The Defendant was charged with sexual battery for allegedly groping a waitress at a restaurant. At trial, the Defendant testified that although he did touch the waitress on her leg, he did not grope her. We argued to the jury that he believed that he had her consent to touch her on the leg based on years of friendly interaction and banter at the restaurant. We used frame by frame display of the security camera from the restaurant to show the jury that after he placed his hand on the back of her knee, she took two steps towards him and then leaned up against him with her arm across his back. We argued that kind of behavior would cause anyone to believe it was alright to touch her on her leg and then got the court to instruct the jury that if someone does an act under the mistaken belief that they had permission to do so, it is not a crime. At the conclusion of the trial, it only took the jury less than 30 minutes to find the Defendant Not Guilty!

The Defendant was charged along with two other individuals with robbing a man at gunpoint outside of a local bank. One defendant had already gone to trial and was convicted. At this trial, the victim, suddenly and unexpectedly, for the first time identified the Defendant as the one who took the money at gunpoint. He stated the other two were never left the getaway car. We countered with an alibi witness who placed the Defendant at his house at the time of the robbery. We also presented a rebuttal witness to prove the victim lied when he claimed he did not know the Defendant. At the conclusion of the trial, it only took the jury about 15 minutes to find the Defendant Not Guilty!

The police saw the Defendant who had an active warrant and gave chase after he ran on foot. After they caught the Defendant, they retraced his steps and found a bag of marijuana near where he had been. No officer saw him touch the marijuana nor make any movements which would indicate he was hiding marijuana. He was just near where it was found. The Defendant was arrested and charged with possessing the drugs with the intent to distribute them. At trial, we pointed out all the discrepancies between the officer’s statements and said there was no evidence he possessed the drugs. The entire case rested on the state wanting the jury to assume the drugs were his and assumptions are not enough. The jury agreed and acquitted him after deliberating for less than 20 minutes.

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.

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 Tift county defendant charged with Felony Murder was acquitted after a 3 day trial! The Defendant was arrested after he was involved in a fight which ended in the shooting death of the other person. He was charged with Felony Murder and Aggravated Assault. He was facing Life plus 20 years. We argued at trial that he was merely defending himself when he pulled the gun as the alleged victim was attacking him, including with a large bottle and a bicycle. During the last attack, the gun accidentally fired during the scuffle, killing the attacker. The jury agreed and found him Not Guilty of those charges. However, at the last minute, the State asked for the lessor included charges of Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, and Misdemeanor Reckless Conduct. The jury rejected the Manslaughter charge but did find him guilty of Reckless Conduct. The Court sentenced him to 12 months probation. We consider that a win!

The Defendant proceeded to trial under a different attorney. He was convicted of Homicide for allegedly pushing his wife in front of an oncoming vehicle. When the case went to trial, the attorney failed to bring in two highway patrol officers that said the state’s witnesses could not have seen what they testified to at trial. We argued that constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court agreed and granted the Defendant a new trial.

The Defendant was charged with battery for allegedly hitting patients at a hospital with a belt. At trial we showed that the statements of the witnesses were conflicting and that the main witness for the state had a grudge against the Defendant. The jury found the Defendant Not Guilty.

The Defendant was charged with two counts of Public Indecency after two young girls claimed he was parading around in his living room without clothes on. We argued at trial that there is no law requiring a person to clothes his curtains and that the only way the girls could have seen him was to be purposefully looking through his windows, a crime in and of itself. The jury agreed and acquitted the Defendant. This was a particularly sweet victory as the DA that prosecuted the case had for years bragged that he was undefeated. After this trial, he was no longer allowed to say that!

The Defendant was charged with Child Molestation. The day of the trial, the Assistant DA offered a reasonable plea offer and rather than risk the trial, the Defendant agreed to the plea. However, before we could officially accept the offer, the head DA countermanded the offer and forced us to trial. We went to trial and won!