At approximately 2:00 a.m. on recent weekend, our client was driving in downtown Baraboo. She was waiting at a stop light with her turn signal activated. Unfortunately, she failed to drive forward for approximately 11 seconds after the light turned green. A police officer traveling behind her conducted a traffic stop. Based on his interactions with the client, the officer asked her to do field sobriety tests. She was ultimately arrested and submitted to a breath test, which lead to a reported value of 0.179. Attorney Tim Verhoff filed a suppression motion, arguing that the client had not committed any driving infractions prior to the stop, and the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her for driving under the influence. After our attorney cross examined the police officer at an evidentiary hearing, the judge agreed and ruled in favor of our client, forcing the prosecutor to dismiss both the OWI charge and the PAC charge. Once again, our attorney received one of the highest compliments a defense attorney can receive. At the conclusion of the case, the arresting officer approached Attorney Verhoff and told him what a fantastic job he had done, as well as how much he learned by being cross-examined by our lawyer.
OWI-Restricted Controlled Substance, Amended to Reckless Driving (Dane County)
This case involved a client initially stopped for speeding. That speeding stop then turned into much more. THC was found on her person and in the vehicle. The client also admitted to smoking THC approximately 1 hour prior to the stop and her blood did contain Delta-9, the active ingredient in THC. Our approach initially involved filing motions challenging probable cause for the arrest for OWI, based upon the client passing all of the field sobriety tests. The real problem was the fact that the client admitted to recently smoking THC and the fact it was present in her blood.We litigated the case in municipal court, winning the restricted controlled substance charge, which was huge for the case. We lost the OWI, but knew that on appeal, the prosecution would never be able to prove that charge. As the matter got closer to trial, the prosecutor offered to dismiss all the other tickets still remaining and amend the OWI to a charge of reckless driving. The client was shocked a little, but realized how great of the result this was for her.
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."
Injunction Petition Denied, Dane County
In this case, a female colleague of our client sought an injunction against him after she alleged he engaged in inappropriate behavior with her during a business trip. The client hired Attorney Tim Verhoff on the advice of another, local lawyer. At the injunction hearing, the petitioner testified. She stated that she suspected our client drugged her before escorting her to her hotel room and kissing her against her will. She also claimed he contacted her multiple times after the incident. The client denied the accusations. Our lawyer cross examined the petitioner and got her to admit under oath that she consumed more than a half-dozen mixed drinks and a significant amount of wine during the evening. She agreed she was extremely intoxicated and did not fully recall what happened in the room. She also admitted she had no reason to believe our client actually assaulted her. Before Attorney Verhoff could even finish his cross examination of the petitioner, the judge intervened. The judge concluded that she had heard enough and denied the petitioners request for an injunction.
Negligent Handling of a Firearm (Dane County) DISMISSED
Case #3: This case involved a successful business women who was really attempting to do the right thing and was charged with a crime. Our client was at her apartment when there was a disturbance outside. One of the people at her apartment went outside and, without her knowledge, obtained a handgun because they feared the person causing the disturbance would cause them harm. After the incident calmed down, the firearm was brought into our client's residence. She became very upset that a gun was in her home and picked the gun up to remove it from her home and place it outside. The gun discharged in the residence and the police were called. Once we got involved, we pointed out the facts mentioned above, including the fact the government had incorrectly charged the case, and could not meet their burden of proof. The government agreed and dismissed the case
OWI/PAC .10 to Reckless (Dane County)
Case #2 - OWI/PAC .10 (Dane County)
This case came to us from another lawyer in town. As normal practice, we did the Administrative Review hearing and got the information we needed for a motion to challenge the test result. We have said over and over again that the administrative review hearing is a great way to learn information about your case. That was true here. We were able to challenge the stop of the vehicle as well as the basis to conduct field sobriety tests. Once the prosecutor saw the motions, he made a decision to offer a reckless driving. Client never lost her license and never had to explain to her employer about her case.
3 More Outstanding Results- 2 OWI charges amended to finish the year
Case #1- OWI/Refusal-Amended to Reckless Driving (Dane County)
When people call us and tell us that their case is "hopeless", most of the time the facts of the case are not as bad as they say. Except here. In this case, most of the facts were against the client. Poor driving, excessive speed, failed field sobriety tests and a refusal to submit to a breath test. Worst of all, our client had a license from a state (IL) where he would be facing a lengthy revocation if he was convicted of the OWI. The great news for the client was, Chirafisi & Verhoff has been extremely successful against this particular prosecutor in multiple cases in the past and there has been a hesitation to litigate issues against us.
We believe that most of the time, the refusal drives the OWI charge, meaning if there is a way around the refusal, the OWI will fall as well.
So, we went after the refusal first. It wasn't that difficult when we started. We questioned whether the information provided to the client on the Informing the Accused form was correct. The prosecutor agreed that a problem existed and quickly agreed to amend the OWI to reckless driving and to dismiss the refusal. The client's license was saved.
Stay tuned for our two other awesome end of 2018 results on Monday!
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."
Boating OWI/PAC Dismissed at 0.09
Our client was boating with friends on Lake Mendota during the July 4th holiday. While attending a local fireworks display, authorities stopped him for using an unauthorized sound device. Upon contact, law enforcement smelled the odor of intoxicants coming from our client, who admitted to consuming alcohol over several hours. The client agreed to submit to field sobriety tests. Although law enforcement observed sufficient clues to arrest him, he performed pretty well, particularly on the horizontal gaze nystagmus (eye) test. He then agreed to take a chemical test of his breath, which produced a 0.09 result. In meeting with the prosecution, Attorney Verhoff argued that there was no bad boating operation and the offense for which police made contact with our client was questionable. Our lawyer said the client was acting like any other good American when sounding a horn during the fireworks display. Coupled with the low test result and good performance on the field sobriety tests, our attorney suggested this case might be a hard one for the prosecution to prove at trial. Ultimately, the prosecution agreed with his assessment. Although our client was asked to complete a boater safety course, the District Attorney's Office agreed to dismiss both the boating OWI and PAC citations if the client agreed to be convicted of using an unnecessary boat whistle. He did and was thrilled with the outcome we achieved.
OWI Dismissed in Dane County
This case is an example of the huge difference a lawyer can make. Our client, who is an Illinois resident, was stopped and arrested for an OWI-1st Offense. He refused to take field sobriety tests and refused to take the chemical test of his breath. He was also given a citation for improper refusal. Unfortunately, the client did not realize he had to file a request for a hearing on the refusal within ten days, and he defaulted on that charge before our office got involved.
The client did appear without a lawyer for a court date on the OWI charge. By happenstance, Attorney Verhoff was present at this hearing and overheard the conversation the client was having with a representative from the District Attorney's Office. The person from the DA's Office told the client there was nothing they could do about the OWI and he could either plead to it or have a trial. The client was on the verge of pleading to the OWI when Attorney Verhoff intervened. Our attorney informed the (now) client that entering a plea to the OWI would have catastrophic consequences on his Illinois license. Our attorney advised him to fight the OWI. Taking our advice, the client decided to hire our firm to help. Attorney Verhoff immediately had the case set for trial. In speaking with the prosecutor assigned to the case prior to trial, Attorney Verhoff explained to him the significant consequences for an OWI conviction in Illinois. He argued this was unduly punitive and unnecessary given the conviction that previously occurred in the refusal. He also pointed out some of the proof problems the prosecutor might have in the OWI case. On the day of trial, the prosecutor finally gave up on the OWI case and agreed to dismiss it. Although the client must still deal with the impact of the refusal conviction, he was spared years worth licensing headaches in Illinois due to the OWI dismissal.
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.
OWI 3rd/PAC Shawano County- charges amended to OWI 1st
Our client was arrested for OWI 3rd with a blood alcohol concentration of .20. Our client was very concerned about serving a jail sentence, which was valid as their case was pending in Shawano County, a county that is usually very hard on drunk driving cases.
What we were able to do is collaterally attack the client's 2nd offense OWI from the early 1990's. The prosecutor actually agreed that he couldn't establish the client waived his rights to counsel and stipulated to our motion. With that stipulation in place, the client's 3rd offense became a 1st offense. No jail, minimum fine and minimum revocation. Our client got the exact result he had hoped for.
Felony Domestic Dismissed in Marathon County
Many people can picture this situation. Our client and his wife were stayed at a hotel in Wausau for a youth sporting event. After the games that day, many of the parents spent the night consuming alcohol. It was during this time our client and his wife got into a verbal argument. As she approached him, he grabbed her by the arms and held her down on the bed to prevent her from hitting him. Another parent heard the fight and called police.
Our client was arrested and prosecutors charged him with a felony for false imprisonment, as well as a misdemeanor disorderly conduct. The client hired Attorney Verhoff upon the advice of a local prosecutor. Attorney Verhoff engaged with the assistant district attorney in Marathon County and explained that he believed he could defend the case arguing self-defense. He also provided significant background to the prosecutor about the client. Prior to trial, the district attorney agreed. He extended an offer too good to refuse. He agreed to dismiss the felony and have the client participate in a deferred prosecution agreement on misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Provided our client stays out of trouble for the next year, the remaining charge will be reduced to a non-criminal ordinance violation, the legal equivalent of a parking ticket, and pay a $5.00 forfeiture. As an avid hunter, our client was thrilled to avoid a felony conviction or conviction for a domestic criminal offense, which would have resulted in the loss of his firearm rights.
All Around Victory: OWI Reduced to Reckless, DC and Refusal Dismissed
Law enforcement stopped our client for what is termed a "rolling domestic." He and his girlfriend were having an argument in the car, and she called police. Upon arrival, law enforcement pulled him over and asked him to step out of the car. The police began questioning the client about what happened. Officers also smelled an odor of intoxicants, and the client admitted to consuming alcohol at dinner. Authorities then asked him to submit to field sobriety tests, but he refused. He also refused to submit to a chemical analysis of his breath.
The client was arrested on a criminal charge of disorderly conduct, an OWI-first and the refusal to agree to a chemical analysis of his breath. Attorney Verhoff spoke with prosecutors at the time of charging, and they agreed not to charge a criminal offense. Instead, the District Attorney issue an ordinance violation on the disorderly conduct. As the case unfolded, our attorney was able to convince the prosecution to amend the OWI charge to a citation for reckless driving, dismiss the refusal, and dismiss the disorderly conduct citation. In the end, the client paid a modest fine on the reckless driving, but avoid a conviction for an OWI and the refusal, as well as a criminal charge, and the accompanying license implications and associated fines.
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/
Homicide OWI Charge Declined
Law enforcement referred to prosecutors potential criminal charges of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle after our client crashed his car while drinking and driving. In a tragic twist, a passerby who stopped to assist the client after the crash was killed. Attorney Verhoff spoke with prosecutors prior to charges being issued and argued that while our client was impaired while driving and should be held accountable for those actions, he did not directly cause the death of the other person. If charged criminally, this would leave open a statutory defense to the charge. Prosecutors ultimately agreed. Although the client was charged and convicted of OWI-1st Offense, the prosecution declined to file the homicide charge.
Another Felony Stalking Case Reduced
In this Dane County case, the client was charged with stalking a woman with whom he had a previous relationship. Although he never made any threats to her or took any action toward her, he did repeatedly call her, text her, and often came to her residence. But our attorney had a very strong card to play, evidence that the complaining witness sent texts to our client in the weeks leading up to his arrest. Ultimately our attorneys brokered a deal with the prosecution in which the client agreed to plead to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct. He also agreed to be supervised on probation for one year, but he was not required to serve any jail time.
Felony Charge of Maintaining A Drug Dwelling Dismissed
Our client and his housemates were charged with maintaining a drug trafficking dwelling in Rock County after law enforcement raided their home. Our attorneys reviewed the search warrant and found problems with certain aspects that allowed us to file a motion to challenge the validity of the warrant. In speaking with prosecutors in advance of the hearing on the motion to challenge the search warrant, the prosecution made an offer to dismiss the felony and have the client plead to a simple possession of marijuana with expungement of the case after one year of probation. The client, who accepted this offer, was very pleased with the outcome.
Gun Charge Dismissed At Initial Appearance
A Dane County court commissioner had no choice but to dismiss a criminal charge of going armed while intoxicated against our client at a recent initial appearance. The client, who was pulled over for a traffic violation, was initially charged with a criminal offense for having a firearm in her possession while she was intoxicated. Attorney Verhoff attended the first hearing and received a copy of the charging document called the criminal complaint. He immediately noticed the complaint failed to allege that the firearm was loaded at the time our client possessed it. This is an element of the criminal charge. Our attorney moved to dismiss the complaint and charge based on the prosecution's failure to sufficiently allege all elements of a crime in the charging document. Given the defect in the complaint, the court commissioner dismissed the case.
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!