You are here

Significant Cases

  • State v. W.D.

    No Jail on 3rd DWI - Clients plea to 2nd Degree DWI (third in lifetime), required his successful participation in the Veterans Court program (a structured program involving bi-monthly court appearances, aimed at helping Veterans meet their probationary obligations, including mental health and chemical dependency treatment).  The Prosecuting Attorney wanted client to serve jail time, as the standard sentence in the county for this type of case is normally 45 days.  We argued for no jail, over the Prosecutor’s objection. The Judge continued the sentencing hearing for three months, and based on client’s significant progress, decided that client would serve no jail time, as long as he remained successful on probation.

  • State v. S.T.

    DWI Reduced to Careless Driving, No Drivers License Loss - Client was charged with DWI, alleging a combination of alcohol and marijuana in his system. After thorough review, the case was negotiated to a Careless Driving. As a result, there was no revocation of client’s driver’s license.

  • State v. M.J.

    No Jail on 3rd DWI in 1 Year - Client was charged with a third DWI in a 12 month period.  The prosecuting attorney wanted client to do 30 days jail, and an additional 60 days subject to EHM (Electric Home Monitoring) over the course of probation.  The cost of EHM is a severe financial burden.  Client is already required by the State of Minnesota to complete 3 years of the ignition interlock program, in order to get his license back.  We argued for ignition interlock instead of jail, or EHM. The prosecutor was insisting that client do some jail time.  The judge ordered no executed jail, and waived the EHM requirement, in lieu of ignition interlock.  In the process, we saved client hundreds of dollars in monitoring costs. 

  • State v. F.A.

    Driver's License Revocation Administratively Reversed - Client was sanctioned for failing to have his ignition interlock device calibrated, while in jail, without work release.  The State intended to extend his ignition interlock participation by 6 months, for the alleged violation.  We requested administrative review from the Department of Vehicle Services. The department declined to admit error, and upheld the revocation.  Consequently, we petitioned to the district court and requested a hearing before a judge, so that the Court could hear testimony from our client regarding his case. Ultimately, short of having a litigated the hearing, based on a review of the file by the State’s attorney, the Attorney’s General office agreed to rescind the revocation, and immediately reinstate client’s driver’s license.

  • State v. R.R. (2015)

    DWI Charge Reduced to Careless Driving - Client was charged with misdemeanor DWI, but should have been charged with Gross misdemeanor DWI, due to a prior conviction within 10 years.  The prosecuting attorney threatened to amend the charge to a Gross misdemeanor (with jail time as a potential), if the client did not plead to the misdemeanor DWI outright. We brought pretrial hearing motions to dismiss and suppress. On the day of the contested hearing, through continued discussion of our legal issues and arguments, the prosecuting attorney capitulated to our continued request for a Careless Driving.  Client was placed on unsupervised probation for one year, with no executed jail time.

  • State v. H.T. (2015)

    Underage Drinking and Driving Charge Dismissed - Our client, a prospective medical school student, was arrested for misdemeanor Underage Drinking and Driving, which requires a 30 day driver’s license revocation, if convicted.  We negotiated the charge down to an Underage Consumption, without any element of driving.  As a result, the client was able to maintain a valid driver’s license. The matter was deemed a petty misdemeanor, which is not considered a crime in Minnesota. Client was able to have the matter resolved with a $100 fine, plus fees, without ever stepping foot in the courtroom. The original Underage Drinking and Driving charge was eliminated from the official public court record, preserving future job opportunities

  • State v. G.N. (2015)

    Felony Drug Possession Charge Dismissed - Client was originally charged with felony possession of Black Tar Heroin, based on a false positive in a field test conducted by the arresting officer. The substance was later tested in a lab and identified as a wax oil containing Tetrahydrocannabinols (THC), commonly called marijuana dabs, or wax. The State amended the Complaint to reflect Possession of THC, a felony. We argued the proper charge is a Petty Misdemeanor, under the exception for possession of a small amount of marijuana (up to 42.5 grams).  Through discussions with scientists from the State crime lab, as well as negotiations with the prosecutor, we convinced the State that it could not prove that the substance was not a small amount of marijuana. The prosecuting attorney again amended the charged to a petty misdemeanor, as we requested. Our client paid a small fine, and avoided a felony record.

  • State vs. R.L. (2015)

    DWI Reduced to Careless Driving - Client was charged with 4th Degree DWI. It was reduced to a Careless Driving with a $50 fine, plus conditions. No loss of drivers license, no reinstatement fee required. No implications on CDL and no jail imposed on our client.

  • State vs. W.K. (2015)

    Order for Protection (OFP) Resolved by Mututal Agreement - By formal agreement and a contract executed between the parties, the Order for Protection (OFP) matter was resolved, without findings, and without requiring the necessity of a formal court hearing.

  • State vs. A.C. (2015)

    Acquittal by Jury of Indecent Exposure Charge - Client was charged with Indecent Exposure. Attorney Elizabeth Levine tried the case, which resulted in not guilty verdict.  The charge had significant ramifications, because the label of the crime, Indecent Exposure, would brand the client for life.  We presented video tape footage to the Jury, and persuaded the Jury that the State's main witness was unreliable.  The State lacked any evidence of their claimed misconduct and the Jury acquitted our client of all charges.

  • State vs. S.A. (2015)

    DWI Charge Dismissed - Client was charged with 4th Degree DWI, a Misdemeanor.  As a CDL holder, he faced the loss of his job, should he end up with a DWI conviction on his record.  Attorney Calvin Johnson negotiated a settlement wherein the DWI was dismissed, and client pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of Careless Driving.  As a result, client returned to his employment.

  • State vs. J.C. (2015)

    No Conviction in Juvenile 1st Degree Felony Sexual Misconduct Charge - Client, a juvenile, was charged with felony First Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct.  Taking the long-view, through working with county services, probation, therapists, and other agencies, case resulted in a statutory stay of adjudication.  Through due diligence, we were able to show the court the benefits of keeping a conviction off of client's record.  A conviction would have required predatory offender registration, marking this juvenile for life.

  • State vs. S.A. (2015)

    No Conviction on Theft Charge - Client was charged with shoplifting, a misdemeanor.  Our greatest pleasure, whether a small or big case, comes when we're able to keep a conviction off a client's record.  We entered a diversion agreement with the State, which will allow client's record to be expunged of this charge, and keep client's record clean.

  • State vs. H.A. (2015)

    Felony Assaut Charges Dismissed - Client was charged with 3rd and 5th Degree Assault, felony and misdemeanor charges.  We challenged on the issue of lack of speedy trial.  The State had earlier brought and dismissed charges, and waited over a year to re-file more serious charges.  And, by defending on issues of self-defense, together with client's willingness to stand up to the State, we succeeded in getting the case dismissed.

  • State vs. L.K. (2015)

    Felony Drug Charge Dismissed - Client was charged with felony 5th Degree Possession, Underage Drinking and Driving, and Driving without Proof of Insurance. We challenged the felony possession charge and insisted on BCA testing of the evidence.  The resulting analysis allowed us to challenge definitions of the controlled substance in question, and thereby obtain a dismissal of the felony charges, altogether.