Real Cases. Real Results
The Facts
Our client was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted violent felon, a charge that carries a mandatory minimum of five years in prison. According to two police officers, they physically wrestled a gun away from him during an arrest. On the surface, the case looked unwinnable. But as we dug deeper, serious cracks in the government’s case began to emerge.
​
The Government’s Theory​
Police claimed that, during a heated arrest, they fought with our client and eventually disarmed him, allegedly seizing a handgun from his person. One officer said our client even confessed on the spot. With two officers saying they saw it firsthand, the case seemed airtight. Until it wasn’t.
​
Our Defense Strategy​
​
We didn’t simply accept the officers’ story, we questioned it. Hard.We focused the jury on what was missing:
​
-
No forensic evidence. No fingerprints. No DNA. No blood. This, despite the fact that officers claimed there was a struggle, and our client suffered a visible gash on his hand.
-
No documentation of the alleged confession. No audio, no video, no bodycam, no written notes, nothing. The supposed confession existed only on the officers’ word.
-
No follow-up investigation. Despite claiming that our client had a gun, the officers never obtained a search warrant for his residence, and didn’t call in a forensic unit.
We argued that if a civilian offered this kind of vague, undocumented account, no jury would accept it without corroboration, and that law enforcement should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
​​​​
From Our Closing Argument
"There’s nothing — not one iota of physical evidence that can link [our client] to that gun… I mean I think that really is pretty extraordinary."
​
"They didn’t take any photographs. They didn’t test the gun for prints or DNA. All six bullets were handled by someone — no prints on those either. In a two-minute struggle over a sweaty, bloodied gun, there’s going to be biological material. But they presented nothing. Nothing."
​
"They said he confessed. But in a day and age where every one of us carries a recording device in our pocket — they didn’t record it. They didn’t write it down. Nothing. They want you to take it on blind faith."
​
"Officers don’t get held to a lower standard. If anything, they should be held to a higher one. They’re trained in preserving evidence. We spend millions on forensics labs for a reason — because in court, it’s supposed to be about evidence. Cold, hard evidence."
​
"The prosecution is asking you to give the officers a pass. Trust them, because they’re officers. But that’s not what ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ means. That’s not justice. Every man deserves a professional investigation. Because if all it takes to put someone on trial is for an officer to say ‘He did it,’ then we should all be scared."
The Verdict​
​
The jury wasn’t swayed by shortcuts. They saw the case for what it was. Not guilty. This case is a reminder that a case isn't necessarily “open and shut” just because the police say so. The burden of proof is the government’s to carry, and when the investigation is sloppy, undocumented, and uncorroborated, a jury has every right to say: That’s not enough. We are proud to have helped our client avoid a wrongful conviction and to have held the government to the standard that the Constitution demands.
NOT GUILTY: FELON IN POSSESSION OF FIREARM DEFEATED AT TRIAL
JURY ACQUITS BASED ON SELF DEFENSE IN STABBING CASE
The Facts
Our client was heading to the beach to play football with friends and found himself facing down a much older, larger, and intoxicated stranger, and felony charges that could have altered the course of his life. He allegedly cut off another driver, an adult man who responded not with a horn tap, but with rage. The man followed their car for miles, pursued them into a condominium complex, and jumped out of his vehicle yelling, screaming, and confronting our client, who remained seat belted inside his car. The man, nearly 80 pounds heavier than our client, had a blood alcohol content nearly twice the legal limit. Fearing for his safety, our client reached for a knife he lawfully kept in the car and stabbed the attacker causing serious but ultimately non-fatal injuries.
​
The Government’s Theory​
Our client was charged with two serious felonies:
-
Unlawful Wounding
-
Use of a Weapon in the Commission of a Felony
The Commonwealth’s theory was that our client had escalated the situation by bringing a knife to what they described as a “fistfight” and using force out of proportion to the threat he faced. They pointed to the lack of injuries on our client as evidence that he had not been truly in danger.
​
Our Defense Strategy​
​
This case was about the fundamental right to self-defense. We made clear to the jury that:
​
-
You don’t have to be beaten unconscious to defend yourself. The law does not require someone to absorb a beating before acting in self-defense.
-
Size, age, and background matter. Our client was confronted by a much larger, older, and drunken belligerent attacker.
-
The attacker was the aggressor. He pursued the vehicle, escalated the confrontation, and was heavily intoxicated.
-
The knife was not a weapon of aggression. It was legally owned and only used as a last resort.
Though one witness claimed there was a mutual fight outside the car, the physical evidence and other testimony supported our client’s account.
​​​​
From Our Closing Argument
“Let’s talk about a fistfight and define what a fight is. A fight has two mutual combatants… Like a boxing match. UFC, if that's something you prefer, where you have two guys who have agreed, we’re going to engage in combat… This wasn’t a fight. This was one guy who wanted to fight and a kid who wanted nothing to do with it… swinging his arms wildly like windmills because he doesn’t know how to fight…I've got a different definition for a grown man who decides to beat on teenagers — that’s called assault.”
“According to their theory, what you should actually do is just kind of curl up into the fetal position, you know, just start getting beat up, and just hope your attacker stops… That’s not the way self-defense works… Self-defense is a right that has existed since the existence of law…When somebody has ripped open your car door and you’re still seat belted in and you're getting beaten on, you’re going to take steps to protect yourself — and in this situation, he did the only thing available to him.”
The Verdict​
​
After a multi-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty to both charges. Justice prevailed. This case highlights the power of a strong legal defense when everything is at stake. Prosecutors may simplify a confrontation into soundbites, but juries can still be persuaded by facts, law, and fairness. We were proud to defend this young man’s future and his right to protect himself.
NOT GUILTY: JURY ACQUITS ON MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE
The Facts
Our client was charged with involuntary manslaughter after the tragic death of one of his close friends. The two had taken LSD together, along with two other friends, during a night of off-duty recreation. The government alleged that our client and his companions had restrained the decedent during a “bad trip” and recklessly smothered him with a pillow, leading to his death. The stakes could not have been higher: if convicted, our client faced the loss of his career, his freedom, and his future.
​
The Government’s Theory​
At trial, the prosecution relied heavily on expert testimony to support its theory that the cause of death was asphyxiation by smothering. Two forensic pathologists testified for the Commonwealth and ruled the death a homicide. A toxicologist told the jury that LSD, on its own, is rarely fatal and pointed to restraint and reckless behavior as the key factors.
​
Our Defense Strategy​
​
We focused on dismantling the prosecution’s medical foundation. Through careful and persistent cross-examination, we established several critical points:
​
-
Asphyxiation is a broad diagnosis: There are numerous mechanisms of asphyxiation, and none of the experts could definitively pinpoint smothering based on the physical evidence alone.
-
The ruling of “smothering” relied on secondhand witness accounts: Both medical examiners admitted that their conclusions were based largely on detective summaries of interviews , not on direct forensic findings.
-
Multiple stressors were present: The combination of LSD, vape usage, alcohol, and physical agitation could all have contributed to a sudden cardiovascular collapse.
​​​​​
The Verdict​
​
After a multi-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The result cleared our client’s name and restored his future. This case underscores the importance of not taking the conclusions of expert witnesses at face value, especially in cases involving complex medical evidence and novel factual scenarios. We are proud to have stood by our client and helped secure justice in a case where everything was on the line.
NOT GUILTY: FULL ACQUITTAL IN RAPE AND ABDUCTION CASE
The Facts
Our client was falsely accused of rape, forcible sodomy, and abduction with intent to defile, among other felony charges. If convicted, he faced the possibility of five life sentences and permanent sex offender registration. The allegations were devastating, the stakes enormous, and the evidence, on its face, appeared serious. But at trial, we exposed just how unreliable and incomplete the government’s case really was. The case stemmed from a night of drinking and socializing among a group of friends. After visiting bars, the group returned to an apartment. One woman later alleged that she had been dragged into a bedroom and gang raped by two men including our client.
​
The Government’s Theory​
In addition to accuser's story, a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) examination noted “trauma” in the accuser's genital area. The government also relied on a DNA forensic analyst who testified that our client’s DNA was found on multiple parts of the accuser's body.
​​
Our Defense Strategy​
​
The charges were severe, but so were the holes in the Commonwealth’s case. We called our own expert SANE nurse, who testified that the alleged “trauma” documented during the exam was highly ambiguous and could be explained by a wide range of non-criminal, consensual, or even routine causes. She emphasized that there were no signs of external injury, no bruising, no scratches, nothing to corroborate a violent attack. We also retained a DNA expert who made clear that:
-
The presence of DNA does not prove criminal conduct.
-
Touch DNA and secondary transfer could easily explain much of what the government found.
-
The woman’s DNA was found all over our client’s neck, which directly supported our client’s account that the woman had been kissing him which she denied. Critically, our expert highlighted that saliva testing, which could have confirmed or ruled out certain explanations, was readily available but never pursued by the government.
We further exposed investigative failures that undermined the reliability of the accusation:
-
Detectives never photographed the scene.
-
They failed to collect the woman’s clothing.
-
They interviewed her in front of her boyfriend, a choice we argued tainted her version of events.
​
From Our Closing Argument
​
“You have the SANE report that describes a neck suction injury. That is swabbed, and her DNA is all over it. She’s the major contributor. That is absolutely unexplainable on her story, and that’s why they choose not to address it — because there is no explanation. It is completely incompatible with her story.”
“She describes an absolutely horrific, brutal attack… dragged into a room, clothes ripped from her body, pinned down by two strong men. She is examined head to toe within 24 hours and doesn’t have a single mark on her body. Not even the smallest abrasion. That is unexplainable. They don’t address it because they can’t explain it. It is irreconcilable with her story.”
​
“This is not Sherlock Holmes-level investigation. This is very simple. When you take a statement from a witness, you separate them…Instead, the first official account is given in front of the gun-toting ex-boyfriend. That tainted everything. It poisoned the well.”
​
“She tells (the offcier): here’s the bodysuit I was wearing. We haven’t even laundered it yet. We were about to. And the response? ‘Oh, okay, cool.’ Are you kidding me? You’re not going to retrieve the clothing the alleged victim wore? You might see it has tears, DNA, forensic evidence. I mean, it’s mind-blowing.”
​
"They put the detective on the stand and essentially his testimony was: 'Hey...We’ve got a lot to do. I didn’t have time to interview any witnesses. I didn’t get the sheets, I didn’t get the clothes, I didn’t collect any evidence.’ Their excuse in this court, with these men’s lives on the line? ‘Hey...Too bad.’ Are you kidding me?”
​​​​​
The Verdict​
​
After an emotionally charged week long trial, the jury returned Not Guilty verdicts on all charges. This case demonstrates why the presumption of innocence exists and the danger of rushing to judgment based on public opinion, flawed forensics, and investigative shortcuts. We are proud to have defended our client’s freedom, career, and reputation against these false allegations.
NOT GUILTY: ASSAULT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT DISMISSED AT JURY TRIAL
The Facts
Our client, a young woman with no criminal history, was pulled over for an expired registration, the kind of routine traffic stop that happens every day. Within minutes, that stop escalated into a felony charge carrying a mandatory minimum of 6 months in jail and the lifelong consequences of being labeled a convicted felon.
She had already been told by two attorneys that the case was unwinnable because the bodycam footage “sealed her fate.” We disagreed.
​
The Government’s Theory​
When the officer ran her information during the traffic stop, he discovered an outstanding warrant for a failure to appear in a reckless driving case. He asked her to step out of the vehicle and began placing her in handcuffs. Startled and visibly scared, our client yanked away in a panic. The officer immediately took her to the ground. He later alleged that she slapped him in the face during the scuffle, and she was charged with felony assault on a law enforcement officer. The Commonwealth relied heavily on the officer’s body-worn camera footage, arguing that is clearly showed our client resisting a lawful arrest.
​​
Our Defense Strategy​
​
We took a very different view of the same footage. When we reviewed the bodycam, it was clear to us that this wasn’t aggression, it was fear.
​
Our defense hinged on two key themes:
​
-
This was flight, not fight. Our client didn’t attack the officer, she instinctively recoiled in fear and panic. The brief physical contact occurred as she was taken down, not as part of any assault.
-
Intent matters. The law requires more than contact, it requires intent to harm. We walked a careful line at trial, acknowledging that the officer had a legal right to arrest her, while showing the jury that our client’s terrified, adrenaline-driven reaction lacked any criminal intent.
The jury agreed.
​
From Our Closing Argument
​
"Put yourself in [her] shoes. She’s alone. It’s dark. Red and blue police lights flashing. Her pulse is already up, anyone would be nervous. She thinks it’s about her expired tags. Just an annoyance. Then the officer asks her to step out of the car. And in that moment, the shift happens."
​
"You see it on the bodycam. Her body tenses. Her mind starts racing, 'Why is he asking me to get out? What’s going on?' And within seconds, he’s putting hands on her. Gripping her arms. Telling her she’s under arrest for something she doesn’t even understand."
​
"Her brain doesn’t have time to process what’s happening. Instinct takes over. She pulls away. She screams. She’s tackled to the ground. And the Commonwealth wants you to call that assault."
​
"Let’s talk about intent. Intent is the entire case. Intent to harm isn’t wild flailing. It isn’t confusion. It isn’t fear. Intent is controlled. Intent is deliberate. Intent is an attack. That’s not what this was."
​
"This wasn’t an assault. This was panic. This was a woman who didn’t understand what was happening to her. And the law doesn’t punish people for their instincts in moments of fear."
​​​​​
The Verdict​
​
After hearing the evidence and viewing the bodycam for themselves, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Our client walked out of the courtroom without a conviction and without a jail sentence. This case illustrates the danger of overcharging everyday citizens based on fear-based reactions, and the importance of attorneys who look past surface level evidence and fight to contextualize what really happened.
NOT GUILTY: INNOCENT MAN EXONERATED OF FELONY SEXUAL ASSAULT AFTER JURY TRIAL
The Facts
Our client was accused of multiple counts of aggravated sexual battery against a 14-year-old girl, charges that if convicted, would almost certainly have resulted in effectively a life sentence. There were no eyewitnesses, no physical injuries, and no confession. The case hinged almost entirely on the word of the accuser and the government's assertion that our client's DNA had been found on her "chest." It was an accusation built on a disturbingly shallow foundation, a flimsy investigation led by a detective with no experience handling sexual assault cases, let alone ones involving minors. From the start, the case reeked of tunnel vision and confirmation bias.
​
The Government’s Theory​
The prosecution relied on three key claims:
​
-
The accuser’s account was consistent and credible.
-
A forensic swab from the accuser’s "chest" revealed DNA that could not exclude our client.
-
That DNA placement supported the accusation and was not plausibly explained by innocent contact.
They leaned heavily on a state lab analyst’s testimony, suggesting that the presence of our client’s DNA was proof of guilt, full stop.
​​
Our Defense Strategy​
​
We attacked the case at its supposed strongest points , the investigation and the DNA evidence, both of which collapsed under scrutiny.
​
-
We turned the badge around. The lead detective openly bragged on the stand about using the “Reid technique”, a controversial, high-pressure interrogation method designed for seasoned adult suspects to interview a 14-year-old girl. We exposed this for what it was: an investigative blunder so egregious and highly suggestive that it tainted the entire case from the outset.
-
We explained what the government couldn’t. The term “chest swab” was never defined. Was the sample taken from the upper chest? A lower area? A place where innocent contact was unlikely? The jury never got a clear answer, and neither did we.
-
We brought science into the courtroom. Our DNA expert testified to what the government wouldn’t admit:
-
The sample was a mixture, containing DNA from at least one other male, possibly more.
-
This wasn’t definitive proof of anything. It was consistent with transfer DNA, the kind that can result from something as innocent as a hug.
-
The state couldn’t say when the DNA got there, how long it had been there, or even whether it got there directly.
-
This wasn’t “smoking gun” DNA. It was the the kind of evidence that could just as easily support innocence as guilt.
​
From Our Closing Argument
​
“The words child sexual abuse conjure up strong emotions in all of us… It’s almost like getting punched in the gut. There is no more powerful word in the English language than pedophilia… But you can’t do that. We cannot shut down our rational decision-making process.”
​
“[The Detective] told you that when he responded out, he interrogated the child using the Reid technique… a technique that is designed to elicit confessions… on a...child… I would submit to you that poisoned the well right from the get-go in this case.”
​
“We don’t know. I don’t know. They don’t know. You don’t know. None of us know how the swabs were done in this case. We don’t know what that even means. They just decided to label it left breast and right breast because that made it sound more sinister.”
​
“There is absolutely no evidence, not one tiny shred, not one iota of evidence recovered from that house that is consistent with a sexual abuser. Pedophiles have a mental disease and cannot help themselves...they leave traces, images, photographs, things of that nature. There has been zero evidence, not a single suspicious item. Nothing...And he was cooperative from the very moment something was said.”
​
“[she] appears to be a very sweet, very innocent girl. This isn’t a case where I say the witness is malicious or biased. But that’s precisely what makes her the most dangerous kind of witness, her innocence. She’s someone who can be easily confused and easily misled. And that’s why it is absolutely crucial that an investigation be done in the appropriate manner.”
​​​​​
The Verdict​
​
After a three-day jury trial, the jury found our client Not Guilty. The government latched onto an accusation and filled in the blanks with half baked science. But juries are smarter than that. They can still tell the difference between evidence and assumption. We were proud to stand between our client and a system that nearly destroyed him without a second thought.
NOT GUILTY MALICIOUS WOUNDING, HIT AND RUN, STRANGULATION AFTER JURY TRIAL
The Facts
Our client was the designated driver for a group of friends and coworkers after a night of drinking. As he drove several of them home, a heated argument erupted between two women in the backseat. After he pulled over to break up the fight, one of the women later accused him of violently choking her and throwing her out of the car. She claimed that when she attempted to reenter the vehicle, he drove off at a high rate of speed, causing her to fall and suffer serious injuries, including a skull fracture.
​
The Government’s Theory​
Prosecutors claimed that our client, enraged by the argument, strangled the woman to near unconsciousness and then intentionally drove off in a way that seriously injured her. They charged him with malicious wounding, strangulation, and felony hit and run, arguing that his actions were deliberate and malicious.
​​
Our Defense Strategy​
​
We focused on three pillars: the absence of physical evidence, the implausibility of the accuser’s story, and the presence of an eyewitness whose testimony directly contradicted the allegations.
​
-
No physical evidence: There were zero injuries consistent with strangulation. No bruising, no marks, no burst blood vessels.
-
Eyewitness contradiction: Another passenger testified that our never touched the woman's throat and that the only physical contact was him separating the two women.
-
No intent to harm: Our client had no motive and no malice. He was the one sober adult trying to get people home. The injuries occurred only after a highly intoxicated woman made the reckless choice to grab onto a moving vehicle.
This wasn’t a case about malice, it was about chaos, drunkenness, and an unfortunate accident. And the evidence bore that out.
​
From Our Closing Argument
​
"She claims that a grown man choked her into near unconsciousness… I can’t believe I even have to say this, but that would leave marks...The prosecution hasn’t even attempted to address the complete lack of injuries — because they have no explanation for it...Nobody else involved in this investigation wants to use their common sense. That’s why we’re counting on you.”
​
"It is abundantly clear that [the accuser] was extremely intoxicated. And the prosecution’s only feeble response is to ask you to just ignore all of it. For the prosecution to get up here and make the argument that she wasn’t intoxicated, I’m completely dumbfounded. After making that argument, I don’t know how you can take anything they say seriously."
​
"Let’s reverse the roles. If she were the driver, and a drunk man was chasing her, clutching her car, trying to force his way in — do you think she would be charged with a crime? Of course not."
​
"The simple fact is that this case is about the drunken choices made by [the accuser]. She drunkenly grabbed onto a moving vehicle and not surprisingly she fell off that vehicle and hurt herself severely. It’s an
extremely unfortunate situation. I have sympathy for her. It’s clear that she made a terrible drunken decision. But it was her decision that resulted in that harm. And my sympathy for her doesn’t extend so far as
to say that we should blame her decisions on another person. Which is what the prosecution is asking you to do in this case."
​​​​​
The Verdict​
​
The jury returned acquittals on all three felonies. This case shows how far the system can stretch when there's an injury and someone to blame, even without any real evidence. It took a jury willing to think critically, use their common sense, and demand more than just an accusation. This is what it means to be presumed innocent
NOT GUILTY: ACQUITTAL IN MULTI-COUNT RAPE AND ABDUCTION CASE
The Facts
Our client was accused of violently raping and beating his estranged wife during an encounter at their home. She claimed he attacked her over a period of hours, dragged her outside into the mud, and forced her into repeated acts of non-consensual intercourse. The Commonwealth charged him with eight felonies, including multiple counts of rape and abduction, each carrying the possibility of a life sentence. The accuser had some visible injuries, including a black eye and minor bruising. A forensic nurse performed a SANE exam and noted some findings to her genital area. The police's so-called “investigation” consisted almost entirely of taking the complainant at her word.
​
The Government’s Theory​
The Commonwealth portrayed the complainant as a battered woman who had finally broken her silence. They leaned heavily on the SANE nurse to suggest that the genital findings confirmed trauma and that her injuries were consistent with a brutal sexual assault. They argued that this was not just a domestic dispute gone too far, but a sustained and sadistic attack by an enraged man that only ended when the accuser managed to escape and call 911.
​​
Our Defense Strategy​
​
We came out swinging. First, we dismantled the supposed medical evidence. The prosecution’s SANE nurse crossed the line from clinician to advocate, testifying as though her job was to secure a conviction rather than offer neutral medical insight. We called a far more credible expert, a SANE nurse with extensive forensic experience, who made clear that the genital findings were entirely consistent with consensual sex and could not be used to distinguish assault from innocent activity. We also introduced medical records and testimony from a physical therapist showing that our client had recently undergone significant back surgery. He was still in recovery at the time of the alleged attack, and likely incapable of dragging or overpowering anyone, let alone carrying out the prolonged beating described. We went straight at the holes in the investigation. Despite claims that the complainant was dragged through the mud, there were no drag marks found, no clothing damage, and not a single trace of mud or dirt inside the home. She described a vicious, multi-hour assault, but her injuries were superficial and entirely inconsistent with that level of violence. And we exposed motive. After making her accusation, the complainant was immediately awarded exclusive use of the home and sole custody of the children. We made sure the jury understood exactly what she stood to gain, and how little scrutiny her story had received from police.
​
From Our Closing Argument
​
"When a person comes forward and makes an allegation, they deserve two things: To be listened to and to be taken seriously. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is entitled to being blindly believed. And, frankly, that's what's occurred at every step here because she has never been meaningfully challenged by anybody from the government. ... Law enforcement never asked any follow-up questions."
​
"Human beings have agendas. Human beings have motives. They have biases. They tell half truths. They exaggerate. Sometimes they outright lie. Facts don't lie and that's why that's where the focus has to be...The physical findings are completely inconsistent with her version of events...[the officers] ... had to be dragged, kicking and screaming into owning that the only written report in the case that they prepared makes a very specific notation. We didn't see any marks on her neck. We didn't see anything consistent with being choked. We didn't see anything consistent with her being kicked. ... These gentlemen are supposed to be impartial witnesses. Just come in here and tell the truth. Just own what's in your report. What is this that you've got to be dragged, kicking and screaming into owning what you wrote out in your own hand on a piece of paper?"
​
"She describes... essentially, a two-and-a-half hour reign of terror which she agreed was, essentially, nonstop torture. She is choked, according to her story, at least ten times ten to 15 seconds each time, both with the forearm, with hands. She's punched repeatedly in the chest, jabbed repeatedly in the chest. Her chest pain is a ten out of ten. The intensity of the blows is a ten out of ten. She's punched in the stomach so many times that she collapses to the ground totally incapacitated. The force of the blows, ten out of ten...Let's compare it to the facts. Again, [the SANE nurse] for whatever reason didn't want to mention it on direct examination. I had to cross-examine her on it. No findings to her stomach. Not the tiniest bruise, mark, scratch, abrasion. Not even a microabrasion. Nothing. Not even redness. Nothing on her chest. Nothing on her stomach despite a 240-pound man striking her over and over and over again...It makes absolutely zero sense. It is impossible. It is not just some minor inconsistency. It is a glaring contradiction. It is absolutely impossible based on her version of events."
​
"Stop talking stories, fantasies and start talking facts. There's no evidence of any drag marks in the mud. There's no evidence of muddy footprints. She is examined head to toe. She's wearing the exact same clothing that she wore during this alleged attack. There's not a speck of dirt on her, not a speck of mud, nothing. Not only that, the police and [the SANE nurse] agreed that her clothes were in pristine shape. Nothing...It couldn't have possibly occurred in the manner in which she describes. It is literally impossible."
​
"This entire man's life is on the line based on some of the most ridiculous witnesses I've ever seen. They can't own even the most obvious facts.”
​​​​​
The Verdict​
​
The jury returned not guilty verdicts on all eight felony counts. Our client, who had been sitting in jail awaiting trial, walked free that same day. Lesson: When the government fails to investigate, abandons neutrality in favor of narrative, and demands that a jury ignore the physical facts, it’s our job to fight back. We don’t shy away from hard cases, especially when the stakes are this high. The truth won’t speak for itself. That’s our job.