Homicide Attorney Located in San Jose

During his rapid rise in the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office, he attained acquittals two homicide cases. The first involved a black man responding to the racial taunts of a white man and killing him in the fight that ensued.  

The second murder case involved the killing of a father and a son. There his client saw the son stomping a man on the ground outside a bar and the client when to his vehicle and retrieved a rifle. He approached the young man still brutally stomping the defenseless man on the ground and without warning shot him to death. The father approached the defendant swinging a heavy coat in an apparent attempt to disarm him. The defendant shot and killed the father. Forcefully arguing the legal theories of defense of a third person as to the killing of the son and self defense as to the killing of the father, his client was acquitted of both killings.

He represented a defendant who organized a conspiracy that resulted in the death of an acquaintance’s husband. The defendant had made a complete confession to the police. In the trial, he was successful in excluding the confession and at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, all charges were dismissed against his client. The three other defendants were convicted of murder.

He represented a client who had furnished amphetamines to a woman that she met at a party. The woman died shortly after ingesting the drugs. His client was charged with second degree murder. After she was held to answer at the conclusion of a preliminary examination, he brought a motion to dismiss, on well developed and briefed legal grounds, which was granted and the murder charges were dismissed.

In 1977, a father was shot and his son shot and killed in a trailer at the California Cheese Company in San Jose. Since it was alleged to be a Mafia hit, the widespread publicity that ensued caused the case to be moved to Los Angeles County for motions and trial. Three of the defendants were initially tried in a proceeding that lasted eighteen months and Guyton Jinkerson’s client was the only one who was acquitted.

In 1981, he represented an individual who hired two men to kill his wife. The two men approached his wife while she was seated in a motor vehicle and shot and killed her with a sawed off 12 gauge shotgun. All three individuals were charged with murder and the death penalty was sought. At the preliminary examination, Guyton Jinkerson was successful in excluding incriminating evidence and all charges were dismissed against his client. Both of the other defendants were convicted of first degree murder and one of those defendants was sentenced to death.

In 1987, he was successful at having a writ of habeas corpus granted where a defendant had been convicted of murder in a trial where the defendant’s then lawyer reduced the trial to a sham and a farce. In the retrial, the defendant, who was then represented by Guyton Jinkerson, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and gained his freedom.

In 1988, he represented an individual under investigation for shooting and killing two unarmed men who were tenants on his property. No charges were filed.

In 1990, he represented an individual who had aided and abetted his stepson in murdering the stepson’s bride for financial gain. His client was acquitted in trial. The stepson was convicted of first degree murder in a separate trial and sentenced to death.

In 2007, he represented an individual who was the suspect in a murder that occurred at a dance club in Palo Alto. No charges were filed.

Between 2018 and 2021, he represented an individual charged with grossly negligent vehicular homicide where his vehicle left the roadway struck and killed a California Highway Patrol motorcycle officer and the individual who he was citing for a motor vehicle violation. Within days of the deaths, charges were filed alleging that the driver was on his mobile phone texting at the time of the collision. After substantial investigation, the case was resolved for misdemeanor manslaughter and a probationary sentence.

He has been recognized by the California Supreme Court as having: “ . . . extensive experience in homicide trials . . .  ”People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 177, 203.