. Ceferino-Lopez
Client charged with illegal reentry into the United States. Was facing three years in prison. We argued for nine months, which is what he received.
United States v. Serna
Client was charged with having violated his supervised release and was facing up to five years in prison. We argued that he deserved credit for time served and that he should receive no more time. The judge agreed with us and he received credit for time served, no additional time, and immediately after sentencing was a free man.
People v. Korneff
Client was charged with illegal possession of an assault weapon after being arrested for a DUI. District attorney refused to settle case. We filed several motions to the trial and appellate court that eventually led to all the evidence being suppressed (thrown out) due to the illegal search and seizure. Case was dismissed.
People v. Multani
High publicity case where client was charged with solicitation for murder. Despite strong surveillance evidence client received the minimum punishment and time served.