Sexual Battery (Rape)
The State prosecuted a so-called Nanny rapist. The Defendant was accused of raping two of his nannies. The State used pattern evidence to show that my client raped both women in the same manner at different times. The State attorney’s office had been watching my client for approximately 10 years (on their radar so to speak) and prosecutors were persistent with this case. The pattern evidence was a difficult obstacle. Following a lengthy trial, the Jury returned a not guilty verdict.
The United States Attorney’s Office investigated my client for a drug murder. They requested our cooperation and surrender in exchange for a recommendation of leniency. We did not accept this offer and upon our own investigation, we uncovered exculpatory evidence and we presented this evidence to the Government. No charges were ever filed.
My client was alleged to have bludgeoned the victim to death with the claw of a hammer to the heart. Following extensive depositions on the defense theme of self defense, the State agreed to a manslaughter plea.
My client was alleged to have killed two men in their twenties, driving his Mercedes at over 100 mph, in a 35 mph zone, with a blood alcohol level over three (3) times the legal limit. I presented substantial evidence of sincere remorse. I sent my client to a psychologist years before the Court date so he could properly grieve the deaths of these two boys. My client addressed the two victim’s families, and I presented the testimony of two expert psychologists. The Defendant faced a minimum of 20 years and a maximum of 30 years in prison. The Court granted our request to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines, and sentenced the Defendant to 12 years prison with follow-up probation, citing the Defendant’s extreme remorse and untreated mental health issues.
Aggravated Assault Deadly Weapon, Battery, Possession Cocaine
Following extensive depositions, and having deposed the victim twice based upon inconsistencies in testimony, the state agreed to no adjudication of guilt on all charges, and a 6 month county jail term, with follow-up probation.
The Defendant was alleged to have beaten and injured an elderly person. Many inconsistencies in the victims testimony were brought out on cross examination and the Jury returned a not guilty verdict.
The Defendant was accused of intimidating and beating a witness that was prepared to testify against him in a civil case. Following depositions and exposing many inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony at trial, the Jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
The Defendant was a bookkeeper with the goal of becoming an accountant. She was accused of misappropriating and stealing business monies from her employer. Following a trial by Jury, the Jury found the Defendant guilty of a lesser degree of theft, and the Judge withheld any adjudication of guilt, so that my client would not be blocked from pursuing her career goals.
My client was being investigated for Murder. No charges filed.
Defendant accused of DUI and failure to perform breathalyzer. Again, extensive depositions taken, and many inconsistencies were stated on the record by the arresting officer. The Jury acquitted our client.
Domestic Battery Trials
Over a dozen domestic battery trials resulted in the juries returning not guilty verdicts.
Felonies Reduced To Misdemeanors
In numerous cases, I have had felony charges reduced to misdemeanors for my clients.
In numerous cases, I have had both felonies and misdemeanors dismissed.
I have handled and tried before Juries, many other cases involving charges of Capital Sexual Battery, Sex Allegations, Violence, Drugs and Alcohol, and Child Abuse.
Motions To Suppress
As a result of successfully researching and arguing motions to suppress evidence, I have been able to achieve dismissals and reductions of charges.
In many cases involving allegations of violence: murder, aggravated and domestic battery, among others (some spoken of above), I have successfully defended clients using self defense–resulting in not guilty jury verdicts, dismissals, and substantial reductions in charges.
Cross examination is the most important skill an attorney possesses. In over 25 years of handling complex cases, I have found that the discovery process is the most important part of any case. The gathering of information and fact finding by private investigators and other means, provides the information needed for effective cross examination. I have been able to persuade prosecutors to dismiss or reduce charges based on effective depositions, in advance of trial. Most of my trial wins have been achieved through effective cross examination of the state’s witnesses. Many times we achieve not guilty verdicts without calling a single witness of our own.
Family Cases Where Trial Record Went On Appeal
Horowitz v. Horowitz, 152 So.3d. 589 (Fla 4th DCA 2014)
Fisher v. Fisher, 78 So.2d 100 (Fla 4th DCA 2012)
Stemmer v. Stemmer, 955 So.2d 1179 (Fla 4th DCA 2008)
Damiani v. Damiani, 835 So.2d 1168 (Fla 4th DCA 2002)
Hedendal v. Hedendal, 695 So.2d 391 (Fla 4th DCA 1997)
Mollomo v. Forgione, 992 So.2d 268 (Fla 4th DCA 2008)
Barrett v. Barrett, 851 So.2d 799 (Fla 4th DCA 2003)
Forgione v. Forgione, 845 So.2d 968 (Fla 4th DCA 2003)
Gelato v. Basch, 658 So.2d 664 (Fla 4th DCA 1995 )
Saul v. Brunetti, 753 So.2d 26 (Fla 2000)
Laroche v. Briggs, 720 So.2d 321 (Fla 4th DCA 1998)
Delucia v. Delucia, 38 So.3d (Fla 4th DCA 2010)
Sallaberry v. Sallaberry, 27 So.3d 234 (Fla 4th DCA 2010)
Wolfe v. Wolfe, 864 So.2d 1229 (Fla 4th DCA 2004)
KC v. Adoption Services, Inc, 721 So.2d 811 (Fla 4th DCA 1998)
Hausmann v. LM, 837 So.2d 399 (Fla 2003)
In re Adoption of Baby EAW, 658 So.2d 961 (Fla 1995)
In re Adoption of Baby EAW, 647 So.2d 918 (Fla.4th DCA 1994)
M.M. v. Adoption of J.T.M., 821 So.2d 1124 (Fla 4th DCA 2002)
Hausman ex rel Doe v. L.M., 806 So.2s 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
M.M. v. Adoption of J.T.M., 819 So.2d 255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
Pomeranz v. Pomeranz, 961 So.2d 1068 (Fla 4th DCA 2007)