Mr. Walsh’s client owed $27,000 in child support. If the court determined that Mr. Walsh’s client had refused to pay that child support his client faced up to six months of jail. At the trial (it was a trial without a jury because no juries are allowed for contempt of court cases), Mr. Walsh proved that his client had been, and continued to be, destitute. Although he should pay the child support, he can’t pay what he doesn’t have. The judge found as a matter of law that Mr. Walsh’s client had not refused to try to pay the child support obligation; and therefore, he was Not Guilty.
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on another Jury Trial Win!
“It is not a crime to be a jerk!” That was Mr. Beach’s summation of the case. Mr. Beach’s client was accused of the crime of ‘Harassment’. This crime carries a maximum jail sentence of 6 months (for this type of Harassment). Mr. Beach’s client was accused by his ex-girlfriend of pushing her during an argument. However, at trial Mr. Beach proved that the ex-girlfriend had physically cornered Mr. Beach’s client in a closet and all his client did that involved physical contact was to squeeze by her to get out of the closet. Mr. Beach’s client may have said some unpleasant things during the argument – but ‘it is not a crime to be a jerk’. The jury agreed and found Mr. Beach’s client Not Guilty.
Congratulations to Kylie Cin on another day of trial dismissal!
Ms. Cin’s client was accused of Menacing for allegedly threatening a neighbor over a dispute involving a dog. This carries up to 364 days of jail. Ms. Cin’s client was a petite woman and the neighbor was a large man. Nevertheless, the prosecution believed that the man felt threatened – apparently because Ms. Cin’s client was supposed to have shaken a stick while making a threat. During the investigation, Ms. Cin obtained a video of the event. The video refuted the shaking a stick allegation and in fact showed that Ms. Cin’s client was walking away holding her dog when the alleged threat occurred. Despite offering this evidence to the prosecutor, the prosecutor would not agree to dismiss – until the day of trial when the prosecutor dismissed before the start of the actual trial.
Congratulations to Ron Ridehalgh on a Show Cause hearing Win!
Mr. Ridehalgh’s client was in the domestic violence deferred sentencing program. This is a program where if a client completes an agreement with the court, the criminal charge against the person is dismissed. However, should a person violate the agreement, the person can then be convicted of the crime. Mr. Ridehalgh’s client was accused of having contact with the victim of the underlying charge without the court’s permission, engaging in ‘offensive’ contact with another person in a road rage incident, and drinking alcohol (alcohol consumption was prohibited pursuant to the agreement with the court).
At the hearing, Mr. Ridehalgh proved, through cross examination of the victim and the supervising officer, that the contact with the victim had only been through the court approved means; through his client’s testimony, that Mr. Ridehalgh’s client was the actual victim of the road rage incident; and through a witness Mr. Ridehalgh obtained, that the alcohol consumption with a mere sip when his client believed that it was a non-alcoholic drink. Accordingly, no violation of the agreement was found by the court and Mr. Ridehalgh’s client can move forward to get the case ultimately dismissed.
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on a Probation Violation Win!
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.
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on yet another Trial Win!
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of the crime of Harassment. This carries up to six months of jail if convicted. It was also classified as domestic violence because the alleged victim was Mr. Beach’s client’s wife. At trial, Mr. Beach proved that the wife had been grabbing his client and that all Mr. Beach’s client did was push his wife’s hand away when she was grabbing him. A not guilty verdict was quickly returned!
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on getting a case dismissed through a thorough investigation!
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of a host of crimes stemming from an allegation that Mr. Beach’s client had been recklessly firing illegal fireworks which risked the safety of many and certainly caused a fire to a neighboring property. The claim was that the owner of the neighboring property saw Mr. Beach’s client fire those fireworks. So, Mr. Beach had everyone, including the neighbor, thoroughly interviewed. It turned out that the only person the police claimed had said Mr. Beach’s client fired the fireworks didn’t actually see who fired the fireworks. Accordingly, Mr. Beach’s client rejected all plea offers from the prosecutor and demanded a trial. Just before the start of trial, the prosecutor admitted defeat and dismissed the case.
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on another Domestic Violence Trial Assault win!
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of Assault 4 and Harassment in a domestic relationship. Mr. Beach’s client was actually guilty of the Harassment, and was willing to accept that charge’s sanctions; however, he didn’t actually committing the crime of Assault 4 pursuant to Oregon law. The prosecutor wouldn’t agree; so a trial was necessary. Mr. Beach’s argument was that although his client had done a crime, by law he had not done the greater crime alleged by the prosecutor (the Assault 4). Since his argument was a legal rather than a factual argument, Mr. Beach and his client decided to waive having a jury decide the issue and did the trial to a judge. The judge agreed and found Mr. Beach’s client Not Guilty of the Assault 4 charge.
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on three dismissals in a row on their days of trial!
The day of trial is when the witness are to all come and testify and be subject to examination and cross examination by the attorneys. The prosecutor has the job of proving criminal allegation; so they go first at a trial. Sometimes, the prosecutor can’t actually present evidence in support of the charges and the case gets dismissed. Well, on three different cases of Tyler’s, on three different days in quick succession, the prosecutor didn’t have the minimum evidence needed on the day of trial and those cases were dismissed.
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on yet another Trial Win (again)!
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of Public Indecency. The entire case came from a complaint a woman made where she said that Mr. Beach’s client had exposed himself to her. The case was decided by the cross examination of this person’s story. Through the cross examination Mr. Beach showed how massively her story had changed from what she said on her 911 call - when it was about seeing the top Mr. Beach’s client’s backside when he got out of car - to a difference story to the police on the police’s body camera, and finally to a very graphic depiction that was physically impossible. A verdict of Not Guilty was quickly returned.