Prosecutors charged our client with a felony count of hit and run, causing great bodily harm after he was involved in an accident and left the scene. Police, who investigated the case prior to the client hiring our firm, contacted him about his car being involved in an accident. The client admitted to driving and being involved in the crash. Authorities then filed a felony criminal charge against him. Due to our client's business, he could not afford a felony conviction. Nor could he stay in business if his license was revoked for a period of two years, one of the consequences of being convicted of the felony charge. Although police and prosecutors suspected the client was impaired at the time of the accident, they could not prove an OWI. Understanding our client's needs, as well as the prosecution's desires, Attorney Verhoff worked out a creative solution to the case. Aware that the government would like to get an OWI conviction out of the case, he proposed the client enter a plea and be convicted of a non-criminal first offense drunken driving and in exchange he asked the prosecution to amend the case from a felony causing great bodily harm to a misdemeanor hit and run that did not include injury. Spared the a felony conviction, as well as a prolonged license revocation, the client was very satisfied with the outcome.
OWI 1st. .09 accident/hit and run- Dane County
Our client was driving at bar time on a busy street in downtown Madison. He was involved in an accident for sideswiping another vehicle and then leaving the scene. When police made contact with him, he was not very cooperative and was charged with multiple offenses, including OWI/PAC and a criminal charge of Hit and Run.
Chirafisi & Verhoff got involved in the case and started with the Hit and Run charge. We met with the prosecutor prior to the court appearance and were able to convince the prosecutor not to charge the Hit and Run.
Next was the OWI charge. The accident did pose a problem (as it usually does) and being over the legal limit compounded the accident.
As the matter closed in for trial, we found an issue with the manner that the breath test was conducted. We decided to hold this issue back and not disclose it to the other side until we had an opportunity to cross examination the breath test operator. It turns out that we never had the opportunity to do so because the prosecutor called us and agreed to amend the charge to reckless driving. At the end of the day, the hit and run disappeared and so did the OWI.
Client Avoids Criminal Charge, IID at a 0.17 Alcohol Concentration
Police arrested a Chirafisi & Verhoff client on criminal charges of hit-and-run and OWI after a traffic accident just outside the Madison area. Police did not locate our client at the scene, but found him later at an area business. He was arrested and submitted to a breath test with a reported value of 0.17 percent. Attorney Verhoff contacted both the District Attorney's Office and the municipal prosecutor before charges were filed. Our client was an older gentleman with no criminal record. Attorney Verhoff was able to strike a bargain with the prosecution in which the District Attorney's Office agreed not to file criminal charges if the client agreed to be convicted of the OWI and compensate for damage to the other vehicle. Our client agreed to do so. Although the client was convicted of an OWI in municipal court, Attorney Verhoff also was able to convince the municipal prosecutor that the ignition interlock device (IID) requirement was not necessary. While the client's test result was in excess of 0.15 percent, it was taken outside the three-hour time frame required for the prosecution to secure a legal presumption of admissibility and applicability. When Attorney Verhoff raised this evidentiary problem with the municipal prosecutor, he simply conceded the IID issue.
Hit and Run Case Dismissed Dane County
Often times, law enforcement will simply assume the worst. On a recent wintery night, our client was in a traffic accident. He was driving in a rural area in the fog. Due to weather conditions, he lost control of his truck and went into the ditch, striking a tree and the fence on the adjacent property. The homeowner came out contacted with our client. Our client asked if the homeowner had a tractor to pull the truck out of the ditch, but he did not. So our client called his wife from his cell phone with the intent to return the next day remove the truck with the help of a friend. After our client left, the homeowner called local law enforcement to report the crash. Law enforcement responded and had his truck towed. Our client returned to the scene the next day, he found his truck was already gone. He immediately contacted law enforcement, and was informed the truck had been towed. The deputy, who noted in his report that there were no signs of intoxicating beverages, bottles or cans in or around the truck when it was towed, began questioning our client about how much alcohol he consumed before the crash. Our client denied consuming any alcohol. The deputy provided information about how to get the truck back, but also charged our client with hit and run, failure to notify police of an accident, and failure to control a vehicle. Our client, a middle-aged man with no criminal record and a clean driving record contacted our attorneys. When our attorneys first spoke with the District Attorney’s Office, the prosecution immediately accused our client of having consumed alcohol before the crash. Our attorney’s meticulously pointed out why there was ample evidence to the contrary. Ultimately, our lawyers picked apart the charges, arguing why the prosecution could not sustain a hit and run charge. Based on our attorney’s presentation, the prosecution dismissed the charges of hit and run and failure to notify police of an accident before trial. The prosecution also agreed to amend the charge of failure to maintain control of a vehicle to a non-moving, equipment violation.