Client charged with attempted murder in the stabbing of his daughter’s
ex-boyfriend. Client asserted that he stabbed the ex-boyfriend while defending
himself, his wife and his daughter. This was a complex case that involved
issues of domestic violence and drug addiction. At the time of the incident,
there was a domestic violence restraining order in effect that prohibited
the boyfriend from having any contact with daughter. Boyfriend had a documented
history of assaulting daughter, including while she was pregnant, and
threatening to kill her and harm her family.
At trial, the defense extensively cross-examined the ex-boyfriend on:
• his history of domestic abuse against the daughter
• the restraining order
• his repeated violations of the restraining order
• his repeated efforts to manipulate the daughter into lying for
him about the incident so that he would not be prosecuted for violating
the restraining order
• that the prosecution gave him immunity from prosecution for his
repeated violations of the restraining order so he could testify at trial
• his numerous inconsistent statements at trial as compared to the
prior statements he gave under oath in depositions
• his motivation to lie in order to bolster a frivolous and unsuccessful
civil lawsuit he had brought against the client attempting to get money
from him for the injuries he sustained in the stabbing
• that the knife used in the stabbing was, in fact, the boyfriend’s
knife and that he possessed it just prior to the stabbing
• that he had manipulated the daughter into seeing him in a secluded
location on the night of the incident
The defense also vigorously cross-examined the police officers called to
testify by the prosecution, using their reports and audio and video recordings
to support the defense case and the claims of self-defense and defense
of others. The defense also presented expert psychological testimony about
the cycle of domestic violence, the behavioral characteristics of abusers
and victims of domestic violence, including that victims of domestic violence
sometimes act to protect and shield their abusers. The defense also presented
the testimony of the client, wife, daughter, as well as numerous character
witnesses who testified on behalf of the client. The jury returned a verdict
of NOT GUILTY
Client charged with negligent homicide as a result of a fatal motor vehicle
collision. Client made a left turn from a major roadway onto a side street
and did not see an oncoming motorcycle. The motorcycle crashed into the
passenger side of client’s car as the client crossed the motorcyclist’s
lane of travel. The driver of the motorcycle was pronounced dead at the
scene. The case turned on the issue of whether client’s conduct
constituted “criminal negligence”. The defense made the strategic
decision to waive a jury trial and instead tried the case before a judge.
At trial, the defense focused on numerous shortcomings in the State’s
investigation, including its failure to conduct an adequate accident reconstruction
investigation. The defense called two expert witnesses in accident reconstruction
to prove the defendant was not speeding prior to the collision and was,
in fact, decelerating to make the left turn. These experts were also able
to determine and testify to the fact that the motorcyclist was traveling
substantially in excess of the posted speed limit. The defense also produced
evidence through eye witness testimony that showed the client did not
drive erratically or aggressively in any way prior to the collision. Further,
the defense admitted into evidence blood test results that showed client
had no alcohol or drugs in his system at the time of the collision. The
judge returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
First Degree Assault
Client charged with First Degree Assault for stabbing her boyfriend in
the chest with a carving knife. Client claims she acted in self-defense.
At trial, the defense focused on the injuries sustained by client and
the police failures to conduct an adequate investigation, including failing
to interview key witnesses that the defense interviewed and called as
witnesses at trial; failing to conduct forensic testing on evidence supporting
the claim of self-defense; and failing to conduct any follow-up investigation
based on new evidence that supported client’s claim of self-defense.
The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Criminal Threatening With a Firearm
Client charged with pointing a 9 mm handgun at his neighbor and threatening
to kill him. Client asserts he acted in self-defense and in defense of
his wife. At trial, defense focused on aggressive, threatening and provoking
conduct of alleged victim, the many inconsistencies in the alleged victim's
trial testimony and the prior statements he gave to the police, and the
failure of the police to conduct any meaningful investigation. The jury
returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault
Client charged with multiple counts of Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault
and Felonious Sexual Assault on two minor females. At trial, the defense
brought out motive fabrication charges, major inconsistencies between
pretrial statements and trial testimony, with one of the alleged victims
ultimately testifying that the defendant did not sexually assault her
in any way. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on all charges.
Client charged with using the internet to lure/solicit a minor to engage
in sexual acts. Client also charged with Attempted Felonious Sexual Assault
arising out of the same incident. State had strong case, including a confession.
Through extensive negotiations and litigation, both charges are dropped
and a negotiated agreement is reached on alternative lesser charges. After
a contested sentencing hearing, the court adopted the defense’s
sentence recommendation, which resulted in the defendant not serving any
Client charged with unlawfully entering the apartment of a female college
student with the intent to sexually assault her. At trial, the defense
brought out the relationship between the client and the alleged victim
and the fact that the client and his friend were invited by the alleged
victim to her apartment to continue an after-hours party. The defense
raised questions regarding the sobriety of the alleged victim, her memory
and her credibility. Further, the defense raised questions about whether
any sexual touching actually occurred and, if so, was it consensual. The
jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Client charged with felony Reckless Conduct for allegedly driving his truck
at and trying to hit the alleged victim. Defense obtains videotape evidence
of the incident that discredits alleged victim’s story and exonerates
client. The defense provides a copy of the tape to the prosecutor. After
reviewing the tape, the prosecutor agrees that client did not commit the
crime. CHARGE IS DROPPED.
Sale of Crack Cocaine
Client is charged in federal court with distribution of crack cocaine.
Client was targeted by the FBI, which used a long time, paid informant
to make controlled purchases of crack cocaine from client. The purchases
were video and audio recorded. Client declined the U.S. Attorney’s
plea offer and went to trial. The defense conducted extensive cross-examination
of the informant, resulting in the informant admitting that he lied to
the jury several times during his direct testimony. The defense portrayed
the informant as a hired gun and an admitted liar paid to set up the client
at any cost. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
Interference With Custody
Client is charged with the misdemeanor offense of Interference With Custody
for taking her grandson without the permission of his biological mother,
client’s former daughter-in-law. Client denied the offense from
the beginning of the case. Defense counsel tried to persuade the prosecution
that the case had no merit, but the State would not settle the case without
a conviction. The case went to trial and at the close of the State’s
case, the defense moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the State
had failed to show that the client had acted with the intent to conceal
the child and that the State failed to show that the biological mother
had custodial rights to the child. The judge agreed with the defense.
Simple Assault & Criminal Threatening
Client charged with simple assault and criminal threatening for allegedly
pushing and threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend while they were exchanging
custody of their minor child. Client denied the allegations and went to
trial. At trial, the defense contested the charges and argued that the
allegations were fabricated by the ex-girlfriend in order to create a
false basis to try and modify custody of the minor child. The defense
presented eye-witness testimony and court documents as evidence. After
trial, the judge found client NOT GUILTY on the assault charge and placed
the criminal threatening charge on file WITHOUT A FINDING, resulting in
no convictions for the client.
Client charged with stalking as a result of having contact with an alleged
victim in violation of a court’s bail order. The defense was able
to convince the prosecutor that the alleged contact fell within a specific
exemption of the stalking law that exempted constitutionally protected
activity from criminal prosecution. CHARGE IS DROPPED.
Client stopped for drifting in his lane of travel and because his passenger-side
tires crossed the white fog line. The officer had followed client for
several miles prior to the stop and had, in fact, crossed into another
town. Client admitted to drinking, submitted to standardized field sobriety
tests, and was arrested for D.W.I. Client refused to take a breath test.
The defense filed a motion to suppress asserting that the motor vehicle
stop was illegal. At trial, the defense cross-examined the officer on
the basis of the stop. The officer admitted that he stopped client based
on the observations he made of the vehicle’s operation after it
had crossed the border into another town. The defense argued that the
stop was illegal because it was based solely on observations made by the
officer in another town where the officer had no jurisdiction. The judge
agreed, granted the motion to suppress, and as a result, CASE DISMISSED.
Client stopped for weaving. The police officer detected an odor of alcohol
coming from client. Client admitted to drinking. Client submitted to the
standardized field sobriety tests, after which he was arrested. Client
subsequently submitted to a breath test with a result of .13 BrAC. Client
rejected State’s plea offer and opted to go to trial. At trial,
the defense cross-examined the officer regarding how he instructed client
to perform the standardized field sobriety tests. The cross-examination
revealed that the officer failed to administer each one of the standardized
field sobriety tests correctly. Further, cross- examination revealed that
many key parts of the officer’s testimony were directly contradicted
by his own written report. The defense moved to dismiss the case arguing
that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest client for DWI.
The judge agreed. CASE DISMISSED.
Client stopped for not having headlights on. The police officer observed
no erratic operation. The officer detected an odor of alcohol coming from
inside the car, but never coming from the client and never tried to determine
if the odor was coming from the passenger. Client admitted to taking a
Percocet and having a shot of tequila about two hours earlier. Client
did not exhibit any signs of impairment, such as red, glassy eyes, slurry
speech or dexterity problems in retrieving license and registration. Client
was directed to exit the car and walk to the rear of car. Client did so,
and again officer observed no signs of impairment or any odor of alcohol.
Officer then asked client to perform field sobriety tests, which client
agreed to do. Client subsequently arrested and submits to breath test
with a result of a .14 BrAC. At trial, the defense argues that the officer
illegally exceeded the scope of the motor vehicle stop and had no factual
basis to justify having client exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety
tests. The court agreed, holding that the officer exceeded the permissible
scope of the stop, as such the stop was unconstitutional. CASE DISMISSED.
Client stopped for speeding. Client agrees to take field sobriety tests
but informs police officer of knee and ankle injuries, as well as ongoing
problems with gout. Client unable to complete the standardized field sobriety
tests and is arrested for D.W.I. Client refuses to take a breath alcohol
test. At trial, the defense cross-examined the police officer regarding
client’s knee and ankle injuries, as well as gout. Additionally,
numerous aspects of the standardized field sobriety tests were brought
into question. Judge finds client NOT GUILTY.