Ms. Cin’s client was accused of Contempt of Court for violating the terms of a criminal release agreement. A release agreement is a document a person signs when they are released from jail on certain conditions. Ms. Cin’s client had signed a document that said, among other things, that he could not go within 100 feet of a specific location. Well, he was found within 100 feet of that location. At trial, Ms. Cin proved that the document was written in English, that her client neither read nor spoke English (he was a Spanish speaker), that the officer who had him sign the document (the officer spoke Spanish) didn’t read the document to Ms. Cin’s client nor even tell Ms. Cin’s client any of the terms of the document at all. The officer told Ms. Cin’s client to sign here to be released from jail; so, her client followed the instruction. At trial, the court concluded that there was no proof that Ms. Cin’s client actually knew that he was prohibited from going to that location. Accordingly, Ms. Cin’s client was found Not Guilty!
Congratulations to Kylie Cin for getting a case dismissed at the preliminary hearing!
A preliminary hearing is a first step a prosecutor must accomplish at the start of a felony criminal prosecution. It is usually rather routine and straightforward. The prosecutor does not have to prove that a defendant is guilty. Basically, the prosecutor must prove that a crime probably happened, and that the defendant was probably the one to commit the crime. In this case, Ms. Cin’s client was accused of two counts of Identity Theft. Each count carried up to five years of prison. At the hearing, Ms. Cin showed that although her client had other people’s identification cards, there was no reason to think that her client had any intention to use those IDs to deceive or defraud anyone. Accordingly, the case was dismissed!
Congratulations to Gabe Walsh on a Family Abuse Protection Act trial win!
The Family Abuse Protection Act is Oregon’s standard restraining order law. If a person violates that restraining order, that person faces up to six months of jail for each violation. Mr. Walsh’s client was accused of violating such an order. Specifically, he was accused of violating the order by sending a message by Facebook messenger. However, the terms of the restraining order allowed Mr. Walsh’s client to send and receive communications through email and text messages. The prosecutor felt that since Mr. Walsh’s client used a service that was not technically an email nor a text message, that he should face six months of jail. At the hearing Mr. Walsh argued that there was no material difference between using Facebook messenger and using any email service. Mr. Walsh prevailed, and his client was acquitted of the allegation.
Congratulations to Kylie Cin on a Felony Strangulation and Assault Jury Trial Win
Ms. Cin’s client was accused of Strangulation. This carries up to five years of prison if convicted. He was also accused of Assault IV which carries up to another year of imprisonment. At trial, Ms. Cin got the alleged victim to admit that she had lied to police and that what actually happened was that she was very drunk, rolled off the bed falling onto the floor injuring her face (she landed face first on the floor). Upon learning the truth, the jury quickly returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Congratulations to Gabriel Walsh on another Jury Trial Win!
Mr. Walsh’s client was accused of Driving Under the Influence and Driving While Suspended. Mr. Walsh’s client was arrested because his wife called 911 to report that her husband had crashed his car. When the police arrived, they found Mr. Walsh’s client near the car, the car was registered to Mr. Walsh’s client, he had a key for a Chevy, and the car was a Chevy. However, the police never checked to see if the key Mr. Walsh’s client possessed worked for that specific car. Also, Mr. Walsh’s client denied driving and was never seen driving. At trial, Mr. Walsh won a motion regarding whether the prosecution could use Mr. Walsh’s wife to testify against her husband. Since Mr. Walsh won the challenge to the wife’s testimony, relying upon ‘spousal privilege,’ the prosecutor was forced to argue that the circumstances implied that Mr. Walsh’s client had driven. Mr. Walsh emphasized the lack of conformation and the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard. The jury agreed with Mr. Walsh that the evidence was not conclusive and found his client Not Guilty.
Congratulation to Tyler Beach on a Robbery and Assault Trial Win!
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of Robbery 3, Assault 4, Harassment, and Disorderly Conduct. Mr. Beach’s position was that his client had committed the Harassment and Disorderly Conduct but not the other two charges. Unfortunately, the Robbery charge meant prison for Mr. Beach’s client if he were to be convicted of that charge. The argument over the Robbery charge focused on whether Mr. Beach’s client intended to steal anything. After only 30 minutes of testimony, Mr. Beach won a motion to dismiss the Robbery charge (the motion is called a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal). At the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Beach’s client was found Not Guilty of the Assault and Guilty of the two misdemeanors Mr. Beach agreed he had committed. Rather than going to prison, Mr. Beach’s client received a probation sentence.
Congratulations to Jennifer Kinzey on a Child Abuse / Neglect trial win in Juvenile Court!
Ms. Kinzey represented a woman who was accused of subjecting her children to abuse and neglect because she (mom) has been the victim of domestic violence. Ms. Kinzey’s client has been physically abused by a boyfriend. A few weeks later, Ms. Kinzey’s client met with that boyfriend whereupon he abused her again. Ms. Kinzey’s client reported both incidents to the police, left that man, and hasn’t seen him since. At trial, Ms. Kinzey’s theme was that ‘one mistake (seeing that man again after the first incident) with one man over the course of one month is not a pattern of domestic violence.’ The judge agreed and dismissed the case. Ms. Kinzey’s client now has custody of her children!
Congratulations to Tyler Beach on a Felony Assault Jury Trial win!
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of felony level Assault 4. This charge carries up to 5 years of prison time. During cross examination, Mr. Beach got the accuser (alleged victim) to admit that she and her sister attacked Mr. Beach’s client while he was holding their child in an attempt to get him to hit back (he accidentally hit her with his elbow when he put up his arm to block their blows) – then they called 911 claiming that he had attacked them. With that information confirmed, the jury returned a Not Guilty decision.
Congratulations to Gabe Walsh on another dismissal on the day of trial!
On the day of trial, the prosecutor had every one of his witnesses present – so, he was ready to proceed. However, this was the day the prosecutor had to actually prove his case to a jury. Despite all attempts by the prosecutor to convince Mr. Walsh to recommend a plea to his client, Mr. Walsh insisted on a trial. Accordingly, the prosecutor gave up and dismissed the case! The relevant facts were that Mr. Walsh’s client had called 911 to report crimes the alleged victim committed. While in the jail, the alleged victim claimed that Mr. Walsh’s client had hit her – a convenient thing say about the person who had just called the police on her.
Congratulations to Angus Dunlavey on another Jury Trial Win!
Mr. Dunlavey’s client was accused of Attempted Strangulation and Harassment. The key to Mr. Dunlavey’s trial victory was to focus on the police investigation. Time and again, Mr. Dunlavey found procedural errors where the police failed to follow proper protocols – protocols that exist to ensure the validity of evidence. As an example, the police interviewed witnesses in front of other witness so that each could hear the statement of the other and therefore adjust their statements to match. As part of Mr. Dunlavey’s focus on the investigation, he pointed out to the jury that the prosecutor didn’t bring the officer that actually did the interviews with witnesses to the trial – a very unusual choice by the prosecution. Ultimately, the jury must have agreed that the evidence offered by the prosecution was not to be trusted because they returned a verdict of Not Guilty to both charges.