Mr. Dunlavey’s client was accused of Assault 4. This charge carries up to 364 days of jail if a person is convicted. Mr. Dunlavey’s client had beaten up his daughter’s boyfriend. In the process he might have accidentally struck his daughter. The Assault charge was for possibly striking the daughter. At trial, Mr. Dunlavey proved that his client had heard what sounded like the boyfriend assaulting the daughter (the boyfriend had done it before, so Mr. Dunlavey’s client was primed to be proactive). Mr. Dunlavey’s client charged in to separate the daughter from the boyfriend. In the process of dealing with the boyfriend, it was unclear if the daughter had been accidentally struck. However, after the prosecutor finished submitting his evidence, the judge granted Mr. Dunlavey’s motion arguing that even if the daughter had been accidentally struck, that Mr. Dunlavey’s client was acting in defense of his daughter. Accordingly, the Assault charge was dismissed.
Congratulations to Joe Metcalfe on another Jury Trial Win - Unlawful Use of a Weapon & Menacing
Mr. Metcalfe’s client was accused of Unlawful Use of a Weapon and Menacing. The maximum prison sentence, if convicted of both, would be 6 years (five years for the Weapon charge and 364 days for Menacing). The allegation was that while waving around a gun, and making a motion like he was loading a round into the gun, Mr. Metcalfe’s client said, ‘I’m going to kill you.’ It turns out that the ‘gun’ was a replica (it actually was a knife because the barrel of the ‘gun’ was a blade with a cutting edge. The facts were as they were. So, Mr. Metcalfe established that his client never intended to use the ‘gun’ because it wasn’t a gun and he made no actions that threatened to use it as a knife. Also, Mr. Metcalfe proved that through his actions, the victim was never actually afraid. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty to both charges.
Congratulations to Angus Dunlavey on another DUII Trial Win!
Mr. Dunlavey’s client drove to a bar and began drinking. The police found him drinking a beer. But his wife told the police that he drove to the bar already drunk. It turns out his wife was being investigated for domestic violence against Mr. Dunlavey’s client when she claimed this and no one else said he drove drunk. The court granted Mr. Dunlavey’s motion to dismiss as soon as the prosecutor completed offering evidence.
Congratulations to Joe Metcalfe on another Trial Win!
Mr. Metcalfe’s client was accused of Hit and Run. This crime, if convicted, carries up to 364 days of jail. More importantly, Mr. Metcalfe’s client has rented the same home for the last 35 years and was told by the landlord that if he was convicted of any crime that he would be required to leave. Mr. Metcalfe’s client, understandably, did not wish to lose his home of 35 years. At trial, Mr. Metcalfe proved that his client had only left the immediate location of the car accident because the driver of the other car became aggressive, and that Mr. Metcalfe’s client feared being the victim of violence. Further, through the body camera footage the police took, Mr. Metcalfe was able to demonstrate that the motivation of the other driver was to try to make Mr. Metcalfe’s client responsible for his medical bills (medical bills that were due to an injury he suffered before the accident with Mr. Metcalfe’s client). At the conclusion of evidence, Mr. Metcalfe’s client was found Not Guilty.
Congratulations to Joe Metcalfe on another Domestic Violence Jury Trial Win!
Mr. Metcalfe’s client was accused of Assault 4 and Harassment. The maximum potential jail sentence if convicted was one day less than one and a half years. The alleged victim’s daughter called 911 saying she heard Mr. Metcalfe’s client threaten her mother. When the police arrived, both the alleged victim and Mr. Metcalfe’s client had scratches on their arms. Mr. Metcalfe’s client was arrested. At trial, Mr. Metcalfe proved that neither of the people had actually scratched the other. The scratches had come from a bed they were each reaching under to get to a phone. They were on opposite sides of the bed trying to get that phone. Before the jury had to begin deliberations, the judge granted Mr. Metcalfe’s motion to dismiss the case after proving these facts.
Congratulations to Matthew Crusen on another Domestic Violence Jury Trial Win!
Mr. Crusen’s client was accused of Assault 4 and Harassment. The maximum potential jail sentence if convicted was one day less than one and a half years. The basic allegation was that Mr. Crusen’s client was accused of biting her boyfriend’s face during an argument. This was a case where we had declined the option of the Deferred Sentencing program - therefore, we went to trial.
The police testified that the boyfriend had an obvious bite on his forehead. Mr. Crusen established through cross examination (primarily) that his client was trying to kiss her boyfriend, and he pulled away at the last moment at an angle that caused her teeth to be struck by his forehead hard enough to leave marks and some injury. The jury saw reasonable doubt and therefore found Mr. Crusen’s client Not Guilty of both charges.
Congratulations to Ryan Lhotsky on another Domestic Violence Trial Win.
Mr. Lhotsky’s client was accused of Attempted Assault 4 and Harassment. If convicted of both charges, he faced up to one year of jail. The basic facts were that a person, who had been a victim of domestic violence herself, saw a woman with a ‘goose egg’ and called 911. The woman with a goose egg had her own criminal law issues for which she was not allowed to consume alcohol. She didn’t want to tell the police that she had gotten drunk and fell; so, she equivalated with the police about what happened. Assuming the worst, the police then arrested Mr. Lhotsky’s client.
At trial, Mr. Lhotsky proved that his client had nothing to do with the woman’s fall, that the reason the woman hadn’t told the police the truth at the time of the interview was that she was afraid of getting in trouble if she told the truth, and that this was a rush to judgement. Mr. Lhotsky’s client was quickly found Not Guilty of both charges.
Congratulations to Angus Dunlavey on a Unlawful Use of a Weapon Trial Win!
Mr. Dunlavey’s client got into an argument, pulled out a gun, pointed the gun at the other person, and pulled the trigger over and over – click, click, click. It never fired. The prosecutor decided to bring the charge of Unlawful Use of a Weapon. The charge the prosecutor decided to bring required the prosecutor to prove that the weapon was ‘dangerous or deadly.’ That phrase, in turn, requires the prosecutor to prove that the gun was ‘presently capable of causing death or serious physical injury.’ Mr. Dunlavey knew this was the key issue for the case.
Mr. Dunlavey forced the government to examine the gun his client used. It turned out that the reason that it only clicked and did not fire was that it was damaged and could not hold ammunition. After the police discovered this problem with the gun, they repaired the gun so that ammunition could enter the chamber. But then the police still had to actively hold the ammunition clip in place even after their repair - so, they could make it work, barely.
This all means that when Mr. Dunlavey’s client pulled the trigger, the gun did not function and was not, at that time, ‘presently capable of causing death or serious physical injury.’ Once this was proved through the evidence at trial, the judge granted Mr. Dunlavey’s motion to dismiss that charge through a motion called a Motion for Judgement of Acquittal.
Congratulations to Gabe Walsh on another DV Trial Win!
Mr. Walsh’s client was accused of Class A Harassment (this is the form of Harassment that carries up to 364 days of jail if convicted). The entire trial revolved around Mr. Walsh’s cross examination of the alleged victim. During that cross examination, the alleged victim conceded that she was extremely intoxicated during the event, that her memory was therefore suspect, and that Mr. Walsh’s client had not actually ‘harassed’ her through his actions. At the conclusion of the prosecutor’s evidence, Mr. Walsh made a Motion for Judgement of Acquittal based upon that cross examination. This type of motion is an argument to the judge that the prosecution’s evidence has failed so badly that the jury should not even have to go to deliberations. The judge granted Mr. Walsh’ motion and dismissed the case against his client!
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on a 14 Minute Deliberation Jury Trial Win!
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of Harassment (class B). This type of harassment charge carries up to 6 months of jail if convicted. The alleged victim claimed that Mr. Beach’s client had pushed her, and that she fell due to the push.
When he was initially arrested, Mr. Beach’s client denied the allegation. Mr. Beach’s client was eligible for the Domestic Violence Deferred Sentencing program but declined that option since he said he didn’t do the crime.
At trial, Mr. Beach proved that before the alleged victim made this claim, she had contacted the police because she wanted out of her lease which had a $4000 early termination penalty. The police told her that if she was the victim of domestic violence that there was a provision in Oregon law that would allow her out of her lease without penalty. Shortly thereafter, she alleged that Mr. Beach’s client pushed her and that it was an act of domestic violence.
After the jury heard Mr. Beach’s cross examination of the alleged victim and his subsequent argument, they returned to the jury room. When a jury returns to the jury room after the completion of evidence and argument, the judge tells them to first select a foreman and then to begin deliberations. Fourteen minutes after returning to the jury room, they signaled to the court that they had obtained a unanimous verdict. We don’t know how much time they spent selecting a foreman versus deciding the case - but we do know that the unanimous decision was Not Guilty.