A Dougherty county case involving Battery was dismissed after the alleged victim refused to testify

The Defendant and his girlfriend got into an argument which became physical. She called the police and said he attacked her. When the police arrived they decided to believe her, even though both said the other was the aggressor. Our investigation revealed that the evidence was more supportive of the Defendant’s version than her version and prepared the case for trial. The victim decided she did not want to be crossed examined by us on the stand and refused to cooperate further with the state. Without any witness willing to testify against the Defendant, the state dismissed the case.

A Dougherty county case involving Obstruction was dismissed after we began investigating the case

The police were called to investigate possible marijuana use in a college dorm. The police knocked on the door and a male answered the door. The police could smell the odor of marijuana and the male admitted he was smoking and gave consent to search his room. The police noticed the bathroom door was closed and knocked on the door demanding the individuals inside come out. The Defendant refused at first to come out and so the police arrested her for obstruction. Since you have no duty to open the door for a warrantless search, we felt confident we would win at trial. After we contacted the police and let them know we were on the case, they took no further action in the case. After two years elapsed, the statute of limitations ran and the case is precluded from being prosecuted further.

A Worth county defendant charged with Cruelty to Children was acquitted after a 2 day trial

A Worth county defendant charged with Cruelty to Children was acquitted after a 2 day trial! The Defendant was charged with Cruelty to Children and Family Violence Battery after disciplining children. The two children, ages 8 and 5, began fighting with each other as they boarded the school bus. The driver kicked them off the bus and told the Defendant to drive them to school. To punish them for fighting on the bus (something the defendant had already warned them about previously), the defendant spanked them with a belt. The older child would not hold still and ended up with scratches on his neck, although the child could not say where the scratches came from. The school claimed that both children had welts on their backs, although no welts could be seen in the photographs. A police investigator examined the children around 5:00 that evening but saw no welts or other marks, except the scratches on the older boys neck. Both children testified that they did not remember what happened that day and that they love their father. DFACS had investigated and allowed the Defendant back into the home with the children as they saw no further safety issues. After a two day trial, it took the jury only seven minutes to render a Not Guilty verdict!

A Dougherty county case involving Aggravated Sodomy was dismissed after we began investigating the case

A Dougherty county case involving Aggravated Sodomy was dismissed after we began investigating the case. The client was arrested for allegedly molesting his younger sister. After we entered an appearance and began investigating the case, the state dismissed the Superior Court felony case (where he faced up to life in prison) and transferred it down to Juvenile Court, where he would be dealt with as a child.

A Crisp county case involving Forgery was dismissed after we won a mistrial

The Defendant had been a victim in an internet check writing scam but the police and DA decided to prosecute her in order to collect the lost money for the bank. The case was previously taken to trial and we won a mistrial. The DA initially refused to drop the case and continued to prosecute the case. It was placed on a new trial calendar at a later date. Meanwhile, we contacted the jurors who advised us that the vote at the previous trial was 10 to acquit and 2 for conviction. We were advised by various jurors that the 2 holdouts for a conviction were just being unreasonable and not listening to the evidence. Therefore, we were confident we could win an acquittal at the next trial. When we appeared at the calendar call, we announced that since the previous vote was 10 to 2 for acquittal, we were more than ready for a second trial. The DA’s office, which was apparently unaware of the actual vote at the prior trial, subsequently dismissed the case without a trial.

A Crisp county defendant was charged with Violation of Probation

The Defendant was placed on probation in 2007 for ten years. His probation was transferred to another state, where he was working. The Defendant’s work required him to move around a lot and at some point, probation lost contact with him. He continued to send in his payments until he thought he was paid in full and thought he no longer needed to report. He was wrong. A warrant was issued for his arrest and his probation tolled. Four to five years later, he was made aware of the warrant and eventually turned himself in. There was no dispute that he had violated probation by not reporting, even if it was the result of a misunderstanding. However, in the eight years since he was placed on probation, he had not gotten into any trouble, was a productive citizen, and had not violated any other terms of his probation. So we suggested to the DA that the Defendant stipulate to the violation, be given one month in jail with credit for the time already served (six weeks), and placed back on probation to finish his last two years. The DA declined because probation told him to and we proceeded to a revocation hearing. At the hearing, we presented all of the above information as well as testimony that the probation office here really had no idea what transpired between the Defendant and his out-­of-­state probation supervisor. In addition, the office here had no proof that the Defendant had ever been contacted to inform him that he still needed to report. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge found the Defendant violated his probation and ordered him to serve one month in jail with credit for time served, be placed back on probation and that as long as he reports as directed, the probation is to terminate in two years. Sounds like we offered! So the DA wasted everyone’s time because he was a puppet for probation instead of an independent thinker and in the end, we got exactly what we wanted.