All individuals charged with a felony offense in Wisconsin have a right to a preliminary hearing. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is for the prosecutor to call witnesses to establish probable cause that it is more likely than not the individual committed a felony offense. The rules of the preliminary hearing are geared entirely in favor of the prosecution. As such judges find probable cause in most cases. For various reasons, lawyers often advise their clients to waive the right to a preliminary hearing. In a recent Dane County case, however, Attorney Verhoff advised the client to have the preliminary hearing. The prosecutor called a deputy sheriff to testify, and Attorney Verhoff cross examined him. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge dismissed the felony charge of bail jumping against our client after Attorney Verhoff successfully argued that the prosecution failed to establish probable cause that our client committed a felony. He argued that the prosecutor did not properly establish the client had been released on felony bail at the time he was alleged to have committed a new, misdemeanor offense. The judge agreed. An unusual, but fantastic outcome for our client.
Three Criminal Charges Dismissed, Dane County
Our client was arrested after a disturbance at a local bar. He was charged criminally with three separate offenses. The client was referred to our office by a different criminal defense attorney in the Madison area. Attorney Verhoff negotiated a settlement agreement with the prosecutor in the case. Our client agreed to do some community service and undergo an alcohol assessment. Upon proof of completion, the District Attorney's Office dismissed all charges against our client.
No Charges in Drug Case, Dane County
Yet another case proving why hiring a lawyer before charges are filed can be instrumental. In this case, law enforcement arrested our client after she overdosed on heroin. A charge alone, regardless of a conviction, would spell the end of the client's career. Attorney Verhoff worked with the client and law enforcement over a series of months in an attempt to convince the police not to file charges but to allow the client to seek treatment instead. Ultimately, police agreed to do so and did not refer the case up for charging. As we tell people, early involvement and intervention by a lawyer is often much more valuable than a win at trial after a charge is issued.
There Is Always Hope, Sexual Assault Case
This case is an example of an extraordinary result, despite what appeared to be a legal dead end. Our client was charged and convicted of sexual assault several years ago. He was placed on probation and also served a jail sentence as condition of probation. At the time of his conviction, he was represented by one of Wisconsin's top criminal defense lawyers (who achieved a fantastic result by avoiding a felony conviction for the client). Unfortunately for the client, a graduate student with outstanding academic credentials and the potential to make world changes due to his research, the misdemeanor sexual assault conviction spelled trouble in terms of staying in the United States to continue his work due to immigration issues. The client went to his original lawyer to see if anything could be done. That lawyer said he didn't think he could help. But he told the client if there was one attorney in the state who might be able to make a difference, it was Tim Verhoff. The client then hired our firm.
Attorney Verhoff realized there was no legal basis to convince a judge to allow the client to withdraw his plea on the merits. Instead, Attorney Verhoff would have to accomplish what seemed impossible. He had to convince the District Attorney's Office to agree to reopen a three-year old sexual assault case and voluntarily vacate a conviction.
Our attorney went to work gathering information about the client to make the argument that not only would the reopening the case help the client, but it would benefit society as a whole. After several months of discussions, the District Attorney agreed to Mr. Verhoff's request. A court hearing was scheduled during which the District Attorney supported allowing the defendant to withdraw his plea to the sexual assault charge. The DA's Office then amended the charge to disorderly conduct, to which the client entered a plea and was convicted. For sentence, the judge imposed a short jail term, deemed served by the time the client previously spent in jail. This is an outcome that is, literally, unheard of.
OWI/PAC 1st- .14- Amended to Reckless Driving- Parked on Railroad Tracks
Our client awoke to realized he was parked on railroad tracks. He didn't know what happened, so he decided to call 911. Probably a bad idea.
When the police arrived, they begun to question the client regarding the odor of alcohol they could smell and were interested in how he got his vehicle on the railroad track. One thing lead to another and our client was ultimately arrested for OWI. Our client blew a .14 at the station. Our client originally tried to handle the case himself and was unable to get anywhere with the prosecutor. He then made the decision to hire Chirafisi & Verhoff to see if we could help him.
Yeah, we could. We reviewed the reports and not only was the client not driving on a roadway, but there was zero indication as to what time the vehicle went from the roadway onto the railroad track. Initially, the prosecutor was not moved by the argument. We then filed a motion to exclude the breath test, and she started to become moved. As the hearing approached, she came around.
An issue in the case was that our client drove the vehicle down the railroad tracks and simply parked it. That could be classified as impaired driving. So, at the end of the day, faced with our motions and arguments, the prosecutor offered Reckless Driving to our client. Our client happily accepted the offer, as his goal was to avoid an OWI conviction.
Return of approximately $24,000.00 in cash and $100,000 in vehicles after 198lbs of THC suppressed
We posted about 6 months ago that we were able to assist a client in getting almost 200 lbs of THC suppressed when the Court found the warrant lacked probable cause. That however did not end the story.
The government also seized approximately $24,000.00 in cash and multiple vehicles and ATV’s valued at approximately $100,000.00. The government attempted to forfeit the vehicles as part of a drug forfeiture arguing that the money and vehicles were obtained from drug proceeds.
We, along with another firm representing a co-defendant, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the forfeiture arguing that because the items were suppressed in the criminal case, they could not be used in the civil forfeiture proceeding.
The Court agreed. The Court granted the clients motion for summary judgment and ordered all items returned to the client.
It was an absolute victory for the client in all ways. Dismissal of criminal case and return of all property in forfeiture.
Felony Stalking Case Reduced
In this case, our client was charged with stalking after he persistently contacted a woman over the course of several months. What made this case particularly difficult was that law enforcement had served the client with a stalking-warning letter, but he continued to call, text, and contact the woman via social media. And he admitted to police he had engaged in this conduct both before and after the warning letter was presented. The client, who had no prior record, was very concerned about a felony conviction. Through negotiations, Attorney Verhoff was able to convince the prosecution to amend the case to a misdemeanor charge for unlawful use of a computerized messaging system. The client was placed on probation but was not ordered to serve any jail time. Although the client was convicted of a criminal offense, the outcome was fantastic given the facts and circumstances.
Drug Case Reduced, Columbia County
After a traffic stop in Columbia County, authorities searched the vehicle and found marijuana and various drug paraphernalia. Our client was charged with misdemeanor offenses. After negotiations with prosecutors, our attorneys reached an agreement by which the criminal charges were reduced to non-criminal ordinance violations. Our client agreed to pay a small fine on the ordinance violations. Most importantly, our client was spared from having a criminal conviction, which was the most important outcome in the case for him.
Felony DV Case Dropped, Dane County
Our client was arrested and charged with a felony for false imprisonment of his live-in girlfriend. The client originally hired a different attorney, but unsatisfied, turned to Chirafisi & Verhoff for help. Attorney Verhoff had the case scheduled for a preliminary hearing. Prior to the hearing, Attorney Verhoff obtained the police reports and met with the prosecutor. He pointed out various difficulties the prosecutor would have proving the case if it went to trial, including the fact that no physical force was used and that a neighbor contacted the police about a loud argument, not the complaining witness. Attorney Verhoff also argued the client was 32 years old with no record and a conviction, or even a plea to a criminal charge, could have a catastrophic impact on his life because he was in the process of applying for an extended student visa to complete his post-graduate studies at UW-Madison. In short, Attorney Verhoff argued that this case amounted to an argument, not a criminal offense. The prosecutor, recognizing the weakness in the case after listening to our attorney amended the case from a felony charge to a non-criminal, ordinance violation that carries the same legal weight as a parking ticket. Needless to say, the client was quite relieved. And the judge's clerk was a bit shocked at the outcome when told the case was being amended from a felony to a non-criminal forfeiture violation. "You don't usually see that happen at a preliminary hearing," she commented.
Evidence Thrown Out, 0.16 OWI Case Dismissed
In this case, our client was stopped for failing to properly signal a lane charge. The Dane County Sheriff's Department deputy reported that upon contact he observed our client to have slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the client admitted to consuming alcohol for several hours. The deputy asked our client to submit to field sobriety tests, and the client declined to perform them. He was arrested on a criminal OWI charge and submitted to a breath test with a reported value of 0.16. Attorney Verhoff reviewed the reports and video evidence in this case and filed a motion to suppress the evidence, asserting the deputy did not have a lawful basis to conduct the traffic stop. Relying on the statute governing signaling, Attorney Verhoff argued no traffic was impacted by his failure to signal the lane changes, as required by law. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the ruled in our client's favor. She threw out all evidence against the client and dismissed all charges.
Felony Possession with Intent Charge Gets Dismissal
A routine traffic stop for speeding turned into a felony drug case for one of our Dane County clients. After the officer stopped our client, he observed a small amount of marijuana in an ashtray. The officer searched the vehicle and located approximately 1.5 lbs of marijuana in the car, as well as a significant amount of cash. The client was charged with possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. Attorney Verhoff reviewed the case and recognized it would be particularly challenging because the police had executed the search by-the-book. As such, there was not a legal mechanism to challenge the evidence. Instead, Attorney Verhoff went into mitigation mode in an attempt to work out the best deal possible for the client. At first, the prosecutor and his immediate supervisor insisted that the client be convicted of the charge due to the significant weight of the seized drugs. Undeterred, Attorney Verhoff spent several months negotiating with the prosecution in an attempt to show why this particular client deserved a second chance. Ultimately, Attorney Verhoff was able to get the District Attorney's Office to agree to recommend a deferred prosecution, which means no formal conviction for our client and a dismissal of the charges. This was particularly important because a conviction would have presented problems for the client in obtaining federal student loans.
Client Avoids Felony Charges, Gets Expunction in Dane County
At Chirafisi & Verhoff, we often say some of the best work we can do for a client happens long before criminal charges are filed. This case is an excellent illustration of that motto. Our client, a young man with a bright future and no criminal record, was driving his friends when he got into a crash. By his own statements to police, he was traveling approximately 30 miles per hour over the speed limit and attempted to pass another vehicle in a no passing zone when the crash occurred. The client was significantly injured, as well as his two passengers. The family hired our firm before charges were ever issued. Attorney Verhoff immediately recognized that the injuries suffered by the client's passengers would make this a felony-level case. Through pre-charging negotiations, Attorney Verhoff brokered a deal by which the District Attorney's Office agreed to file only misdemeanor charges. But that was not all. Attorney Verhoff was also able to get the prosecutor to make an agreement to have client placed on a one-year period of probation with no jail time. But that was not all. The agreement also included a provision that the case would be expunged from the client's record upon successful completion of probation.
OWI Amended to Reckless Driving, Columbia County
This case is an excellent example of why conducting the administrative review process can be critical in an OWI case. Our client was charged with both OWI and PAC violations after Columbia County deputies found him asleep behind the wheel of his personal vehicle. He "failed" field sobriety tests and agreed to take a blood test, which showed an alcohol concentration of 0.09. The client, who has a commercial driver's license (CDL), hired Chirafisi & Verhoff, as recommended by a different lawyer. At the administrative review hearing, the deputy gave answers that enabled Attorney Verhoff to argue the client's license should not be suspended. The hearing examiner agreed. As the court case moved forward, Attorney Verhoff filed legal motions challenging the admissibility of the blood test results, based off the answers to question he asked the deputy at the administrative review hearing. After almost two years of litigation, the prosecution finally gave up, dismissing the PAC charge and agreeing to amend the OWI charge to a Reckless Driving citation. By avoiding the OWI and PAC convictions, our client was able to save his CDL and keep his job.
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.
198 pounds-90,000 grams of Marijuana Suppressed
Great outcome for our Client who was charged with Possession With Intent to Deliver THC in an amount of 90,000 grams, the equivalent to 198 pounds. This case stems from multiple search warrants executed which led to a search warrant of the client’s property where the marijuana was located.
The challenge was not only the warrant(s), but the judge who was hearing the case was the judge who signed the warrants. We had to convince the judge that he was wrong when he originally signed the warrants. We challenged each of the three warrants on lack of probable cause. After extensive brief writing and legal arguments, the Court found that the second warrant and the warrant to search the defendant’s home both lacked probable cause and the Court threw out all evidence obtained from the search.
Not only was that the 198 pounds, but also all of the money and vehicles which were seized as products obtained from unlawful drug distribution. It was a huge win for the client. Clearly a prison sentence was avoided and the client was in utter amazement at the outcome.
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.
Criminal Charges, No Criminal Convictions in DV case
A recent Chirafisi & Verhoff avoided criminal convictions after being charged in a domestic-related incident with a girlfriend. During an argument with his girlfriend, the client, who had been drinking, forced his way into a bedroom, breaking a door. The client spoke with police on the scene and confessed. He was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct and Criminal Damage to Property. He hired our firm and began working with Attorney Verhoff. Although the prosecutor initially wanted the client to plead to a criminal charge, Attorney Verhoff was able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss one of the charges outright and amend the remaining charge to a non-criminal ordinance violation, which is the legal equivalent of a parking ticket. Upon learning the news, the client simply said, "Am I so glad I decided to hire you."
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."
DV Injunction Dismissed After Cross Examination
A Court Commissioner recently dismissed an domestic abuse injunction filed against one of our clients in a somewhat unusual situation. The client's former live-in girlfriend filed the petition months after the couple broke up and as they were disputing child placement and property issues. Prior to the hearing, Attorney Verhoff made a settlement offer to the petitioner. If she agreed to dismiss the injunction, the client would provide her with certain property. The petitioner and her lawyer flatly rejected the offer, wanting to proceed with the hearing.
The petitioner provided her testimony, and Attorney Verhoff set out cross examining her using various texts she had sent to the client. Needless to say, she had difficulty handling most of his questions. Before cross examination could be concluded, the Court Commissioner stopped the hearing and admonished the petitioner that she should consider trying to resolve the case. The hearing was adjourned and scheduled to continue about a week later. Upon return for the continuation of the hearing, the petitioner and her lawyer approached Attorney Verhoff and agreed to dismiss the injunction.