Mr. Beach’s client was accused of Felony Assault IV in a domestic relationship. This carries a potential five-year prison sentence if convicted. Mr. Beach got the case dismissed. The key was that Mr. Beach obtained medical evidence that showed that the accuser was lying. Mr. Beach proved that the accuser faked bruising a week after reporting the supposed assault. It certainly helped that during the initial investigation by the police, the accuser refused to allow the police to look at the injuries that she claimed she had on her body. Of course, the following week she allowed the police to look at, and photograph, these ‘injuries.’ Mr. Beach’s medical expert, however, was able to convincingly explain that those injuries must have been caused after the supposed assault. Accordingly, the case was dismissed!
Congratulation to Gabriel Walsh on getting another case dismissed on the day of trial.
Mr. Walsh’s client was accused of Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. His client is required to report his address to the county sheriff every time he moves residences and annually within ten days of his birthday. The wrinkle is that Mr. Walsh’s client was homeless. The prosecutor’s perspective was that a state of homelessness (thus not having an address) isn’t relevant to the duty to report an address. Since the prosecutor was not amenable to a conversation on the topic before trial, Mr. Walsh went to trial.
The morning of trial, the prosecutor was open to discussing the case since it was time for him to prove the case to a jury. Upon hearing Mr. Walsh’s argument that being homeless means that a person does not have an address, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the case.
Congratulations to Angus Dunlavey on winning a motion hearing the day of trial that caused the case to be dismissed in its entirety!
Mr. Dunlavey’s client had been accused of the crime of Harassment. This charge carried a potential jail sentence of 6 months. This case was eligible for the Domestic Violence Deferred Sentencing program (a deal to get a case dismissed in exchange for doing classes - and many other obligations). However, Mr. Dunlavey’s client declined that option so that he could have a trial on whether he actually committed the crime of Harassment.
The basis of the prosecutor’s accusation against Mr. Dunlavey’s client came from statement the alleged victim supposedly made to a friend. The prosecutor could not prove the case by relying upon the actual investigation involving the interview of the alleged victim and the observation of the police. It all relied upon the testimony of a friend of the alleged victim (one who didn’t like Mr. Dunlavey’s client). On the morning of trial, Mr. Dunlavey challenged the reliability of that friend’s statements. Mr. Dunlavey won that motion hearing (a motion hearing is when someone makes a challenge or request of the judge – a motion – and the judge holds a hearing – a mini-trial to decide the motion without the jury present). Since the entirety of the prosecutor’s allegations were based on those unreliable statements by the friend – and those statements could no longer presented to the jury – the judge dismissed the case!
Congratulations to Gabriel Walsh on another Jury Trial Win!
Mr. Walsh’s client was accused of DUII, Resisting Arrest, Interference with a Peace Officer, and two counts of Assault of a Peace Officer. Through a long trial and much cross-examination to establish that the basis for the DUII investigation and arrest were not actually as initially reported, the Jury returned Not Guilty verdicts.
Congratulations to Angus Dunlavey for a Contested Restitution hearing challenge that none of us thought could be won – but he won!
Restitution is the basic criminal law proposition that if I commit a crime and because of my criminal act you lose money or value to property that you can ask the court to make me reimburse you for your loss. Unfortunately, this is something that we often must challenge because there are many people who will try to take advantage of this basic proposition to ask for far more money than they are entitled to receive. In Mr. Dunlavey’s case a plea agreement with the prosecutor had been reached that envisioned the payment of restitution for ‘dismissed’ charges. The claim for money that then arrived for the ‘dismissed’ charge far exceeded any reasonable expectation. So, Mr. Dunlavey challenged the claim. All the rest of us in the office expected the judge to rule that the terms of the plea agreement covered all such claims for restitution; so, the rest of us were pessimistic about our chances. Nevertheless, Mr. Dunlavey felt it was simply unjust and fought onward with his challenge. Mr. Dunlavey was right. Not only did he defeat the excessive amount of the claim, but he also defeated the entirety of the claim!
Congratulations to Kylie Cin on another Jury Trial Win!
Ms. Cin’s client was accused of Interference with Making a Report and Harassment. His potential jail time if convicted of both counts was 1 ½ years. The basic claim was that Ms. Cin’s client supposedly ‘slammed’ his girlfriend to the ground and then held her down by her neck. But the statements were riddled with inconsistencies. More importantly, Ms. Cin was able to prove that this ‘statement’ from the girlfriend didn’t originate with the girlfriend. Instead of the police asking her what happened, the police told her what they thought happened and kept asking her to confirm their story. After time, she eventually said ‘yes.’ The jury responded with ‘Not Guilty.’
Congratulations to Gabriel Walsh on a Contempt of Court Trial Win!
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.