Defendant and his wife were arguing in the late evening. During the course of the argument, the wife indicated that she was going to take their infant son and leave. At the time of the incident, both parties had been drinking. The parties wrestled over the car seat, the wife was trying to leave and the Defendant did not want her to leave with their child. While they were
tussling over the car seat, the wife pulled the car seat out of the Defendant’s hands and fell back and was hit in the face by the car seat. |
| |
The wife left with the couple's son and went to a gas station to call 911, indicating that she had been beat up by her husband. The defendant was charged with Domestic Violence. |
| |
After the case was set for trial, we went to work to try and bring the truth to light. The police report made no mention of the fact that the wife had been drinking, nor did it mention the fight over the car seat. But though discovery, and some freedom of information act requests, we were able to obtain her ER report that contained her blood alcohol level, as well as her description of the fight over the car seat, where in she admitted to the medical staff that “she pulled the car seat out of the Defendant’s hands and fell back, and the car seat smacked her in the mouth, the we got lucky and obtained a copy of the in car video from the officer who spoke with the wife at the gas station. The officer semi-lectured the wife about drinking and driving, but indicated that he would not mention her drinking in the report as it would not be helpful to prosecuting her husband. |
| |
We picked a jury of three women and three men, one of the males was a retired police officer, and one of the women was a nurse at a local hospital. After confronting the police officer about his comments regarding the wife’s drinking, and the danger she posed to the child by getting behind the wheel, we asked him if it would be unreasonable for a father to use some force to stop the mother of his child from driving with the child in the car, and he stated… “no, that would not be unreasonable”. |
The jury was out for 2 minutes and came back with a NOT GUILTY verdict. |
| |
Case #2 - Recieving Stolen Property |
Client was apprehended in a stolen car just two houses down from where the car was stolen 8 hours earlier. Client stated to police that he had barrowed the car from his neighbor to go buy some pot for both of them. The neighbor threw the client some keys and off the client went. It just so happens that the pot dealer lived two houses down from where the car was taken 8 hours earlier. |
| |
In a one day jury trial, the following facts were presented through the prosecutor witnesses: |
1.) |
The keys were in the car when it was stolen. |
2.) |
There was no damage to the car. |
3.) |
The defendant did not attempt to run or resist the police. |
4.) |
The client did not fit the description of the person who took the car. |
5.) |
The client did have a car of his own, but it was broken down and in the shop for repair. |
|
The jury came back after 3 hours with a verdict of NOT GUILTY. |
| |
Case #3 - Home Invasion (1st Degree) |
Defendant charged with Home Invasion 1st degree. Defendant’s girl friend went to her ex-boyfriend's house to get her stuff out, her and her ex had a fight about the dog, she wanted to take it, and he would not let her. Ex-boyfriend assaulted her physically,
where after she left and told the Defendant (her new boyfriend) about the incident. |
| |
After she left the ex-boyfriend’s house he called in reinforcements, and put a golf club next to the couch, knowing that the new boyfriend would be coming over. Defendant did go over, enter the house, and was assaulted by the occupants and struck in the head with the golf club. |
| |
The jury felt that the theory advanced by the defense that it was a set up was true, and that by the ex-boyfriend’s actions, he knew and consented to the Defendant's entry into his house. |
|
