Mr. Goldman’s client was facing his eighth DUII. Due to his client’s prior history of DUIIs, the best plea offer was to spend one full year in jail. Unfortunately, this was not the best of factual cases for defense. Mr. Goldman’s client was at least a 0.20 and the police had followed all the proper procedures. The one ray of hope (and not necessarily a bright ray of hope) was that the police had not seen Mr. Goldman’s client drive. The client had told the police he drove; but, they had not actually seen him driving. Accordingly, at trial Mr. Goldman focused on how his client could not be trusted to tell the truth! He was drunk, so his mental facilities were impaired – that was a reason the prosecution was prosecuting him after all. Additionally, Mr. Goldman proved that his client had told the police many different, and incompatible, stories about what had happened. Since, the prosecutor needed the jury to believe the one story Mr. Goldman’s client had given about being the driver and Mr. Goldman proved that his client couldn’t be trusted; the jury returned a Not Guilty decision after only twenty minutes of deliberation.
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on amazing back to back wins for the same client who was facing up to 10 years of prison.
Mr. Beach’s client had two criminal cases - one where he was accused of stealing a car (Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle) and another case where he was again accused of stealing a car (another Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle). If Mr. Beach’s client was convicted of either charge, Oregon law required a minimum sentence of 30 months (2 ½ years) of prison due to his prior criminal history. The offer from the prosecutor to avoid trial was for Mr. Beach’s client to do 60 months (5 years) of prison. Mr. Beach and his client declined the offer and went to trial. If Mr. Beach lost, the judge would have to impose at least the 30 months but could impose as much as 120 months (10 years) or prison. On one case, Mr. Beach proved that although his client didn’t specifically have permission to drive that car, he had been previously allowed to drive it and reasonably could have believed he still could drive it. On the other case, Mr. Beach proved that his client was arrested (for other charges) before he had the opportunity to return the car he was driving – he might have returned but for being arrested. Not Guilty on both Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle charges!
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on Motion Argument for Domestic Violence Deferred Sentencing Program
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of a domestic violence offense, was eligible for the Washington County Deferred Sentencing Program (this results in dismissal of the charges after treatment) and wished to enter the Program. However, when our client and her partner experienced this event, our client posted an online intimate photo of the other person. This constituted a new crime – generally called ‘revenge porn’ (this is not the actual name of the crime; but it is what people call it). Due to this additional charge, the prosecutor objected to Mr. Beach’s client’s entry into the Program.
During argument to the court, Mr. Beach stressed the underlying issues of control involved with domestic violence, the immediate nature of his client’s acts and how it was clearly another form of controlling behavior that this Program is designed to address. The judge agreed with the analysis and allowed entry into the Program.
Congratulations to Jennelle Johnson on a failed Drug Test while on Probation case
Ms. Johnson’s client was on probation. A term of her client's probation is to not use illegal drugs and to submit to random drug testing. There was no dispute that such a drug test indicated illegal drugs in Ms. Johnson’s client. However, Ms. Johnson attacked the evidence of use of the drug. It was entirely possible that Ms. Johnson’s client was the victim of a ‘date rape’ drug. In a probation violation case, the judge can decide a person violated a term of probation if the judge decided the defendant 'probably' violated. After Ms. Johnson completed her case, the judge decided the state could not even prove that Ms. Johnson’s client even ‘probably’ took drugs voluntarily. Accordingly, the allegation of violation against Ms. Johnson’s client was dismissed.
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on another Successful Challenge to a Restraining Order
People often request restraining orders without considering the many continuing and harmful effects these orders have on a person rights under the law. Merely having such an order can impact a person’s employment options, firearm rights and can significantly impact future legal cases. Accordingly, people will often challenge a restraining order even when that person has no wish to ever see or be with the other person. This was another one of these situations. Mr. Beach challenged the order, and at the hearing, obtained a dismissal of the order without needing to even offer his own evidence. Dismissal was granted at the end of the other person's argument.
Congratulations to Ron Ridehalgh on a DVDS Violation Hearing Win
Mr. Ridehalgh’s client was involved in the Washington County Domestic Violence Deferred Sentencing program. This is a program for persons accused of a first time domestic violence crimes who may agree to treatment (and many other conditions) in exchange for dismissal of the criminal charges at the conclusion of treatment. One of the conditions is that a person in this program may not commit any new crimes or engage in ‘offensive behavior’. Mr. Ridehalgh’s client was accused of committing a new crime by being in a physical fight and that this conduct was ‘offensive’. If found in violation of the agreement due to this allegation, Mr. Ridehalgh’s client would very likely have been removed from the program. This would cause a criminal conviction and possibly jail. Through only cross examination of the prosecutor’s witness, Mr. Ridehalgh established a self-defense claim that the prosecution could not overcome. Accordingly, no violation of the Deferred Sentencing program was found and Mr. Ridehalgh’s client was allowed to continue in the program.
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on another DUII Win
DUII carries up to 1 year of jail, an automatic 1 year driver license suspension if this is a person's first offense, at least $1000 in fines that can under some circumstances go up to $10,000. There is also a felony form of DUI that is up to 5 years imprisonment and up to $125,000 in fines. Mr. Beach had a DUII trial where the client was left alone for 10 minutes after driving. Mr. Beach established at the trial that during those unobserved 10 minutes, his client could have consumed 3 shots of alcohol which would account for the result on the subsequently taken breath test. Given that Mr. Beach established that this could reasonably have been what happened, the jury returned the verdict of Not Guilty.
Congratulations to Thomas Goldman on a Probation Violation Win
Mr. Goldman’s client was on probation and submitted to a drug test. The result of the drug test was that Mr. Goldman’s client violated the terms of probation by using illegal drugs. These are notoriously difficult cases to win and can result in revocation of the probation and immediate imprisonment. At the hearing, the prosecutor had brought the lab technician to testify about the results of the drug test. However, Mr. Goldman chose to attack what is called in law the ‘chain of custody.’ Essentially, Mr. Goldman challenged the evidence that the sample being tested had actually come from Mr. Goldman’s client. Since the prosecutor couldn’t respond to Mr. Goldman’s adaptive move, the judge dismissed the allegation against Mr. Goldman’s client.
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on a Presumptive Prison Case Acquittal
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of selling stolen property. There was no question that the property was sold by his client, that the property was stolen and that Mr. Beach’s client had prior convictions for burglary and robbery. If convicted, the law imposed a prison term for this client under these circumstances. Mr. Beach needed to demonstrate to the jury that his client could have legitimately come into possession of the property and legitimately believed that he could lawfully sell that property. Mr. Beach did it. Through rigorous cross examination of the prosecutor’s witnesses every possibility was explored. Ultimately, the jury returned a Not Guilty verdict!
Congratulations to Thomas Goldman on Juvenile Dependency (Child Abuse and Neglect) Trial Win
Mr. Goldman represented a father in Juvenile Court. DHS had initiated this case in juvenile dependency – this is where the government wants to have power over a family’s children due to allegations of abuse or neglect. In this case the issue at the trial was whether the government should have power over kids (and thus the father Mr. Goldman represented) because the father smoked marijuana. Although Oregon law no longer criminally punishes recreational use or possession of marijuana, the government can still argue that a person who uses marijuana shouldn’t care for a child. At trial, Mr. Goldman stressed the lack of any harm to the children. The phrase in court is that there was “no nexus” between the father’s consumption of marijuana and any identified harm to the children. The judge agreed!