DV HARASSMENT – NOT GUILTY AT TRIAL

Alleged Victim (AV) and Client were in a relationship and got into a verbal argument. AV made a statement to the police that Client choked them during this argument. Client was then charged with third degree assault. Two days later Client drove to a hotel to speak to AV. Client approached AV to speak and two friends of AV called the police claiming that Client had tried to kidnap AV.

When bond was set, the prosecution tried to keep Client in custody as though they were a monster even though they ended up filing only misdemeanor charges. Unfortunately, the judge set Client’s bond exceedingly high because of the prosecutor’s reckless arguments. Client retained Mr. Krizman’s services to represent them in both cases. While working the case, the AV recanted their statements in both cases multiple times.

Upon accepting Client’s cases, Mr. Krizman immediately got to work modifying the bond and the protection order. Regarding bond, Mr. Krizman successfully argued that the DA was overzealous at the initial hearing and that Client’s bond should be converted from cash only to a personal recognizance bond. The result was literally thousands of dollars going back into Client’s pocket. The DAs made offers in each case, but Mr. Krizman knew the prosecution would have a very tough time convicting in either. Therefore, rather than shying away from a fight and telling the client to cave in and take a plea deal, Mr. Krizman argued for a better outcoe. Client agreed with an aggressive, “dismissal or bust” approach in both cases.

Client’s first case (third degree assault) was dismissed the day of trial. The second case (Harassment) proceeded to trial two days later. During jury selection, Mr. Krizman skillfully memorized the potential jurors’ names and seat numbers to ask them targeted questions to select the most unbiased jury possible. Mr. Krizman makes a focused effort to relate to the jurors and talk about relevant issues that many individuals encounter. The AV was not present for trial, but both witnesses present on the day of the alleged incident were called by the DA and provided testimony.

During opening statements, Mr. Krizman directed attention to the myriad issues that materialize when an AV is not present for trial. During lay witness testimony, Mr. Krizman used his extensive trial experience to flawlessly cross examine the lay witnesses. He was able to highlight both inconsistencies in their stories and their motivation to lie. This tactical cross examination simultaneously asserted the truth of Client’s testimony.

During closing argument, Mr. Krizman reminded the jury that any doubt in their minds means they must acquit Client of the charge. After 45 minutes of deliberation, the jury found Client not guilty of all charges. Client faces no consequences for any alleged actions and their records for each case are sealed.