Mr. Beach’s client was accused of Attempted Murder, Assault 1, and Unlawful Use of a Weapon. Rather than tallying up all the potential prison time that Mr. Beach’s client was facing if convicted, let’s just accept that he would be locked up for a very long time. The case stemmed from a fight where a man was stabbed – he lived. There was no disputing that Mr. Beach’s client was waiting to confront a man about a dispute and that a physical fight ensued and that the other man was ultimately stabbed. But, at trial, Mr. Beach established three huge facts for the jury. First, that other man actually started the physical fight. Second, it wasn’t Mr. Beach’s client that actually stabbed the man. And third, Mr. Beach’s client had no way to know that someone else was going to stab this man during this fight. The jury returned a Not Guilty on all charges brought against Mr. Beach’s client!
Congratulations to Gabriel Walsh on another Jury Trial Win for a Felony Strangulation case!
Mr. Walsh’s client was accused of Strangulation. This is a felony charge that carries up to five years of prison. At trial, Mr. Walsh focused on the inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s story. She had given conflicting accounts of if she had difficulty breathing and if so for how long. Also, there were no marks on her neck nor any other corroborating physical evidence. By focusing on these issues, Mr. Walsh obtained a verdict of Not Guilty on this felony charge! Mr. Walsh’s client was convicted of accompanying misdemeanors, but by defeating the felony charge, Mr. Walsh’s client received probation for those accompanying misdemeanors.
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on another Jury Trial Win!
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of Felony Assault 4, Misdemeanor Assault 4, Harassment (Class A), and Harassment (Class B). Altogether, Mr. Beach’s client faced up to one day less than seven and a half years incarceration as a maximum. The basic facts are that Mr. Beach’s client shoved the victim into a wall, the victim’s teenager daughter came into the room and joined into the tussle, and the victim was knocked unconscious. At trial, the teenager admitted during Mr. Beach’s cross examination that she was out to get Mr. Beach’s client and he was really just defending himself from her. Accordingly, the Misdemeanor Assault and the Class B Harassment were then dismissed before the trial ended. That left the Felony Assault and the other Harassment. The jury found Mr. Beach’s client Not Guilty of the Felony Assault 4, but guilty of the misdemeanor Harassment for shoving the victim. Overall, an outstanding win for the defense far exceeding the best possible negotiated resolution.
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on another Bench Trial Win!
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of Strangulation (a felony with five years imprisonment maximum) and Interference with Making a Report (364 days imprisonment maximum). At trial, the evidence showed clearly that an incident occurred where Mr. Beach’s client had grabbed the victim in the chin/neck area. However, Mr. Beach established that the grab lasted between four to six seconds. The victim was never unable to breathe. Also, Mr. Beach’s client didn’t actually prevent a call to 911. This trial was to a judge, not a jury. The judge found Mr. Beach’s client Not Guilty of both Strangulation and the Interference with Making a Report charge. The judge concluded that Mr. Beach’s client had tried to strangle the victim so found him guilty of Attempted Strangulation. Attempted Strangulation is a misdemeanor – so, prison was averted.
Congratulations to Jason Mitchell on another Jury Trial Win!
Mr. Michell’s client was accused of Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana. This charge was enhanced -meaning made worse for him – because the vehicle he was operating was a ‘commercial’ vehicle. The key to the case was to challenge the evidence of intoxication. During extensive cross examination of the police witnesses, Mr. Mitchell used one officer to establish for the jury what constitutes evidence of being intoxicated by marijuana. Then, Mr. Mitchell used another officer to establish what was actually observed in his client. During his closing argument to the Jury, Mr. Mitchell connected the testimony of the two officers to convince the jury that what the prosecutor must proved for a marijuana conviction was not actually proved. The Jury quickly returned a Not Guilty verdict!
Congratulations to Ryan Lhotsky on a Jury Trial win – where the Prosecutor gave up!
Mr. Lhotsky’s client was accused of Assault 4 and Harassment. If convicted, his client faced up to a year and a half of incarceration (technically, one day less than a year and a half). At trial, the prosecutor called the alleged victim to testify. Once any witness testifies, the other attorney gets to cross examine that witness. During Mr. Lhotsky’s cross examination of the alleged victim, Mr. Lhotsky established that his client had only defended herself. The prosecutor tried to rescue his case by submitting a video of the interview of the alleged victim’s initial statement to the police. But, given how well the self-defense issue was established, the prosecutor then gave up and dismissed the case before the jury was required to render a verdict.
Congratulations to Joe Metcalfe on a brilliant legal defense that obtained a Not Guilty Verdict!
Mr. Metcalfe’s client was issued a citation by a police officer requiring the client to appear in court. However, the officer did not arrest and take Mr. Metcalfe’s client to the jail. Mr. Metcalfe’s client didn’t appear in court when he was required to do so. He was then charged with the crime of Failure to Appear. This carries up to 364 days of jail. Mr. Metcalfe found some obscure case law that indicated that if a person was never actually put in custody (formally arrested or otherwise) a subsequent failure to appear in court does not qualify for the criminal charge of Failure to Appear. At trial, Mr. Metcalfe produced that case law and proved that the facts of his case were exactly as described in the case law. Accordingly, the judge found Mr. Metcalfe’s client Not Guilty!
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on yet another Jury Trial Win!
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of Felony Assault 4 (carries up to 5 years of prison), Criminal Mischief 2 (carries up to 364 days) and Harassment (carries up to 6 months). Mr. Beach’s client was involved in an incident where a vacuum broke over a pregnant woman’s body. The best offer obtained through negotiations was to receive probation but with an agreement that Mr. Beach’s client would receive 13 months of prison if he broke any rules of probation. They went to trial instead. At trial, Mr. Beach agreed to the basic facts, but the issue was whether it was an accident or on purpose. The jury agreed that it could reasonably have been an accident. Therefore, Mr. Beach’s client was found Not Guilty.
Congratulations to Matthew Crusen on a Domestic Violence Jury Trial Win!
Mr. Crusen’s client was accused of Harassment. This charge carries up to six months of jail if convicted. Mr. Crusen’s client was eligible for the Domestic Violence Deferred Sentencing program; but, he declined that option and set the case for trial. The allegations, and the evidence, were that Mr. Crusen’s client had grabbed and shoved his wife during an argument. At the trial, Mr. Crusen had his client testify. While testifying, Mr. Crusen’s client testified that he had done those things – but, he also got to explain why. Further, the alleged victim had recorded the audio of the event. Mr. Crusen used that audio recording to substantiate the offensive, humiliating, and aggressive behavior by the alleged victim. Once the jury heard the full presentation by Mr. Crusen, the jury returned a Not Guilty verdict.
Congratulations To Angus Dunlavey on Another Jury Trial Win!
Mr. Dunlavey’s client was accused of DUII – marijuana. In marijuana DUII cases it is often the testimony of the drug recognition evaluator (a police officer) that is the most important portion of the evidence. Accordingly, Mr. Dunlavey prepared a systemic evaluation of each of the tests administered by the officer.
When questioned by the prosecutor, the officer had testified that the conclusion of the evaluation was that Mr. Dunlavey’s client was impaired by cannabis (marijuana). Then, it was Mr. Dunlavey’s turn with the witness. Mr. Dunlavey examined every one of the tests individually and presented the jury with the actual range of responses that are exhibited by a normal – not impaired – person.
Although the officer had concluded that the evaluation had indicated impairment, when cross examined by Mr. Dunlavey, the officer conceded that all but one of the results of the testing was in the normal range for a non-impaired person. The only test where Mr. Dunlavey’s client was not within the normal range was that his blood pressure was high. Mr. Dunlavey pointed out to the jury that being arrested and going through an evaluation by a police officer can cause a person to be nervous and that can cause elevated blood pressure. The jury quickly returned a Not Guilty verdict.