A Tift county case involving Elder Abuse was dismissed after we showed the DA someone else committed the crime. The client was arrested after it was discovered that a phone had been purchased using personal information of an elder person under the client’s care. After investigating the case it became clear that the client’s sister had gained access to that information and purchased the phone for her own use. When this information was provided to the Assistant District Attorney in charge of the case, it was dismissed.

We represented a husband and wife in a case with 15 defendants. Their original attorney, like the attorneys for the other defendants, allowed the case to linger. Due to the complexity of the case and the fact that the federal prosecutors were thinking of prosecuting the case in federal court, the state prosecutor was in no hurry to deal with it. Our clients hired us to speed things up. Unfortunately, their original attorney had let the time lapse to file their State Statutory Demand for Speedy Trial, so we did the next best thing and filed a Constitutional Demand for Speedy Trial. Meanwhile, the federal prosecutors chose to prosecute some, but not all, of the defendants. Our clients where not chosen for this round of federal prosecution. When a sufficient amount of time passed without our case being brought to trial, we filed a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of our defendants. The state prosecutor dismissed its entire case as to all defendants.

Of special note is that about a year prior to us moving to dismiss, the state prosecutor moved to dead-docket the case. All of the attorneys representing the other defendants readily and enthusiastically agreed to the dead-­docket, however, we did not. We objected since once on the dead­docket, a case usually stays pending forever, and only the state prosecutor (not even the judge) can move it from the dead­-docket to the active docket. The dead­-docket is beneficial to attorneys because they no longer have to prepare for trial, but for clients, it means the case will hang over their heads for the rest of their life. A case can not be dead-­docketed over the objection of the defendant, so our objection prevented the case from being dead­-docketed. As a result of our objection, all of the other defendants benefitted, getting their cases dismissed instead of dead-docketed.

A complaint was lodged by a neighbor against our client for neglecting her animals. Since some of the animals belonged to her daughter, the daughter was also arrested. We were hired by both the mother and the daughter. We believed the police illegally searched the home to discover the evidence and filed a Motion to Suppress the Evidence. We also filed a Demand for Speedy Trial to make sure the case did not just sit around. Before any hearing was held on the Motion to Suppress, the time limit expired to bring the Defendant to trial. When the state failed to bring the Defendant to trial within the proscribed time frame, we moved to dismiss the case and the court granted our motion.

A complaint was lodged by a neighbor against our client’s mother for neglecting her animals. Since some of the animals belonged to her, she was also arrested. We were hired by both the mother and the daughter. We believed the police illegally searched the home to discover the evidence and filed a Motion to Suppress the Evidence. We also filed a Demand for Speedy Trial to make sure the case did not just sit around. Before any hearing was held on the Motion to Suppress, the time limit expired to bring the Defendant to trial. When the state failed to bring the Defendant to trial within the proscribed time frame, we moved to dismiss the case and the court granted our motion.

The Defendant and others were attending a party at Chehaw Park. Defendant got into an argument with someone from another group. As Defendant was going to Defendant’s car, Defendant heard gun shots. Everyone jumped into their cars and fled the scene, including Defendant. On the way out of the park, Defendant lost control of the car and hit a fence post. While backing off the post, Defendant backed into another car. Although everyone agreed that someone else fired the gun, the State believed Defendant had something to do with it and so was arrested for 2 counts of Aggravated Assault (2 guys got shot) and one count of Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony. Then, since the State already believed Defendant was a bad guy, they arrested Defendant for the traffic accident and charged Defendant with 2 counts of Criminal Damage to Property in the Second Degree (the post and the car). All total, Defendant was facing 55 years in prison.

During our investigation, we discovered there was no evidence the defendant had anything to do with the shooting other than an argument with one of the victims (clearly not enough to make Defendant a party to the shooting). Thus, we felt confident on going to trial. However, to top it off, we also discovered that the shooting took place just yards inside the Lee County line, which meant Dougherty County could not convict anyone of the shooting. When we produced our witness list to the State (as required), they discovered a witness would prove where the county line was. On the eve of trial, the State dismissed the 2 Aggravated Assault charges and the Possession of a Firearm charge.

That left us with the traffic accident. We obtained a video from a security camera that clearly showed that the defendant lost control of a car and hit the post. We felt the State could not prove intent. Additionally, the video showed that the driver of the car lied about how the accident happened and what the damages were. She was just trying to get prior damage to her car fixed by saying the defendant did it. On the morning of trial, the State offered a plea to Leaving the Scene of an Accident. Even though we felt confident we could win, because the State would be unable to prove sufficient damages to trigger the threshold for the crime, Defendant took the plea to avoid the risk of trial. However, the potential of 55 years in prison ended up as just 12 months probation, and Defendant went home!

A Worth county case involving Possession of Marijuana was dismissed after we transferred the case to State Court. The Defendant was stopped at a roadblock and accused of possessing marijuana. The case was brought in municipal court, but we filed a Demand to Transfer the case to State Court. The State Court decided not to pick the case up for prosecution.

A Worth county case involving Possession of Marijuana was dismissed after we kept the case from going to trial. The Defendant was accused of possessing marijuana. For various reasons, the case continued for several years. Eventually, due to the lack of key supporting witnesses, the prosecution finally dismissed the case.

A Lowndes county case involving Terroristic Threats was dismissed after we convinced the prosecutor to not pursue the Indictment.

The defendant was charged with Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute. Defendant began the process of hiring us and desired to finance the fee. As with all potential clients that are in the process of financing fees, we monitored the case to ensure the defendant was protected, even though we were not yet officially on the case. A Committal Hearing was previously scheduled by the current attorney, the one we would be replacing. These hearings are rarely won and not typically set in the first place by other attorneys, but since it had been set, we wanted to make sure that our future client was protected. To ensure that everything went smoothly, our legal assistant was sent to the hearing, who made it known why we were making a presence there. The case was thereafter dismissed.

A Crisp county case involving Drugs was dismissed after we refused to plea. The Defendant caught a ride from Florida to Atlanta to attend a concert. At some point, he took over driving so the owner of the vehicle could get some rest. They were subsequently pulled over due to the owner and front seat passenger not wearing a seat belt. The officer claimed he detected the odor of marijuana. He also believed the owner of the vehicle appeared nervous and was protecting a bag he had between his feet. When the officer went back to his car to run the tags and licenses, he claimed he saw the owner and back seat passenger moving about. When the officer returned, the bag was missing. A subsequent search of the trunk found the bag in the trunk. Contained in the bag was drugs. No one claimed the drugs so all occupants were arrested and charged. A search of the female back­seat passenger’s handbag also produced a small amount of marijuana. The Defendant held out for trial asserting that the officer never saw him moving about, and nothing in the bag connected it to him. Under Georgia’s equal access rule, the state must prove a connection. After the owner pled to the contents of the bag and the female pled to the marijuana found in her purse, the state relented and dismissed the charges against the Defendant.