The Defendant was accused and arrested for murder. The only evidence against the Defendant was a witness that claimed the Defendant was involved. We talked with that witness and obtained a written statement from him that he made up the accusation in an attempt to get a better outcome in a pending case against him. When we took that statement to the DA, he refused to dismiss the charges. We filed a Constitutional Demand for Speedy trial and then set several hearings to document that the state had no other evidence except the witness. After a sufficient time had passed without the state indicting the Defendant, we filed a Motion to Dismiss based on the demand for a speedy trial. When we appeared for the hearing, the state dismissed the charges!
The Defendant pled guilty about 9 years ago for Sexual Battery after having consensual sex with his girlfriend, who was a minor. Subsequent to his plea, he was placed on the Sex Offender Registry and became subject to its provisions, which include annual registration and not being able to live and work in many locations. We filed a Motion to remove him from that registry, since the statute specifically exempts misdemeanor convictions from its requirements. After a hearing, the court agreed that he should never have been placed on the list and ordered his immediate removal!
The Defendant was accused and arrested for robbing a drug dealer at gun point. The Defendant was only 15 years old, but was facing Life in Prison on the Armed Robbery charge. Due to his age and lack of prior criminal history, we filed a Motion to Transfer the Case to Juvenile Court. After the judge granted the motion, the felony case was dismissed. The Defendant is no longer facing Life in Prison!
The Defendant was convicted about 10 years ago at the age of 17 for the rape of his baby’s mama when he had non-consensual sex with her. He pled guilty and as part of the plea, he agreed to sex offender terms and conditions. Ten years later, he wishes to marry a woman who has three children, but probation will not allow him to live with the children, pursuant to the sex offender conditions. We filed a Motion to Modify the terms of his probation to allow him to reside with the children. The state opposed the motion, stating that he is a dangerous rapist and that he had agreed to the conditions as part of his plea. We argued that although inexcusable, the rape was forced sex on a prior sex partner, not the stalking and rape of a stranger. In addition, there was no allegation that he was a danger to children. He had served 7 years in prison for his crime and thus, paid his dues to society. He was only 17 when he “agreed” to never live with children and had not anticipated that someday he would want a family. It was in societies best interest to encourage him to be part of a family unit. Finally, we pointed out to the court that the original conditions he agreed to allowed the court to grant permission for him to live with children. After hearing argument, the court met independently with the children and then granted the modification to allow the Defendant to live the children!
The Defendant was arrested after a police officer approached his parked vehicle and claimed he saw drugs. After we began investigating and pushing to get information on the arrest, the case was dismissed.
The Defendant was arrested for damaging the car of her boyfriend. While the Defendant did cause the damage, it was done after she returned home to find her boyfriend in her bed with another woman. After we showed the state that the home was owned by the Defendant and the boyfriend was merely staying there and that he had been caught with another woman, the state agreed to dismiss the charges.
After 3 years of sitting in jail, the day finally came to have his trial. At the last minute, the State filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court asking for the trial to be delayed while their appeal is heard on all 5 defendants. We filed a response arguing that the appeal did not apply to this defendant and therefore, his case should be severed from the appeal of the other 4 and his case be allowed to proceed to trial. The Supreme Court agreed and directed our case to proceed!
The Defendant was charged with Cruelty to Elder Person after his mother, who live with him and his brother was admitted to the hospital. After his case lingered for over a year, the we filed a Demand for Speedy Trial under the U.S. Constitution. When his case had not even been indicted for almost 2 years after his arrest, we moved to dismiss the case. Although the State weakly opposed the motion, it did nothing to fight against it and failed at every opportunity provided by the court to even file any motions or briefs arguing against a dismissal. However, the trial court refused to take action on the motion. After having to file both a Motion to Recuse the judge and a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to force the judge to act on the motion, the judge finally issued a ruling over a year later, denying the motion. We appealed the ruling and the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling stating that it did not comply with the law.
The Defendant and his girlfriend got into an argument which became physical. She called the police and they arrested him. After we began our investigation the alleged victim decided she did not want to pursue the case any further. When this was made known to the Solicitor, he dismissed the case.
After an armed robbery was committed in which the victim was murdered, the police went to talk to someone in the jail that they believed had information about the case. After giving him the impression that if he gave them some names, they would let him go home, he gave them the Defendant’s name. The police then arrested the Defendant. When we talked with the accuser, we discovered that he only gave them the Defendant’s name because he did not like the Defendant and thought by giving the police the Defendant’s name, he would get a free pass home. When he did not get to go home, he was willing to tell the truth about making up the name. After we got a sworn affidavit to all of this, we set a hearing to put it in front of the judge. When it came out that the original story that the Defendant was involved was a lie, the DA dismissed the case.