With a client facing a charge of menacing with a firearm (and was being held to the charge, with no plea offer, and the prosecutor seeking the maximum sentence), we challenged the sufficiency of the charging instrument with a motion to dismiss. We delved deep into the “display” element of Penal Law § 120.14, and provided case law to the judge on prior cases which showed that mere presence of a firearm in the vicinity while a threat is made does not satisfy the elements of the crime. The judge agreed, and the case was dismissed. Prior to the dismissal, we also had statements made by the defendant to the police suppressed (prosecutor could not use at trial) after winning a hearing where no probable cause was established for the initial arrest of the client.
With a client facing assault with a weapon charges, we used data from Uber and phone records to establish that my client could not have been at the scene when the assault occurred. We further challenged that the prosecution had failed to make their accusatory instrument sufficient within speedy trial limits, as they failed to properly include the purported victim’s supporting deposition. The District Attorney voluntarily dismissed.
In a DWI matter involving an accident, my client was charged with leaving the scene of an accident with property damage. We made a motion to dismiss the leaving the scene charge, as the charging papers failed to properly document the property damage and did not meet the elements of the crime. The leaving the scene charge was dismissed.
A client was charged with drug possession and various traffic tickets during the summer, just before the school year starting. She would not have been able to present for work with the charges pending. My office investigated the officers and the facts of the arrest, and discovered serious causes for concern regarding its legality. We presented our concerns to the District Attorneys office, who voluntarily dismissed the entire docket.
With a client facing a shoplifting charge, we challenged the sufficiency of the charging instrument with a motion to dismiss. We contended that since the police never conducted an identification procedure with the manager of the store making the complaint, any statements the manager made in the complaint which identified my client had to be thrown out. The judge agreed – and without those statements of the manager, the complaint did not meet the elements of the crime charged. The case was dismissed.