Falsely Accused or Misidentified in California?

A mistaken identification can support a serious charge; preserve the original witness account, alibi and other evidence before deciding how to challenge it.

California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended clients who were falsely accused or misidentified — challenging eyewitness identification evidence, exposing fabricated allegations, and presenting alibi and forensic evidence that established innocence — in criminal courts across every county in California. False accusations and misidentifications are among the most common causes of wrongful conviction in the United States. They are also among the most successfully defended cases when the right attorney builds the right defense from the very first day. Build your defense now.

IMMEDIATE STEPS IF YOU HAVE BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED OR MISIDENTIFIED:

  • Do not make any statements to law enforcement, prosecutors, or anyone connected to the accuser without experienced defense counsel present — in false accusation and misidentification cases, statements made without counsel — even statements intended to establish innocence — are frequently twisted, taken out of context, and used to support the prosecution's theory rather than the defendant's
  • Do not contact an accuser in violation of any order or attempt to influence a witness. Preserve names and contact details for counsel or an investigator; do not coach witnesses or discuss the allegation with them. Let counsel arrange appropriate interviews and preservation requests.
  • Begin documenting your alibi promptly — write down who may know where you were and preserve their contact information for counsel or an investigator. Gather receipts, phone and transaction records, location records and potential footage without altering them; ask counsel to arrange witness contact and preservation requests while following any order.
  • Preserve all communications — text messages, emails, social media messages, and other communications between you and the accuser that may establish the context of the false accusation, the accuser's motive, or prior inconsistent statements the accuser has made
  • Contact experienced defense counsel immediately — false accusation and misidentification defenses are most effective when alibi evidence is preserved, identification procedure challenges are identified, and the defense theory is developed before the prosecution's narrative solidifies

Call now for a free, confidential consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174

THE STAKES ARE REAL — INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE CONVICTED

We know that a false accusation or a misidentification feels like a nightmare — because it is. Being accused of something you did not do, knowing the truth and watching the legal system move forward as if the accusation were fact, and facing the possibility of conviction for a crime you never committed is one of the most terrifying experiences a person can have. And the fear is not paranoia. Innocent people are convicted in California courts every year — based on witnesses who genuinely believed what they said but were wrong, based on accusers who fabricated or exaggerated allegations for personal, financial, or emotional reasons, and based on investigations that fixed on the wrong person and stopped looking.

Mistaken eyewitness identification is a documented cause of wrongful convictions, including cases later reversed after DNA testing. A percentage from one exoneration subset should not be treated as the rate for all convictions or all accusations. A defense should focus on the particular witness’s opportunity to observe, the original description, stress, timing, procedure, confidence statements and later information, as reflected in CALCRIM 315. False reports, honest errors and incomplete investigations require different evidence.

What makes false accusation and misidentification cases uniquely dangerous is that the prosecution's evidence frequently looks compelling to a jury that does not know what the defense knows. A witness who sincerely believes they are telling the truth is the most persuasive witness imaginable — and a sincerely mistaken eyewitness can put an innocent person in prison. The defense in these cases requires more than asserting innocence — it requires understanding the specific science of eyewitness reliability, identifying the specific factors that made this identification unreliable, presenting the alibi evidence with precision, and — where the accusation was fabricated — exposing the accuser's motive, prior inconsistent statements, and the specific circumstances that produced the false allegation.

What is at stake in a false accusation or misidentification case depends on the underlying charge — and the underlying charge can be anything:

  • Burglary or grand-theft penalties depend on the exact offense, degree, value and prior record. First-degree residential burglary can carry a serious-felony consequence under strike law; not every theft case does, and record effects depend on conviction and relief rules.
  • Robbery has serious potential penalties and can count as a serious felony; the actual term and future consequences depend on the charged subsection, conviction and other law, not a permanent uniform result for every accusation.
  • Assault and battery statutes carry different misdemeanor or felony penalties based on the alleged conduct, injury and filed offense. A charge does not establish a conviction, though arrest or charge records can remain and may require separate record-relief review.
  • A sex-offense accusation can carry severe penalties and collateral consequences and, for some convicted offenses, registration under Penal Code section 290. The term and tier depend on the exact conviction; an accusation alone does not impose lifetime registration for every sex charge.
  • Domestic violence charges: Felony or misdemeanor; restraining orders; custody consequences; professional license consequences; immigration consequences
  • A gang allegation requires its own statutory elements and proof. Any enhancement or record consequence depends on the exact charge, findings and disposition; accusation alone does not impose a permanent designation.
  • Murder and attempted-murder allegations have different penalties based on the exact charged statute and findings. An ordinary attempted-murder term is not the same as a willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted-murder term; review the complaint, special allegations and prior record before discussing any life sentence.
  • A drug charge may be a misdemeanor or felony with different penalties and immigration implications depending on the actual substance, conduct, statute and disposition; mistaken identity remains a proof issue, not a uniform felony sentence.
  • Any charge where the wrong person was identified: The underlying charge determines the specific consequences — but the false accusation or misidentification is what put the wrong person in the defendant's seat

Call now for a free consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174

WHY FALSE ACCUSATIONS AND MISIDENTIFICATIONS HAPPEN

Understanding why false accusations and misidentifications occur — and the specific mechanisms that produce them — is the foundation of every effective defense in these cases. The defense is not simply "the witness was wrong" or "the accuser is lying." It is a specific, documented, scientifically grounded explanation of how and why the identification or accusation was unreliable — and that explanation is what produces reasonable doubt.

Eyewitness Misidentification — The Science

Eyewitness memory is not a video recording. It is a reconstructive process subject to distortion at every stage — encoding, storage, and retrieval — by factors that research has consistently identified as impairing accuracy. The specific reliability problems with eyewitness identification are well-documented in decades of scientific research:

Stress and fear during the witnessed event: High-stress situations impair the accuracy of eyewitness memory. A robbery victim or assault victim who was frightened during the crime is in precisely the physiological state that most impairs accurate observation and memory encoding — and the very circumstances that make the crime traumatic are the circumstances that make the witness's memory least reliable.

Weapon focus effect: When a weapon is present during a crime, witnesses focus disproportionately on the weapon — and their memory of the perpetrator's face and other identifying characteristics is correspondingly impaired. Robbery and assault cases — where misidentification is most common — are precisely the cases where weapons are most frequently present.

Cross-racial identification: Research consistently demonstrates that cross-racial identifications — where the witness and the suspect are of different races — are significantly less accurate than same-race identifications. Cross-racial misidentification is one of the most significant and most documented contributors to wrongful conviction in the United States.

Brief observation period: A witness who had only a few seconds to observe a perpetrator — in the chaos of a robbery, from a distance, in passing — has a fundamentally weaker identification than one who observed the person under calm conditions for an extended period.

Poor lighting and viewing conditions: Identifications made in poor lighting, from a significant distance, through a moving vehicle window, or under other impaired viewing conditions are less reliable than the witness typically acknowledges when testifying.

Passage of time between the event and the identification: Memory fades and is reconstructed differently over time. An identification made weeks or months after the original event is significantly less reliable than one made immediately — and the research shows that memory is not simply less complete over time but is actively distorted by post-event information and suggestion.

Suggestive identification procedures: The way law enforcement conducts the identification procedure significantly affects its reliability. Lineup composition, the presence of filler photographs that do not match the perpetrator's description, administrator feedback suggesting the witness's choice was correct, show-up identifications conducted near the scene shortly after the crime, and other procedural factors can dramatically inflate the apparent certainty of an identification that is actually unreliable.

Post-identification feedback: When a witness is told after making an identification that they chose the right person — or receives any other positive feedback — their memory of the certainty and quality of their original observation inflates retroactively. A witness who was uncertain at the time of the identification but received confirmatory feedback may testify with complete confidence — and that confidence is a product of the feedback, not of the reliability of the original observation.

Fabricated Accusations — Why People Make False Allegations

False accusations — where the accuser knows the allegation is false or greatly exaggerated — arise from specific and identifiable motivations that can be documented, exposed, and presented to a jury:

Domestic and relationship disputes: False allegations of domestic violence, assault, and sexual abuse arising from romantic relationship breakdowns, divorces, or custody battles are among the most common false accusations in California criminal courts. A partner who makes a false allegation gains immediate tactical advantage in divorce and custody proceedings — a restraining order, removal of the other parent from the home, and a criminal record that affects custody outcomes.

Financial motives: False accusations arising from financial disputes — landlord-tenant conflicts, business partnership breakdowns, debt disputes — where the accuser stands to gain financially from a criminal prosecution or uses the threat of prosecution as leverage in a civil matter.

Revenge and retaliation: False allegations made in retaliation for a perceived wrong — being fired, being rejected, losing a dispute — where the accuser's motivation is to harm the defendant rather than to report a genuine crime.

Misperception and misunderstanding: Accusations that are not intentionally false but that arise from a genuine misunderstanding of events, a misattribution of conduct to the wrong person, or an interpretation of innocent conduct as criminal.

Mental-health evidence may be relevant only when reliable, case-specific facts show an effect on perception, memory or reporting at the relevant time. A diagnosis alone does not show an accusation is false or a witness is unreliable. Compare contemporaneous statements, opportunity to observe and corroborating evidence without stereotyping the person.

Pressure and coaching: False or exaggerated accusations that arise when a witness has been pressured, coached, or influenced by another party — a parent in a child abuse case, an attorney in a civil matter, a domestic partner who encourages a witness to report something they did not actually witness.

HOW DAVID CHESLEY DEFENDS FALSE ACCUSATION AND MISIDENTIFICATION CASES

False accusation and misidentification defense requires a specific, multi-layered strategy — attacking the reliability of the identification or the credibility of the accusation while simultaneously building the affirmative defense evidence that establishes innocence. It requires an attorney who understands the science of eyewitness reliability, the legal standards for challenging identification evidence, the specific investigative methods that expose false accusations, and the specific trial presentation strategies that most effectively overcome a sincerely believed but wrong identification.

David Chesley handles false accusation and misidentification defense in criminal courts across every major region of California — Southern California, Northern California, and Central California — and is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. He personally handles every case from first consultation through trial or resolution. No hand-offs. No junior associates. The attorney you hire is the attorney fighting for your innocence.

Every defense begins with the right questions and immediate action:

What are the specific reliability problems with this identification — and which ones are most important to challenge?

Every identification in every false accusation case is examined against the full scientific framework of eyewitness reliability — the conditions under which the witness observed the alleged perpetrator, the stress level of the situation, whether a weapon was present, the cross-racial identification factors, the duration and quality of the observation, the lighting and distance, the time elapsed before the identification, and the specific identification procedure used. The specific reliability problems most applicable to this identification are identified and developed into the defense's most important challenge evidence.

Was the identification procedure constitutionally sound — or was it suggestive? Penal Code section 859.7 sets standards for live and photo lineups. Obtain the original array, administrator instructions and recording if available. Compare witness confidence and description before and after the procedure with the factors in CALCRIM 315. A departure from a standard may inform a suppression motion, but it is not an automatic exclusion order.

Is there alibi evidence — and is it being preserved?

Alibi evidence — physical documentation of the defendant's location at the time of the alleged offense — is the most powerful available evidence in a false accusation case. Phone records placing the defendant's device at a different location. Surveillance footage from a business, ATM, or traffic camera showing the defendant elsewhere. Electronic transactions — credit card purchases, Uber rides, food delivery orders — timestamped at a location inconsistent with the prosecution's theory. Witness accounts of the defendant's presence elsewhere. Each category of alibi evidence is identified, preserved, and developed from the first day of representation — because alibi evidence that exists today may not exist in three months.

What is the accuser's motive — and can it be documented?

In cases involving fabricated accusations, the accuser's specific motivation is identified and documented — the divorce proceeding that would benefit from a restraining order, the financial dispute that gives the accuser leverage through a criminal prosecution, the personal relationship conflict that provides a motive for revenge. Communications between the accuser and the defendant, the accuser and other parties, and the accuser's statements to others about the defendant are all examined for evidence of motive, prior inconsistent statements, and prior false allegations. Where the accuser has made false allegations before — in prior relationships, prior legal proceedings, or prior law enforcement contacts — that prior history is developed as impeachment evidence.

Are there prior inconsistent statements by the accuser or eyewitness?

The accuser's or eyewitness's statements to law enforcement, to other witnesses, on social media, and in any other context are compared for inconsistencies. An accuser whose description of events has changed between the initial report and the later interviews, whose account of the defendant's conduct has escalated over time, or who has made statements inconsistent with the physical evidence has provided specific impeachment material that is developed and presented in the defense.

Can forensic evidence establish innocence — or the absence of the defendant's involvement?

DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, digital forensic evidence, surveillance footage, and other physical and forensic evidence are examined to determine whether any category of evidence affirmatively establishes the defendant's innocence or contradicts the prosecution's theory. The absence of the defendant's DNA, fingerprints, or other physical evidence from the scene is itself significant — and in appropriate cases, an affirmative forensic finding that another person's evidence was present is powerful innocence evidence.

Should an eyewitness identification expert be retained?

In cases where eyewitness identification is the prosecution's primary evidence, the retention of a qualified eyewitness identification expert — a psychologist or cognitive scientist who can explain the specific reliability problems with this identification to a jury — is evaluated. Expert testimony on eyewitness reliability is permitted under California law and is one of the most effective tools available for challenging identification evidence at trial. The specific expert's qualifications, the specific reliability factors most applicable to this case, and the specific testimony that will be most effective with the particular jury are all analyzed from the first consultation.

Free, confidential case review — available 24/7, no obligation. 📞 (800) 755-5174 | 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com

YOU HAVE RIGHTS. USE THEM.

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A mistaken identification, motive to accuse or suggestive procedure can be significant when supported by evidence, but none automatically creates reasonable doubt or proves fabrication. A jury evaluates the entire record, including the original account, procedure, alibi, forensic evidence and possible corroboration. Counsel can identify contradictions and seek a remedy where a constitutional issue is established.

  • Charges dismissed before trial — alibi evidence, forensic evidence, or exposure of the accuser's motive presented to the prosecution; case dismissed before trial
  • Identification suppressed — suggestive identification procedure or constitutional violation established; identification excluded from evidence; prosecution cannot connect the defendant to the offense
  • Acquittal at trial — jury finds the identification unreliable or the accusation not credible; defendant found not guilty
  • Charges significantly reduced — identification challenges and alibi evidence create sufficient pressure on the prosecution's case; charge reduced to lesser offense
  • Expert testimony produces reasonable doubt — eyewitness identification expert explains the specific reliability failures to the jury; reasonable doubt established; acquittal
  • Accuser's motive exposed — prior inconsistent statements, documented financial or personal motive, and prior false allegations presented; accuser's credibility destroyed; case dismissed or acquittal
  • Forensic evidence establishes innocence — DNA, fingerprint, or digital forensic evidence affirmatively excludes the defendant; charges dismissed
  • Immigration-safe resolution — charge resolved without conviction for non-U.S. citizen defendant facing false accusation

WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY

Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7

David Chesley personally handles false accusation and misidentification defense in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and every other jurisdiction statewide. Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — because in false accusation cases, alibi evidence disappears fast, witnesses' memories of the defendant's whereabouts fade, and surveillance footage is overwritten in days. The defense must begin immediately. You get the attorney, not support staff.

Straight talk, always

Not every case that feels like a false accusation is easily proven to be one in court — and not every identification challenge produces suppression or acquittal. The specific evidence available, the specific reliability problems with the identification, and the specific documentation of the accuser's motive all determine how strong the defense is and what the realistic outcomes are. You deserve honest counsel about what the evidence actually shows and what the most effective strategy looks like. No false promises. No sugarcoating.

Immediate alibi evidence preservation

The single most important action in a false accusation or misidentification case is preserving the alibi evidence — before surveillance footage is overwritten, before witnesses forget specific details, and before electronic records are deleted or become unavailable. David Chesley begins alibi evidence preservation from the first day of representation — because the evidence that could prove innocence today may not exist tomorrow.

California-wide expertise across every false accusation and misidentification scenario

Eyewitness-identification review can include the 2026 CALCRIM 315 reliability factors, Penal Code section 859.7 lineup standards, the agency’s records and any applicable constitutional challenge. Alibi, forensic, digital and witness evidence can be tested alongside the identification. Review the actual procedure under Penal Code section 859.7 and any applicable constitutional rule. Counsel should distinguish a mistaken but sincere identification from a deliberate false report and match the defense to the actual filed charge.

Compare the first description with later identifications

Ask for the witness’s description before any photograph, lineup, news image or conversation about a suspect. Record the lighting, distance, duration and stress at the event, and whether the witness knew the accused beforehand. Compare the initial description with the accused person and with any fillers shown in a later array. Then trace each identification in time: uncertainty, failure to choose, changed choice and any information supplied by an officer or another witness. CALCRIM 315 treats these as evidence for the jury to assess. A confident courtroom identification may have developed after several exposures, so obtain the original confidence statement and complete procedure record instead of relying on confidence expressed at trial.

Test an alibi and the accusation independently

Preserve receipts, employment records, location or rideshare data, camera footage and witnesses from the place the accused says they were. A device location is not automatically the person’s location; authenticate who had the device and how precise the record is. In an allegation said to be fabricated, gather the full communication history and timeline rather than only selected messages that appear favorable. Prior inconsistent statements or a possible motive can matter, but they do not prove that the report was false by themselves. Counsel should test forensic and physical evidence that may corroborate or contradict either account. These two paths—mistaken identity and intentional false report—can require different investigation even when both start with a client’s denial.

Flexible payment plans

The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason an innocent person facing a false accusation goes without experienced legal representation.

Representative Results:

  • Robbery charges dismissed before trial — alibi evidence established defendant at documented location at time of offense; prosecution dismissed charges after alibi witnesses and electronic records presented
  • The firm reports a challenged photo-array identification and a favorable case resolution. Penal Code section 859.7 sets lineup standards; a procedure issue and any due-process remedy require case-specific review. Suppression is not automatic.
  • Acquittal at trial — eyewitness identification expert testified to weapon focus effect, cross-racial identification research, and suggestive post-identification feedback; jury found identification unreliable; defendant acquitted
  • False accusation exposed — domestic violence allegation found to have been fabricated for advantage in ongoing custody proceeding; accuser's prior inconsistent statements and documented motive presented; charges dismissed
  • DNA evidence established innocence — forensic evidence conclusively excluded the defendant from the crime scene; another person's DNA identified; charges dismissed
  • Misidentification in gang case defeated — defendant misidentified as participant in alleged gang assault; alibi witnesses and surveillance footage established defendant's location; gang enhancement and underlying charge both dismissed
  • Sexual assault false accusation defeated — accuser's prior false allegation in different relationship documented and introduced; significant inconsistencies between initial report and subsequent statements identified; acquittal at trial
  • The firm reports a noncitizen client’s citizenship concerns were considered when a theft charge was resolved after an identification challenge. Immigration exposure depends on the full record and person’s history; a no-conviction result is not a universal safety certification.

Client Feedback:

"I was identified by a witness who was completely wrong. I had never been near the scene. David built the alibi defense, challenged the identification procedure, brought in an expert, and I was acquitted. Without him I would have been convicted of something I had absolutely nothing to do with." — Anonymous former client

"My ex fabricated a domestic violence allegation during our custody dispute. David documented her motive, identified every inconsistency in her story, and presented the evidence to the prosecution. Charges dismissed before trial." — Anonymous former client

"I was misidentified in a robbery case. The witness was from a different background and the viewing conditions were terrible. David brought in an eyewitness expert who explained exactly why the identification was unreliable. Acquitted." — Anonymous former client

"Non-citizen falsely accused of theft. David challenged the identification, established I was elsewhere, and resolved the case without a conviction. My immigration status is safe." — Anonymous former client

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

How common are false accusations and misidentifications — is this really a significant problem?

Eyewitness misidentification has played a substantial role in documented DNA-exoneration cases. Those selected exonerations do not measure the rate of misidentification in all criminal charges. In an individual case, review the witness’s original description, viewing conditions, stress, elapsed time, prior familiarity, procedure and initial confidence, as CALCRIM 315 directs. An inconsistent identification may be challenged through the evidence and applicable law; it does not prove a deliberate false report by itself.

Why are eyewitness identifications so unreliable — and how is that established in court?

Eyewitness memory is not a video recording — it is a reconstructive process that is affected at every stage by the conditions of observation, the stress of the witnessed event, the passage of time, and post-event information and suggestion. The specific reliability factors — stress, weapon focus, cross-racial identification, brief observation period, poor viewing conditions, time elapsed, and suggestive identification procedures — are the subject of decades of scientific research and are admissible in California courts through the testimony of qualified eyewitness identification experts. California jury instructions (CALCRIM 315) specifically require juries to evaluate the reliability of eyewitness identifications using a list of specific reliability factors — and a well-prepared defense uses those factors to systematically challenge the identification in every applicable dimension.

What makes an identification procedure suggestive — and can a suggestive procedure result in suppression?

A lineup or photo array may raise a reliability or due-process issue if its composition or administrator conduct steers the witness toward a suspect. Penal Code section 859.7 sets California standards for live and photo lineups; CALCRIM 315 lists observation, timing, description, procedure, changes and confidence as factors for jurors. Obtain the original materials and recordings. A departure from a standard does not mechanically require suppression; counsel must identify the remedy available on the particular facts.

What is alibi evidence — and how is it developed?

An alibi is evidence that the accused was elsewhere when the charged act occurred. Receipts, camera footage, travel records, witnesses, phone data and device location may help, but a transaction or device alone does not always identify its user or prove where the person was. Retention periods vary by custodian and system; ask counsel to identify sources and request preservation promptly. Compare timestamps and location precision with the prosecution’s alleged time window rather than assuming a universal 24-to-72-hour deletion period.

What if the accuser has a motive to lie — how is that established and used in the defense?

The accuser's motive to fabricate or exaggerate the allegation is one of the most important and most powerful defenses in a false accusation case. Motive is established through documentation of the circumstances that gave rise to it — the divorce or custody proceeding, the financial dispute, the relationship conflict, the prior grievance — and through the communications, statements, and conduct of the accuser before and after the alleged incident. Prior inconsistent statements made by the accuser to other parties, prior false allegations in other proceedings, and prior communications expressing a desire to harm the defendant are all impeachment evidence that is developed and presented in the defense. The accuser's motive is not speculative — it is a specific, documented factual narrative that explains why the accusation was made and why it should not be believed.

What if there is physical or forensic evidence against me — can a false accusation defense still succeed?

Yes — and the specific nature of the forensic evidence determines how the defense strategy is structured. Physical or forensic evidence that appears to connect the defendant to the crime is examined to determine whether it is as probative as the prosecution claims, whether it was obtained through an unconstitutional search that is subject to suppression, whether it was properly collected and analyzed, and whether an alternative explanation exists that is consistent with innocence. In cases involving DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, or other forensic analysis, the defense strategy may include challenging the collection procedures, the chain of custody, the analytical methodology, and the interpretation of the results — because forensic evidence that appears definitive is frequently more ambiguous than it appears when examined by qualified experts.

Can a false accusation case be resolved before trial — or does it always go to trial?

Many false accusation cases are resolved before trial — through dismissal when the prosecution's evidence is effectively challenged, through negotiated resolution when the identification and accusation evidence is significantly weakened, or through diversion in appropriate cases. The goal is always to resolve the case on the best available terms — and where the prosecution's case can be effectively challenged, presenting the alibi evidence, the identification reliability challenges, and the accuser's motive evidence to the prosecution directly — before trial — frequently produces dismissals or significant charge reductions without the risk and expense of trial. Where the case cannot be resolved favorably before trial, aggressive trial defense — expert testimony, cross-examination of the accuser and eyewitness, alibi presentation, and forensic evidence — is prepared from the first day of representation.

Can a false accusation affect my immigration status — even if I am innocent?

An arrest or charge can matter in some immigration proceedings, and a conviction can carry different consequences. The answer depends on the exact allegation, disposition and person’s status and history. A dismissal does not necessarily erase every arrest-related issue from an immigration record. Coordinate criminal and immigration counsel before a plea or program rather than assume innocence or dismissal alone resolves every federal question.

Are payment plans available?

Yes. The Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason an innocent person facing a false accusation goes without experienced legal representation. Call to discuss options during your free consultation.

More questions? We are available 24/7 — free consultation, no obligation, no pressure. 📞 (800) 755-5174

FREE CONSULTATION — CALL NOW — 24/7

Preserve potential alibi and identification evidence promptly. Surveillance, phone, transaction and dispatch records have different retention rules by custodian, so counsel should identify where the records are held and request preservation before they are lost. Witness memory can change, but no universal 24-to-72-hour deletion window applies to every camera. Keep the original messages, receipts and contacts, including evidence that needs explanation; an accurate chronology is stronger than a hurried selective account.

Don't assume the investigation will reveal the truth on its own. Don't assume the prosecution will discover the false accusation or the misidentification without a defense attorney forcing the issue. And don't wait. If you have been falsely accused, wrongly identified, or charged with a crime you did not commit, call now. The earlier David Chesley gets involved, the more options exist to preserve the alibi evidence, challenge the identification procedure, document the accuser's motive, retain forensic experts, and build the defense that produces the outcome an innocent person deserves.

The Law Offices of David Chesley offer a free, confidential consultation available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No judgment. No pressure. Just clear, honest answers about the strength of the false accusation or misidentification defense in your specific case — and what can be done right now to build it.

Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason an innocent person facing a false accusation goes without the experienced defense their innocence deserves.

David Chesley handles false accusation and misidentification defense in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, Kern County, Fresno County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Santa Clara County, San Francisco County, Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Monterey County, and every other jurisdiction statewide.

Se habla español.

📞 (800) 755-5174 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com 🌐 www.chesleylawyers.com

"False accusations and misidentifications are the most unjust situations in criminal law — an innocent person facing conviction based on someone who was wrong or someone who lied. The prosecution must still prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — and that standard, applied rigorously to an unreliable identification or a fabricated accusation, is what stands between an innocent person and a wrongful conviction. My commitment is building the defense that applies that standard with the full force it deserves — alibi evidence, identification challenges, motive documentation, forensic analysis, and expert testimony — because innocence deserves to be proven, not just asserted." — David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney