Recent Cases
This was another case where Mr. Beach’s client declined the domestic violence deferred sentencing program option. During cross examination of the alleged ‘victim,’ Mr. Beach established that his (‘victim’s’) story directly contradicted the evidence apparent in the photographs. Further, Mr. Beach entered the ‘victim’s’ 911 call to show his actual motivation in making the allegations was to find a way to get Mr. Beach’s client evicted. Not guilty verdict!
Mr. Goldman represented a parent who home schooled and had used drugs in the past. The department of human services (child welfare division) wished to remove Mr. Goldman’s client’s children because of these two facts. At the shelter care hearing (the court hearing to decide if children should be removed), Mr. Goldman convinced the judge that since his client was submitting clean drug tests, had people stopping by during the day, and was enrolling the kids in a school, the kids should stay home despite any fears the government may have that his client might still be using drugs. The judge agreed and the kids stayed home!
This was another of our cases eligible for the domestic violence deferred sentencing (DVDS) program. Client declined the DVDS program and asked for a trial. At the trial, there is a stage when the defense may make motions after the prosecutor has finished offering all of the evidence they can get in front of the jury. At that stage, Mr. Beach argued for a motion for judgment of acquittal because all that could be proved is that the ‘victim’ had been pointing again and again in Mr. Beach’s client’s face and all he (Mr. Beach’s client) did was push away the hand from his face. Dismissal granted!
Someone threw rocks through another person’s window and drove away. Mr. Goldman’s client was accused of being the person throwing those rocks and when he was found, he was parked and apparently intoxicated. During trial, Mr. Goldman dove into the fact that there were significant weaknesses in the identification of who threw the rocks and who drove the car. Helpfully, the police couldn’t remember anything about how Mr. Goldman’s client did on the field sobriety tests without reading off of their notes. Mr. Goldman explored the weak memories of all the government’s witnesses and the jury returned a Not Guilty on both charges.
For the second time, this one person alleged that Mr. Beach’s client had assaulted her. The first time, Mr. Beach proved that her claims were not trustworthy – or even physically possible. This time, Mr. Beach again proved that the facts of her claim were not realistic. After a full day of trial, the jury returned a Not Guilty verdict at 7:33 p.m.
One of the aspects of living in a free society is that the government can’t randomly grab you and search your body and property. In this case, the police approached a man for ‘loitering’ and told him they wanted to search him. He placed his hand on his head and turned around as instructed by the police. Ms. Johnson convinced the judge that submitting to the power of men with guns, batons, and badges does not constitute voluntary consent. Suppression granted and case dismissed!
This was a case that required Mr. Beach’s client to go to prison for 36 months if the client was convicted. Through cross examination, Mr. Beach proved that the complaining person (the alleged victim) lied to the police in order to get Mr. Beach’s client out of the house. She had called the police to ask them to evict Mr. Beach’s client and the police told her that she would have to go to court for that. So, after that phone call, she called them back and alleged domestic violence. That allegation got him arrested and kicked out of the home. During cross examination, her many different stories fell apart and the only facts that remained was her motivation to lie to get the police to do something they told her they wouldn’t do without a court order. Not guilty on all counts.
The prosecutor brought a violation of a restraining order charge against Ms. Johnson’s client. At the hearing, Ms. Johnson proved that the ‘protected person’ making the allegation followed Ms. Johnson’s client’s car until Ms. Johnson’s client pulled into a gas station to get gas. At the station, the ‘protected person’ approached and assaulted Ms. Johnson’s client and all Ms. Johnson’s client did was try to get away from the abusive ‘protected person’. Naturally, the government prosecuted Ms. Johnson’s client and not the real abuser. No violation was found against Ms. Johnson’s client.
Mr. Beach’s client had entered into a plea agreement. Part of that agreement was that the victim could ask for lawful restitution – restitution for money or value to property actually lost or diminished because of this crime. Naturally, the victim made a request for money well beyond what was actually lost. Mr. Beach told the judge that the amount requested was fraudulent and that Mr. Beach should be allowed to offer evidence to prove that. The judge would not allow Mr. Beach to offer evidence, ordered that the full amount of the request would be ordered and commented that it is now up to the Court of Appeals to deal with. Naturally, Mr. Beach, sent the issue to the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Beach was correct and the trial judge errored by not allowing Mr. Beach to offer evidence.
The probation office claimed that Ms. Johnson’s client was refusing to do treatment and should therefore go to jail. Ms. Johnson, however, proved that there was no way her client could pay for the treatment the probation office demanded. Accordingly, no violation was found against Ms. Johnson’s client.
