Law Offices of David A. Black

11/24/2025

Law Offices of David A. Black Ranked Regional Tier 1 in 2026 Best Law Firms®

November 24, 2025 — Phoenix, AZ — The Law Offices of David A. Black is proud to be named to the 2026 Best Law Firms® list, earning a Regional Tier 1 ranking in Phoenix for Criminal Defense: General Practice and DUI/DWI Defense. To be considered for this milestone achievement, at least one lawyer in the law firm must be recognized in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®.

This honor reflects our firm’s commitment to exceptional advocacy, proven results, and the trust of our clients and peers. We are grateful for this recognition and remain dedicated to delivering top-tier criminal defense throughout Arizona.
Law Offices of David A. Black, PLLC

05/20/2025

Law Offices of David A. Black is pleased to announce that Brenna Fisher has joined the firm as an associate attorney. Brenna’s practice will focus on state and federal criminal defense, white collar criminal defense, administrative licensing defense, and civil litigation. Prior to joining the firm, Brenna practiced law at an AmLaw200 firm and specialized in white collar criminal defense, cyber & data privacy, and civil litigation. Before that, Brenna clerked for judges in the District of Wyoming and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Welcome Brenna! Read here: https://www.dbphoenixcriminallawyer.com/team/brenna-g-fisher/

08/18/2024

We are very pleased to have been included in the Best Lawyers in America list again this year in the areas of Criminal Defense and DUI Defense and happy to share this award!

02/03/2024

Federal District Court (Illinois) determines prohibited possessor law unconstitutional under recent Supreme Court Second Amendment case law. Could this reasoning apply to the District of Arizona? To Arizona’s state statute?

12/22/2023

Nevermind. Statute of limitations has not expired and Nirvana baby can bring suit.

12/20/2023

Colorado Supreme Court Decision prohibits Trump from appearing on CO ballot. Will the Supreme Court of the US hear?

Can they overturn?

Firm lawyer John D. Gattermeyer writes:

[T]here are plenty of options for [the US Supreme Court] to jump in. It answers the question whether section 3 of the fourteenth amendment is “self-effecting.” The rest of the fourteenth amendment has been found to be self effecting, the other two civil war amendments were found self effecting, but the Supreme Court has not found section of 14 self effecting yet (no opportunity to, not because they’ve held to contrary). So that’s one possible out.

Trumps team argued it’s a political issue that is non-justiciable and the opinion does a good job tearing that apart, but there’s an out there if they rely on the gerrymandering jurisprudence language.

There’s also a textualist argument that president was intentionally excluded because section 3 doesn’t allow anyone to run for “senate, congress, or any other office.” So the Colorado court found, obviously, president is another office. But! You could say that if they were explicit about senate and congress, their failure to include president meant that president is excluded from the section. That seems tortured, but that’s an out.

And then of course they do a huge discussion about the definition of “insurrection.” They deem it to be any act aimed at preventing the peaceful transition of power, and that his speech prior to the breech at the house constituted an appropriate act to be deemed insurrection. This is the easiest out. Just get a more aggressive term of insurrection. The opinion addresses why a more aggressive definition isn’t necessary or appropriate but alas. This is the easiest way out.

12/13/2023

Arizona Bill Would Clarify Criminal Statutes of Limitation

A new bill was introduced in the Arizona legislature this month – HB2043 – that would make a subtle but important change in the statute of limitations for criminal charges. For those who don’t know, once the period set forth in the statute of limitations has run, there can be no prosecution of the charge(s) in question.

The proposed law would eliminate portions of the current statute of limitations, A.R.S. 13-107B, which states that the statute does not begin to run until the crime is discovered or “should have” been discovered using “due diligence.”

Troublingly, this means that a misdemeanor shoplift that occurred in 1990, if reported to law enforcement for the first time today, could still be charged, even though the statute of limitations is one year. Of course this is anathema to the constitutional cause of statutes of limitations, and we are happy the legislature is taking aim at it.

Existing law under subsection B also provides that the statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions is as follows:

• Petty Offenses – Six months

• Misdemeanors – One year

• Class 2 through Class 6 Felonies – Seven years

The pending bill, if enacted, would eliminate the questions of when the offense was discovered, when it should have been discovered, and what facts were or were not actually discovered. It does so in a straightforward and uncomplicated way. What the bill says is that the statute of limitations in criminal cases runs from the date the offense was committed, which frankly is the way I always thought it was before I became an attorney.

02/20/2023

Frustrating to see a public official refer to fixing a charging error that had erroneously alleged a violation of an ex post facto law “litigious distractions” and simply “securing billable hours for big-city attorneys.” I’d call it doing the right thing.

The actor’s lawyers had argued that a firearm law included by the prosecutors was not in effect at the time of the fatal shooting. It would have carried a mandatory five-year sentence.

12/24/2022

Kari Lake lawsuit ruling.

12/22/2022

A concise explaination of the FTX fraud allegations.

Two top lieutenants of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried have pled guilty to charges from the DOJ and are cooperating with its investigation.