Mr. Beach represented a person who was already on probation. When a person is on probation, that person will normally be required to do certain things such as drug treatment, paying fines, and performing community service work. If a person doesn’t do those things, that person is subject to a ‘probation violation.’ This means that the person can be put in jail if the court determines that the person has not done what he or she has been ordered to do. When these issues are decided by a judge, the judge does not have to decide the issue ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Instead, the judge only has to decide that the person has violated the terms of probation by a ‘preponderance’. This means that the judge only needs to decide that the person probably (50% plus 1) violated the terms of probation.

Mr. Beach’s client was accused of not doing anything that he was required to do while on probation. Factually, this was true. So, at the hearing Mr. Beach used the ‘willfulness’ defense. Basically, this is arguing that even if a person did something wrong, he didn’t mean to do the wrong thing and shouldn’t be punished when the person didn’t intend to disobey. As evidence, Mr. Beach offered evidence regarding his client’s mental health. Basically, Mr. Beach’s client was so disabled by mental health problems that his inability to perform while on probation was not his fault. After hearing the evidence and argument, the judge agreed with Mr. Beach and Mr. Beach’s client was found to not be in violation of his probation.