Richmond Defense Attorney

Police apprehended the client after a short foot pursuit in an area of high drug activity. An officer found a scale and several packages containing cocaine on the ground near the client. Testimony at trial revealed a lack of forensic evidence connecting the client to the contraband. The jury found the client not guilty.

Law enforcement agents arrested the client after a short car pursuit. During a search of the vehicle police officers found a firearm in the glove compartment. The client faced a mandatory five-year jail sentence. Cross examination revealed that officers had failed to conduct forensic analysis of the weapon. The jury dismissed the charge against the client

The client was involved in a relationship with a married woman. Someone shot the woman’s husband 3 times. The husband identified the Client as the shooter. Police subsequently located text messages in which the Client threatened the husband and stated that he was willing to “kill” for the wife. Trial testimony included alibi evidence that the Client was not at the scene of the shooting. Cross examination also revealed a lack of forensic evidence corroborating the prosecution case.

The client was accused of stealing more than $100,000 from her employer. Federal investigators charged her with aggravated identity theft and the client faced a 2 year mandatory sentence. Federal prosecutors refused to offer any plea without the minimum sentence. Trial revealed the ID charges to be inappropriate for the case.

The client was a 47 year old mother of three daughters. Police encountered the youngest daughter (14) after midnight several miles from home. The daughter was visibly bruised and claimed to have run away from home after being “punched” by her mother (client). At trial evidence revealed that Mother (client) physically confronted daughter in an effort to confiscate her phone after client found inappropriate on-line posts. The court noted inconstant Commonwealth evidence and the reasonableness of client’s actions in its decision to dismiss the case.

The client was accused of making obscene threats using an electronic device. Text messages from the client revealed more than twenty messages in which the client used profane language and threatened to commit violent crimes against the victim. In court evidence revealed that the alleged offense did not fit the elements of the charged felony statute. Trial showed that the alleged victim also used similar language. The court disagreed with the prosecution request for active incarceration and imposed a minimal fine.

The client was an employee at a medical facility. His employers accused him of stealing schedule I and II drugs. Trial revealed inconsistencies in an alleged confession. The commonwealth also failed to secure the testimony of several alleged victims. The Court dismissed all charges against the client.

The client was charged with abducting and assaulting his girlfriend. Despite an extensive prior record, the client vehemently asserted his innocence. Independent witnesses and the alleged victim asserted that no crime or assault occurred. The prosecution dismissed the case at a preliminary hearing.

Police arrested the client after he stabbed his neighbor during a backyard fight. Prosecutors charged the Client with a class 2 felony. At trial, cross examination revealed that the alleged victim initiated physical contact. After 5 hours of deliberation, the jury dismissed felony charges and imposed a monetary fine with no active jail time.

With a previous attorney, a District Court found the client guilty of committing an assault for spanking his 12-year-old daughter. The Court sentenced the client to serve active jail time. The client appealed and hired me. Investigation revealed that the allegations were motivated by the clients ex wife. The alleged victims recanted her story. The prosecutor dismissed the charge

The client was charged with robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He faced a potential life in prison meant and a three-year mandatory term on the firearms charge. At April luminary hearing, cross examination of the alleged victim revealed glaring inconsistencies. The victim admitted that parts of the story were not true. Under oath, the alleged victim revealed that he could not positively identify any criminal actions by my client. The court dismissed all charges.

The client was charged with committing an illegal assault against his girlfriend. Prior to trial I interviewed the girlfriend and secured an affidavit indicating an accurate version of the events. Upon presentation, the Campbell court dismissed the claim against the client.

The client was charged with driving under the influence. He possessed a commercial drivers license and could not professionally afford an alcohol related conviction. following a traffic stop he blew a .15 reading into a field Breathalyzer. At trial however this result was deemed not admissible. I highlighted the clients successful performance of other field sobriety tests. The court acquitted the client of the DUI.

The client was a military specialist whose career would have been ruined by an alcohol related conviction. Prior to trial, the arresting officer asserted that the defendant "failed" roadside sobriety tests. Discovery however produced an officer body camera evidence that visually depicted the arrest. The video showed the client to be steady on his feet, have clear speech, and correctly perform a one-legged stand test. The court amended the warrant to a simple traffic offense.

The client was charged with assaulting his live in girlfriend and holding her against her will in her house. At trial, cross-examination revealed severe inconsistencies in the alleged victim's testimony. I aggressively explored deficiencies in the collection and presentation of forensic corroboration of the Commonwealth's theory of the case. The jury acquitted the client of all charges.

The client shares custody of his son with the child's mother. During the clients scheduled visitation weekend, the mother refused to give custody of the child to father. An argument ensued. The mother claimed that the client struck her. Although the prosecution offered a deferred disposition, the client adamantly claimed his innocence and refused any admission of guilt. At trial, cross examination revealed severe inconsistencies which rendered the alleged victim's testimony incredible. The judge acquitted the client.

The client is a public school employee. During a routine search, police using drug sniffing dogs found marijuana in the client’s car. The car was parked on school property. Police pulled the client out of class and confronted her. Due to the nature of the charge and alleged location of the crime, the client's future was in jeopardy. At trial, I attacked the prosecutions ability to connect the client with the items in the vehicle. The trial judge dismissed the charge against the client.

The client was charged with an assault that occurred at the alleged victims workplace. Cross examination revealed financial motive and inconsistent statements from the alleged victim. Trial also revealed a suspicious lack of eyewitness or circumstantial corroboration. The jury only deliberated for 12 minutes before acquitting the client of all charges

The client was one of three youths charged with being underage and stealing alcohol from a local store. Video surveillance appeared to show the client carrying the items into a shopping cart. At trial, testimony one of the co-defendants revealed that my client was not aware of the co-conspirators larcenous intentions. My client was the only one of all three to be acquitted of all charges.

The client was arrested during a routine traffic stop for having outstanding criminal warrants. Police asserted that she had stolen items from a department store nearly 100 miles away from the scene of her traffic stop. Investigation revealed that the client’s ex-boyfriend had been arrested for the crime with another woman - his new girlfriend. The ex-boyfriend apparently tried to protect his new girlfriend by naming the client as an accomplice. I asked the prosecution to review surveillance video and compare those images to my client. The prosecution realized the fraud and abruptly dismissed the charges against the client.

The client was charged with making false statements in a special grand jury inquiry during a murder investigation. The prosecution demanded that she be held without bail. The Court granted my motion for her release and ordered discovery requiring the Commonwealth allow me to view transcripts of the clients sworn testimony. Careful examination revealed that alleged false statements were not necessarily misrepresentations or related to material issues. One week prior to trial the Commonwealth's attorney elected to dismiss the charges.

The client was charged with her 3rd larceny offense. The Commonwealth claimed to have a partial confession and offered a plea with active incarceration. The client refused. At trial, a previous larceny offense was eliminated due to technical deficiencies. The court reduced the grade of the offense to a misdemeanor and heard evidence. Prosecution witnesses were unable to clearly testify that the client had taken items at issue. I argued that the client's statement was consistent with her assertion of innocence. The judge granted a motion to strike the charge.

The clients were a married couple with a 2 month old daughter. When their daughter tragically died, both parents were charged with felony child neglect and manslaughter. I reviewed the autopsy report and spoke with the medical examiner. The medical examiner agreed to write a letter to the Court stating that the cause of death was accidental. In a stunning change of circumstances the prosecutor agreed to drop all charges against both clients.

With previous counsel, a District Court found the client guilty of trespassing, sentenced him to active jail time and sent a felony charge to a higher court. The felony count alleged that the client was angry over a work termination and intentionally caused almost $100,000 damage to his former employers property. I appealed the conviction and contested the felony. After several months of investigation, the Commonwealth agreed not to prosecute the client.

The client was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was facing a mandatory 2 year sentence, 10 years probationary 'come-back' time and was held with bail. I immediately obtained his pre-trial release and requested discovery production. The commonwealth’s attorney was forced to reveal that a police dash cam contradicted a written offense report. Prior to preliminary hearing the prosecution dropped the charges against the client.

Police stopped client claiming he had illegal window tint. The officer claimed he smelled an odor of marijuana. A search located narcotics in a bag that also contained personal affects belonging to the client. At trial I argued that the officer profiled the client. Cross examination also exposed the officer’s failure to identify the client’s alleged connection to the bag containing the drugs. The court dismissed the case.

The client was charged with brandishing a firearm during an argument with his father, an active duty police officer. Investigation revealed discrepancies in the police report. After negotiation the Commonwealth's attorney agreed to a resolution dismissing charges against the client.

The client was initially held without bail on numerous felonies arising out of an alleged masked home invasion. Investigation revealed a complex connection between several jurisdictions and co-defendants. I negotiated with 6 assistant commonwealths' attorneys from multiple locations. I acquired a bail release for the client. Eventually prosecutors dismissed every charge against my client.

My client was facing 70 years of incarceration for drug distribution and theft charges. Police had used hidden recording devices and a confidential informant to set him up. The prosecutor claimed that he had my client's confession and admissions on tape. Using legal research and effective trial advocacy, I convinced the judge to dismiss all charges.

My client was charged with murder, drug possession and use of a firearm. Several witnesses claimed to have seen my client in the area following the victim. In a moment later described by a newspaper article as a "Perry mason moment" I elicited testimony from a witness that denied that my client was the shooter. The client was acquitted of all charges.

The client, a 25 year old with an extensive criminal record was charged with murder, car-jacking and use of a firearm. News reports after the shooting claimed that police heard the victim identify the shooter before he died. A second witness testified that my client took her keys and robbed her at gunpoint. Cross-examination revealed discrepancies in the eye-witness testimony. The jury found the client guilty of a lesser gun offense but acquitted the client of homicide and carjacking.

The client was a high school senior who had been offered a scholarship to play division one college basketball. He had been charged with a class one misdemeanor and a conviction would have jeopardized his scholarship. The prosecutor refused to offer any plea that would allow him to play basketball. After a lengthy trial, the court found the client not guilty. He will attend school and begin basketball practice this fall.

My client was a 28 year old father of three young children charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and brandishing a firearm. As a new parent, he was not willing to accept the Commonwealth's proposed plea agreement of 3 years of incarceration. At a preliminary hearing, I successfully argued that his offense did not meet the technical elements of the felony as charged. The judge dismissed all charges and the client returned home to his family.

Three police officers approached my client in, "an area of high drug activity" and initiated a search of his person and clothes. The search revealed a significant amount of illegal narcotics. At a motions hearing, the police asserted that their search was based upon a need for officer safety. In a written memorandum, I brought the judge's attention to a series of recent Supreme Court decisions which require an officer to have reasonable articulable suspicion in prior to initiating a search like the one in my case. The Judge ruled that the search of my client violated his Fourth Amendment right against illegal searches and seizures. The Judge threw out the evidence and the Commonwealth was unable to try the case against my client.

Outlaw Motorcycle Trial. In June 2010, federal agents in four states stormed the clubhouses of the American Outlaw Motorcycle Club. 27 Club members were charged with offenses ranging from racketeering to conspiracy. Agents raided my client's home and arrested him in front of his wife and children. Under severe pressure from the government, 19 of the club members plead guilty and many of them agreed to testify against my client, the president, and others who had chosen not to take plea deals. After months of trial preparation and research my client and I decided to resist all plea offers from the government. As trial approached for my client and the national club president, my client became certain that the government could not overcome our defense. Five days before trial, I described key details of my defense to the prosecutor and told him in that my client would not accept any plea. Two days later, the government dismissed all charges against my client.

My client was a 22 year old college student accused of harassing and stalking his ex-girlfriend. Prior to retaining me, a district court judge found him guilty and sentenced him to serve 6 months in jail. He appealed and hired me. I suggested he request a trial by jury. At trial, I successfully impeached the accusing witness by highlighting phone records that exposed contradictions in her testimony. The jury acquitted my client of all charges.

In December 2010, a private citizen called police and said that he woke up after midnight and saw an intruder in his bedroom. The citizen told police that as he got out of bed he saw that the burglar was a bald, black male, 5'11'' tall, wearing a black shirt. Twenty minutes later, the police observed my client in the area of the break-in. After a foot chase, police arrested my client. My client was a convicted felon and looked similar to the description given to the police. However, at a preliminary hearing, I vigorously challenged the victim. Ultimately during cross-examination, the victim admitted that although he was certain of the burglar's race, height, and hairstyle, he could not positively identify my client as the one who had entered his home. The judge dismissed all charges against my client.

The client was charged with assault, rape, and abduction. Prior to retaining me a judge found him guilty of the assault charge and certified the rape and abduction charges for trial in circuit court. The judge ordered that the client begin serving a 12-month jail sentence while he awaited trial on the two serious felony charges. Unhappy with his legal representation, the client appealed, terminated his previous attorney, and retained me. I immediately took a different approach to the case. I contacted the complaining witness and discussed her version of the events. It became apparent that the police officers involved in the case overcharged my client. After negotiation with the Commonwealth's Attorney, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss all felony charges against my client. My client never spent a day in jail.

The client was involved in a three way shootout at a gas station. As a convicted felon, he was not allowed to legally possess a firearm. Police charged him with eight felony indictments. At trial, I presented legal precedent that required the judge to dismiss six of the charges against the client. Additional research required the court to instruct the jury that although he was a convicted felon, the client was allowed to use a gun in justifiable self-defense. The jury acquitted the client of charges.

The client was charged in a three count federal felony indictment alleging fraudulent transaction at five bank locations. During several months of investigation I noticed discrepancies in the handwriting of signatures alleged to have been made by my client. Convinced of her innocence, the client rejected all plea offers. The Government subsequently dismissed all criminal charges against the client.

My client was one of three men charged in connection with a brutal abduction and homicide. Each of them plead guilty to murder. I arranged for my client to be sentenced last. The first two men to be sentenced collectively received more than 110 years of incarceration. I hired a video editor to compile a four minute film detailing my client's life and family. Additionally, I presented a sentencing position memorandum that asserted my clients minimal role in the offense. After reviewing the document and the video, the trial judge sentenced my client to seven years of incarceration.

The client was involved in a bitter divorce and custody dispute. One of his wife's friends accused the client of assaulting her. Knowing that an assault conviction would adversely affect his custody, the client retained my services to defend him in the criminal assault case. Cross examination of the alleged victim revealed numerous inconsistent statements and her motive to fabricate the story. A judge found the defendant not guilty.

Police pulled the client over while he was driving his girlfriend home. Officers testified that they smelled an odor of marijuana when they approached his vehicle. The officer removed the client from the car and began to search. Officers found small amount of marijuana in the glove compartment. At trial I argued that the drugs were located in closer proximity to the (uncharged) passenger than to the client. No fingerprint or confession evidence was elicited by the prosecution. Under cross examination the officers admitted they did not observe the client exercise dominion or control over the subject marijuana. The court found my client not guilty.

Police officers set up a sting operation to entrap drug dealers using undercover informants. My client and two others drove to a predetermined location to meet an informant. When the informant entered my client's car the occupants of the car robbed the informant at gunpoint. Recognizing that the informant was in danger, the police descended upon the vehicle and arrested the occupants. My client was charged with robbery, abduction, and felonious use of a firearm. He faced a life prison. At trial, under vigorous cross examination , the informant admitted that although my client was the driver of the vehicle, the informant could not identify any affirmative actions that my client undertook during the robbery. A jury found my client not guilty of all charges.

The client, a foreign national visiting friends in Virginia, was arrested for driving under the influence. Following his arrest the Court forbade him to leave the state and scheduled the trial for 3 months later. The client had no friends or family on the way coast. He faced the prospect of living in hotels for twelve weeks. After he hired me, I advanced the case on the docket and convinced the prosecutor to lower the charge the reckless driving. The client was able to leave Virginia and return to his home country.

The client, was a counselor at a group home for teenage girls. One of the teenage residents accused the client of having sexual intercourse with her. The client maintained his absolute innocence and refused all plea offers from the Commonwealth's attorney. The client was aware that any admission of wrongdoing would effectively end his career. Fully believing in my client, I requested a trial by jury. At trial, cross-examination revealed critical contradictions in the complaining witnesses' story. After a seven hour trial, the jury deliberated for just 22 minutes. The client was found not guilty.

My client was facing criminal penalties after having been involved in a shootout in a Walmart parking lot in Hampton, VA. The shootout was the result of a drug sale that went awry and it was reported that a total of 27 shots were fired. Police arrived on the scene and an 8 hour standoff took place at a local motel. Despite 2 other defendants receiving stiff penalties such as 19 years and 8 years of jail time, my client had their weapon changes dropped (avoiding a mandatory 5 year sentence) and received a greatly diminished sentence.

The client was charged with DUI. Police received complaints concerning underage drinking at a house party. A police report described the client as "belligerent...glassy eyed...slurred speech, [and] off balance." After speaking with police, the client got into his car and tried to move the vehicle. Police forcefully pulled him from the vehicle and demanded that he take field sobriety tests. The client refused all tests. Police placed him under arrest. At trial, an officer testified that the client had "a strong odor of alcohol". I reminded the court of a 2011 Virginia Court of Appeals decision concerning implied consent and the inadmissibility of breathalyzer tests acquired from arrests that occur on private property. I argued that consumption of alcohol did not conclusively prove impairment. The judge dismissed the case and found the client not guilty.

Drug Enforcement Agents found out that my client was involved in a plan to transport heroin from Dubai, to the U.S. While in England, my client was arrested after being found to have a suitcase on his person with over 2 kilograms of cocaine. The client was subsequently sentenced to nearly seven years imprisonment in a UK court. The client then had to face a trial in a U.S. court, in connection with the same charge. The charges he faced would have a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. The client retained my services and at his sentencing hearing, I was able to present the court with prior cases which showed reduced sentences based on "time served" in international prisons for the same charge being heard. Based on this, the client received a greatly reduced sentence and will not face the mandatory minimum.

The client was arrested and charged with marijuana possession with intent to distribute, possession of stolen property and conspiracy to commit grand larceny. Commonwealth evidence revealed that my client had pawned stolen items 24 hours after the theft. I convinced the trial court to sever the charges. At trial on the possession with stolen property case, cross examination revealed glaring inconsistencies between the lead investigators testimony and her case notes. I also discovered that an officer had allegedly attempted to discourage a defense witness's testimony. Ultimately a defense witness admitted at trial that he committed the crime without participation from my client. The jury deliberated for less than one hour

The client stabbed her husband in the back of his neck. When police responded they found the client holding a knife standing near her husband as he lay bleeding on the floor. The client initially told police that an unknown man had come into their room and stabbed her husband. She later changed her story and admitted that she had injured him. Prosecutors charged her with malicious wounding and she faced a maximum of 20 years in prison. At trial I introduced evidence of the husband's propensity for domestic violence. A jury rejected the malicious wounding charge and found her guilty of a lesser offense.

Police officer stopped the client at a roadside checkpoint. The officer testified that she smelled a strong odor of marijuana and found a bag containing residue in the glove compartment. On cross examination the officer acknowledged that she only charged the client because she was the driver of the vehicle. I presented the court with legal precedent that mere proximity was not sufficient to convict. The passenger was found guilty. My client driver was found not guilty.

The client was seen driving across double yellow lines and arrested in possession of three bags of marijuana. When the police officer attempted to administer a field sobriety tests, the client complained that the officer was "ruining [his] buzz". The officer charged the client with driving under the influence of illegal drugs. Pretrial discovery revealed that the vials the officer intended to use to collect blood samples were out of date. Plea negotiations resulted in the Commonwealth reducing the DUI charge.

The client was charged with possession of marijuana at a music festival in Virginia Beach. A procedural error revealed that the arresting officer failed to timely file a copy of the drug analysis report. Upon my motion to strike, the Court dismissed all charges against the client.

The client was charged with three crimes including robbery and use of a firearm. He faced mandatory jail time and a potential life sentence. At the time I was hired he had been denied pretrial release and was being held without bond. I appealed the bond decision and acquired the client's release. Rather than waiting for trial I contacted the alleged victim and thoroughly reviewed his recollection of events. At a pretrial hearing the alleged victim recanted. He explicitly told the court that my client had no involvement in the crime. The prosecution moved to nolle prosequi (or dismiss) all charges.

Client was a passenger in a car during a routine traffic stop. Police officers located a gun and a jar containing 9 ounces of marijuana. Officers also found a "roach" cigarette inside a hat that belonged to the client. The client admitted that the roach was his. Cross-examination at trial revealed that although police tested the contents of the jar, they neglected to test the roach to determine whether it contained marijuana. The trial court ruled that the defendant's mere proximity to the jar of marijuana was not enough to convict him of possessing that substance. The court further ruled that without a laboratory result determining the nature of the contents of the roach the Commonwealth had not proven its case.

The client was arrested while driving a vehicle that belonged to his girlfriend. Police approached the car and seized a grinder and a marijuana cigarette that appeared to have been thrown from the vehicle. At trial I reminded the court (1) that the arresting officer had failed to deliver a document to my client advising him of his right to have the alleged drug tested by a state laboratory and (2) that my clients proximity to the contraband was not sufficient to prove that he had knowledge of the nature and character of the illegal substance. I did not represent the passenger. The passenger was found guilty. My client was found not guilty.

The client is a 20-year-old rising junior at a Virginia University. Local police seized him at a party and charged him with underage possession of alcohol. Because this was his second offense, prosecutors refused to defer disposition. Although the defendant was intoxicated and admitted drinking the commonwealth's evidence failed to establish the age of the defendant. When I pointed out this technical deficiency to the court, the judge granted a motion to strike and dismissed the charge against the client.

The client plead guilty to committing a robbery of a convenience store. Although police did not find a gun federal authorities charged the client with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. This count involved a mandatory five-year sentence to be added to the client's imprisonment. Cross examination at trial exposed the government's inability to prove an interstate nexus for federal authority. The trial court dismissed that count for lack of federal jurisdiction.

The client, a used car salesman, was accused of defrauding numerous persons. Local television outlets aired stories alleging that he targeted women and sold them forged titles with stolen inspection stickers. Prosecutors charged him with multiple felonies carrying maximum penalties totaling more than thirty years of incarceration. At trial, cross-examination of the accusers revealed inconsistencies and motives for them to fabricate. The client was found not guilty of all felonies and only required to pay a small fine. His reputation was restored.

The client was charged with fraudulently refusing to return a leased vehicle. The Commonwealth's Attorney presented evidence that the leaseholder attempted to repossess the car. I presented the Court with case law revealing that the Virginia Code considers these types of issues to civil rather than criminal violations. The court ruled that at as matter of law the prosecution could not proceed. The judge dismissed all charges.

Prior to my involvement a general district court found the client guilty of assaulting a live in girlfriend. The client appealed and hired me. In a circuit court trial cross examination revealed that the alleged victim had mental health issues and was taking psychotropic medication at the time of the alleged assault. Evidence also indicated that the alleged victim made statements at trial that contradicted a sworn statement to a magistrate. The Court found the client not guilty of that offense.

The client was charged and arrested for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, abduction, kidnapping, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The client faced 10 years of mandatory minimum jail time and as much as a life sentence if convicted. After several contentious hearings I finally convinced a court to release the client on bail. The prosecution and police theorized that the alleged kidnapping was related to a drug conspiracy and an unsolved murder in Petersburg. Despite the severity of the allegations, the evidence did not support these claims. Detailed investigation revealed significant problems with the prosecutions evidence. The case was ultimately dismissed at a preliminary hearing without needing to take the case to trial.

The Client was charged with first degree murder. He faced a minimum of 20 years and a possible life prison term. I had the Client evaluated by two leading forensic psychologists. At trial a jury found that the Commonwealth did not prove malice. The jury convicted him of the lesser offense of manslaughter. The Defendant is likely to be released in less than three years.

The client was charged with assault of police officer in violation of 18.2-57 and being drunk in public. Assault on law enforcement personnel is a Class 6 felony, and upon conviction, the sentence must include a mandatory minimum 6 months of jail time. The client was a Virginia Union University student. The police alleged that while at a night club the client became intoxicated and was involved in a fight. As police attempted to break up the fight Police reports alleged that the client struck an officer. I obtained witness statements asserting that the officer had been overly aggressive. Additionally, medical records and photographs of the client demonstrated that the client sustained injuries consistent with unwarranted physical action from the police. I presented this information to the Commonwealth's Attorney prior to a preliminary hearing. The Commonwealth's Attorney declined to pursue the prosecution. The court dismissed the charges.

The client was charged with rape under Virginia code section 18.2 – 61. If found guilty he could potentially have served life in prison. Unfortunately forensic nurse examination reports revealed negative information for the Client. Realizing that his case need corroborative evidence I secured potential testimony from crucial witnesses that corroborated my client's version of events. Shortly after I revealed this information to the prosecution, the state's attorney offered to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor offense.

The client was the driver of a car and one of three occupants in a parked car. Police officers approached and observed thick marijuana smoke filling the car and emerging from windows. Officers found a "roach" and initially asserted that all three occupants admitted smoking marijuana. Cross examination however revealed that my client said, "they" (rather than "he" was) were smoking. Review of the file revealed that the police failed to test the alleged marijuana. The passenger and back seat occupant were found guilty. The judge found reasonable doubt as to my client. My client was the only defendant found not guilty.

The client was accused of carrying a weapon into an airport terminal in violation of Virginia Code 18.2-287.01. When he was arrested, the client made a full confession admitting that he brought a backpack containing a gun into the terminal. The client was United States military and planning to attend medical school. He was very concerned about the effect that a criminal conviction would have on his future. Prior to trial, I met with the prosecutor. I explained that my client had made a mistake when packing to board his flight. I further explained that my client's service and future justified a lighter result. Although the facts were indisputably sufficient for a finding of guilt, the commonwealth's attorney agreed to a "deferred disposition." Provided the completion of a small amount of community service hours the court will dismiss this charge and the client will not have a permanent conviction on his record.

The client was charged with first-degree murder and several gun possession offenses. At preliminary hearing the commonwealth's attorney declined to pursue the murder prosecution. The client was released from jail in time to be with his family for Christmas.

The client was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual battery against a minor. The client is a father of three children. Prior to retaining my service the client was held in jail for 30 days without bond. His family life, career, and reputation were decimated. After retaining me the client was released on bail. I immediately demanded a trial by jury. At trial the complaining witness made several inconsistent statements. At the conclusion of the prosecutions case the judge granted a motion I made seeking to dismiss one of the charges completely. The jury deliberated for less than an hour on the remaining charge. The client was completely exonerated.

The client plead guilty to federal robbery and drug distribution charges. A pre sentence report asserted that the client should have his sentence enhanced due to the federal prosecutor's assertion that the client had a leadership role in the offenses. At a sentencing hearing, the prosecution called an expert witness and attempted to elicit conclusively testimony that text messages indicated the client's aggravated role in the drug distribution crime. I objected to the witness's testimony as his opinions invaded the province of the Court. The Court agreed. The Court granted my motion to remove that enhancement and recalculated and reduced the non mandatory guidelines by more than a third.

Prosecutors indicted the client following a two month investigation. Police surveillance video alleged to show the client and a co-defendant involved in several drug sales. Additionally a police informant asserted that the client helped arrange and facilitate the illegal transactions. Upon close inspection, although the video implicated the co-defendants' actions it was unclear as to my clients criminal role. The co-defendant plead guilty. On my advice, the client refused to accept plea and appeared in court ready for trial. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth "nolle-prosequid" or declined to prosecute the case against my client.

The client was charged with 3 drug distribution felonies and faced a maximum sentence of more than 50 years. The client had a prior drug conviction. Pre-trial investigation revealed problems with witness availability for the Commonwealth. In a pre-trial plea agreement, the prosecution agreed to completely dismiss 2 felony counts. The remaining count was reduced from a felony to a drug paraphernalia charge. The client never served a day in jai. The only punishment was a $100 fine.

The client was charged with multiple counts of malicious wounding and assault by mob. independent eyewitnesses alleged that my client and others viciously attacked the victim. The victim was hospitalized for several days with bruised bones and internal injuries. At trial I highlighted inconsistencies with commonwealth witnesses. I also presented testimony from several defense witnesses that inculcated the alleged co-defendants. My client was acquitted of all charges. In a separate trial the codefendant was found guilty of all charges.

The client was charged with 1st degree murder. Investigation revealed that the client had been shot by the alleged victim. Medical records showed shots in the clients backside. I presented this information to the prosecution and asserted that a self defense case would prevail at trial. At preliminary hearing, the prosecution declined to prosecute the murder case. The client was released from incarceration.

The client was found in a hotel room with significant amounts of heroin and cocaine in her purse. Both substance exceeded what could be argued was for personal use. The client faced two felony charges and as much as 40 years' incarceration. Prior to trial I discussed the matter with the prosecutor. I reminded him of Virginia code section that allows for certain types of felony drug possession cases to be resolved without a conviction. After negotiation, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss one count and amend the other so that the client would be eligible for a first offender program. If the client completes community service and a drug program all charges will be dismissed.

Police executed a search warrant at the client's home. Officers found scales, smoking devices, and several filled packages containing a green leafy substance. At trial evidence revealed that although police tested the substances found in the common areas, the police neglected to test contraband that was found in the client's bedroom. The Court dismissed the charge against the client.

Drug sniffing K-9 units alerted to his vehicle following a late night traffic stop. Drugs were found in the clients pocket. Police found a large sum of money, scales and other indicia of drug distribution throughout the car. In general district court the client was found guilty. I appealed the case and negotiated a resolution to take the case under advisement, dismiss the case, and keep the client's record free from any conviction.

The client was charged with assaulting his landlord and his wife. The landlord and wife called police and claimed that the Client and several others attacked them. When police arrived, the Client was seen running from the house and was apprehend in a nearby alley. Cross examination: (1) impeached the credibility of each witness and (2) revealed inconsistencies crucial to the governments case. The Court dismissed all charges.

The Client was in a vehicle with two other occupants. Police found a substantial amounts of marijuana and several items indicating drug distribution. At the arrest scene, a narcotics detective questioned occupants of the vehicle. One of the occupants admitted to participating in a drug conspiracy. After that admission police charged everyone with multiple felony and misdemeanor offenses. I negotiated with the prosecutor. I pointed out that my client made no incriminatory statements and no physical indicated her knowledge of the drugs at issue. The prosecutor dismissed the charges prior to trial.

The client hired me after she was sentenced to serve 3 months jail time in District Court for assaulting a woman involved in a love triangle. I appealed the case to circuit court. In circuit court cross examination of the alleged victim revealed inconsistencies in her story. The judge commented that although he suspected the client may have committed the crime the evidence was not sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge was dismissed.

The client was charged with multiple felonies arising out of a incident involving his girlfriend. Investigation led to the conclusion that the contact between the victim and client was the result of mutual combat. In pretrial discussions, the Commonwealth revealed inconsistent statements from the alleged victim. At a scheduled pre-trial hearing, the court dismissed all charges against the client.

The client was involved in a long contentious rivalry with a neighbor. The neighbor accused the client of assaulting him while both men were waiting at a gas station. At trial, cross examination revealed crucial holes in the accusing witnesses' story. The Court dismissed the case.