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.
Client Avoids Felony Convictions In Two Different Counties
Our client had been working with a different lawyer when he came to Chirafisi & Verhoff. The lawyer suggested the client hire our firm given the severity of the situation. The client was charged with felony OWI-causing Injury as a third offense in Dane County. He had been in a t-bone accident and had a reported alcohol concentration of 0.21 percent at the time of the crash. The stakes were high, as a felony conviction would cost our client the job he held for more than 30 years. Our firm went to work, reviewing the reports and medical records. Our attorneys immediately saw the records showed the other driver was a 0.16 at the time of driving. In addition, the attorneys could not locate evidence of an injury that would satisfy the "causing injury" portion of the case. Once Attorney Verhoff pointed this out to the district attorney, he was forced to amend the case from a felony charge to a misdemeanor. But things became even more complicated. Out on bail in the case, our client was stopped by a DNR warden while driving through a park in a different county. The client panicked drove away, allegedly at a high rate of speed. Law enforcement also suspected he had been drinking. Prosecutors in that county charged our client with a felony eluding charge one week before the client was set to resolve his case in Dane County. Attorney Verhoff had his work cut out for him. To best serve our client's legal interest, he needed to get the Sauk County case resolved before finishing the Dane County case. Not an easy task, as cases typically take months to resolve. And because the client would lose his job if convicted of a felony, Attorney Verhoff not only had to resolve the Sauk County case quickly, he had to get it resolved as a non-felony. Fortunately for the client, Attorney Verhoff was able to negotiate a resolution of the Sauk County case on misdemeanor grounds the day before the case in Dane County settled. When the parties showed up for court in Dane County, the prosecutor, who had learned about the Sauk County case, was grinning. He informed Attorney Verhoff, "Your client has a new felony case." Attorney Verhoff told him to "check again." He did and saw the case had been resolved the day before for misdemeanors. In disbelief, the prosecutor simply said, "How do you always get those kinds of result for your clients? Unbelievable!"
OWI with 0.26 BAC Amended to Reckless Driving
Our firm secured a recent victory in Madison Municipal Court. The facts of the case were somewhat unusual. The client, who had been drinking, called a family member from an apartment complex and sounded in distress. The family member believed the client had been unknowingly drugged and contacted police to investigate. When police arrived on the scene, they interviewed witnesses, including our client. She was clearly impaired and admitted to driving to the apartment complex earlier in the evening. However police were unable to determine exactly when she drove there. Authorities took her to the hospital for an evaluation. Medical personnel drew her blood, which showed an alcohol concentration of 0.26 percent. Several hours later, after placing her under arrest for OWI, law enforcement performed a legal blood draw, which had a reported value of 0.169 percent. Throughout negotiations, the prosecutor insisted on a conviction for OWI, reasoning the client was clearly drunk when police arrived at the scene and was in an elimination phase. Attorney Verhoff filed several motions in the case and sought to have the test result deemed inadmissible for trial. Although Attorney Verhoff did not dispute the client was intoxicated when police arrived, he told the prosecutor he did not believe the government could establish that she was impaired when she drove to the complex. Attorney Verhoff knew he was on solid legal ground to have the test result stripped of its presumption of admissibility. Moreover, he knew an expert would have difficulty estimating the client's alcohol concentration at some vague point earlier in the evening. After six months of litigation and just days before the motions were to be heard by the judge, the prosecutor threw in the towel, offering to amend the case to a reckless driving for a small fine. The client agreed to accept the amendment, saving her an OWI conviction, large fines, a significant license revocation, and an ignition interlock device order.
OWI 3rd amended to 1st offense- Green County
Our client was stopped for not having functional tail lamps one evening. That stop led to her arrest for Operating While Intoxicated as a 3rd offense. Our client was very concerned considering the substantial penalties associated with a 3rd offense. Our client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff for our expert knowledge in this type of case, our experience in handling these types of matters, and our success rate.
Corey Chirafisi reviewed the file and was able to determine that a prior conviction from over 20 years ago may be invalid as the client did not have a lawyer on that case. After much digging, it was firmly established that the client did not have a lawyer and Corey and the client were able to attack that prior conviction.
The government put up more fight than usual on the issue of whether the client had made a prima facie showing. The parties filed motions, affidavits and briefs on the issue. After much debate, the Court found that in fact the client had made the necessary prima facie showing and at that point Attorney Chirafisi knew the hearing was likely won. He was right, at the actual motion hearing, the prosecution conceded that they would not be able to meet their burden and agreed that the client would not be charged with an OWI 3rd, but rather an OWI 1st. Our client was thrilled, no criminal conviction and no jail with the charge.
OWI 1st- Dane County – Case dismissed
While we like to tell people of the great results we are able to obtain in these types of cases, this case is a little different. This case proves that having a lawyer sometimes is what you really need to get the results that you want.
Client was charged with 1st offense OWI when he was stopped for being in a parking lot after the business had closed late one weekend night. The officer then turned that stop into a full fledged OWI arrest. When the client went to the police station to provide a chemical test of his breath, he was actually under the legal limit.
Because he was under the legal limit he thought he could handle the case on his own. He made the court appearance and attempted to speak to the prosecutor about the case. When the prosecutor explained that the offer in the case would require that he enter a plea to the charge, the client decided it was time to get some help.
The client reached out to Chirafisi & Verhoff for assistance. After hearing the facts of the case it was clear that the government would never be able to prove the case if it went to trial. The client was charged a very nominal fee for filing paperwork and demanding a jury trial. Shortly after the pretrial was held with us representing him at the hearing, all charges were dismissed. Sometimes all it takes is having a lawyer present.
Violation of Harassment Injunction-Iowa County
Our client ad an outstanding warrant for not complying with the terms of a harassment injunction. She was understandably concerned as law enforcement was attempting to arrest her. She called Chirafisi & Verhoff to see if there was anything that could be done to help her situation.
There was: First, we got the warrant quashed so the client could continue with her day to day activities without being concerned that she was going to be arrested at work or her house. Then, we were able to review the correspondence between the client and the complaining witness which made it clear that the complaining witness was simply playing games with the legal system. After the initial appearance, we provided the prosecutor with the emails and text which made it clear that the complaining witness wasn’t looking for actual assistance to keep the client away from him, he was using the police to arrest the client when he didn’t want her around.
Once the prosecutor saw the emails and text, he agreed that the charges were not appropriate and dismissed the case outright. Our client was extremely grateful as it allowed her to continue on her career path without any further issues.
Felony Child Abuse, Domestic Disorderly Conduct Declined
In what can only be described as an incredible outcome for our client, Dane County prosecutors recently agreed not to charge him with felony child abuse and domestic disorderly conduct. Police arrested our client, who is 17 years old and considered an adult for purposes of criminal prosecution. Law enforcement took him to jail after he got into an argument with his father and allegedly punched his younger brother. A good student and a high school athlete, our client's future was on the line. Based on a recommendation from someone close to the Dane County legal community, the client's family turned to our firm for assistance. Attorney Verhoff immediately contacted the prosecution and arranged for a bail hearing, getting the client out of jail that same day. Attorney Verhoff then met with prosecutors to discuss the case. Ultimately, he brokered a deal by which the client agreed to engage in some community service and upon completion, the prosecution agreed to formally decline prosecution of the case. Having held up his end of the bargain, our client can now honestly answer, if ever asked, that he was never charged or convicted of a criminal offense in his life.
Iowa County Drug Conviction Avoided
Our client spent an evening camping with friends at a state park in Iowa County. While there, a DNR warden contacted our client and his friends. During the interaction, the DNR warden suspected that individuals in the group were in possession of illegal drugs. The warden investigated, and our client ultimately was arrested and charged with a criminal offense for possessing marijuana. Worried about the implications a criminal conviction would have on his future ability to obtain jobs, as well as his eligibility for student loans, he contacted an attorney who referred the client to Chirafisi & Verhoff.
Attorney Tim Verhoff met with the prosecutor assigned to handle the case and reached a resolution by which the assistant district attorney agreed to amend the charge from a criminal drug offense to a non-criminal violation for excessive noise at a state campsite. For penalty, the client had to pay a small fine. Needless to say, the client was thrilled with the outcome.
Felony Child Abuse Charge Dropped
Prosecutors in Dane County charged our client with child abuse after the client got into physical altercation with his teenage son. A neighbor witnessed the event and called police. When law enforcement arrived on scene, our client admitted to punching his child, but said he did so only after the teen charged at him. Our attorneys recognized the client had a self-defense claim and discussed the potential defense with the client and the prosecution. Before trial, Attorney Verhoff engaged in settlement discussions with the assistant district attorney and reached an agreement to resolve the case short of a trial. The client had two options: he could go to trial on the felony charge and raise self-defense, but risk a conviction. Or he could avoid a trial and agree to be convicted of the lowest-level crime in Wisconsin, a disorderly conduct charge. Under terms of the agreement, the client would not be required to go on probation, serve any jail time, or pay any fines. He would only be required to pay statutory court costs. Our client decided to settle his case and avoid the risk of a felony conviction at trial, which would have had a significant impact on his career. Although the client was convicted of disorderly conduct, this case is an an example a situation that we, and our client, consider to be a victory.
OWI 1st / Refusal- Amended to Reckless Driving During Trial
Our client came to us with two problems: he was arrested for OWI and a refusal, but he also had a CDL that he needed for his occupation.
He knew he needed to fight the charges in order to save his career, so he hired Chirafisi & Verhoff to help him do just that. The prosecutor would not dismiss the case outright, as he had a refusal to work with and knew that if the defendant lost on the refusal, his driver’s license would be revoked and he would lose his CDL.
The matter proceeded to trial. After the prosecution called the arresting officer and rested his case, it was Chirafisi & Verhoff’s turn. The arresting officer was questioned about her observations and tests she performed on the client during the incident. By the end of the cross examination, the officer admitted that she did not perform the field sobriety tests correctly and the Court found that there was a problem with probable cause based on that testimony.
Before the Court made any specific findings on the Operating While Intoxicated charge, the prosecution offered to amend the OWI to Reckless Driving and to dismiss the refusal charge. The client was thrilled, as he was able to keep his CDL and his job.
Domestic Disorderly Conduct and Intimidation of Victim Charges Dismissed
The Madison Police Department arrested our client for a domestic disorderly conduct and intimidation of a victim after he was in a dispute with his landlord. Before our firm became involved, the Dane County District Attorney's Office filed criminal charges against our client. The landlord also filed a domestic abuse injunction against our client. After a hearing on the injunction, the judge denied the injunction petition. Attorney Verhoff then used the dismissal of the injunction to our client's advantage in the criminal case. Before trial, Attorney Verhoff met with the prosecutor to discuss the criminal case. He outlined the proof problems anticipated with the government's case. He also shared the judge's decision regarding the injunction with the prosecutor, suggesting that if a judge refused to issue an injunction on the same facts (and a lower standard of proof), the prosecutor may have a hard time convincing twelve jurors our client was guilty of the crimes alleged. The prosecutor agreed and dismissed the case, much to the delight of our client and his family.
No Charges in Drug Case
The Wisconsin State Patrol stopped our client for speeding. During the course of the stop, the trooper located containers with a variety of prescription medications, marijuana and other drug paraphernalia in the vehicle. At the conclusion of the investigation, our client was arrested on criminal charges for possession of an illegally obtained prescription, possession of THC, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trooper also cited the client for OWI, speeding, open intoxicants, and refusing to submit to a blood test. The case was forwarded to the District Attorney's Office for review. Attorney Verhoff spoke with prosecutors before charges were formally filed. They agreed to only file the traffic citations, and to not pursue the criminal drug charges. Chirafisi & Verhoff continued representing the client in the traffic matters and later brokered a deal in which the client agreed to be convicted of OWI, but the remaining citations were dismissed. As part of the deal, the prosecution agreed not to require an ignition interlock device as part of any sentence, an unusual outcome when a refusal is involved.
OWI/PAC 1st- .12 with an Accident– Charges Dismissed
Our client somehow found his vehicle on the wrong side of the concrete barrier under an interstate overpass. The State Patrol arrived on the scene and believed the client to be intoxicated. According to police, he had slurred speech, an odor of intoxicants and admitted to drinking--not to mention the vehicle was on the wrong side of the concrete barrier.
Attorney Corey Chirafisi began working on the case, and after review all the reports and viewing the video on the case, he discovered that there was no indication as to what time the vehicle and been operated. None of the four or five officers on the scene ever asked the client what time the accident occurred, and the client never made any statements providing that information.
Attorney Chirafisi filed a Motion to Strip the Test of its Presumption of Reliability based on a lack of information as to the test being taken within three (3) hours of driving. The trooper conceded that she had no idea what time the driving occurred in the case. The government then conceded that the test result would not be able to be admitted into evidence. Shortly after, they gave their entire case up. All charges were dismissed.
Injunction Petition Dismissed
The burden of proof at an injunction hearing is incredibly low. A judge only needs to find "reason to believe" a respondent engaged in certain conduct or will engage in certain conduct. But at Chirafisi & Verhoff, our lawyers have an unbelievable track record in having injunction petitions filed against our clients dismissed. In the most recent case, our client's former girlfriend filed a harassment injunction against him. Prior to the injunction hearing, our attorney met with the petitioner and worked out an agreement by which she voluntarily agreed to dismiss the petition, and our client agreed to have no contact with her for a period of four years. If our client violates the agreement, the judge is free to simply issue the injunction at a later time. In reaching this resolution, it ensured our client is not subject to an injunction, possible arrest, and possible prosecution unless there is a violation of the agreement.
Assault Case Dismissed in Dane County
What started out as a fun night with friends ended with our client arrested and in jail. But that is not the end of the story. Our client went out to celebrate a friend's birthday. Included in the group was the client's former roommate. By all accounts, everyone in the group had consumed a fair amount of alcohol that evening. After taking a taxi cab home, our client and the former roommate got into a physical confrontation. Police arrested our client and booked her into jail on charges of domestic battery and domestic disorderly conduct. The case was considered "domestic" because the altercation involved a person with whom the client previously lived, even though they were not romantically involved. The client posted bail and was released from custody. Before charges were actually issued, however, she hired our firm. Attorney Verhoff immediately contacted the District Attorney's Office. His goal was to convince the prosecutor assigned to make the charging decision that the case lacked merit and should not be charged. His efforts were partially successful. The prosecutor met with Attorney Verhoff and understood there were proof problems. Rather than filing criminal charges, the prosecutor filed a non-criminal citation for violating the county code of ordinances. This was a partial win for the client because she knew she would not be convicted of a crime under any circumstance. After making the initial appearance in court, Attorney Verhoff again met with a representative with the District Attorney's Office and brokered a deal. If our client did an alcohol assessment, the prosecution would agree to dismiss the case. But Attorney Verhoff did not stop there. He waited a few weeks and met with the prosecutor assigned to the case for trial. He informed the prosecutor that our client would be willing to undergo an alcohol assessment to achieve a dismissal. But he again explained why he thought the case lacked merit. This time, the assigned prosecutor listened and dismissed the case. The client was not required to incur the additional expense of an alcohol assessment and was thrilled that this case resulted in an outright dismissal.
OWI 1st / PAC .14 - Amended to Reckless Driving
Getting a first offense OWI in Wisconsin, especially if the case begins in municipal court, can provide the client great opportunities to fight the case.
Our client was charged in the Town of Beloit with OWI 1st and PAC after a police officer witnessed his vehicle travel almost completely into the wrong lane of traffic at about bar time.
The officer was able to capture the driving behavior on videotape and based on the field sobriety tests and the breath test, the client was charged with OWI and PAC. The client didn't believe that he was impaired at the time he was driving and he hired Chirafisi & Verhoff to attempt to deal with the situation.
Because the case was in municipal court, Attorney Chirafisi was able to conduct a trial in an effort to lay the groundwork for a trial at the circuit court level. At the municipal trial the officer testified in a way that Attorney Chirafisi knew would make it very difficult for the government if they choose to move forward with the case. The officer did the field sobriety tests completely incorrect, scored them incorrectly and did not know what clues he was looking for.
Further, the officer did not run the intoximeter machine properly and acknowledged that he did make mistakes in doing that test. After the client was convicted in municipal court he appealed the matter to circuit court.
Once the case was brought into circuit court, the prosecutor called Attorney Chirafisi and was told that the officer was concerned about having to testify again at the trial based on all of his previous errors in municipal court. Even though the test result was over the legal limit (by almost double) the prosecutor offered to amend the charge to Reckless Driving. The client saved his license, had no record of an OWI conviction, and was able to continue on with this job.
Drug Charges Avoided Dane County
While investigating an unrelated incident, police approached our client and questioned him. Authorities determined he was not involved in their investigation, but they asked to search his backpack. He agreed, and law enforcement located "whippits" (cartridges filed with nitrous oxide, often used as a recreational drug). Police arrested our client and sent the case to the District Attorney's Office, asking that he be charged criminally with possessing a hazardous substance. Our lawyers became involved in the matter before the prosecutors reached a charging decisions. Attorney Verhoff worked out an agreement for an uncharged deferral. Essentially, our client will be required to comply with an AODA, perform some community service, and stay out of trouble for several months. Assuming the client meets these goals, the District Attorney's Office will not file charges against him.
Harassment Injunction Dismissed
After a lengthy relationship, our client broke up with his live-in girlfriend. He had virtually no contact with her for almost six-months. But one night, he went to her apartment to retrieve some property. While there, the client made some comments about his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. He then took the property and left. She responded by filing for a harassment injunction against him. Prior to the injunction hearing, Attorney Verhoff met with the ex-girlfriend to talk about the situation. After speaking with Attorney Verhoff, the client's ex-girlfriend agreed to enter into a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the petition.
Case Dismissed! Operating a Motor Vehicle above a .00- CDL driver while on duty time
At Chirafisi & Verhoff, many of our clients are CDL drivers. Their ability to be able to drive is their livelihood. They trust us to be able to help them avoid losing not only their license, but their jobs.
Our client is an over-the-road truck driver. He was at a weigh station speaking to a State Trooper when the trooper noticed an odor of intoxicants coming from the client’s breath. The client stated that he had consumed alcohol the night before driving. The problem for the client was that because he was in his semi truck at the time, his legal limit was 0.00. The client provided a preliminary breath test which registered a 0.02. He was then ticketed for driving above a 0.00 in a commercial motor vehicle.
The client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff as he knew if was convicted, he would lose his job. Almost immediately, Corey Chirafisi was able to see that there was no possible way that the government would be able to prove the case. First, while the officer was allowed to ask the client to submit to a preliminary breath test, that test would not be admissible in court against the client. The trooper never took the client in for a breath test, which would have been admissible in court. Further, the trooper, believing that the client had consumed alcohol but wasn’t impaired, never put the client through any field sobriety tests.
Once all of these facts were pointed out by Chirafisi & Verhoff, the Assistant District Attorney agreed and moved to dismiss the charges outright. Our client was relieved knowing that he would be able to continue with his employment.
OWI 1st- PAC .150- Charges Amended to Reckless Driving
Our client had an all-or-nothing proposition in front of him: he was arrested for Operating While Intoxicated and he had a CDL which he used daily for his job. A conviction would have resulted in him be fired from a job that he had for many years.
The case was a little odd in that the client wasn’t stopped by law enforcement. The police were called because a person who knew the defendant said that he was likely impaired and had driven to a local gym. When the police showed up they made contact with the client and ultimately arrested him for OWI. When the client agreed to perform a breath test, that result came back at 0.15.
The client knew that his career was on the line and made a decision to hire Chirafisi & Verhoff in an effort to deal with the case. Interestingly enough, after much discussion with the prosecutor discussing various motions, the prosecutor agreed that his case may be in trouble and he agreed to amend the charge to reckless driving. That deal went away when shortly before the agreement was given to the Court, as the client was stopped on a different incident date and had open intoxicants in his vehicle. The prosecutor was not very happy and pulled the deal. The matter was set for trial.
On the morning of trial, Attorney Corey Chirafisi did something he rarely ever does: he told the prosecutor about a problem with the Intoximeter which the prosecutor would otherwise not have been aware of. Attorney Chirafisi had obtained the data of all the tests performed by the machine which tested the client’s breath and found a problem with the maintenance of the machine. After much review and conversation with the police, the prosecutor put the offer for a reckless driving back on the table. That meant no suspension or revocation and no conviction of an alcohol related offense for the client. He was able to keep his job and only received a fine.