Connect with Us:
Case 1: Burglary PDF Print E-mail
My client was accused of burglary and taking over $10,000 worth of jewelry from his neighbor’s home. The “facts” in the case were the following: there was no forced entry into the residence, the neighbor had a number of “attack” dogs who would only let people they were familiar with into the residence, and my client pawned jewelry that the victim’s wife identified as hers.

Prior to trial, we had conducted an important preliminary hearing, which showed that the victim’s wife was gone for seven days for work. The victim didn’t realize a burglary had occurred until his wife got back and realized her jewelry had been taken. Additionally, the victim, while home alone, was handicapped and didn’t drive. He only used local city transportation to get around. I subpoenaed the transportation logs, which showed the exact times the victim had left his home during the week.

My client had pawned his wife’s and sister’s jewelry for his son’s birthday the same day the victim’s wife left for work. We knew the burglary took place sometime after she left for work and before she got back. There was only a two-hour window from when the victim’s wife left and when my client pawned the scrap jewelry. The transportation logs showed that the victim didn’t use their services the first day his wife was gone, the same day my client pawned his wife’s and sister’s scrap jewelry.

According to the victim’s own testimony, if he didn’t use the local transportation he didn’t leave his house, which meant he would have been home all day when my client allegedly would have had to break in, avoid the victim, avoid the attack dogs and escape with 10,000 dollars of jewelry undetected. I successfully laid out this time line at trial and argued that this meant the jewelry pawned by my client couldn’t have possibly come from the neighbor’s residence. Therefore, the burglary must have occurred after the first day the wife left for work, and more importantly after my client had already pawned his jewelry.

The client’s sister testified that the jewelry that was pawned was hers and they pawned it that day because it was her son’s birthday and needed extra money to buy him a gift. After hours of deliberation, the jury came back with a not guilty verdict on all counts.
 
Case 1: Burglary PDF Print E-mail
My client was accused of burglary and taking over $10,000 worth of jewelry from his neighbor’s home. The “facts” in the case were the following: there was no forced entry into the residence, the neighbor had a number of “attack” dogs who would only let people they were familiar with into the residence, and my client pawned jewelry that the victim’s wife identified as hers.

Prior to trial, we had conducted an important preliminary hearing, which showed that the victim’s wife was gone for seven days for work. The victim didn’t realize a burglary had occurred until his wife got back and realized her jewelry had been taken. Additionally, the victim, while home alone, was handicapped and didn’t drive. He only used local city transportation to get around. I subpoenaed the transportation logs, which showed the exact times the victim had left his home during the week.

My client had pawned his wife’s and sister’s jewelry for his son’s birthday the same day the victim’s wife left for work. We knew the burglary took place sometime after she left for work and before she got back. There was only a two-hour window from when the victim’s wife left and when my client pawned the scrap jewelry. The transportation logs showed that the victim didn’t use their services the first day his wife was gone, the same day my client pawned his wife’s and sister’s scrap jewelry.

According to the victim’s own testimony, if he didn’t use the local transportation he didn’t leave his house, which meant he would have been home all day when my client allegedly would have had to break in, avoid the victim, avoid the attack dogs and escape with 10,000 dollars of jewelry undetected. I successfully laid out this time line at trial and argued that this meant the jewelry pawned by my client couldn’t have possibly come from the neighbor’s residence. Therefore, the burglary must have occurred after the first day the wife left for work, and more importantly after my client had already pawned his jewelry.

The client’s sister testified that the jewelry that was pawned was hers and they pawned it that day because it was her son’s birthday and needed extra money to buy him a gift. After hours of deliberation, the jury came back with a not guilty verdict on all counts.