John Lemon

John Lemon is a seasoned trial and appellate lawyer with over 25 years’ experience handling complex, high-stakes cases in state and federal trial courts and in the federal appellate courts. With over 50 cases tried to verdict and at least as many arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Mr. Lemon has won favorable verdicts and appellate decisions in the most serious and complex criminal cases, including theft of trade secrets, racketeering, and murder.

Since joining Singleton Schreiber in 2021, he has led the firm’s liability teams in several major fire cases and other mass torts. In July 2025 – acting as lead counsel in a civil trial for the first time – he won an $11.1M verdict in a personal-injury case arising from a road-rage assault.

Mr. Lemon is certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and the State Bar of California as a trial specialist. He was a San Diego Daily Transcript “Top Attorney” for 2009 and was the Best Lawyers 2021 Lawyer of the Year in San Diego for criminal defense. He is AV rated (the highest peer rating for legal ability and ethical standards) by Martindale Hubbell and has been recognized in San Diego Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers in America every year since 2008 and 2014, respectively. He holds a B.A. in Letters with Distinction from the University of Oklahoma and a J.D. from Stanford.

• Recognized in Best Lawyers in America (2015-2024)
  
  • San Diego; Criminal Defense: General Practice
  • San Diego; Criminal Defense: White-Collar
  • 2021 Best Lawyers, Lawyer of the Year; San Diego, Criminal Defense: General Practice
• Southern California SuperLawyers (2008–2025)
• America's Top 100 Criminal Defense Attorneys (2018-2023)
• Certified by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and the State of California as a Specialist in Criminal Trial Advocacy (2005-2025)

United States v. Murillo, et al. (C.D. Cal. 2008). Client acquitted of all felony charges, including first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, after a two-month jury trial (involving five co-defendants) in a complex prosecution of an alleged prison gang.

United States v. Heredia, et al. (S.D. Cal. 2009). The pharmacist charged with illegal distribution of prescription drugs over the internet was permitted to plead to a misdemeanor and keep her pharmacy license after a three-month jury trial (involving seven co-defendants) resulted in an across-the-board hung jury on 87 counts of money laundering and violations of the Controlled Substances Act.

United States v. Franco, et al. (S.D. Cal. 2013). Client acquitted of violent crimes in aid of racketeering (including attempted murder) and firearms charges after a two-month racketeering trial involving seven co-defendants.

United States v. Maloney, 755 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed the client’s drug-trafficking conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct. The argument, which received national attention, can be viewed here.

United States v. Verdugo (C.D. Cal. 2018). In 1986, the client was convicted of the murder of a DEA agent (later the subject of the Netflix drama “Narcos: Mexico”) after an FBI agent testified falsely at trial about hair and fiber evidence that supposedly placed the client at the scene of the crime. In 2014, the Department of Justice disclosed for the first time that the FBI agent’s testimony at trial had “exceeded the limits of science.” In 2017, the district court reversed the client’s convictions based upon the DOJ’s 2014 disclosure, and the case was set for a retrial in 2019.  Mr. Lemon filed motions to dismiss, alleging decades-long institutional misconduct at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California in November 2018. Before those motions could be heard, the parties reached a time-served plea agreement, and—after 31 years in custody—the client was immediately released from prison.

United States v. Individuals and a Corporation (S.D. Cal. 2018-20). In 2018, the client, the CFO of a waste-disposal company, prevailed at an evidentiary hearing where the district court found that the company’s unauthorized discharge of wastewater had not harmed the environment. In 2019, the same prosecutors charged the same defendants with violations of the Clean Air Act. The government dismissed the Clean Air Act charges after protracted litigation of alleged prosecutorial misconduct and vindictive prosecution in 2020.

United States v. an Individual (D. Utah 2020). The client was acquitted after a six-week jury trial of all 20 counts alleging theft of trade secrets from Becton Dickinson, a $69 billion Fortune 500 company.

United States v. an Individual (S.D. Cal. 2021). Drug-trafficking case where the client was the registered owner and sole occupant of a Honda Accord crossing the border with 17 lbs. of heroin, 12 lbs. of methamphetamine, and 26 lbs. of cocaine. The government dismissed the case after the trial, which resulted in a hung jury of 10-2 in favor of acquittal.

An Individual v. PacifiCorp. (Sacramento County Sup. Court 2023). The client, who was elderly and in poor health, was a victim of the McKinney Fire, which plaintiffs alleged was the result of PacifiCorp’s negligence. The trial court denied the client’s motion for an expedited trial setting under section 36(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Lemon obtained the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal, which resulted in a favorable settlement.

Individuals v. Monsanto Co. (W.D. Tex. 2024). In this wrongful-death case, clients alleged that their family member’s non-Hodgkins’ Lymphoma and death were caused by his regular use of the herbicide Roundup. The parties arrived at a confidential settlement on the morning of the trial, less than half an hour before jury selection.

In re: McBride Fire Consolidated Litigation (N.M. Second Judicial Dist. Court 2025). Clients are victims of the McBride Fire, which they allege was the result of the negligence of Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM). In January 2025, the trial court issued an order granting PNM summary judgment with respect to clients’ claims for noneconomic (or emotional distress) damages. In July 2025, the court granted Mr. Lemon’s motion for reconsideration and reinstated those claims, resulting in the potential recovery of millions of dollars in damages for the fire victims.

An Individual v. Valley Farm Transport, Inc. (Solano County Sup. Court 2025). The client was a victim of a vicious, road-rage assault committed by a “subhauler” hired by the trucking company Valley Farm Transport. Valley Farm denied liability, arguing that it bore no responsibility for the attack because its subhauler was not an employee of the company. Mr. Lemon, Paul Starita, and Jim Fendt persuaded the jury otherwise, obtaining an $11.1M verdict and a finding that Valley Farm had engaged in “malicious” and “despicable” conduct warranting additional punitive damages. The case reached a confidential settlement on the morning that the punitive-damages phase of the trial was set to begin.

Membership

Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys

Consumer Attorneys of San Diego

News

Press Releases

United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004)

United States v. Nasri, __ F. 3d __; 2024 WL 4587428 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2024)

United States v. Collazo, 984 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc)

United States v. Lloyd, 807 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2015)

United States v. Maloney, 699 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2012), vacated by United States v. Maloney, 717 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2013), and overruled by United States v. Maloney, 755 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc)

United States v. Johnson,767 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2014)

United States v. Houston, 648 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2011)

Garcia-Aguilar v. U.S. Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of California, 525 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2008)

United States v. Kodzis, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (S.D. Cal. 2003)