Case Conclusion Date:April 8, 2013
Practice Area:Criminal Defense
Description:My client was accused of a robbery of individual in mid-October 2012. Unfortunately, my client, a young man who was raised better and who nonetheless made a mistake, did in fact commit an almost identical robbery of a different individual in early October 2012 for which he was arrested at the scene. Being known to the police as a result of his involvement in the earlier robbery, the police assumed that he was responsible for the second robbery which was not the case. We went to trial and I called a solid alibi witness on my client's behalf who testified that my client was in another part of the city at the time of the incident. In addition, I presented evidence that the assigned detective did not follow proper police protocol in the identification of my client by the complainant and the witness to the robbery. The detective only showed one photograph to the complainant and the witness instead of a proper photo array (which would include photographs of the alleged perpetrator as well as other, uninvolved individuals). The only reason that the detective showed the one photograph of my client was because of his involvement in the first robbery. This was a clear violation of my client's constitutional rights and I made the judge well aware of the detective's mishandling of the case. My client was found not guilty as a result of my efforts on his behalf.