Practice Area - Criminal Defense

Cases Lauren Handles

• Violent felonies, including assault, robbery, and homicide-related offenses
• Drug offenses, from possession to trafficking, at both the state and federal level
• White collar crimes, including fraud, embezzlement, and financial crimes
• Sex offenses and cases involving registration requirements under Nevada law
• Domestic violence and related protection order violations
• Weapons charges and firearm offenses
• DUI and vehicular offenses with significant sentencing exposure
• Pre-charge representation
• Professional and occupational license defense arising from criminal charges

Nevada's criminal code organizes offenses into a tiered classification system that determines the range of permissible punishment. Understanding that framework is essential to evaluating exposure and formulating an effective defense strategy from the outset of representation.

Under NRS 193.130, felonies are divided into five categories, A through E, ranging in severity from offenses carrying the death penalty or life imprisonment at the Category A level, to Category E felonies. Gross misdemeanors carry up to 364 days in county jail. There are certain crimes that are wobblers: offenses for which the court retains discretion at sentencing to treat the conduct as either a felony or a gross misdemeanor.

Beyond the sentence itself, a conviction in Nevada triggers a range of collateral consequences that must be understood at the beginning of any representation. These include the loss of the right to vote while incarcerated, the federal prohibition on firearm possession, potential deportation consequences for non-citizen clients, and restrictions on professional licensure. Record sealing is available after waiting periods that vary by offense category and is never available for certain categories of offense entirely.

Effective criminal defense is, at its foundation, constitutional litigation. The procedural protections afforded to the accused primarily by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments define both the government's obligations and provide the defense opportunities for challenging the government's case at every stage of the proceeding.

Fourth Amendment — Searches & Seizures

The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is frequently the most fertile ground for pre-trial litigation. Where law enforcement has obtained evidence through a warrantless search lacking an applicable exception, through a warrant infected by a lack of probable cause or facial insufficiency, or through conduct that exceeded the scope of a valid warrant, that evidence is subject to suppression under the exclusionary rule. The derivative evidence doctrine, sometimes called the fruit of the poisonous tree, may extend suppression to all evidence obtained as a downstream consequence of the initial constitutional violation. Lauren approaches suppression litigation with the disciplined precision of a practitioner who understands that a successful motion can end a case before it reaches trial.

Fifth Amendment — Compelled Self-Incrimination

Fifth Amendment protections against compelled self-incrimination, and the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona for custodial interrogation, generate a recurring body of litigation in Nevada criminal cases. Statements obtained in violation of Miranda, or through conditions of interrogation that render them involuntary under the totality of the circumstances, are subject to exclusion. The line between investigatory detention and custodial interrogation is a question of fact that requires careful analysis of the specific circumstances of the encounter.

Sixth Amendment — Confrontation

The Sixth Amendment's right to confrontation governs the admissibility of out-of-court testimonial statements by witnesses who do not appear at trial. It is a right that experienced prosecutors know how to work around, and that experienced defense counsel know how to enforce. Lauren's deep familiarity with the constitutional positions her to litigate these issues with the precision they require.

The trajectory of a criminal case is frequently determined before the first day of trial. Pre-trial litigation is where skilled advocates shape the landscape on which the trial will be fought. This includes motions to suppress evidence, challenges to the sufficiency of the charging document, requests for disclosure of exculpatory material under Brady v. Maryland, and hearings on the admissibility of expert testimony.

Lauren's approach to pre-trial preparation is systematic and exhaustive. Every case begins with a comprehensive review of the discovery record and an independent factual investigation. Constitutional issues are identified and briefed with the depth they warrant. Expert witnesses, including forensic scientists, medical professionals, investigators, and financial analysts, are engaged where the evidence demands qualified interpretation. The goal is not merely to respond to the government's case, but to construct an affirmative defense theory that is coherent, credible, and capable of generating reasonable doubt.

Nevada's criminal discovery obligations require the prosecution to disclose the substance of any oral statements by the defendant, results of scientific tests, and any exculpatory material within the meaning of Brady. Compliance with these obligations is enforced through motion practice, and failures of disclosure, whether negligent or intentional, can result in sanctions ranging from adverse jury instructions to dismissal. Lauren monitors the completeness of discovery with rigor and pursues remedies aggressively when the prosecution falls short of its obligations.

For cases that proceed to trial, Lauren brings the full weight of her litigation experience to the courtroom. She is a seasoned trial lawyer whose advocacy has produced numerous favorable verdicts and published decisions, a body of work that reflects not only legal skill but the capacity to persuade judges and juries on contested facts and difficult law.

Jury trials require that the defense present a narrative consistent with innocence. Lauren's ability to deconstruct the government’s case, cast doubt on the reliability and integrity of the government’s evidence, and construct and present a coherent defense narrative through documentary evidence, witness examination, and the crafting of a coherent defense story distinguishes her advocacy and has resulted in acquittals, dismissals, and mistrials in state and federal court.

This approach is not sentiment; it is strategy. Juries decide cases based on their understanding of who a defendant is, not merely what they are alleged to have done. Lauren's ability to construct and present that narrative through documentary evidence, witness examination, and the crafting of a coherent defense story is a significant and distinctive asset in high-stakes criminal defense.

In cases resolved by guilty plea or conviction at trial, the sentencing hearing is often the most consequential proceeding in the entire case. Nevada's sentencing framework vests substantial discretion in the district court, guided by a presentence investigation report and the arguments of counsel. The range of outcomes, from diversion or probation to the statutory maximum, is frequently wide, and the difference between them is the quality of the advocacy.

Lauren approaches sentencing with the same preparation she brings to trial. Mitigation is not a recitation of sympathetic circumstances; it is a structured, evidentiary presentation of the factors most relevant to the court's exercise of its discretion, including the client's history and characteristics, the nature and context of the offense, the goals of punishment, and the availability of alternatives to incarceration. Lauren's ability to construct that presentation, in writing and in court, is grounded in her deep understanding of both sentencing law and the human dimensions of her clients' lives.