Історії успіху

Звинувачення у вживанні наркотиків

Мій клієнт був звинувачений у зберіганні марихуани. Проте, оскільки офіцер не згадав про жоден запах перед проведенням обшуку, я подав клопотання про виключення доказів через відсутність достатніх підстав (імовірної причини). У більшості справ про зберігання підстави виникають через запах наркотику, однак ця справа була іншою, і через відсутність достатніх підстав її було закрито.

Звинувачення в крадіжці

Мій клієнт був звинувачений у крадіжці в магазині. На першому засіданні суду свідку, який також був заявником, не вручили повістку про виклик до суду, і я наполіг на його присутності. На другому засіданні з'явився колега заявника, а не він сам. Колега не могла свідчити, оскільки не вона була очевидцем того, як мій клієнт нібито вчинив крадіжку. Дата судового засідання була знову перенесена.

У цей час я попросив суддю або призначити судовий розгляд, або видати постанову про закриття справи на наступному судовому засіданні. Іншими словами, якщо справа не дійде до судового розгляду, її буде закрито. На третьому судовому засіданні заявник, який фактично бачив крадіжку, не з'явився, і справу було закрито. Мій клієнт залишився задоволений результатом, оскільки існувала реальна ймовірність отримати мінімум 90 днів ув'язнення як обов'язковий вирок.

Керування у стані сп'яніння та відмову від огляду скасовано

70-річний клієнт перекинувся на своєму автомобілі тричі. Попри те, що він жахливо пройшов тести на тверезість на місці події, мені вдалося домогтися їх скасування через серйозну аварію та вік клієнта. На щастя, клієнт відмовився їхати до лікарні, хоча поліція наполягала на цьому. Аналіз крові в лікарні міг би стати згубним для нашої справи, проте мій клієнт більше турбувався про те, що лікарня виставить йому рахунок за перебування, і так і не поїхав туди. У відділку поліцейські не змогли отримати якісні показники зразка видихуваного повітря, оскільки мій клієнт не міг видихнути достатню кількість повітря через емфізему. Оскільки зразка для перевірки концентрації алкоголю в крові не було, відмову від проходження тесту також було скасовано.

Зберігання марихуани скасовано

Звинувачення клієнта у володінні марихуаною було знято, оскільки суддя підписав постанову про відкладення справи (holup order) для надання результатів тесту. Крім того, сторона обвинувачення не змогла надати матеріали справи (discovery) протягом 30 днів. З огляду на це, звинувачення було знято.

Керування транспортним засобом у стані алкогольного чи наркотичного сп'яніння (DUI) знижено до першого рівня

У клієнта був показник 0,18 при тривалості впливу 7 місяців, що призвело до позбавлення прав із встановленням пристрою блокування двигуна на 6 місяців. справу було закрито, оскільки поліція не дотрималася двадцятихвилинного протоколу спостереження. Натомість клієнт позбувся прав на три місяці без пристрою блокування. Це ґрунтувалося на спостереженнях через наявність запаху алкоголю, нечіткої мови та нездатності стояти або ходити прямо.

Відмову скасовано

Клієнту скасували відмову, за якою загрожувало 7 місяців позбавлення прав та встановлення алкозамка на шість місяців. Відмову скасували через те, що поліція зачитала клієнту пункт 36 про презумпцію згоди, повідомивши йому, що він не має права відмовлятися від алкотесту. Коли він намагався здати зразок видиху, то не зміг зробити це правильно, оскільки поліція не продемонструвала і не пояснила йому рідною мовою, як дмухати в прилад.

Справа про зберігання марихуани

Клієнту висунуто звинувачення у зберіганні марихуани. Проте офіцер не згадував про запах чого-небудь перед проведенням обшуку, тому я подав клопотання про виключення доказів через відсутність достатніх підстав для затримання, оскільки майже завжди достатньою підставою у подібних справах про зберігання є запах наркотику, тож ця справа була іншою. Зайво казати, що справу було закрито.

Справа про крадіжку в магазині

Клієнта звинуватили в крадіжці в магазині. На першому судовому засіданні свідок, який також був заявником, не з'явився за викликом, і я наполіг на його присутності. На другому засіданні з'явився колега заявника, а не він сам, і вона не могла дати свідчень, оскільки не була тією людиною, яка бачила, як мій клієнт здійснює крадіжку, тому засідання знову перенесли. Проте цього разу я попросив суддю винести постанову про початок судового розгляду або закриття справи на наступну дату суду. Іншими словами, якщо справа не дійде до суду, її буде закрито. На третій день судового засідання заявник, який насправді бачив крадіжку, не з'явився, і справу закрили. Клієнт був задоволений, оскільки це була не перша його судимість, тож існувала реальна ймовірність отримати принаймні 90 днів ув'язнення як обов'язковий вирок.

Справа про водіння у нетверезому стані

Нещодавно я захищав клієнта, якому висунули звинувачення у керуванні транспортним засобом у стані алкогольного сп'яніння з показником 0,24 (у 3 рази перевищує допустиму норму) та скоєнні ДТП. Мені вдалося домогтися зниження звинувачень до позбавлення прав на три місяці, оскільки показники приладу Alcotest були визнані судом недійсними.

Справа про наркотики

Сujу справу мого клієнта про зберігання контрольованих речовин було закрито через те, що держава не надала необхідні матеріали справи (дискавері). Зазвичай для закриття справи на таких підставах потрібно понад шість місяців або навіть до року. Проте мені вдалося домогтися закриття справи набагато швидше, оскільки я проявив ініціативу й добився того, щоб суд підписав певні накази про примусове надання матеріалів, які держава не змогла надати. Справу було закрито менш ніж за чотири місяці, і мій клієнт був у захваті.

Справа про дорожній рух

Мій клієнт був звинувачений у перевищенні швидкості 100/65 миль/год, коли його водійські права були позбавлені. Я подав запит на слухання до MVC, яке було задоволено, і ми змогли відновити ліцензію.

Крім того, у справі «Штат проти Гріна» я вимагав розкриття доказів щодо звинувачень у перевищенні швидкості, яке так і не було надано. З огляду на те, що водійське посвідчення було поновлено, а розкриття доказів щодо перевищення швидкості не було задоволено, прокурор скасував обидва штрафи, позбавивши мого клієнта від тюремного ув'язнення та втрати прав.

Кримінальна справа

Мого клієнта нещодавно звинуватили в розповсюдженні п'яти фунтів марихуани. Я намагався влаштувати його на досудову програму втручання (PTI), але прокурор... Певний заявник висунув обвинувачення проти мого клієнта в муніципальному суді, тому я порадив моєму клієнту висунути такі ж обвинувачення проти того ж заявника. Це означало, що заявник мусив найняти адвоката.

Коли ми прибули до суду, я уклав угоду з адвокатом позивача про те, що обидві сторони відмовлятся від обвинувачень одна проти одної; справу мого клієнта було закрито, і він був радий, що я вирішив це питання для нього.

Справа про наркотики

Мій клієнт нещодавно отримав звинувачення в розповсюдженні п'яти фунтів марихуани. Я намагався включити його до програми досудового втручання (PTI), але прокуратура відмовила йому; тоді я подав апеляцію, і суддя став на наш бік.

Причина, чому це велика перемога, полягає в тому, що стандарт для подолання заперечення прокурора проти зарахування до програми досудового залучення (PTI) настільки високий, що його практично неможливо виконати, і 99 справ зі 100 відхиляються, але ця виявилася успішною.

Якщо бути чесним щодо мого клієнта, він виконав фантастичну роботу, пройшовши реабілітацію, знайшовши роботу та надаючи негативні результати тестів на сечу на наркотики, поки процес тривав понад рік.

Зі свого боку, я знайшов кілька схожих справ, які показали, що обвинуваченим, які вчинили правильно після першого кримінального обвинувачення, слід дати презумпцію сумніву попри заперечення прокурора, і на щастя суддя погодився з нами.

Кримінальна справа

Я захищав клієнта за обвинуваченням у тяжкому нападі другого ступеня, де держава вимагала 5 років позбавлення волі.

Я найняв приватного детектива, який опитував трьох свідків, які бачили це як бійку за взаємною згодою. Насправді мій клієнт намагався піти, але інша людина пішла за ним, тому він дав відсіч у цілях самооборони.

Я подав прокурору та суду повідомлення про бій за взаємною згодою та необхідну оборону, і прокурор відмовився від вимоги ув'язнення та запитав, чи погодиться мій клієнт на програму досудового втручання (PTI). PTI — це диверсійна програма, яка дозволяє людині зберегти чисту біографію без судимості, тому я представив її йому, і він погодився на це, тож він пішов без судимості та без тюрми.

Справа про водіння у нетверезому стані

Сlents Стурвований сусід викликав поліцію після того, як знайшов мого клієнта сплячим біля його автомобіля з наполовину порожньою пляшкою горілки в руці. Після прибуття поліції він прокинувся і зрештою показав у три рази перевищуючий законний ліміт під час алкотесту.

Оскільки поліція не змогла довести, чи пив він до, чи після того, як перестав керувати автомобілем, справу про водіння в нетверезому стані було закрито.

Справа про водіння у нетверезому стані

Нещодавно з мого клієнта зняли звинувачення в керуванні транспортним засобом у стані сп'яніння внаслідок вживання марихуани. Державна поліція звинуватила мого клієнта в керуванні автомобілем під впливом марихуани. Проте їхній експерт стверджує, що під час тестів на ходьбу по прямій з поворотом і стовпчик на одній нозі було виявлено лише дві ознаки з восьми, а під час тесту горизонтального ністагму очей — нуль із шести.

Крім того, мій клієнт заперечив вживання марихуани та відмовився надати їм зразок сечі для тесту на марихуану; на відміну від приладу Alcotest, ми не зобов'язані надавати зразки сечі правоохоронним органам, тому він не зробив нічого поганого, відмовившись у цьому випадку. З огляду на все вищесказане, мені вдалося переконати прокурора в тому, що штат не зможе довести цю справу поза розумним сумнівом, і він її закрив.

Справа про наркотики

Мій клієнт був зупинений поліцією за наїзд на бордюр просто перед ними; згодом вони обшукали автомобіль на підставі того, що помітили вейп-пристрої на видноті, але не ґрунтували свій обшук на запах марихуани.

Під приводом того, що вейп-пристрої дали їм достатні підстави, вони знайшли марихуану після обшуку автомобіля.

Я подав клопотання про виключення доказів, проти якого сторона обвинувачення не заперечувала за умови, що клієнт визнає свою провину за адміністративне правопорушення — необережне керування автомобілем, пов’язане з наїздом на бордюр. Мій клієнт дійсно визнав свою провину й отримав два бали до водійського посвідчення та штраф у розмірі $200, проте всі кримінальні звинувачення у зберіганні наркотиків були зняті.

Кримінальна справа за керування транспортним засобом у стані сп'яніння

Нещодавно я представляв чоловіка, звинуваченого у кримінальному правопорушенні другого ступеня за створення небезпеки для добробуту дитини через те, що він нібито керував автомобілем у нетверезому стані, маючи в машині свою однорічну доньку.

Через характер правопорушення другого ступеня йому спочатку відмовили у програмі досудового врегулювання (PTI). Я подав клопотання про визнання показань алкотестера недопустимими доказами та через певні порушення процедури розкриття доказів.

Ґрунтуючись на наведених мною аргументах, сторони погодилися на досудове затримання провадження (pti) за звинуваченням у неналежному догляді за дитиною четвертого ступеня з порушенням найнижчого рівня за водіння в нетзрілому стані (dui), що тягне за собою позбавлення прав на 90 днів без використання пристрою блокування запалювання.

Справа про дорожній рух

Нещодавно я захищав у суді у двох справах про перевищення швидкості, моїх клієнтів звинувачували у русі зі швидкістю 113 миль/год та 106 миль/год відповідно у зоні з обмеженням 65 миль/год. Мій клієнт, якому інкримінували 113 миль/год, втратив водійське посвідчення лише на 10 днів, хоча суд міг забрати його до 180 днів, а прокурор вимагав 30 днів. А мій клієнт, якого звинувачували у керуванні зі швидкістю 106 миль/год, втратив посвідчення на 5 днів, при цьому прокурор також вимагав 30 днів.

В обох випадках я подав клопотання, оскільки поліція штату не надали необхідних матеріалів справи згідно з прецедентом State v. Green, але судді хотіли перенести засідання замість того, щоб задовольнити клопотання. Вони настільки перелякалися, що погодилися лише на абсолютний мінімум, на який готові були піти, з огляду на характер правопорушень та позицію прокурора. Я не наполягав на клопотаннях, і клієнти погодилися прийняти угоди, тож я вважаю це перемогою в обох справах.

Справа про наркотики

Коп зупинив мого клієнта, стверджуючи, що відчув запах марихуани, коли той пройшов повз нього всередині магазину. Коли мій клієнт від'їхав, коп поїхав за його машиною і зупинив її без жодного порушення правил дорожнього руху, після чого знайшов марихуану та приладдя.

Мій клієнт сказав мені, що вони з цим офіцером мають минуле, пов'язане з якимись неприємностями між братом мого клієнта та цим офіцером.

Я подав клопотання про виключення доказів, підготував юридичну позицію для судді та представив суду прихований мотив офіцера. Прокурор і суддя погодилися, що звинувачення у зберіганні наркотиків та приладдя мають бути зняті.

Кримінальна справа

I had a trial for a theft charge where the employer accused his employee, my client, of stealing from him. At trial we got two of the three counts of stealing dismissed but the judge convicted on the third count of stealing so we appealed that conviction.

At the appeal I zeroed in on the testimony that the item my client was convicted of stealing was transferred from my client to another employee and then disappeared. The state never countered this evidence so I argued that this means the State could not prove theft beyond reasonable doubt. The appellate judge agreed and dismissed the third count as well and my client is elated as you can imagine.

Справа про водіння у нетверезому стані

I got a DUI dismissed because the State Police did not provide the video and repair records for the alcotest machine. I was able to get the Judge to sign an Order that if they don’t produce it in 30 days the DUI will get dismissed. When we came back a month later I still didn’t have this highly relevant material that defense is entitled to under the court rules and case law so I made motion to dismiss mentioning the applicable rule (7:7-7) and case (State v. Stein) which the judge readily granted and the DUI was dismissed.

Справа про наркотики

My client was facing cds possession charges in February 2016 whereby I immediately demanded all discovery including the lab test results of the cds. For almost a year the prosecutor kept insisting he needs more time to get the labs so I filed motion to dismiss for violating my client’s speedy trial rights in in January 2017.

We finally went to court and the prosecutor showed me lab test result confirming that the substance recovered was illegal cds (controlled dangerous substance schedule 1), however, he had no chain of custody. To make matters worse the lab test results were from April of last year and he didn’t provide it this whole entire time.

I asked to see the judge on the record and motioned to dismiss invoking my client’s speedy trial rights and the judge granted my request.

Справа про водіння у нетверезому стані

I recently got an Alcotest reading thrown out for my client in a dui case. The machine failed in one station so they took my client to another, but they did not observe him for 20 minutes again before administering the second test so the reading was thrown out. This was huge for my client because his reading was three times the legal limit and the consequences for conviction would have been severe.

Refusal Case

I represented a woman charged with refusal which carries a minimum 7 months loss of license and the installation of an interlock device. I defended her on the grounds that the police didn’t have probable cause to arrest her in first place. Additionally, even if they did have probable cause for the stop, she didn’t refuse the alcotest; the officer misunderstood her when in fact on the form she responded ‘yes’ to the test. She later pled guilty to the dui but will only serve 3 months license suspension with no interlock.

Справа про водіння у нетверезому стані

In a recent DUI case, I had a client facing cocaine possession in addition to a DUI with a .16 breathalyzer reading. I was able to get the alcotest thrown out saving him at least four months loss of license, and no interlock devise which is typically mandatory with BAC readings over .15. Overall he will face 3 months license suspension as opposed to 7 and the cocaine possession was downgraded to a conditional discharge, a diversionary program, because it was his first offense.

Справа про наркотики

My client has a valid medical marijuana card from CA but their standards are much more relaxed than New Jersey’s. The Prosecutor didn’t want to dismiss on those grounds so I continued to demonstrate that I was serious about my full faith and credit argument. I was also able to show that my client was just driving through the state from Boston to Philadelphia he accepted my defenses and dismissed the charge.

Справа про наркотики

My client was charged with possession but the state did not provide lab test results. I insisted that they prove to us that the contraband seized was indeed the illegal substance that they claimed it to be. They were not able to so per my motion the case was dismissed.

Справа про водіння у нетверезому стані

I recently represented a client that blew double the legal limit. Fortunately, I was able to get the Alcotest thrown out by proving that the officer violated the 20 minute observation protocol.

It was proven that the officer left the observation room twice before administering the test; kept his radio on his vest knowing that electronic communication devices are not to be in the testing room; and he didn’t start the observation period over again once he saw my client insert his fingers in his mouth.

Справа про водіння у нетверезому стані

I recently helped a client who was pulled over for weaving and subsequently blew a .03 inside the police station. They tried to charge him with dui, claiming that he was under the influence of Xanax. I filed a motion to suppress the urine sample provided because they did not have a warrant to ask for it. I kept going to court raising this defense until the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the dui.

Refusal Case

My client was charged with refusal to submit to an Alcotest however she did not speak English, her language is Slovakian. The police called a Russian speaking officer to speak with my client but she does not speak Russian and could not understand the situation. The police arrested my client nonetheless and at the station they did not read the refusal form in her language but in English.

In NJ, you must be read certain rights and forms in a manner in which you can understand them. I was able to successfully raise the language barrier defense and the refusal charge was dismissed.

Справа про водіння у нетверезому стані

My client blew .05 into the machine which is almost half the legal limit so in the business we say that the state cannot prove its dui based on a per se violation. The state can still prove dui by the officer insisting that the client failed sfst’s however, so we came to court showing that the client wears contacts and has eye stigmatism (which would undermine their position about the HGN horizontal gaze test) and that client underwent therapy and treatment for lower extremities.

At the end of the case, although we pleaded guilty to a traffic infraction with points, there was no dui and no loss of license whatsoever.

Справа про дорожній рух

My client was charged with exceeding the speed limit by more than 100 mph and the prosecutor insisted on him losing his license. We scheduled the case for trial but the state never provided discovery and I filed motion to dismiss for failure to provide discovery. When we appeared for trial the state still didn’t have it available so the prosecutor decided to dismiss the tickets altogether without even a trial. Needless to say the client was shocked and pleasantly surprised as well.

Справа про водіння у нетверезому стані

My client was charged with dui with a reading that made an interlock device plus 7 months loss of license mandatory. The machine at the station did not work however, and the police did not document taking the client to a different station to administer the alco test.
I used that information to undermine the state’s position that proper protocols were maintained prior to the administration of the alco test. The state agreed to extend an offer of dui with 3 months loss with no interlock based on the sfst’s (field sobriety test results) which I told my client and he accepted it.

Справа про водіння у нетверезому стані

My client is a commercial driver who was involved in an accident and was facing charges for a dui with a .23 BAC reading. First I got the Alcotest reading thrown out; with a .23 reading the officer did not put correct numbers in when he did the tolerance calculation. When I put the correct numbers in, the reading fell outside of tolerance which means that legally the reading could not be used in court.

However, they still tried to insist my client was drunk based on field sobriety test results. For my client this would have meant a year loss of license either way since he’s commercial driver and the motor vehicle commission suspends commercial drivers for a year after they plead or are found guilty of a dui.

Fortunately, the officer was not certified in administering those field sobriety tests, and he made many mistakes in his instructions to my client, so eventually the state had to concede on that as well.

Although my client pled guilty to reckless driving since there was an accident involved, he avoided a dui with the one year loss of license that it would have come with plus the $3k surcharges, the ignition interlock, the IDRC classes, etc… needless to say my client went home elated that night.

Справа про дорожній рух

My client was charged with leaving scene accident and swore up and down that she didn’t do it; she was facing 6 months loss of license. I got the discovery and saw that the driver who was hit never saw the car that hit her. She then called her boyfriend who showed up 10 min later and saw my clients’ car in the vicinity with damage that matched the damage to their car.

We had proof from a mechanic that my client asked him for quote to fix this damage almost two weeks prior to the accident. There was also an obvious “evidential link” that was missing, namely the 10 minute gap between the accident and when my client was spotted. Based on this defense the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charges.

DWS Case

My client was facing a mandatory 6 months in jail due to driving while suspended from a second dui.  I filed motions to reopen the two prior duis and when that did not work I appealed those decisions successfully. The case went on for almost two years when the prosecutor finally offered a plea deal to plead guilty to a contempt charge only with 10 days of jail.  Although the client still lost his license for over a year due to driving while suspended, it was for a traffic case because the criminal driving while suspended from a second dui was changed to contempt for ignoring judicial court order thus saving the client 170 days of jail.  For a man who has a wife and two kids to support as well as continue with his career this was a wonderful result.

Справа про наркотики

My client was charged with several drug and paraphernalia possessions from one date and then several more from a month after, this time charges included a dui.  I was able to convince the county prosecutor to downgrade all of the charges back down to municipal court whereby I was able to work out a resolution for the client that all 13 drug and paraphernalia possession  charges from both cases be dismissed while the client pled guilty to a dui and got the minimums.  Client was elated as well as he should be.

Справа про водіння у нетверезому стані

My client was charged with dui, refusal and the criminal charge of having a child in the motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  First I succeeded in convincing the county prosecutor to remand the case back down to municipal court.  In court I got the refusal dismissed while the client pleaded guilty to the dui. Unfortunately he lost his license for 3 months instead of 7 but he avoided the interlock device.  The criminal charge was diverted into the conditional dismissal program whereby the client will avoid a record of conviction after completing one year probation. Good thing I got his indictable charge for a different case and a different county dismissed a year prior so he was able to avail himself of this diversionary program to avoid a record.

Справа про наркотики

My client parked in a park where police suspect him of doing something wrong but can’t point the finger as to what. They proceed to follow him, after he spots them and drives away they pull him over for running a stop sign where they search the car and eventually find marijuana.  I got the drug charge thrown out because they did not mention that they smelled marijuana to be able to search the vehicle therefore they did not have probable cause to search.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
My client blew .16 into the alcotest machine but I got the reading tossed because correct protocol in dui cases is to maintain continuous observation of subject prior to the alcotest. Another key component of the alcotest is to remove all portable devices, such as phones and radios, from the alcotest room so they don’t interfere with the machine.

Although the officer is heard removing his portable electronic device i.e. body camera from the room the voices from the room were still being heard on the camera so I argued that it was close enough to influence the alcotest. Furthermore, when he left the room he failed to follow the proper protocol of continuously observing the client. Based on these facts the .16 reading was thrown out.

REFUSAL CHARGE
My client spoke very little English and the form that was read to him was not read to him in his native language causing confusion as to the instructions that he was given. Additionally, the police terminated the alcotest and charged him with refusal after only giving him two tries to blow in which he blew short breaths.

I argued that the language barrier, confusion surrounding the instructions and early termination of the test (under seminal dui case of State v Chun they should have given him up to 11 tries so long as he was submitting to the test and then charge him with refusal) made this charge unfounded. This argument won the day and they dismissed this refusal charge.

CRIMINAL
My client was accused of disseminating underage photos online and was facing parole supervision for life and mandatory registration as a sex offender. After taking my client to a psychiatrist and obtaining a favorable report we also sought out a professional for a lie detector test also resulting in a favorable report. With these two reports in-hand I was able to help my client avoid registration and parole with lifetime supervision with a sentence of probation only.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
I recently represented a client charged with driving under the influence in a school zone and refusal to submit to a breath test. It was found that the police lacked probable cause to arrest my client for dui in the first place and all of the DUI and refusal charges were dismissed.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
I represented a client for a dui and refusal (fourth offense) who was facing 10 years loss of license for each totaling 20 years plus 6 months in jail. Additionally, he was facing driving while suspended from the third dui having never restored his license and was facing 10 years and 6 months.

The first thing I did was convince the prosecutor not to indict him for driving while suspended from dui. Under State v Perry, even though he never got restored, he was restorable — he was outside of the suspended period but he never opted to restore his license. By avoiding being indicted we saved him from an additional 6 months of jail.

In court, he was still facing the dui refusal and driving while suspended which also required jail. We filed several motions for discovery and tried to get the case dismissed. We worked the matter for almost a year until finally we came to trial with our expert and the prosecutor extended a deal to my client to drop everything including the dui and driving while suspended. He 100% avoids any jail time but cannot avoid the license suspension for the refusal.

Truthfully the client preferred a couple of weeks of jail served on weekends with a year or two loss of license so I tried to convince the prosecutor to rid the refusal and dui and plead to driving while suspended. Although the prosecutor was open to this idea, the officer categorically rejected it because according to him the client “will kill someone if he continues to drive”. We accepted the offer and walked away with the license suspension but no jail time which is important to a client who is gainfully employed and has a child to support.

Злочинець
A client recently contacted me concerned that she had a case that is five years old and has not been disposed of in municipal court. I quickly recognized the issue that her sixth amendment constitutional speedy trial rights were being violated and, after two appearances, I got the prosecutor and judge to dismiss the case.

Злочинець
I recently got a client’s theft charges dropped after her boss accused her of stealing money. Before he filed the charges, my client had filed a labor complaint that he had not been paying her salary for weeks. Additionally, in the report it mentioned he initially didn’t want to press charges and just make written report of the incident.

I immediately recognized a theme that I can create around our defense– he was trying to get away with cheating her out of her salary after she filed a complaint against him with the Labor Department. What this theme creates is reasonable doubt and reasonable doubt in criminal court gets charges dropped. Needless to say the charges were dismissed in only two appearances.

Злочинець
I recently got an indictable criminal charge completely thrown out and dismissed. My client was a passenger in car where a pound of marijuana was found in trunk in middle of the night. The driver was taken into custody and asked for a lawyer right away and did not point a finger at my client. My client didn’t point finger at the driver and denied knowing anything about what’s in the trunk.

I filed motion to dismiss because the state could not prove possession; even if my client knew about the marijuana in the trunk he had no dominion or control over it because it was not within his wingspan. Additionally, my client was not driving the car and he did not own the car.

The presiding judge is known to be very tough on defense counsel and pro state prosecution and denied my motion to dismiss as I expected they may. We elected to take it to a higher authority, a jury. We demanded a jury trial right there and when we got our wish, the prosecutor dismissed the case on her own accord because she knew we would win.

I love this system because it allows people with competent professional legal help to get acquitted when the facts and the law are on their side.

Злочинець
I was hired two years ago to defend a client with a criminal drug possession charge. The prosecutor’s office forgot to prosecute my client for two years and I kept quiet all along, knowing that the longer it took them to wake up, the stronger our speedy rights violation defense would be. At the two year mark, I filed a ‘motion to dismiss’ for violating my client’s right to a speedy trial and the court granted the motion based on case law I presented (barker v. wingo and state v. cahill).

I think my client had almost lost faith long ago and thought that I had given up on defending him. I kept reassuring him that I know what I’m doing and this is best way to get the charges dropped, we just needed to not raise red flags or rock the boat and when the time comes I would do what needed to be done to get charges dropped. His faith was quickly regained when I did what I had promised.

Злочинець
I recently got a drug charge dismissed for evidence collection without a warrant. My client was with his partner sitting on a blanket; according to him “looking at the stars”, when a police officer came by purportedly to investigate suspicion of drug use– this was not written in his incident report. The officer immediately separated the pair and lifted the blanket and found what he found but did not mention that he had plain view or even so much as smell any drugs which may serve as an exception to the warrant requirement to search my client’s personal property. I filed a motion to suppress the evidence recovered and I did not have to even argue the motion, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the case based on the merits.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
I just got a case dismissed for a client facing a 4^це dui. This particular client had come to me with his 3^рд dui which after losing the trial and appeal was sentenced to 6 months in jail and 10 years suspension of his license. The 4^це dui came while waiting to appeal the 3^рд. Upon being stopped by the police a urine analysis was conducted. My defense on the 4^це dui was that the evidence (the urine sample) was collected without a warrant and that it was an invasive procedure. I argued that a person enjoys an expectation of privacy to be free from providing urine sample without a warrant unless an exception such as informed consent or exigency exists, neither of those two exceptions existed. Without a warrant I argued that the urine collection must be suppressed and the court agreed. The dui was dismissed saving my client from another six months of jail and 10 years loss of license. The remarkable aspect of this case was that the client stuck with me after we lost his 3^рд dui trial and appeal. But because he saw how hard I fought for him at trial and on appeal he made the decision to stick with me to a successful resolution.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
I recently represented a client for a DUI with a BAC of .15 and I got the Alcotest thrown out because the video of the processing showed that client kept putting his fingers in his mouth before the taking the test. Additionally, the officer who was administering the test kept leaving the room which meant he left the client unobserved for the required twenty minutes before taking the test. Because of those circumstances the Alcotest reading was thrown out taking the DUI down from 7 months to 3 without the interlock device.

Злочинець
My client was pulled over for broken taillight lamp and asked to exit the vehicle.  The police patted him down and found illegal contraband in his pants pocket, whereby he was subsequently indicted by the county prosecutor for third degree possession. This exposed him to up to five years of jail.  The State asked for probation but I filed a motion to suppress the pat down, arguing it was illegal and unconstitutional because the police cannot point to a reasonable and articulable suspicion that he was carrying a weapon or a danger to them to justify their frisk.   Although the prosecutor objected to the motion and maintained police action was legal, on day of court he offered a downgrade to a disorderly person’s offense that carries no probation and which my client gleefully accepted.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
One of my client’s was charged with second degree eluding with a DUI and a Refusal.  Second degree exposes a person to 5-10 years of jail.  The DUI was based on field sobriety tests and the Refusal was based on the machine generating a reading out of tolerance.  I obtained the discovery but had to pull teeth to get the MVR (video of the supposed chase) and discovered that the client’s vehicle was nowhere in sight of the police cruiser until the seconds leading to him being pulling over.  I argued that they wouldn’t be able to convince a jury that he was guilty of second degree eluding beyond a reasonable doubt.  The prosecutor agreed to dismiss the reading too because the client did not refuse to blow into the machine and it was not his fault that the machine generated an out of tolerance reading.  Ultimately, we pleaded guilty to the DUI; however, because the field sobriety test results were not that great for us and since the State was working with us on the more serious charges of eluding and refusal, the client decided to plead guilty to the lowest tier DUI that only carries a 90 day loss of license.  I worked on this case since September, 2014 and just got this favorable result this month.

Злочинець
One of my clients was charged with possession of illegal CDS that found under passenger seat of a car in which he was a passenger. I argued to the prosecutor that there is no actual possession of the drugs so he can only win if he proved constructive possession—which he couldn’t.  There was a video of the stop; the driver told the cop that “everything inside is mine”, so he took ownership of whatever was in the car.  As such, that meant there was no constructive possession either; the prosecutor agreed with me so he dismissed the charge.

Traffic
I had a case where my client was driving while suspended. I asked the state to produce proof that they sent the client notice of the suspension; it turns out they did—however, they sent it to the wrong address. I argued to the prosecutor that due process requires notice and since my client did not have that, the charge was invalid. The prosecutor agreed, so the charges were dropped.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
My client was sitting on the side of the road in the passenger seat when the police came by and decided to check on him. They attempted to charge him with DUI, however the case was dismissed not only because the police did not have probable cause to “stop” him but also because the police did NOT witness him operating the vehicle.

Traffic
In a recent case involving ‘Leaving the Scene of an Accident’, I was able to get the charges dismissed for my client. Leaving scene of an accident is a serious ticket because it carries mandatory six months loss of license at a minimum not to mention MVC points. The key in this case was filing our own tickets against the other driver in a timely matter (30 days). The other driver’s attorney agreed to dismiss his tickets if we agreed to dismiss ours.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
Client suspected of DUI after an accident, I was able to get the charges dismissed. My client hit a pole and the police didn’t get a warrant for a blood draw they just had my client sign a consent form. I took the position that if the Judge wouldn’t accept a guilty plea in court of a defendant he suspects is under the influence why should the police be allowed to ask for written consent from a defendant who they suspect is under the influence instead of get a legal warrant to draw the blood. Unfortunately the Judge was only half impressed with this argument; what won everyone over was that the results did not show any alcohol. Only illegal substances were found in my clients system however, without a physical evaluation they could not prove that the drugs were in her system at the time of the crash or from the 48-72 hours before. The DUI based on the blood test results were dismissed.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
Client suspected of DUI, I was able to get the Alcotest thrown out because of inconsistencies in the reports. The officer wrote on report he finished 20 minute observation period at 1:35 prior to administering the Alcotest but the AIR (alcohol influence report) had the first breath test at 1:42 so there was 7 minute gap of time that the officer could not account for and based on that the Alcotest was thrown out.

Злочинець 
Client facing drug possession charges. I was able to have the prosecutor eventually agree to dismiss the drug charges without even having a hearing on the matter due to lack of a search warrant.

Злочинець 
Client facing shoplifting charges  in municipal court. I was able to get a complete dismissal for lack of prosecution.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
Client facing six month jail sentence with 10 year license suspension for a third offense DUI. After a 2 year battle in municipal court I was able to appeal the case to the judge and it has been dismissed.

Злочинець
Client employee of a store charged with shoplifting from her employer $30,000. She was facing up to five years in jail. I got the case dismissed for lack of evidence.

Злочинець
Illegal substances found in client’s vehicle searched subsequent to stop and arrest for driving while suspended. Client facing up to six months in jail. I got the case dismissed for illegal search and seizure.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
Client facing up to one year loss of license for driving on a curb while under the influence (prescription medication). I got the case dismissed after convincing the prosecutor that without a drug recognition expert the state has no shot at winning.

Злочинець
Client charged with official misconduct facing up to 10 years in jail. I got the case downgraded to a petty disorderly persons offense without him having to serve a single day in jail.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
Client charged with DUI and drug possession facing between 13 months to 31 months loss of license and up to six months in jail. Through aggressive advocacy and the engagement of an expert to help win the case, the drug charge was dismissed and client avoided jail while losing his license to drive for only three months.

Traffic
Client charged with driving without insurance and driving while suspended facing 18 months loss of license. Through my representation the driving while suspended was dismissed – lack of notice – and the no insurance charge downgraded to failure to exhibit without her having to lose her license.

Злочинець
Drug charge dismissed for lack of probable cause to effectuate a motor vehicle stop by police. Officer pulled client over because he looked suspicious to him while driving through a known drug area. Case dismissed following aggressive defense because it is unconstitutional for police to act on a hunch without reasonable suspicion.

Злочинець
Drug case dismissed after an illegal pat down by police. Through aggressive representation we were able to demonstrate to the court that the police did not have a reasonably articulable suspicion of criminal activity that would warrant a pat down. Consequently, all evidence recovered was inadmissible.

Client charged with violation of restraining order found not guilty after trial because of an aggressive defense that was mounted on client’s behalf.

Client charged with second degree unlawful gun possession charge indictment dismissed after motion to dismiss filed and successfully argued on behalf of client.

Водіння в нетверезому стані
Client is suspected of prostitution and drugs simply because her car was parked with an open door in a motel known for such activity. Police pull her over later in the evening under the pretext that she failed to signal a turn; however they don’t find evidence of prostitution or drugs, instead they smell alcohol and they administer the field sobriety tests and arrest her for DUI. She later blows a .06 inside the police station (which  is below the limit) yet in court they insisted that she was guilty of dui because she failed the field sobriety tests. I continued to contest the case until they went down to reckless with 90 days suspension, which I rejected and eventually they offered a reckless with 30 days which the client was on the fence about taking. I kept insisting to the prosecutor that they have no case and kept raising all my legal defenses until the State (prosecutor and arresting officer) finally agreed to drop the DUI with no loss of license whatsoever.  Although the client did plead guilty to reckless with five points, she walked away with zero loss of license. It wasn’t easy to convince the Judge to accept the deal, but later on he did.

Злочинець
During what started off as a routine traffic stop, the police officer searched my client’s vehicle without a warrant.  The officer claimed the client gave him permission to do so, though there was no video and he did not obtain written and signed consent either.  While performing this undocumented search, drugs were discovered in the car and my client was arrested and charged with possession.

I motioned the court to dismiss the charges based on the fact that the search was warrantless and there was no evidence of verbal consent.  Because I had made a strong, clear case for this, the Judge granted it.

DUI/Drug Case
Police recently searched one of my client’s car without a warrant found cocaine so I filed motion to suppress. They also charged my client with dui but not for alcohol but for being under influence of cocaine. I filed motion compel discovery for all of the officer’s past opinions about drivers under influence of cocaine and the court signed the order to turn over this information. When the police failed to do so the judge dismissed the dui.

In exchange for the state dismissing the drug charge as well and not going through the motion to suppress my client pled guilty to reckless driving and the judge took his license for 90 days.

DUI Dismissed

My client was charged with DUI with a .09 reading. I was able to get the reading thrown out because the officer had his back turned to my client for three minutes during twenty minute observation period. Without the reading the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the dui.

DUI Dismissed

My client was taken to hospital after an accident where there was suspicion of DUI where a blood sample was taken. The case was dismissed because the blood was drawn without a warrant or a valid exception to the warrant requirement.

Weapon Charge Dismissed

My client was charged with possessing a weapon. The State was to produce a surveillance video of my client to prove actual weapon possession. My client disputed the facts and the state’s theory of their case. The court gave the state three chances to produce the video which they failed to do and the court dismissed the case.

Pretrial Intervention

My client was charged with second-degree official misconduct. I applied her to a diversionary program called pretrial intervention (PTI). At first, the prosecutor’s office rejected her and I appealed. We won the appeal in front of the Superior Court Judge so the State appealed to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed so my client was accepted into PTI with no conviction and no record and her three-year legal battle is over.

Recognized For Pro-Bono Work

I helped a client who had been in and out of trouble with the law since the 1990s. She was living on Section 8 in south Jersey and had done state time, but I was able to get her cleared on her most recent charges. South Jersey Legal Services, Inc sent me a letter thanking me for my pro-bono work in the area.

Pro-Bono Case

I assisted a client with an Expungement Order and the case was closed. South Jersey Legal Services, Inc sent me a letter thanking me for my pro-bono work.

DUI Charges Dismissed

DUI and refusal charges dismissed because after the officer pulled client over for speeding he had her step out of the vehicle and conduct field sobriety tests under terrible weather conditions and lightning, and on top of it all my client did not exhibit signs of impairment, such as slurred speech, and also had medical condition i.e. knocked knees that prevented her from performing the tests properly, so I filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause for arrest which the pros agreed with and dismissed the charges.

Bad Check Charge Dismissed

Bad check charge dismissed. It was first handled by the county prosecutor due to the amount of the check but I talked the prosecutor about downgrading the case to municipal court, which he agreed to do, and in court I had my client bring money to make good on the bad check, which impressed the victim, judge, and prosecutor enough for them to dismiss the case.

DUI Test Refusal Dismissed

Officer made mistake entering numbers into alcotest tolerance spreadsheet (entered control test numbers instead of breath test) and was surprised that the readings came back out of tolerance, so he charged my client with refusal instead of figuring out his mistake or retesting my client. When I pointed this out to the prosecutor and judge in court, the DUI and refusal were promptly dismissed.

Recently I obtained a dismissal on behalf of a client for filing sixth amendment speedy trial right violation motion in court because the State took longer than a year to investigate and indict a case; and then, rather than indict, they remanded it to municipal court; so I filed the motion in court and the Judge granted it, and all charges were dismissed.

Marijuana Possession Charge Dismissed

Yesterday I got a marijuana possession charge dismissed. Client was arrested for marijuana in latter part of 2019, pre pandemic, even though he had a med marijuana card. I filed motion to dismiss, which the state opposed and the week before it was scheduled for oral argument, the Governor signed a bill legalizing marijuana so the charge was dismissed. No big deal, but I kept the case open for 18 months, not giving in to prosecutor and the court’s constant encouragement to plea bargain the matter until the matter became a non-issue. Needless to say. the client was thrilled bc he was on probation and this charged risked a violation.