Theft Charge Dismissed
November 3, 2009 8:53pm
When partners argue over money, they have a remedy when they can't reach an agreement: a civil law suit. Recently, some business people have learned that making allegations of theft against the asset holder is a much easier, cheaper way of settling business disputes. And police and prosecutors see an easy bump in their numbers by actually pursuing these charges.
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 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.
Posted by j11esq
