The Defendant caught a ride with a friend to a nearby town. Unknown to the Defendant, the car was stolen. When the police found the car, they arrested the driver and the Defendant. Once we proved that the Defendant had just caught a ride, the state dismissed the case.
A Mitchell county case involving Aggravated Child Molestation was dismissed after we showed the state they had insufficient evidence. The Defendant was accused of Aggravated Child Molestation. The alleged victim was interviewed by a child advocacy center as is the custom. The police then reported abuse had occurred. After viewing the video of the interview, which was not as strong as the police claimed, we talked with the alleged victim who apparently had been led to say the things she said. With the weak video interview and the recantation of the alleged victim, we went to the DA and got the case dismissed.
A Lowndes county case involving Hindering Apprehension of a Criminal was dismissed after we demonstrated to the state that the Defendant was not guilty. The police were looking for the Defendant’s boyfriend. Unknown to the Defendant, he had climbed through a window and was hiding in an upstairs bedroom. The Defendant was not at home at the time. Shortly after she arrived home, but before she had gone upstairs, the police knocked on the door and asked if he was there. She told them he was not. The boyfriend heard the police and thinking they had left, climbed back out the window where he was spotted by the police that were staking out the house. The Defendant was arrested. When we showed evidence to the DA that the Defendant had just arrived home and had no knowledge the boyfriend was there, the case was dismissed.
The Defendant was charged with Arson. The state believed he burned his own house down in an attempt to profit from insurance proceeds. Believing we could not obtain a fair trial in his home county, we moved for a change of venue which was granted. The trial was held in Ben Hill County. After a two day trial, the jury came back with a Not Guilty verdict!
The Defendant was charged along with two other individuals with smuggling marijuana into the prison. The state sought to make an example of them and would not offer anything less than the maximum sentence of 7 years. Just before trial, the state re-indicted all three defendants with additional charges which would increase their exposure to 25 years. Fortunately, we had filed a Demand for Speedy Trial on behalf of our client and it was about to expire. The court gave the state 3 options: split the case up and go to trial on the old indictment as to our client and continue the case as to the other two in order to try them on the new indictment; continue the whole case in order to try the case on the new indictment, which would cause a dismissal as to our client; or go to trial on the old indictment as to all three defendants. The state chose the latter and we proceeded to trial, with all three defendants only facing 7 years each instead of the 25. Half way through the first day of trial, the state improperly allowed the jury to know that our client was on probation. We moved for and received a mistrial as to our client only. The trial proceeded as to the other two defendants who were both convicted and sentenced to 7 years to serve.