Mr. Beach’s client was accused of allowing his child to have access to drugs. The accusation came because the child tested positive for drugs and there were drugs in the home. However, at trial, Mr. Beach proved that the drugs were kept in a locked cabinet that the child simply could not gain access. The win came through a ‘motion for judgement of acquittal’ Mr. Beach submitted at the conclusion of the prosecutor’s witnesses.
Sometimes a parent can’t provide the care a child needs. However, that shouldn’t necessarily mean the child should never have contact with that parent. Mr. Goldman’s client couldn’t care for his child; but, had a family member who could and wanted to be the child’s guardian. However, the Department of Human Services disagreed with that plan and wanted to ‘free the child for adoption’. So, they went to trial. At trial, the judge agreed with Mr. Goldman that the better plan for this child was to continue the family connection with a safe relative guardian.
Mr. Beach’s client has had a lot of criminal law problems in his past. In this case, he was accused to opening someone’s door and hitting them. If convicted, it was expected that Mr. Beach’s client would go to prison for 30 months. As is a theme with defense attorneys, the case was won by cross examination. While cross examining the person claiming to be a victim, Mr. Beach got two important statements. One regarded how the door opened (to the left or right) and the specific day and time this all supposedly occurred. As to the door, the photos of the door showed that the claim was false because the door didn’t open that direction. More amazingly, the date this person claimed it all happened was a day Mr. Beach proved his client happened to have been in jail that entire day. Naturally, Mr. Beach dove into this person’s motivations to make up this story. The natural result was a not guilty verdict!
Ms. Johnson’s client was accused of breaking into the home of his prior girlfriend because he was there to see his child. This case was eligible for the Washington County Domestic Violence Deferred Sentencing program. However, Ms. Johnson’s client declined that option. The prosecutor immediately threatened to add more significant criminal charges as a threat to Ms. Johnson for her client not entering the Deferred Sentencing program. Ms. Johnson called that bluff and went to trial. The morning of trial, the alleged victim admitted that Ms. Johnson’s client was allowed to be there that day and that the damage to the door that she had previously claimed came from Ms. Johnson’s client breaking in actually preexisted that event. The prosecutor gave up after learning this and agreed to dismiss the case that morning.
Mr. Beach represented a teenage year old boy accused of a sexual assault that supposedly occurred a couple years previously. Mr. Beach arranged for the investigating office to come to our office and interview our client in our presences. After this process, the decision of the government was that they could not successfully bring charges against Mr. Beach’s client.
Mr. Goldman was set for trial with a client who was still in jail. The morning of trial the prosecutor decided to add another charge against Mr. Goldman’s client. Since the charges were changing, the trial had to be postponed. Since this delay in trial was the fault of the prosecutor, the Judge agreed with Mr. Goldman that his client had to be released from the jail. Since the witnesses were all there for the trial, Mr. Goldman was able to convince the prosecutor to have the police re-interview them. They told the police exactly what Mr. Goldman had been saying about the case from the beginning. Accordingly, all charges were dismissed.
Our office does a lot of domestic violence cases. On this case, Mr. Beach’s client was eligible for the Washington County Domestic Violence Deferred Sentencing program. However, Mr. Beach’s client declined that option and went to trial. At trial, Mr. Beach and his client waived jury so that a judge would decide the case (sometimes we want a lawyer to make the application of law to facts). The reason was that Mr. Beach’s argument was that the prosecutor could not establish when this incident supposedly happened. Mr. Beach was correct. The case resulted in a Not Guilty because there was not proof of when these events may have occurred.
Mr. Thiesen’s client gave birth to her child while she was in prison. During her pregnancy, Mr. Thiesen’s client had made arrangements for her mother to care for the baby once the baby was born. However, after the baby was born the Department of Human services took the baby and wanted to put the baby in foster care because Mr. Thiesen’s client’s mother had been accused of possessing drugs two years ago. The Department of Human Services didn’t care that the prosecutor dismissed that allegation at the very first court hearing because there was not actually probable cause to support that accusation. At the hearing, Mr. Thiesen proved that the family plan his client had prepared was safe for this newborn and the judge agreed. The Department of Human Services case was therefore dismissed and the child returned to the family!
Ms. Johnson’s client was accused of domestic violence crimes. He had been eligible for the Washington County Deferred Sentencing program. However, he decided to go to trial instead. The key to this case was having a better understanding of the evidence rules. Through evidence objections and arguments, Ms. Johnson was able to prevent the jury from ever seeing the photographs that the prosecutor wished to enter into evidence. Additionally, Ms. Johnson was able to successfully block the prosecutor’s arguments since he wished the jury to speculate in order to fill the holes that were left of his case after the conclusion of evidence. The jury was left with no option but to find Ms. Johnson’s client Not Guilty.
Mr. Beach’s client was accused of multiple counts of Assault 4, Menacing, and Harassment. Mr. Beach’s argument was that the ‘victim’ was lying. Mr. Beach proved at trial that this ‘victim’s’ motivation was money. During her first interview with the police she twice asked how much money should would get from the domestic violence grants given to victims of domestic violence. Mr. Beach also proved that her story kept changing during each interview with the police and in court. The only thing she seemed to keep consistent was her request for money. Additionally, the photographs contradicted all of her stories. The jury returned a Not Guilty on everything!