OWI in Commercial Vehicle with Minor Passenger - Not Guilty at Trial - 9th Win in Last 10 Trials

In the last 18 months, Corey Chirafisi has tried 10 cases. In 9 of those cases our clients have won. In a results orientated business, where success is the measuring stick, we are happy to put our results up against anyone.

Client was driving in his semi with his 7 year old son in the vehicle. A state trooper noticed that his vehicle had crossed the fog line multiple times and failed to turn off his hazards. The trooper stopped the vehicle, and noticed the odor of intoxicants coming from the client. Because the client was operating a commercial vehicle, his legal limit is a .04. The trooper also testified he noticed slurred speech and the client had difficulty keeping his eyes open.

After field sobriety tests and the pbt of a .07, the client was arrested for OWI in Commercial vehicle with a minor passenger and PAC.

The case proceeded to trial as the clients livelihood was on the line. The client breath test 2 hours after operation was a .04. The state had an expert to testify that at the time of operation the client's alcohol concentration was between a .07-.12. The jury was out one hour before finding the client not guilty. Job saved and client very grateful for a job well done.

Acquittal Marks 7th Consecutive Jury Win

A Rock County jury deliberated less than 15 minutes before finding a Chirafisi & Verhoff client not guilty, marking the seventh time in a row the firm has prevailed for our clients at a jury trial. In this situation, our client was originally charged in three separate cases for incidents involving a neighbor. The first case was a damage to property claim that our lawyer, Attorney Tim Verhoff, convinced the prosecution to dismiss before trial due to a lack of evidence. The second case, which went to trial, was a disorderly conduct charge in which the prosecutor alleged that our client harassed his neighbor with a strobe light. At trial, Attorney Verhoff argued that it was actually a misunderstanding involving a security light our client was attempting to install that had malfunctioned. Due to a shoddy police investigation and a lack of communication between our client and his neighbor (who each have injunctions against the other), the neighbor, law enforcement, and the prosecutor wrongly assumed the worst. The highlight came after the jury rendered its verdict in the disorderly conduct matter. The judge asked the prosecutor what he wanted to do about the last case that remained pending, an allegation of a weapon violation. The prosecutor replied that "considering the circumstances," he was simply throwing in the towel and dismissing that case, too. Two dismissals and a not guilty verdict a trial was a complete win for our client.

DOMESTIC BATTERY, CRIMINAL DAMAGE AND DC WHILE ARMED DISMISSED

In this Dane County case, the client's mother contacted our office after she learned criminal charges had been filed against her adult son. In speaking with the mother, our attorney learned her son had significant cognitive issues. The charges, which stemmed from an incident between the client and his mother, were considered domestic in nature. Based on the information our attorney received, it appeared the client likely was not competent to stand trial, or if competent, he was likely not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGI), as the behavior was directly related to his cognitive issues. Prior to the initial appearance in the case, Attorney Verhoff met with supervisors at the Dane County District Attorney's Office. He provided documentation to the prosecution about the client, as well as additional background regarding the incident. After considering the information our attorney provided, prosecutors agreed to dismiss all charges against the client at the initial hearing. This case is another good example in which the prosecution doesn't always have all the necessary information when making a charging decision. Hiring an attorney early in the process can be instrumental in the ultimate outcome and spare folks months of anxiety associated with being the subject of a criminal prosecution or the family member of a person being prosecuted.

Embezzlement, Not Guilty Verdict (Racine County)

This case was a co-defendant case involving a husband and wife who previously worked for a construction business.  We tried the case with Attorney Mark Richards, who represented the husband, and our firm handled the wife's case.  The allegation involved the couple stealing upwards of $80,000 without the owners permission.

After the case was dismissed once, finally the matter was ready for trial.  We became involved after the wife had dismissed her first attorney.  The trial lasted for 3 days.  In all honesty, the defense (both attorneys) completely dominated the trial, so much that on the final day of trial, the prosecutor admitted that he was not arguing that the couple had taken what was initially alleged, but he was reducing it by 2/3.The jury was out for less than 2 hours before returning a not guilty verdict for both clients. 

Our client wrote us a nice note: "Just wanted to express my gratitude for what you did for us.  You put your heart and soul into our defense and for that I am so appreciative.  In my prayers I thank the parents who brought you onto this earth.  How proud of you they must be.  Thank you to your wife and children who were without you while you were in Racine helping me.  I will never forget the length you went to in pleading our case."

Not Guilty Verdict in OWI/PAC at 0.14

Our client was traveling home from a wine-pairing dinner party.  Unfortunately, the headlights on her vehicle were not on and the Maple Bluff Police Department stopped her.  The officer smelled an odor of intoxicants, and the client admitted to consuming wine during each course served at the meal.  The officer had her perform field sobriety tests and then arrested her.  The client agreed to take a breath test, which resulted in a 0.14 alcohol concentration.  One of our previous clients recommended she hire Attorney Tim Verhoff to help.  The case proceeded to trial during which Attorney Verhoff cross examined the arresting officer at length.  At the conclusion of the trial, Attorney Verhoff argued to the judge that the arresting officer lacked a constitutional basis to request the client perform field sobriety tests, and as a result, all evidence gleaned from the tests should be excluded.  The judge agreed and suppressed the evidence.  He then found the client not guilty of the OWI and the PAC charges.  On an interesting side note, another officer from the police department, who was not associated with the case, came to watch the entire trial.  He was the arresting officer in a previous case for which Attorney Verhoff secured an acquittal. The officer told our lawyer he came because he wanted to see him "in action again" and that he learned a lot from the earlier case.  He then paid our attorney one of the highest compliments a defense lawyer can receive.  As he was consoling his defeated colleague, he said, "At least you now know who to call if you ever get into trouble."  

OWI 1st- client found not guilty at trial

People who question whether or not they need a lawyer on an OWI should read this blog. 

Our client initially was going to do the case without counsel. She wanted to do that because her test result was a .079 and she thought the government would simply cave in because of the test being below the legal limit. She was wrong.  The government chose to pursue the case with the evidence they had.  They told her that they would not amend or dismiss the charges.

Finally, she reached out to Corey Chirafisi for help.  The trial was only about 2 weeks away when she hired the firm, however, we were able to review the evidence and be prepared even on the short notice.

The officer testified and at the conclusion of his testimony, the court made the finding that the government did not meet their burden of proof and found the client not guilty.

Reckless Child Abuse- Found Not Guilty at Trial

Our client, a middle school principal, was charged with child abuse.  A conviction of this offense would not only cause him to lose his job, but as a convicted felon, he would never be able to work with kids again. Our client made a potentially career saving decision in hiring Chirafisi & Verhoff to represent him in this matter. 

The principal was charged with reckless child abuse for washing a child's hand (which had a profanity on it) with gum remover.  The child suffered a chemical burn and the parents called the police.

The facts were not in dispute in this case; the only question was whether the client acted recklessly, or if the burn was an accident?  This case had drawn considerable attention in the community because of the client's job.  Knowing this, a very helpful thing we did on this case was to request that the court send out specific jury questionnaires to gauge the prospective jury members' opinions about the case.

The jury selection ended up taking an entire day--something that is very rare.  However, the questionnaires made it much easier to get the people that we believed would be helpful hearing the case onto the jury.

The case was tried in two days and in the end, the client was found not guilty in approximately 5-10 minutes.  

The reaction of the jury really says it all in the video linked below: 
https://wxow.com/news/top-stories/2018/08/23/amundson-found-not-guilty-of-child-abuse/

OWI/PAC Verdict: Not Guilty, 0.147 Alcohol Concentration

A Grant County jury recently returned not guilty verdicts on charges of OWI-2nd and PAC-2nd, acquitting our client of all counts.  In November 2017, a Grant County Sheriff's Deputy stopped our client for speeding and for what he described as an unsafe passing of another vehicle.  After field sobriety tests, the client was arrested and agreed to submit to a blood test, which resulted in a reported value of 0.147.  Our office litigated the case at every turn, having an administrative review hearing and a motion hearing to suppress evidence.  This gave Attorney Verhoff several opportunities to question the deputy before trial, which proved instrumental in front of the jury.  At trial, Attorney Verhoff argued the client's driving, as seen on video, was not as poor as the deputy portrayed in his report.  He also argued the client's performance on the field sobriety tests was pretty good, particularly when compared to the high blood test results.  He even got the deputy to testify under oath that the client did "surprisingly well" on field sobriety tests, given how high his blood test was.   Attorney Verhoff suggested the disparity between the field sobriety tests and the blood test results meant something wasn't right with the case.  And that something was a problem with the collection of our client's blood.  During the cross examination of those involved in the blood collection and testing, our attorney raised these issues.  Then, with the final witness in the case, Attorney Verhoff called an expert who offered an opinion on the blood collection and testing in this case and how it likely corrupted the test results.  And the ultimate result: A not guilty verdict!  

Not Guilty Verdict OWI/PAC, Dane County

The Maple Bluff Police Department stopped our client for a registration plate lamp being out in the early morning hours.  The officer noticed an odor of intoxicants coming from the client and had him complete field sobriety tests.  The client was arrested and agreed to submit to the a breath test, which showed an alcohol concentration of  0.10.  As the case moved forward, the the prosecutor offered to settle the case for a dismissal of the lamp violation and a plea to the OWI for the statutory minimum penalties.  With little to lose, the client listened to our advice and rejected the offer. 

At the trial, Attorney Verhoff objected to the manner in which the prosecution attempted to introduce the test results on grounds of a lack of proper foundation.  The judge sustained the objection and the test result was never received into evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, Attorney Verhoff argued that there could be no conviction on the PAC charge due to a lack of a test result received into evidence.  While he acknowledged the client should be convicted of the lamp violation, he argued the government failed to prove the OWI.  He honed in on the lack of any bad driving and the officer's answers to his questions regarding the client's performance on field sobriety test. 

After the trial, but before the verdict was rendered, the arresting officer and the bailiff both complimented Attorney Verhoff on his performance.  The arresting officer, who does OWI training for his department, even told Attorney Verhoff he would be using the cross examination and trial experience when he trains other officers in the future.  While it was nice, if not unusual, to receive adulation from the officer who made the arrest, the verdict was even better: Not guilty on both the OWI and the PAC!

OWI 1st, PAC .155 - NOT GUILTY

Our client was charged in Columbia County with Operating While Intoxicated 1st offense as well as having an alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit at .155.

Client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff regarding her arrest for OWI 1st and after speaking with the client it was clear that she had a real issue in her case, she was at home the time the police arrived at her home.  That issue posed two problems for the government, first, what time did she get home?  Second, had she consumed alcohol since she had been home?

The government thought they could prove the time of operation with another witness who told the police what time the vehicle arrived home and according to the police, the client stated that she hadn't consumed any alcohol since she had been home.  The government wouldn't move off the OWI charge, so the matter proceeded to trial.

At the trial held on July 25th, the government ran into multiple problems that proved to be the death of the case.  First, they could not produce any witness to establish the time that the client had arrived home.  The client testified as to the time of her arrival at home and the government literally had no response to her statement.  Second, the client testified that she had told the officer that she had consumed alcohol after returning home and in fact pointed to a drink she had on the counter when they were in the residence.

The jury had the case for 22 minutes before returning a not guilty verdict on both counts.