Congratulations to Jennelle Johnson on another DUII win!

Ms. Johnson won this by a jury trial.  The arresting officer testified that Ms. Johnson's client had been driving slowly and deliberately, smelled of alcohol and scored .07% blood alcohol on the intoxilizer.  Most people do not realize that a person can be guilty of DUII in Oregon with a blood alcohol level lower than .08%.  Another way a person can be convicted for DUII, even if they are lower than .08% BAC at the time of driving, is if the alcohol (or controlled substance - i.e. drugs) was affecting that person "to a perceptible degree."  Therefore, much of this trial focused on the observations of Ms. Johnson's client by the arresting officer.  Ms. Johnson scored wins on evidence issues with the judge and controlled the narrative of the trial.  At the end of closing argument, the jury only took twenty minutes to return a verdict of Not Guilty.

DUII - ORS 813.010 - carries up to 1 year of jail and a fine of up to $6,250.

Congratulations to Jennelle Johnson - Child Endangerment Case

Ms. Johnson's client was accused of 'Endangering the Welfare of Minor.'  The facts boil down to this: the police raid a house that they believed was a drug house.  During the raid they found our client in a bedroom babysittinga child.  Drugs were found in the living room.  Our client had nothing to do with the drugs, but had moved into the home a couple weeks before and, while babysitting, is responsible for the child.  In Oregon, it is a crime to knowingly have a child in the presence of illegal activity - like possessing and selling drugs (the police had previously made an undercover purchase of drugs in that living room).  Ms. Johnson successfully argued that her client didn't know there were drugs in the living room and that he was in with the child in a different room.  Thankfully, before the trial started, Ms. Johnson won an argument over evidence that kept out of the trial a little annoying, but not relevant fact: there was a loaded gun in a bag on the floor of the bedroom.  The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.  

Endangering the Welfare of a Minor - ORS 163.575 - carries up to 1 year of jail and a fine of up to $6,250.  

Congratulations to our attorney Jennelle Johnson. DHS - Juvenile Law Case.

Ms. Johnson represented a mother in a child abuse and neglect case in Juvenile court.  In these cases, it is common for many issues that affect a family to be of concern to the court.  It is crucial to ensure that the issues of concern are in fact true.  This is because the power of the Department of Human Services (DHS) and the court must be related to the issues of concern.  When the juvenile court and DHS are involved in a family, a plan is produced for what the family members must do to obtain the return of their child.  The more that needs to be done can often mean the longer it will take to get those things done - thus, the longer a child might be out of the family home.  Since that list of things to be done must be related to the issue of concern for the court, an attorney for a parent will want to ensure that the basis for the court's involvement is limited.  In this case, DHS was alleging (among other things) that our client had abandoned her child by leaving the child with our client's mother (child's grandmother) when our client was not able to care for her child.   Ms. Johnson successfully disproved that allegation by showing that the grandmother cared for the child, had the ability to obtain medical care for the child and to enroll the child in school.  

Congratulations to our attorney Jennelle Johnson on another DUII victory.

Ms. Johnson represented our client in a jury trial before the Honorable Suzanna Upton.  Ms. Kate Glasson was the Deputy District Attorney prosecuting our client.  Our client had been charged with Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII).  Our client had performed the standard field sobriety tests and had submitted to the breathalyzer test.  The breathalyzer indicated a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .07 percent at the time she submitted to the test.  A common area of dispute in cases where the breathalyzer result is close to the 0.8 standard is retrograde extrapolation.  Since Oregon law asks what was a person's BAC at the time of driving and since most people are not submitting to the breathalyzer test until usually around an hour after driving, this opens the case to the possibility that the person's BAC was different at the time of driving compared to what the person was when she submitted to the test.  This issue is generally referred to as retrograde extrapolation as we are using the information at the time a person submits to the test to determine what she was back at the time of driving.  Usually, if the test result is at or above .08 it is the defense arguing this issue and if the test result was less than .08 the prosecutor argues the issue.  Since our client had received a .07 result, Ms. Johnson focused the jury's attention on our client's performance of the field sobriety tests.  These tests are often performed under less than ideal conditions and people are naturally very nervous at that time; therefore, understanding the officer's instructions is crucial to performing the tests.  Ms. Johnson emphasized to the jury that our client was speaking English as a second language to help explain some of her performance on those tests.  The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.  

DUII - ORS 813.010 - carries up to 1 year of jail and a fine of up to $6,250.

Tyler Beach won a Felony Assault IV Domestic Violence Jury Trial allowing our client to stay in America

Our client was accused of Felony Assault IV and Harassment.  Both were classified as domestic violence.  Our client was eligible for the DVDS program; but declined the program.  Although participation in the program would result in both charges being dismissed, it would also result in his deportation due to the felony charge.  Our client was lawfully in our country; but does not hold US citizenship.  So, this case had to go to trial.  At the trial, the prosecutor offered evidence that our client had said 'I hit her so hard my hand hurt.'  Mr. Beach argued to the jury that our client was guilty of Harassment, but not of the Felony Assault IV due to the injury requirement for that crime.  The jury agreed with Mr. Beach.  They returned a verdict of Not Guilty on the Felony Assault IV and Guilty on the Harassment.  Our client will still have to do domestic violence treatment; but he and his family will be able to stay in America.  

Felony Assault IV - ORS 163.160 - carries up to 5 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $125,000.  Harassment - ORS 166.065 - carries up to 6 months jail and a fine of up to $2,500.