Our Case Results

Client charged with First Degree Murder. Factually she admitted to shooting her husband while he was asleep in his recliner. He later died from the wound. Family and friends testified that the client had been abused mentally, physically, and emotionally in nearly every way imaginable for almost 40 years. The early involvement of an attorney led to the discovery of very critical information on a home computer that was instrumental in her case. I was also successful at obtaining a bond set for the client (the first time this Judge had ever set a bond in a First-Degree Murder case). At the jury trial, the defense expert witness (Dr. Lynne Zager) testified that the client suffered from a mental illness as a result of the four decades of abuse that caused her to be unable to formulate the requisite intent to commit the crimes of First-Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, and Voluntary Manslaughter. The jury, in the end, was very favorable and the client (age 58) avoided a certain life sentence. She was found guilty of only "Reckless Homicide" and she was sentenced to 4 years at 30% as a Range I offender. She was released after serving just over 2 calendar years with a flattened sentence, her debt to society paid in full. She now lives as a free woman. No probation or parole.

Client accused of domestic assault. As is customary, there were no witnesses, and the victim did not report the "alleged assault" for four (4) days. (That is always suspicious to me and should be to the judge/jury.) Client was adamant that he did not assault her and had numerous text messages and recordings to prove it. The victim repeatedly tried to get him to come back home after he left, to no avail. He refused to respond to any of the text messages, thankfully. The alleged victim decides that if he won't come home, she will get revenge and took out a warrant for domestic assault.

Both clients (husband and wife) were charged with Felony Possession of Marijuana after being accused of having 15 pounds of the illegal drug mailed to her home. We investigated and determined that the couple had nothing to do with the package being sent but was just an unwitting and involuntary pawn in the scheme of a family member.

Defendant drinks heavily, enters a local restaurant, eats and calls his AA sponsor to come get him. Leaves the establishment and waits in his car for his "ride". Charges phone while he is waiting which requires the keys to be in the ignition. Police are called by concerned clerk in the restaurant and respond. Defendant's sponsor is 40 minutes away... and arrives, literally, 21 seconds after police arrive. The officer wasn't even out of the car yet. In spite of the explanation of the defendant and the sponsor, the man is arrested and blows a .30% BAC. Now... I know... that is REALLY intoxicated. but at the same time, he had no intention of driving. The evidence showed he waited for nearly 40 minutes for the ride to arrive... which, in fact, saved the day in court. Case dismissed.

Client was originally the passenger of a car driven by wife. Client's 8-year-old son was in the back seat. Dad is also drinking a bottle of whiskey while in the passenger seat. Wife parks and goes inside the grocery store, leaving Dad and son in the car. The son tells dad he sees two men approaching with guns.... the same men that accosted them the day before. Dad jumps in driver's seat and takes off. He runs the red light and crashes into another car. Blows .16% BAC on a breath test. Was involved in an accident while intoxicated ... with his minor son in the car. Dad admits to drinking the half empty bottle of whiskey found in car. He also admits to being too drunk to drive and running the red light.

Bad facts? Most of the time, yes.

But Dad maintained that his life depended on it. Bench Trial in front of a General Sessions Judge as the trier of fact. Verdict: Not Guilty, based upon the defense of "Necessity". The Judge found that the defendant did not "intend" to drive while intoxicated due to the overwhelming danger which forced him into the driver's seat. The "necessity" of escaping imminent death, outweighed the danger in driving, and negated "intent".

Client charged by her employer with Identity Theft, Forgery, and Obtaining a controlled substance without a prescription by fraud. Problem is... client was hired as the administrative assistant to the employer, and as part of her job she ordered such things as routine. The employer allegedly "knew" she was ordering these things, and only filed criminal charges against the client AFTER the client filed a board complaint against the employer (a veterinarian). The Client had plenty of documentation that proved her innocense, including an email from the employer addressing the "alleged prescription fraud" as a "mistake". Later on the stand, the employer denied saying that, even after being handed an email that proved it. After that... she was almost stammering on the stand. Bottom line... the employer was (according to the judge) unworthy of belief. The Judge (a very good one in Nashville) found the state to have NOT met their burden of proof (even for a Preliminary Hearing). That is almost unheard of in this business, since it is so easy to find probable cause and indict someone. It was truly a good feeling to have helped this person get this case dismissed without the added stress and expense of a Jury Trial... which is where it would have gone without a very good judge. The case was dismissed at a preliminary hearing, and the state later decided not to pursue it further (to the grand jury), even though they could have done so.

Client did VERY poorly on the Field Sobriety Tasks. In fact, he actually fell down on the walk and turn test. But because the police officer (a very Veteran Officer, in fact) made a crucial mistake that was captured on video, that would have likely been fatal to the admission of very damaging evidence... the district attorney agreed and reduced the case without risking a Motion to Suppress.

Air Marshall arrested for taking up-skirt photos enters a negotiated plea agreement of "no contest" to unlawful photography, a Class A Misdemeanor. Gets 11 months and 29 days probation, and no jail time. No Conviction. Conditional Plea of No Contest.

Client arrested for DUI. He pulled off of the road and parked in a field, took his medications, which included sleeping medication and narcotics, and went to sleep in the back seat. At some point during the night, he got cold, and got in the driver’s seat to start the engine (and heater). He fell asleep there, and hours later someone called the police on him and they arrived to find him asleep at the wheel, with the engine running. He did, earlier in the night, put the sunshield in the windshield to block the sun as he slept... and that (coupled with the fact that he was in a 'field' and not on a roadway "where others frequent or are likely to be found") saved him. I represented the client and went to the scene to take pictures of where he was parked... presented those to the DA, and explained the situation. Officer was could not "remember" if the sunshield was up or not... but truthfully said "it could have been". The DA agreed to totally dismiss the entire case.

Client charged with DUI after leaving an argument with his wife, and calling police while driving to a local store. On the 911 call the client tells the dispatcher that he is "driving" to the store, and asked for police to meet him there because his wife had assaulted him. Dispatcher sends officer to the store who finds the man waiting at the store as he stated, (but not in his car). Officer determines that he is intoxicated and asks for field sobriety tests. Client wisely refuses because he was not in the car when police arrived. He also refuses a breath/blood test for the same reasoning. Officer arrested him anyway and charged him with DUI. Case was set for trial but was dismissed on the trial date walking into court. District Attorney agreed that the misdemeanor DUI charge must have been committed in the "presence of the officer" to be a valid charge... Not over the phone to the 911 dispatcher. DA agreed that the officer did not "see" the client driving, nor did he see him in "physical control" of the motor vehicle. Officer wanted to testify that the client was drunk while on the phone stating that he was "driving" to the store. DA wisely agreed that was not enough. Technicality maybe... but case dismissed. *I took no position about the level of intoxication of the client, as that was really not the issue.