State of Minnesota v. K.K. (Otter Tail County, 2018)
The State charged Client with 4th Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct related to alleged misconducted between a student and teacher. The State vigorously, and aggressively, pursued the utmost prosecution of Client. Client maintained Client’s innocence and we went to a jury trial. The jury found Client NOT GUILTY of the alleged offenses as there was no sexual conduct between Client and the student. Client can successfully move forward with his life without the detrimental consequences that a conviction on these charges would have brought.
State of Minnesota v. W. H.O. (Stevens County, 2018)
The State charged Client with 1st Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct related to alleged forced sexual conduct between Client and the alleged victim. The alleged victim allegedly suffered injuries from the alleged assault. A conviction for this offense would have put Client in prison for at least 12 years of his life. Client maintained Client’s innocence and we went to a jury trial. After a lengthy trial, Client was found NOT GUILTY as the jury believed that all sexual contact was consensual and that the alleged victim’s allegations were a product of fabrication for personal gain.
State of Minnesota v. S.B. (Redwood County, 2017)
The State charged Client with felony solicitation of a minor to engage in prostitution. These kinds of case have been charged more frequently than ever given the penchant of prosecutors and police agencies as well as the evolved assistance from federal agencies targeting sex trafficking. In order for the State to convict someone of this offense, the State needs evidence of a sex-for-money exchange with a presumed minor. Through a rigorous defense strategy, which included much evidentiary and pre-trial legal litigation revolved around the lack of any such agreement and potential due process and entrapment issues at the hands of police, Client was able to highlight the myriad of holes in the State’s case whereby the State DISMISSED all charges against Client. Client can successfully move forward with his life without the detrimental consequences that a conviction on these charges would have brought.
State of Minnesota v. F.B. (Hennepin County, 2017)
The State charged Client with criminal sexual conduct related to alleged unwanted sexual intercourse though the use of a weapon. Based on the substance of the allegations and initial witness statements, Client’s defense appeared daunting. But, through rigorous private investigation and a relentless defense strategy, Client was able to prove that the allegations were untrue and not provable. As a result, the State DISMISSED all charges. Client can move forward without being labeled a sex offender, having to undergo a psychosexual evaluation and multi-year sex offender treatment, and without any criminal conviction.
State of Minnesota v. R.W. (Olmsted County, 2017)
The State charged Client with criminal sexual conduct related to alleged unwanted sexual penetration. The State was steadfast on obtaining a criminal conviction. As a result, the defense employed a rigorous defense strategy through the use of private investigation. The defense uncovered facts that cut against the truth of the allegations as the alleged victim appeared to desire the alleged contact and that the contact was not sexually illegal. As a result, the State DISMISSED all charges on the eve of trial. Client can move forward without being labeled a sex offender, having to undergo a psychosexual evaluation and multi-year sex offender treatment, and without any criminal conviction.
State of Minnesota v. L.M. (Dakota County, 2017)
The State charged Client with indecent exposure by engaging in lewd conduct in public settings. However, defense was able to demonstrate that it is unclear that Client actually engaged in lewd conduct provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, and the State DISMISSED all charges. Client is able to move on without the cloud of being a sex offender, having to undergo a psychosexual evaluation and multi-year treatment, and without having any conviction on Client’s record.
State of Minnesota v. K.E. (Ramsey County, 2016)
The State investigated Client for an alleged sexual assault at a local university. Client was a great person and had a bright future ahead of him. Client vehemently maintained that all contact was consensual, that the alleged victim was not nearly as intoxicated as the alleged victim reported, and that the alleged victim wanted to engage in a relationship with Client where Client did not desire to reciprocate. Through the use of private investigation and a relentless defense strategy, we proved that the all conduct was consensual. The State DECLINED TO PRESS CHARGES and the Harassment Restraining Petition was summarily dismissed. Justice truly was served.
State of Minnesota v. C.C. (Hennepin County, 2016)
The State charged Client with criminal sexual conduct related to alleged unwanted sexual intercourse. Based on the substance of the allegations, initial witness statements, and Client’s prior record, Client’s defense appeared daunting. But, through rigorous private investigation and a relentless defense strategy, which included much evidentiary and pre-trial legal litigation, Client was able to highlight the myriad of holes in the State’s case whereby the State DISMISSED all charges on the eve of trial. Client can successfully move forward with his life without the detrimental consequences that a conviction on these charges would have brought.
State of Minnesota v. G.M. (Dakota County, 2016)
Client was investigated for allegedly sexually assaulting a child during the course of Client’s employment. The child told numerous people of the alleged assault, but Client vehemently maintained his innocence. These kind of cases pose much difficulty because law enforcement and the State desire to be proactive in order to protect children and will inherently believe what the child says irrespective of the eventual truth. Through the use of private investigation, Client proved the falsity of the allegations, and the State DECLINED to charge Client with an offense. Quick acting by hiring a lawyer, perseverance, and persistence were vital to achieving justice for Client.
State of Minnesota v. G.G (Ramsey County, 2016)
Law enforcement searched Client’s business suspecting it as a prostitution parlor. However, the investigation was predicated on presumptions and assumptions, not concrete facts as there was nothing suggesting that the business sanctioned any sex-for-money activities. After vigorous private investigation and scrutinizing the State’s evidence at a contested hearing before a judge, the judge DISMISSED all charges against Client for lack of probable cause. Client can move forward without a conviction and can successfully operate her business without the ire of law enforcement.
State of Minnesota v. R.Q. (Anoka County, 2015)
Client was investigated for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor child while in Client’s care. The minor child told numerous people the same narrative, therefore sparking law enforcement’s investigation. However, law enforcement failed to fully vet the entire narrative by not interviewing crucial witnesses. This reality is not uncommon as law enforcement simply seeks to corroborate a narrative, not seek the truth. Through the use of vigorous private investigation, we were able to successfully present Client’s case to the State who DECLINED to press criminal sexual conduct charges against Client because of the defective allegations in light of our investigation. This is an unbelievable outcome and Client can move forward in life without the worry of a criminal sexual conduct conviction and its severely detrimental effects.
State of Minnesota v. A.K. (Wadena County, 2015)
Client was charged with a serious criminal sexual conduct offense arising out of alleged workplace misconduct. Client vehemently maintained her innocence in the face of daunting prosecution. These kinds of offenses carry lengthy period of incarceration, sex offender registration, and society disdain. After rigorous investigation, we were able to show the State the allegations were difficult to prove because they were untrue. As a result, the State agreed to DISMISS all charges against Client. Client was able to retain Client’s job and to move forward without the endless strings associated with a criminal sexual conduct conviction.
Gustavus Adolphus College Sexual Assault Investigation (2015)
Client was investigated for allegedly sexually assaulting an intoxicated person nearly two years prior. Client was an honor roll student with a bright future ahead. If the college found that a sexual assault occurred, the college would have to report it to local law enforcement and disclose it to any employer seeking a conduct report of a prospective employer. Essentially, Client’s life would have been ruined. However, we developed a rock-solid plan where we used private investigation to uncover Facebook messages and obtain witness statements from witnesses that had carnal knowledge of the altercation. We presented this information to the body of officials assessing the claim and the college decided NOT TO MOVE FORWARD with criminal sexual conduct proceedings as our evidence was compelling that no nonconsensual sexual conduct occurred and the allegation was completely false.
State of Minnesota v. P.K. (Hennepin County, 2015)
Client was charged with solicitation of prostitution in a public place. Client vehemently denied the charges and desired an aggressive, complete defense. We overturned every stone and scrutinized every piece of evidence presented by the State. By this process, we were able to prove that the evidence was insufficient and the State agreed to DISMISS the charges against Client. Client was able to move in his life in a positive way without the shackles of this kind of criminal conviction.
State of Minnesota v. A.N. (Cottonwood County, 2015):
Client was being investigated for statutory rape due to Client’s relationship with a much younger person. However, through relentless negotiation with the State and highlighting the uniqueness of Client’s situation and the need for justice, the State agreed NOT TO PROSECUTE Client for criminal sexual conduct, avoiding any criminal conviction and any need to register as a sex offender.
State of Minnesota v. A. N. (Washington County, 2014):
Client was accused of sexually molesting a family member, who Client lived with nearly all of Client’s life. Client was devastated by the allegations. Almost immediately, the alleged victim provided contradictory accounts of the alleged sexual acts to her family and to other officials. After gathering all of this information and obtaining favorable statements and evidence, Client was NOT CHARGED with any sex crimes.