Commonwealth v. M.G.

Our client was facing up to 40 years in prison after a significant amount of cocaine was found during a traffic stop.  We successfully argued that the search was an illegal inventory search. It took three different hearings and writing long legal briefs, but it was worth it when the judge ruled in our favor and  suppressed all the evidence against our client. 

Commonwealth v. H.V.

Three people including our client were charged after cocaine was found in a car. The two co-defendants both pled guilty. We knew that there was a good suppression issue and chose to fight. The prosecutor conceded it was a strong issue and dropped the charge right before we got in front of the judge. 

Commonwealth v. A.V.

This was an interesting case and probably one of our last simple possession of marijuana cases before the General Assembly decriminalizes possession of small amounts. Our client was vacationing in Virginia and had marijuana on him that had been prescribed in Michigan. We did our research and showed the judge the legal authority that our client could not be prosecuted for lawfully obtained marijuana. Our client walked away with his clean record intact. 

Commonwealth v. T.B.

Our client faced a felony carrying up to 40 years in prison and to make matter worse he was already on felony probation. We were able to successfully work with the prosecutor to persuade him that the evidence didn't support the felony. Although we didn't have an agreement on sentencing, we were thrilled when we convinced the judge that no jail time was warranted. The cherry on top was that our client's probation officer didn't violate him. He walked away without serving a single day in jail.  

Commonwealth v. T.A.

A simple traffic stop turned into a criminal charge after the police searched the car and found a large bag of marijuana inside a bag. Fortunately for our client, we were able to exploit a technical defense because the police officer failed to provide him with a form advising him of his right to a full chemical analysis. The judge followed the law and dismissed the charge. 

Commonwealth v. A.D.

Our client was in serious hot water after a pound of marijuana was found in his trunk during a traffic stop. We went through several hours of bodycam footage and discovered our client had been placed in handcuffs prior to administration of the Miranda warnings which put us in a strong position to argue that all of his statements were inadmissible. In exchange for not litigating the suppression issue, the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor. It was a great result for our client. 

Commonwealth v. M.M.

This was an incredibly complicated case. We consulted three expert witnesses in addictionology who specialized in treating heroin addicts. We also subpoenaed a deputy at the jail who had seen our client when he was arrested and recognized that he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms. The prosecution finally caved and agreed to reduce the charge to simple possession with no additional time to serve.  

Commonwealth v. J.F.

Our client was facing a felony conviction and jail time after heroin was recovered in a vehicle during a traffic stop. We argued that there were several people in the car with drug histories, there was no proof of how long our client had been in the car, there was no evidence that our client had recently used, and the drugs were not readily visible. We were thrilled when the prosecutor tapped out allowing our client to walk away with a clean record. 

Commonwealth v. G.B.

Our client was facing a felony conviction and possible prison time after a bag with meth residue was found in a van he was driving. We successfully argued that although he admitted prior drug use, there was no proof that he was aware of the presence of the bag as required in a constructive possession case. The judge agreed with our analysis, and our client walked out of the courtroom with his charge totally dismissed.  

Commonwealth v. A.S.

Our client was charged with numerous felonies carrying mandatory minimum prison time after a gun and drugs were recovered during a traffic stop. We were fortunate to work with an experienced prosecutor who agreed with our analysis that the evidence didn't prove that our client knew any of the illegal items were in the car. 

Commonwealth v. S.W.

The police stopped our client as he was pulling out of a driveway and discovered a bag of marijuana. We successfully argued that the police violated our client's 4th Amendment rights by detaining him without any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The marijuana evidence was suppressed and our client walked away with a clean record. 

Commonwealth v. D.G.

Our client was charged after almost two ounces of marijuana was found in a vehicle during a traffic stop. Our client was smart enough to exercise his right to remain silent and called us. We rejected a plea offer that would have included jail time and scheduled the case for a hearing. On the day of court, the prosecution conceded that they could not prove constructive possession of the marijuana, and the charge was dropped. 

Commonwealth v. A.R.

A simple traffic stop turned into a much bigger problem when the officer found marijuana and testified that our client was uncooperative during the arrest. We took all of the charges to trial. We used case law to successfully argue that the lack of cooperation did not rise to the level of criminal obstruction. We beat the marijuana charge on a technical argument. The cherry on top was that the reckless driving was reduced to regular speeding with a small fine. 

Commonwealth v. A.M.

This was a high stakes trial with our client facing 5 years mandatory minimum prison time. We successfully argued that although our client acknowledged knowing a gun was in a car, he never exercised dominion and control over the gun as required in a constructive possession case. After a hard fought motion to suppress and trial, we eventually prevailed and our client was found not guilty of both firearms charges. 

Commonwealth v. C.J.

Our client was charged after a gun and molly were found in the vehicle he was driving.  The case was drawn out for almost a year, but we were thrilled when our persistence paid off and the prosecution conceded that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our client had placed the items in the car or knew they were present. 

Commonwealth v. B.H.

Our client was a passenger in a car where cocaine was found. The police testified that he was highly nervous and admitted to cocaine use the previous day. We successfully argued at trial that the prosecution could not prove that our client placed the cocaine in the car or knew it was there. Our client avoided possible prison time and a lifetime of being a convicted felon. 

Commonwealth v. J.J.

Drugs were found in a car driven by our client after an accident. We successfully argued at trial that the prosecution could not prove that our client was aware the drugs were in the car and all felony charges were dismissed. He walked away a free and happy man. 

Commonwealth v. M.J.

Heroin and marijuana were discovered in a car that our client was driving. We successfully argued that the prosecution couldn't prove that our client knew any drugs were in the car.  The marijuana charge was dismissed after trial and the possession of heroin was dropped before trial in higher court. 

Commonwealth v. C.B.

Our client was charged after several bags of heroin and cocaine were recovered from a vehicle he was driving.  He was smart enough to ask for an attorney immediately.  The prosecution could not prove that he even knew the drugs were in the car let alone that he was distributing them.  Both charges were dropped. 

Commonwealth v. V.H.

Our client was charged with distributing cocaine after several baggies of crack were found in the car he was driving.  We successfully argued that the prosecution could not prove that our client was aware of the drugs and the case was dismissed. 

Commonwealth v. T.W.

Our client was charged with distributing cocaine after several baggies of cocaine were found during a traffic stop. We successfully argued that the evidence failed to prove that he knew the cocaine was in the car or that the amount was consistent with distribution. 

Commonwealth v. T.A.

Our client was charged with possession after a bag of cocaine was found during a traffic stop.  We successfully argued at trial that the prosecution couldn't prove that he was aware that the bag was in the car and the charge was dismissed. 

Commonwealth v. L.P.

Our client was charged with distribution of narcotics, possession of a firearm by a felon, and six counts of possession of ammunition by a felon.  We argued successfully in pre-trial motions that all of the ammunition charges violated our clients double jeopardy rights.  At trial we successfully argued that the prosecution could not prove that our client knew that the narcotics and firearm were in his car.  He walked away a happy man with all charges dismissed.