The Orient, in this case, is not eastern
Client was accused of Failure to Comply with an Order or Signal of a Police Officer. In lay terms, a deputy sheriff attempted to stop him and cite him for speed. He was accused of not stopping and leading the deputy on a high speed chase through a city. Several hours later, he was arrested at his residence. He had an odor of alcohol. He was also charged with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence.
The participants in the case all strongly believed a jury would convict Client. Preliminary discussions were centered on the length of the penalty, not whether the State could prove its case. Other persons in the Courthouse agreed: Client would be convicted; it was only a matter of time.
We focused our defense on identity. Because the driver of the vehicle succeeded in escaping from the officer, no person was ever seen in the vehicle. At least, that is what the deputy said in his report. However, at trial, the deputy testified that, during a turn, traveling at speeds in excess of 35 m.p.h., at midnight, he was able to see into the car and make a 100% certain identification of Client. The jury didn't believe the testimony of the officer beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another witness placed Client near the vehicle earlier in the evening. However, the witness also placed a number of other people near the vehicle. By focusing the defense on the most suspect issue, we were able to direct the jury to the location of doubt. Many attorneys will employ a "shotgun" defense attacking everywhere all the time. We have found the most success with a targeted attack. First, the jury finds credibility in a person who can admit the flaws in his argument (conceding elements we are not attacking). Second, we are able to focus the jury's discussion on the issue we find most beneficial to our case.
I was most impressed with the jury in Client's case. Though some of them believed he probably had been the driver of the vehicle, the obeyed the law. It is illegal for a jury to convict a person if the jury, "thinks he did it," or believes, "he probably did it." The jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. They must rely on the decision-making skills they use in the most important of their affairs. The jury followed the law and entered a verdict of not guilty in the case. I am proud of their dedication to the rule of law.
Client was partners in a contracting company. Client's partner stopped working and dropped off the face of the earth. The partner had been working the finances of the business and Client had been shorted on his pay. When the partner found out Client was stilling running the business, with success and collecting payments, he went ballistic. Then, he turned to law enforcement.
In the business sense, it is a brilliant strategy. Hired guns (police) coerce incriminating statements out of unsuspecting business partners. Business people with no criminal background and no experience with the criminal justice system are easily fooled by police. Then, instead of having to hire a lawyer, an expense that can cost thousands of dollars, the "victim" gets the County's finest prosecutors to do his dirty work for him. They prosecute the partner for theft or forgery or passing bad checks or whatever charges their creative minds can come up with. Most of the defendants get terrified at the thought of facing jail time and a felony record. They agree to diversion programs and pay off their business mates to avoid charges.
Fortunately Client was brave. Despite making generous offers to the prosecuting attorney to allow for a complete dismissal, the prosecuting attorney charged forth like a bull into the matador. After a short trial, justice was served. Client was acquitted, but not by the jury. No, the judge didn't even let the case get that far finding, no reasonable person could find anything but Client's innocence. Was it because the State had no case whatsoever? Was it because Attorney Jones conducted a thorough and probing cross examination of the "victim" (angering him to the point that he gave threatening stares to Attorney Jones the entire trial)? Or was it Attorney Siegrist's excellent case research that persuaded the judge? It makes no difference. Like I already said, Justice prevailed.
Client had a colorful criminal history ranging from Robbery to Resisting Arrest, but had no offenses in over three years. Had he been convicted of the felony, Client was looking at a trip to prison. Through extensive legal, Mr. Jones was able to convince the prosecution their case would fail. Two weeks later, the State dismissed all felony charges pending against client in exchange for Client's plea to the OVI. Instead of spending up to twelve months in prison, client will spend just three days in jail and have no probation.
