Case Results
“The ‘Victim’ Who Shot Himself ”
Client arrested for Attempted Murder after being identified as the person who shot the “victim”
After an extensive investigation, we learned that the client was with a group of friends nowhere near the shooting at the time it allegedly occurred.
ISSUE: How to establish that client was misidentified.
The aha moment ! In addition to the alibi from all the people the client was with, we realized that we could use the data from his cell phone to show his location at the time of the alleged crime. Despite providing the cell data and the alibi witnesses to the prosecutor, they nevertheless chose to prosecute the case. We were left with no choice but to go to trial. The revised strategy: scrutinize the “victim’s” version of events through cross examination and medical testimony.
After vigorously cross-examining the “victim” and the doctor who testified for the prosecution, we were able to show that the most likely scenario was that the “victim” shot himself !!!
Based on the path of the bullet which entered his abdomen by the right side of his belly button and exited through the bottom of his right buttock, it was clear that when he was pulling the gun out of his waistband with his left hand, it discharged. He accidentally shot himself !
It was easy to explain the rest. Once he shot himself he needed medical attention and would have to explain how he got shot. When the police arrived, he made up a story and identified the client as the perpetrator of a shooting that never happened.
NOT GUILTY - Client acquitted of all charges in less than an hour by a jury !
“Video Doesn’t Lie”
Gun recovered during an illegal search of client’s car
Client was the lawful owner of two 9 mm guns registered in his home state. Visiting New York, he forgot that he kept one in the map pocket of his vehicle. Client stopped his vehicle in order to check his rear tire. Police approached, illegally searched his vehicle and said they saw the outline of a gun in the map pocket. Client was arrested for the felony charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree.
ISSUE: How do we show the police couldn’t really see the outline of a gun and have the evidence (gun) suppressed based on an illegal search and seizure?
The aha moment ! After looking at the car map pocket in person, we realized that it was not possible to see the outline of gun.
We instructed our client to videotape himself placing an identical 9 mm that he owned in the map pocket when he returned to his home state.
At the suppression hearing the client testified and we introduced the video into evidence. After watching the video, the judge determined that there was no visible outline of a gun and the arresting officer’s testimony was incredible.
Suppression granted based on the illegal search and seizure. Case dismissed!
“The Wrong Guy With Alibis”
Client charged with committing gunpoint Robberies with an accomplice on two separate dates.
Client was identified as one of two perpetrators who robbed auto parts stores at gunpoint. After an extensive investigation we were able to verify that he had an alibi for each of the Robberies. On the date and time of the first Robbery, he was actually on the opposite end of town at work as a security guard. On the date and time of the second Robbery he was at home.
ISSUE: How to establish that client was misidentified and was actually innocent?
The aha moment ! If the client took the bus to work and used his MetroCard, subpoena the records of the MetroCard in order to substantiate his alibi. Fortunately, he still had the card.
We were able to obtain the records associated with his MetroCard. The records confirmed that the first swipe of his card on the date of the first Robbery was an hour before work, boarding the bus near his house, going in the direction of his job. The second time it was used was fifteen minutes after work on the same numbered bus, headed in the direction of his home.
We also obtained verification of his hours of employment and location where he worked on the day in question, from his employer.
The second Robbery was two days later at 8:00 a.m. on Mother’s Day.
We interviewed the client’s mother who specifically remembered that her son gave her flowers and made breakfast that morning. She testified to those facts at trial.
NOT GUILTY - Client Acquitted of all charges by a jury.
“DWI - RED EYES LIE”
Client arrested after car accident. Charged with Driving While Intoxicated
Client’s car was struck by another driver’s vehicle that ignored a stop sign. The police arrived and arrested client for Driving While Intoxicated.
Police alleged client had the odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred speech, was unsteady on his feet and had bloodshot watery eyes.
Issue: How to show that the police officer was exaggerating about his observations and that the client was not intoxicated.
The aha moment! At trial, play the police video of his refusal to blow into the intoxilizer machine taped at the precinct shortly after his arrest. By playing the video, we could show that his speech was not slurred and he was steady on his feet.
It also happens that he client has perpetual bloodshot watery eyes. At the trial, almost a year after his arrest, we displayed the client to the jury so they could see his eyes and on cross examination , had the arresting officer walk over to the defense table look at the client’s eyes and describe them. His description was that they were bloodshot and watery!
Client testified that he was not drinking and was upset at being falsely accused of Driving While Intoxicated.
NOT GUILTY - Client acquitted of all charges by a jury.
“The Karaoke Bar Fight”
Complainant was hit on the head with a bottle and received over 100 stitches. Client charged with Assault In the First Degree after being identified as a member of the group participating in a fight at a Karaoke Bar.
Issue: Based on interview, client was trying to be a peacemaker and was unaware that someone in his group hit the complainant on the head with a bottle.
The aha moment! By carefully reviewing and piecing together separate surveillance viewpoints we could establish the exact chronology of events and demonstrate that the client was not a participant in the fight and was unaware that a member of his group grabbed a bottle and struck the complainant with it.
At trial we were able to use the video clips from multiple angles to make a timeline demonstrating that not only was the client unaware that a member of his group hit the complainant on the head with the bottle, but that the client was also injured by the same person with the same bottle. He received over fifty stitches in his rear shoulder and arm.
NOT GUILTY – Client acquitted of all charges by Judge