Toni Gonzalez Recent Case Win: Reckless Endangerment Dismissed, Harassment — Not Guilty

Our client faced two charges arising from separate incidents in a domestic relationship: Recklessly Endangering Another Person, carrying a potential sentence of up to 364 days in jail, and Harassment, carrying up to six months. Attorney Toni Gonzalez secured a complete victory on both charges.

The Reckless Endangerment charge stemmed from an incident in a moving vehicle. During an argument, our client touched the steering wheel while asking to be let out of the car. The alleged victim claimed our client was attempting to cause an accident. Ms. Gonzalez demonstrated that our client never actually moved the steering wheel — and that simply touching a steering wheel while requesting to exit a vehicle fell far short of the legal standard for reckless endangerment. The judge agreed, granting Ms. Gonzalezi's motion to dismiss the charge at the close of the prosecution's own evidence — before the defense even presented its case.

The Harassment charge arose from a separate incident in which our client pushed away a phone that the alleged victim was using to record them at close range. The alleged victim claimed our client had slapped the phone and pulled her hair. Toni argued that our client's sole intent was to stop being recorded — not to harass or annoy the alleged victim. The court agreed, returning a Not Guilty verdict.

Gabriel Walsh: Recent Case Win: DUII — Not Guilty

Our client faced a DUII charge following a rear-end collision. This charge carries up to 364 days of jail. She had acknowledged having a couple of drinks a few hours before driving, and the arresting officer observed symptoms he attributed to intoxication. Attorney Gabriel Walsh took the case to trial and secured a Not Guilty verdict by methodically dismantling each piece of the prosecution's evidence.

First, Mr. Walsh demonstrated that the symptoms the officer interpreted as signs of intoxication were not caused by alcohol at all — our client has a neurological disorder whose symptoms closely mirror those of intoxication. The officer had simply misread a medical condition as evidence of impairment.

Second, Gabriel Walsh challenged the prosecution's characterization of a statement our client made during the investigation. When asked to rate her level of intoxication on a scale of zero to ten (where the officer told her that 10 meant being drung), she responded with a five — intending to convey that she did not feel drunk. The prosecution argued to the jury that she had effectively admitted to being halfway to the most intoxicated a person could possibly be. Mr. Walsh exposed this interpretation for what it was: a misrepresentation of a straightforward answer.

Third, and perhaps most tellingly, the only chemical test administered was a urinalysis — a test that does not detect alcohol. It returned no findings of intoxication.

Faced with a misread medical condition, a distorted interpretation of our client's own words, and a chemical test incapable of detecting alcohol, the jury returned a Not Guilty verdict.

Tyler Beach Recent Case Win: Felony Violation of Stalking Protective Order — Not Guilty

Our client faced a felony charge for violation of a stalking protective order — a serious charge carrying significant consequences - five years of prison. Attorney Tyler Beach secured a dismissal of the charges by identifying a precise and fundamental flaw in the prosecution's case.

The alleged violation consisted of a message our client sent to the protected party. In that message, our client stated that he was leaving the state and that she would never see him again. The prosecution characterized this as a criminal violation of the protective order.

Mr. Beach focused his argument on a critical element of the law: to sustain a stalking charge, the accused's conduct must cause a reasonable apprehension in the victim. Tyler Beach argued that a message announcing the sender's permanent departure from the victim's life could not, by any reasonable standard, produce that response. If anything, such a message communicates the opposite of a threat.

The court agreed, and the felony charge was dismissed.

This case illustrates that even serious felony charges can have critical legal vulnerabilities. Mr. Beach's ability to identify and argue that precise legal issue made all the difference.

Joe Metcalfe: Case Victory: Criminal Charges Dismissed

We are proud to congratulate attorney Joe Metcalfe on securing a dismissal in a recent criminal case tried in Washington County Circuit Court.

Our client was charged with assault following an altercation with a former romantic partner. Mr. Metcalfe successfully argued that the State was unprepared to proceed to trial in a manner that respected the defendant's constitutional rights — specifically, the right to confront witnesses face to face.

The case hinged on the fact that the alleged victim had relocated to another country before trial and informed the prosecution she could not return. Rather than promptly notifying the defense or the court and exploring available options — such as a continuance, a pretrial deposition, or video testimony — the State attempted to introduce the absent witness's out-of-court statements as a substitute for live testimony. Mr. Metcalfe argued that this approach violated both Oregon and U.S. constitutional guarantees, and that the prosecution had failed to exhaust the reasonable measures available to secure the witness's presence.

Mr. Metcalfe further demonstrated that other evidence the State sought to admit was inadmissible — including 911 calls containing multiple layers of hearsay, statements gathered by a forensic nursing program that functions as an arm of law enforcement, and a police interview translation that was neither conducted according to accepted interpretive standards nor accurately reflected our client's actual words.

The judge agreed on all counts and dismissed the case.

This outcome reflects Mr. Metcalfe's thorough preparation, his command of constitutional law, and his commitment to holding the State to its burden. We congratulate Joe on this excellent result for our client.

Another Trial Win by Adelaide Beeman-White: Driving While Suspended — Not Guilty

Our client faced a charge of Driving While Suspended, carrying a potential jail sentence of up to 364 days. Attorney Adelaide Beeman-White secured a full Not Guilty verdict based on one simple but critical question: was our client actually driving?

The facts were straightforward. A police officer came upon our client's car pulled over and stalled on the side of the road. Our client and a friend were both present, and our client was attempting to address the mechanical issue with the vehicle. When the officer asked what had happened, our client responded that the car had broken down on him. The prosecution seized on that statement as a confession that our client had been driving the vehicle.

Adelaide challenged that interpretation directly. Both our client and his friend consistently stated that the friend had been driving — not our client. Ms. Beeman-White demonstrated that our client's statement about the car breaking down was nothing more than a casual description of the situation, not an admission of who was behind the wheel. The prosecution's entire case rested on reading far too much into a passing comment.

The jury agreed, returning a Not Guilty verdict on the charge.

This case is a reminder that a casual statement taken out of context is not a confession, and that the prosecution bears the burden of proving every element of a charge beyond a reasonable doubt — including something as fundamental as who was actually driving.

Attorney Adelaide Beeman-White Recent Trial Win on Harassment Charge

Our client faced a Harassment charge carrying a potential sentence of up to six months in jail. The charge stemmed from an incident in which our client's girlfriend fell to the ground during a dispute over his backpack. Our attorney, Adelaide Beeman-White, took the case to trial and secured a full Not Guilty verdict.

The circumstances were important. Our client is homeless, and the backpack in question contained all of his possessions. During the incident, his girlfriend took the backpack and began walking away with it. Our client grabbed the backpack to retrieve it, and his girlfriend fell in the process. The State characterized this as harassment. Ms. Beeman-White characterized it as something else entirely: a man exercising his legal right to defend and recover his own property.

The case carried additional weight because our client had previously declined participation in the deferred sentencing program, meaning a negotiated resolution was off the table. Ms. Beeman-White took the case to trial and successfully argued that our client lacked any intent to harass or annoy his girlfriend — his sole purpose was to retrieve property that belonged to him. The jury agreed.

The court returned a Not Guilty verdict, and our client walked away free.

This case demonstrates that the circumstances behind an accusation matter enormously. What the prosecution frames as criminal conduct may tell a very different story when examined carefully.

Alexandria Stanton-Campos Recent Case Win: Drug Possession Charge Dismissed — Unlawful Search & Seizure

Our client was charged with drug possession following a search of his private garage. Rather than accept a plea deal, he stood on principle — and attorney Alexandria Stanton-Campos vindicated that decision completely, securing a full dismissal of the charge.

The facts were straightforward. Our client was sleeping in his car, parked in his own garage at his home. A passing police officer observed that the garage door was open and entered the property without a warrant or invitation. Once inside, the officer used a flashlight to illuminate areas he could not otherwise see, and ultimately searched a closed container inside the garage — where he found the drugs that formed the basis of the charges.

Our client had been offered the opportunity to participate in a diversion program in exchange for dismissal of the case. He declined. He believed the officer's entry and search of his private garage was unconstitutional, and he was not willing to accept any deal that glossed over that violation.

Ms. Stanton-Campos argued that the warrantless entry into the garage and the subsequent search violated our client's Fourth Amendment rights. The court agreed, suppressing the evidence obtained during the unlawful search. Without that evidence, the prosecution had no case, and the charge was dismissed entirely.

This case is a reminder that how evidence is obtained matters as much as what that evidence shows. If law enforcement violated your rights in obtaining evidence against you, that evidence may not be usable in court. Our attorneys know how to identify those violations and fight to protect your rights. Sometimes the best trial is the one that never happens.

Tyler Beach Recent Case Win: Strangulation, Attempted Strangulation & Harassment — Not Guilty on All Counts

Our client faced three serious charges — Strangulation, Attempted Strangulation, and Harassment — with a combined potential sentence of over six years in custody. Attorney Tyler Beach took the case to trial and secured Not Guilty verdicts on all counts.

Mr. Beach’s defense was built on multiple layers. First, he identified a critical legal issue before the jury ever began deliberating: the complaining witness had provided grand jury testimony about the strangulation allegations but had not mentioned a separate alleged push. Because that information was never presented to the grand jury, Tyler successfully moved to prevent the jury from considering it — a precise legal maneuver that significantly narrowed the prosecution's case before it even reached the jury.

Second, when the complaining witness took the stand at trial, she recanted her allegations regarding the strangulation entirely, undermining the foundation of the prosecution's case.

Third, Tyler demonstrated that the complaining witness had a concrete personal motive to fabricate the allegations. She was facing serious criminal charges of her own and stood to benefit from presenting herself as a domestic violence victim at her own sentencing.

Faced with a recanting witness, excluded evidence, and a demonstrated motive to lie, the jury returned Not Guilty verdicts on all three charges.

This case reflects what experienced trial attorneys do — identify every legal avenue available, rigorously cross-examine witnesses, and expose the truth about why accusations are sometimes made. If you are facing serious charges, having the right attorney in your corner can make all the difference.

Ryan Lhotsky: Recent Case Win: Assault IV & Harassment — Not Guilty on All Counts

Our client faced charges of Assault in the Fourth Degree and Harassment, with a potential combined jail sentence of nearly one year for the Assault charge alone, plus an additional six months on the Harassment charge — nearly a year and a half of total exposure.

The case arose from an unusual and deeply human set of circumstances. Our client had taken an overdose of drugs but then reconsidered and sought help. In a desperate attempt to get himself to the hospital, he woke his mother by pulling her from her bed. His mother sustained an arm injury in the process, which became the basis for the criminal charges against him.

Our attorney, Ryan Lhotsky, recognized that the facts told a very different story than the one the prosecution was presenting. At trial, Mr. Lhotsky successfully argued that our client harbored no intent to harass his mother — his sole focus was getting emergency medical help. Mr. Lhotsky further demonstrated that the injury to his mother was not a foreseeable consequence of his actions under the circumstances, meaning the conduct did not meet the legal standard for recklessness required by the Assault charge.

The court agreed on both counts, returning Not Guilty verdicts on all charges.

This case illustrates that context matters enormously in criminal defense. The same set of facts can look very different when a skilled attorney presents the full picture to a jury. If you are facing charges where the circumstances are more complicated than they first appear, we are here to make sure the jury hears the whole story.

Gabriel Walsh Recent Case Win: Bias Crime & Criminal Mischief — Not Guilty on All Counts

Our client was charged with Bias Crime and Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree, serious charges carrying significant consequences. The accusations stemmed from an alleged incident in which our client supposedly threw objects at a vehicle while making racially charged statements.

Our attorney, Gabriel Walsh, took the case to trial and systematically dismantled the prosecution's evidence through precise and effective cross-examination. First, Mr. Walsh established that the complainant's windshield was already damaged before the alleged incident — meaning our client could not be held responsible for pre-existing damage. Second, the physical evidence placed the alleged projectile fifteen feet from the vehicle, and the complainant could not affirmatively state that any new damage to his car had actually occurred. Third — and critically — Mr. Walsh established through cross-examination that the complainant had followed our client to confront him, and that the alleged statement was made only after that confrontation began. This sequencing was fatal to the Bias Crime charge.

When the evidence was carefully examined, the prosecution's case unraveled. The court returned Not Guilty verdicts on both charges.