New Year, Three More Outstanding Results

Forgery/Uttering- Dismissed by Court at Preliminary Hearing (Dane County)

Some people say preliminary hearings are worthless, we don’t think that's the case.  In this case, the client was charged with Party to a Crime of Uttering a forged document.  Our client was 18 years old with a bright future and was understandably concerned about how this could impact her future.  

After a review of the criminal complaint, Attorney Corey Chirafisi believed that there was no proof that the client was aware that the document she possessed was forged.  So, we did what many lawyers don’t: we had the preliminary hearing.

At that hearing, Attorney Chirafisi was able to establish, through questioning of law enforcement, that there was no proof that the client was aware the document she was given was in fact forged.  The Court even went so far as to say that if the Court would bind the matter over for trial, the Court would have to ignore the evidence presented in the case.  The Court dismissed the case after arguments.

One main point here: preliminary hearings are not what they once were.  Now that hearsay can be admissible, it has undoubtedly made it easier for the government to prove these hearings, but they are still worth having and this case proves that point.

Case #2- OWI 1st/PAC- .13 (Dane County)

Another great result for client charged with Operating While Intoxicated.  Our client was extremely concerned about this ticket, he works as an EMT and has to drive ambulance from time to time, something he cannot do with a revoked driver’s license.

He called Chirafisi & Verhoff and told us about his situation and asked if we could help.  We thought we could.  

First, at the administrative review hearing, we were able to get some helpful information regarding the stop of the client’s car.  It helped form the basis for the motion that we were able to file regarding whether the police had a basis to stop the client.

After almost two years, the prosecution agreed to amend the charge from an OWI to a reckless driving. They were willing to do this even with a test result that was well over the legal limit.  All “wins” are great, but when it unquestionably changes the course of a client’s career, it is very rewarding.  No OWI conviction, no revocation and client able to do what he loves.

Case #3- OWI 1st/PAC- .08 (Onieda County)

This client was referred from another attorney as the stakes were pretty high for the client.  His job required that he always have a valid license and the OWI conviction would make it impossible for him to continue at his job.   We got to work looking at every angle for the weak spot in the case.

The prosecutor was initially unwilling to move off of the charge.  She believed the video and client’s performance on field sobriety tests provided great evidence for her on the OWI charge.  After a close review of the video and pulling the maintenance records of the intoximeter we felt that we had our hook to try the case to a jury.

Turns out that wasn’t necessary.  On the eve of trial the prosecutor called and ultimately agreed to amend the OWI charge to a Reckless Driving.  Under other circumstances, maybe a reckless wouldn’t have been accepted, however, where everything is on the line for the client, it was an easy decision.

No OWI allows him to continue in his career, his goal all along.  Another great outcome for a very satisfied client.

OWI 1st/ PAC 1st .13- Amended to Reckless Driving

Our client was picked up because the police noticed her vehicle was stopped about 30 feet in front of the stop sign and our client was on her phone.  The client admitted to police that she had been drinking and failed the field sobriety tests.  The next challenge was that her breath test at the police station registered 0.13 which is well above the legal limit.

This case was attacked in the same manner we attack every case, at the administrative hearing.  At that hearing we were able to lock the officer into certain statements regarding why he believed the defendant was actually impaired.  We made the same gamble in this case as well, we were willing to share the transcript of the administrative review hearing prior to the trial in the case.  

The prosecutor read the transcript and was willing to amend the charge even with a test result over 1 ½ times the legal limit.  The case was resolved for a non-alcohol related ticket with a fine.

OWI 2nd/ PAC 2ndAmended to Reckless Driving

Our client was stopped by law enforcement for drifting over the center line and speeding.  Upon approaching the vehicle, law enforcement also noticed 3 beer cans lying on the passenger seat.  The police asked the client to exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests (which they said she failed) and they ultimately placed her under arrest for OWI 2nd offense.  Her blood test result was also above the legal limit (.095).

Client had spoken to many lawyers before settling on Chirafisi & Verhoff.  The client made it clear that she could not be convicted and we went to work.

After conducting the administrative review hearing, it became clear that the area to attack was whether or not law enforcement had reason to believe that the defendant was actually impaired.  We took a gamble in this situation and it paid off: the prosecutor, who did not have access to the transcript of the administrative review hearing, asked if we would share that with him prior to the motion hearing. Normally that is not something that we would do, however, in this situation we believed it could help the client.  

After reviewing our examination of the officer, the prosecutor agreed that the case was in jeopardy and made an offer to resolve the case for a reckless driving citation. 

Two More High-End OWI Clients Avoid Prison

It is not unusual for individuals charged with fifth-or-sixth-offense OWI offenses in Dane County to be sentenced to prison.  In two recent cases, Chirafisi & Verhoff clients had one goal in mind: to stay out of prison.  Fortunately, they each avoided that fate.  In the first case, Attorney Verhoff was able to convince the prosecutor that although the client was guilty of a sixth-offense OWI, she should recommend a probation sentence.  She agreed to do so, and the judge accepted the recommendation. 

The second case was a bit more dicey.  The facts were not in the client's favor.  He was convicted of using an inhalant and placed on probation.  The day after he was sentenced in that case, he was again arrested for using an inhalant -- this time after passing out in traffic while huffing.  The client originally had a different attorney on the case, but turned to Attorney Verhoff for help on advice from a friend.  Attorney Verhoff went to work tracking down certain records to see what defense could be mounted. Through negotiation, he was able to chip away at the prosecutor.  Ultimately, the prosecutor agreed to recommend an imposed and stayed sentence for probation.  At the plea and sentencing hearing, however, things started to look bleak. Although the prosecutor recommended probation, the judge, upset by the facts of the case informed the parties it was likely the recommendation would not be followed.  The judge allowed Attorney Verhoff to take a break to speak with the client to see if the client still wished to proceed, knowing it was likely he would be sent to prison.  As he walked from the courtroom, several other lawyers commented to him that the judge's comments were "brutal" and things "did not look good" for the client.  After speaking with the client and  resuming the hearing, Attorney Verhoff asked the judge for an opportunity to clarify some of the comments she made about the case and opinions she appeared to have formed.  He then vigorously argued why a probation sentence made more sense than a prison sentence.  By the time he finished the argument, the judge had changed her mind.  She agreed with Attorney Verhoff and indicated she would place the client on probation.  At the conclusion the prosecutor commented that Attorney Verhoff had "clearly changed the judge's mind" with his argument.  Another lawyer watching hearing said that Attorney Verhoff had "pulled his client out of the fire" and that he had "never seen a judge change their mind like that before."

OWI 5TH- Dismissed at Preliminary Hearing

This particular client came to us on a referral from a friend of his that we had previously helped on a case.  The client was on a motorcycle and officers witnessed him being attacked as he stood next to his motorcycle. What started off as our client being a victim of a crime, the situation quickly turned into him being arrested for a felony level OWI.

This case never made it past preliminary hearing.  The prosecutor called the arresting officer to testify and the officer talked about the physical signs of impairment he witnessed with the client and how he had done a terrible job in performing the field sobriety tests. 

Then it was our turn.  The one fact that the officer could establish was when the client was operating the motorcycle.  He testified the client told him he drove it, just not when.  The officer acknowledged that the driving was unknown and because of that he did not know whether at the time the client drove he was under the influence of an intoxicant.

The burden of proof at a preliminary hearing is probable cause, a very easy standard for the government to meet, except for that day.  The Court found that there was no link between the impairment observed and the driving.  The Court dismissed the entire case.

The client was thrilled, once he came out of shock.  He couldn’t believe in about 5 questions we were able to convince the Court there was no probable cause.  His business will continue to thrive and he will be able to go on with his life. We were very happy to have obtained such a great result in his case.

Two More OWI Cases Dismissed or Amended

OWI 1st/PAC- .12- Charges Dismissed on the Morning of Jury Selection

This case is an example of why OWI 1st offenses should proceed to trial.  The client was a middle aged business owner with no prior record of any kind.  Police made contact with him because he “relieved” himself in a parking lot and the case moved forward from there.  He was ultimately arrested and provided a blood sample that came back at .12.  He hired a different lawyer who called Chirafisi & Verhoff and requested assistance in cross examining the blood expert.  We did open records requests of the machine and were ready to go.

The morning of trial rolled around and as the case was being called, the prosecution suddenly stated that they were not prepared and moved to adjourn the case.  The Court had rescheduled the case enough and not only denied the government’s motion to adjourn, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it could never be charged again.

Operating With a Restricted Controlled Substance 1st

Our client was pulled over for speeding.  The officer came up to the vehicle and stated that he could smell the odor of marijuana in the vehicle.  Our client made the mistake of informing the officer that he had just recently smoked and that there was THC in the vehicle. 

The officer searched the vehicle with the client’s permission and located enough THC to charge the client with a felony for Possession With Intent to Deliver as well as Operating With a Restricted Controlled Substance.  A blood draw was completed and the client did have Delta 9 (the active ingredient in THC) in his blood.  At that point, the government no longer needed to prove impairment.  These cases can become very difficult, especially for an inexperienced criminal defense attorney.  Luckily, the client hired Chirafisi & Verhoff.  

After pouring over the video and the reports in the case, we noticed that the client said he had smoked, but not specificially when.  Further, after reviewing the videotape of the field sobriety tests, it was clear that the client passed those tests and the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for that offense.

We didn’t get to fight as much on the next part as we thought: before we filed the motion challenging the blood draw, the prosecution reached out and informed us that he was willing to amend the OWI-Restricted Controlled Substance to a Reckless Driving. 

The client was thrilled, as not only did the OWI charge disappear, but the drug charge was reduced and will be expunged from his record in 12 months.

OWI/PAC/Left of Center- test result .14

This case should provide an example of how being thorough is how you win.

Our client called and was literally distraught about being arrested for an OWI.  She is a college athlete and had some real concerns how this would affect her moving forward.  As usual, the groundwork for the case was started through the administrative review hearing.  At that hearing we were able to get the officer to answer questions in a manner that was extremely helpful to the defense.  We decided to use this information in the court case.

The video of the case was also very helpful.  The officer had indicated that the client was not only weaving within her lane but had actually crossed over the center line which was the basis of the stop of the vehicle.  We literally broke the video down frame by frame and after an exhaustive review of the video it was impossible to see where the vehicle crossed over the center line.  At first the prosecutor didn’t care and was willing to put the officer on the stand to testify about what he saw.

On the day of trial things changed.  The prosecutor had some concerns about the stop and instead of risking losing the entire case, he offered the client an amendment to resolve the matter.

As I mentioned in the previous post, almost every client is very happy when their case gets resolved without an OWI conviction.  This client took it a step further:  She told us that it made her year.  Whether or not we had that big of impact on her life, we will never really know, but for one day it felt good that the client was so appreciative for the work done on her case.

Underage OWI of 0.10 amended to a Reckless

Our client was stopped in the City of Madison for not having her headlights on at night.  She had one other problem: she was underage.

The stop for headlights quickly turned into a stop and investigation for driving while impaired.  The client admitted to consuming alcohol (which is a problem based on her age) and she was ultimately arrested for Operating While Intoxicated.

The client and her parents were referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff and after looking at the video and other related evidence, we felt we would be able to use a defense that frankly, we don’t use that much anymore: alcohol curve defense.

Based on the clients drinking history and weight along with the test result, prior to trial we were able to convince the prosecution that in this particular case there was a real chance that the curve defense could work.  The prosecutor agreed and offered the client a reckless driving.  Almost every client is excited about getting an OWI dismissed or amended, it seems that younger clients and their parents in particular are the most excited.  She gets to continue her studies in college and will have a fresh start upon graduation.

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.

Evidence Thrown Out, OWI with Minor Passenger Dismissed

Prosecutors were forced to dismiss a criminal charge filed against a Chirafisi & Verhoff client after the judge ruled much of the evidence in the case was obtained unlawfully. The client had been charged in Dane County Circuit Court with operating a motor vehicle with a minor passenger.  Law enforcement found the client in a parking lot, sleeping in his vehicle.  His child also was sleeping in the back seat.  At the conclusion of the investigation, the client submitted to a blood test, which showed a 0.03 percent alcohol concentration and the presence of a prescription medication. Prosecutors then filed criminal charges against the client. 

Attorney Chirafisi filed two legal motions challenging the admissibility of the evidence.  The first motion asserted that law enforcement did not have a sufficient basis to request the client submit to field sobriety tests.  The second motion asserted that  the client's "consent" to the test was not voluntary.  Attorney Verhoff then appeared at an evidentiary hearing on the motion.  He examined the witnesses and argued the motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge granted the motion in favor of our client. With no evidence left to prove the case, the prosecution had little choice but to dismiss the case against him. 

OWI/PAC 1st- .13- Criminal Resisting Arrest- Amended to obstructing ticket

Client was called in by a passerby who was concerned he was sleeping in his vehicle and would not wake up.  The ambulance ultimately contacted the police when the client was awoken and smelled like alcohol and was in their opinion intoxicated.

The client was not very happy to see law enforcement.  Because he wasn’t driving, he wasn’t complying with the requests to step from the vehicle or listen to the officer’s commands.  This made the case start out challenging because the client was charged with not only Operating While Intoxicated with a test result of .13, but he was also charged criminally for resisting arrest.

Client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff and we got started.  First thing was the administrative review hearing.  At that hearing we were able to confirm that the officer had no idea how long the client had been sitting in his vehicle.  That fact made the test result irrelevant. 

We were able to convince the district attorney to dismiss the criminal resisting and then were left with the OWI charge.  The first offer was reckless driving, the client rejected that offer as well as an inattentive driving ticket. 

The client decided to resolve the case for an ordinance violation for obstructing for not obeying police commands when he refused to exit his vehicle.  He didn’t lose his license for a single day, did not have to do any alcohol classes.  Overall, he was very happy with the result.

APR 2 OWI/PAC 1st, 0.22, no IID

The DeForest Police Department arrested our client on criminal charges of hit and run, as well as a first-offense OWI/PAC with an alcohol concentration of 0.22 percent.  Police said our client pulled into traffic at an intersection, and two vehicles approaching the intersection collided because of it.  Witnesses obtained his license plate information and informed authorities that our client drove away from the scene without stopping.  Law enforcement then contacted our client at his home and arrested him.  Before criminal charges were filed, our lawyers obtained the police reports and reviewed them. Our lawyers then met with prosecutors from the District Attorney's Office to discuss the case and explained that we believed the government may have difficulties proving our client, whose vehicle never made contact with the other vehicles, was aware a collision occurred.  This was important because knowledge of the crash would be a crucial element the prosecution must prove in order to convict on a criminal hit and run charge.  Our lawyers also believed the police unlawfully entered our client's garage when making contact with him, and filed a motion to suppress evidence in municipal court. Ultimately, our lawyers brokered a deal with both the District Attorney's Office and the municipal prosecutor.  The DA's Office  agreed to decline the criminal charge if the client resolved the OWI case short of a trial.  And the prosecutor in the OWI case agreed to amend the charge to reflect a lower alcohol concentration (resulting in no ignition interlock device requirement), rather than litigating the suppression motion.  Our client accepted the offer and avoid the potential of a criminal conviction and possible jail time.

OWI/PAC 2nd Case Dismissed In Dane County

Our client was charged with criminal offenses for operating while intoxicated and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration in Dane County.  Attorney Tim Verhoff attended what he expected to be a routine initial appearance in the case.  But the court appearance turned out to be far from routine.  Attorney Verhoff received a copy of the criminal complaint minutes before the hearing and reviewed it.  The complaint indicated law enforcement had been called out in the early morning hours regarding a report of a vehicle in the ditch. Police made contact with out client, who appeared to be intoxicated.  Authorities put him through field sobriety tests, and arrested him.  He submitted to a breath test, which resulted in a reported value of 0.17 percent. In court at the initial appearance, Attorney Verhoff made an oral motion to dismiss both charges.  He argued the complaint failed to show probable cause supporting the charges.  He argued there was no indication the vehicle was running when authorities arrived.  There was no information showing our client was the driver.  And there was no indication of the time at which the vehicle went into the ditch (an important piece of information in determining if a person is intoxicated at the time of driving).  The unsuspecting prosecutor objected to the motion and made several arguments why the case should proceed.  Over the prosecutor's objection, the court commissioner granted Attorney Verhoff's motion and dismissed the case against our client.

OWI 3rd- PAC .18 amended to Reckless Driving

Our client was pretty concerned, as he was charged with a 3rd offense OWI when he was called in for sleeping in his vehicle in a gas station parking lot.  Client had looked around for lawyers and ultimately called Chirafisi & Verhoff for representation.

Prior to the administrative hearing, Corey Chirafisi reviewed the police reports and video and found what was ultimately the issue that got the case amended.  The reports were unclear as to what time the client had arrived at the gas station, which put admission of his test result in jeopardy for the prosecution.  The prosecutor initially was unwilling to move off of the OWI and wanted significant jail time and a lengthy driver’s license revocation. 

Finally, about 2 days before trial, the prosecutor realized that his case was starting to fall apart.  He was very hesitant to amend the OWI charge because it was the client's 3rd offense.  However, he did agree at the final conference to amend the charge to a reckless driving where the client paid a $200.00 fine and walked away with no revocation, jail or criminal conviction.

OWI 1st/ PAC .10- Charge amended to Reckless Driving

Our client worked at the circuit courthouse in this county and was very concerned about how a conviction could impact not only her job, but her reputation at work.  She called around and was told that she should call Corey Chirafisi to see if he could help her out of this very stressful situation.

The client was stopped for speeding early one morning.  After she was stopped, the usual happened: she was questioned about drinking and ultimately was put through field sobriety tests and arrested for OWI.  At the police station, she was asked to submit to a breath test and her result was .10.

Because this case was in municipal court, Attorney Chirafisi had the advantage of doing the trial in the municipal court and then appealing to circuit court if the client was unsuccessful.  It wasn’t necessary.  On the evening of the trial the prosecutor, who has been unwilling to amend OWI cases in every other situation this firm has had in that court, agreed to amend the OWI charge to a reckless driving for a small fine.  The client was thrilled, she did not have concerns about losing her job or having to explain the conviction to the other people in the courthouse.

OWI 1st/ PAC .13, Reckless Driving

Our client called Chirafisi & Verhoff after being accused of drunk driving while smashing his vehicle into his garage damaging the actual structure of the building. Our client was worried because if he had his driving privileges suspended for even a single day, it would cost him his job.  He called Attorney Corey Chirafisi to see what could be done.

The groundwork was laid at the administrative suspension review hearing for our Motion.  The police had a time of operation, since someone witnessed the client strike the building, but the question was did the police have a basis to go into the house without a warrant?  In this firm's opinion, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has broadened the community caretaker role of the police in this state to the point of ridiculousness. This was a big concern for Attorney Chirafisi, so at the administrative hearing, Attorney Chirafisi was able to get the necessary information from the officer to file the Motion challenging entry into the home.

On the morning of the motion hearing, the prosecutor called (and even though the law is as bad as it is for the defendant’s on this issue) they indicated that they believed it was possible that based on Attorney Chirafisi's Motion, they may lose the case entirely.  The prosecutor then offered to dismiss the OWI and PAC charge for a plea to the reckless driving ticket.  Our client was able to save his career as his license was never suspended.

OWI & PAC 1st, THC charges all dismissed

Our client had been stopped by police for allegedly swerving in an unsafe manner around two squad cars that were involved in the stop of a different vehicle.  The police began following our client and also believed that she had deviated outside of her lane onto the shoulder of the roadway.  During the contact with the client, marijuana was located on her person and she was charged with possession of THC as well.

The client didn’t really believe that she could beat the case.  Her friend had used Attorney Corey Chirafisi previously and told the client to give him a call to see what he could do to help.

Attorney Chirafisi started out through the administrative review hearing by locking the officer into certain statements that proved to be the tipping point in the case.  After that administrative hearing, Attorney Chirafisi watched the video and noted that the information provided by the officer at the administrative hearing did not match what was clearly on the video.

The prosecutor realized that there could be some problems; and without ever filing a motion, Attorney Chirafisi convinced the State to dismiss the OWI/PAC and THC charges.  In exchange for the dismissal, the client agreed to pay a $187.00 ticket.  She was more than happy, especially since when the case began, she had no real hopes of being successful.  It's cases like these which should serve as a reminder to all that talking to an experienced lawyer who knows OWI defense is always a good idea.

Dane County Client Avoids Felony OWI Charge at a 0.31 Test and Crash

Our client was involved in a traffic crash, striking a vehicle from behind, which resulted in a chain reaction.  Authorities responded to the scene and smelled an odor of intoxicants coming from our client, who admitted to consuming alcohol before the crash.  Due to injuries, the client could not fully perform field sobriety tests.  He agreed to a preliminary breath test (PBT), which registered 0.13 percent.  Authorities transported him to a local hospital, and he agreed to a blood test with a reported value of 0.31 percent.  One of the other drivers also was transported to a local hospital, reporting a headache and general pain.  He was later diagnosed with a concussion.  The client immediately hired Chirafisi & Verhoff.  He made it clear that he needed to avoid a felony charge and conviction at all costs, as a felony would have catastrophic consequences on his family.  Even before the test results came back from the laboratory, Attorney Verhoff began negotiating the case with prosecutors.  The other driver had suffered an injury that could form the basis to file a felony charge, but Attorney Verhoff argued that the delay in diagnosis meant he could attack it. In addition, Attorney Verhoff obtained maintenance records for the laboratory equipment used to test the client's blood.  He learned that the laboratory was having two different mechanical problems with equipment in the days leading up to the client's test, and the equipment had to be taken off-line for repair days after the client's test.  Attorney Verhoff argued, given the difference between the PBT and blood test results, the 0.31 blood test may have been faulty due to mechanical problems in the laboratory.  In addition, given the timing of the client's last drink and his body weight, it was possible he was under a 0.08 percent at the time of operation.  In the end, the prosecution agreed not to charge the client with a felony crime, but simply a misdemeanor OWI-2nd.  The client ultimately entered a plea and was convicted of the charge, but considered it a huge victory under the circumstances.

Great Bodily Harm OWI Avoids Felony Conviction

This case is another example of why hiring an attorney as soon as possible in a case, even before a charged is issued, can be critical to the outcome.  About one year ago, our client was involved in a terrible crash.  The other driver was significantly injured, suffering a broken back, which has never completely healed.  At the time of the crash, our client had a reported alcohol concentration that was in excess of 0.21 percent.  Only days after the incident, the client hired Chirafisi & Verhoff, based on a recommendation from another lawyer in Madison. Attorney Verhoff immediately contacted the prosecution and began negotiating the case. Through his efforts, the prosecution agreed to forego charging a felony; instead, filing a misdemeanor charge of OWI causing injury.  The client later entered a plea and was convicted.  Because Attorney Verhoff was not able to reach a negotiated settlement for sentence, the parties argued to the judge what they thought the appropriate sentence should be.  Going into the hearing, Attorney Verhoff believed the prosecutor was likely to argue the significant injury and a high alcohol concentration merited a lengthy jail sentence.  Attorney Verhoff knew he would have to counter these powerful, emotionally-charged arguments.  Prior to sentencing, he  prepared and filed an extensive memorandum that provided the judge information about the client, including records to document the client's extensive alcohol treatment after the crash, her voluntary use of a sobrietor while the case was pending, her participation in alcohol awareness programs, her volunteer efforts in her community, and many character references describing her qualities as a person.  After reading our sentencing memorandum, the prosecutor indicated he still planned to ask for a lengthy sentence.  However, he decided to recommend a sentence that was five months less than originally planned.  The parties appeared at the sentencing hearing and the prosecution recommended six months in jail.  Attorney Verhoff recommended half that amount.  In the end, the judge agreed with Attorney Verhoff and sentenced the client to 90 days in jail.  Although ultimately convicted of a criminal offense, the client avoided a felony on her record and received a sentence that was approximately nine months less than the prosecution originally demanded at the beginning of the case.