State of Indiana vs. Gary Crowe, Jr., 10C01-1409-F5-042
Apr 06, 2015
OUTCOME: Not Guilty of Intimidation and Cruelty to an Animal, hung jury on the other Intimidation count. Second Intimidation count subsequently dismissed the day after jury verdict
Client charged with two counts of Intimidation With a Deadly Weapon, Level 5 Felony and Curelty to an Animal, Level 6 Felony. The client allegedly threatened two individuals staying on his property wi...th a baseball bat. The client had evicted one of the individuals based on his possession of illegal drugs. While the individual was moving his dog was allegedly shot and accused the client of shooting the dog. The client, a Clarksville fireman denied threatening either individual or shooting the dog. The client relinquished his firearm to the investigating officer upon request and asked them to examine the firearm to confirm it had not been fired. The detective failed to conduct any testing on the firearm or thoroughly investigate any information the client had given during the interview process. Also, the criminal charges against the client resulted in his suspension as a fireman and certain termination if convicted. The defense concentrated on the poor investigation conducted by the detective. Further, the State of Indiana could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the dog had in fact been shot or that the client had opportunity. Further, it was established the individuals who testified against the client wanted him convicted because the client had evicted them from his premises.
Criminal defense
State of Indiana vs. Christopher Jared Sowders, 10C04-1303-MR-004
Nov 13, 2014
OUTCOME: Not Guilty of Murder and all underlying charges
The Client was charged with Murder, Burglary Resulting In Bodily Injury, Class A Felony, Burglary, Class B Felony, Conspiracy to Commit Burglary Resulting In Serious Bodily Injury, Class A Felony and C...onspiracy to Commit Burglary, Class B Felony. The client was a juvenile at the time of the alleged crime but was charged as an adult along with co-defendant, Garreth Stephens. The victim was shot and killed during an apparent home invasion. The client was determined to be a suspect when the deceased step-son believed the client was involved. The client and co-defendant were joined for jury trial. The strongest evidence against the defendants was sighting of the co-defendant's vehicle near the victim's home on the day of the shooting and the presence of the client's DNA on two zip ties found in a chair in the home of the victim. The murder weapon was never found, despite firearms being seized from the client. The defense impeached the eye witness testimony regarding the co-defendant's vehicle and the fact that the investigation had originally focused on a different vehicle seen at the scene around the time of the shooting. In addition, the defense presented evidence of police misconduct regarding the handling of the evidence. The incriminating zip ties had not been taken into custody at the time of the original investigation and were left in the home for approximately ten days before the police were contacted about the zip ties being in the home and were picked up by an unidentified officer. The zip ties were eventually tested and revealed the presence of the client's DNA, but no other individuals' DNA was found despite testimony that the zip ties had been handled by at least two other individual. The defense presented expert testimony that the large amount of the client's DNA recovered and the absence of any other individual's DNA suggested the zip ties had been thoroughly cleaned and then the DNA of the client introduced. Further the defense was able to present evidence where one of the detectives assigned to the case and who had access to the zip ties, had tampered with a urine sample he was ordered to give as part of police department testing and substituted a urine sample of his daughter in its place. Both defendant's were questioned by detectives and denied any involvement. The co-defendant requested a lawyer several times during the interrogation, but his requests were repeatedly refused and intense interrogation continued. The detective's treatment of the co-defendant substantially damaged the detective's credibility. Lastly, the State of Indiana presented a window of time the shooting allegedly occurred and argued the defendant's committed the crimes during this 20 minute period because of their lack of social media activity. Through the review of thousands of phone records, Facebook post and twitter posts, the defense showed the defendants had been posting on social media during the period of time the State believed the victim was shot. The defense also focused on the detective's failure to thoroughly investigate another suspect's alibi which was shown to be a lie. After a four week trial both defendant's were acquitted of all charges. The State of Indiana refused to reopen the investigation and the murder remains unsolved!
Criminal defense
State of Indiana vs, Jason D. Pritchard, 22C01-0811-FB-402
Mar 05, 2009
OUTCOME: Not guilty of Armed Robbery
The client was charged with Armed Robbery, Class B Felony. The State of Indiana alleged the client and an unknown individual robbed a local pharmacy of a substantial amount of prescription drugs while... armed with a handgun. The robbery was recorded on the pharmacy video surveillance cameras, but due to the perpetrators wearing ski masks and large fitting clothing a positive identification was not made. The client was picked out of a photo spread and had some history of drug abuse. Further, the State of Indiana eventually apprehended the other perpetrator and made a deal with him to testify against the client. During the jury trial the defense was able to establish that the perpetrator the State had cut the deal with was testifying against the client to protect the individual who actually committed the robbery. The defense impeached the State's witness based on previous statements which were inconsistent with his testimony at trial and the fact based on the deal he had made with the State would not serve any prison time for his participation in the robbery. The defense produced alibi evidence based on testimony and phone records. In addition, the defense asked the jury to closely compare the physical characteristics of the client with the individual seen in the surveillance video and the note the obvious differences. Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson prosecuted this case for the State of Indiana. A very correct and satisfying verdict from an intelligent jury.
Criminal defense
State of Indiana vs. Raemond Ellis, 10C01-0406-MR-076
Nov 21, 2005
OUTCOME: Not guilty of Murder, Hung jury on the Felony Murder, Guilty of Robbery Resulting In Serious Bodily Injury and guilty of Receiving Stolen Property
The client was charged with Murder, Felony Murder, Class A felony; Robbery Resulting In Serious Bodily Injury, Class A felony and Receiving Stolen Property, Class D Felony. The client and co-defendan...t, were charged with the murder of a car salesman from Kentucky who was lured to an apartment complex, shot two times and robbed. The client maintained that he did not shoot the victim and was standing away from the victim when the co-defendant shot him. The client was 16 years old at the time of the shooting. The co-defendant who was an adult instructed the client to take the victim's sell phone and move the victim's car to another location. The client complied and subsequently sold the cellphone and left the victim's car in a church parking lot. The co-defendant was subsequently taken into custody and told police the client had shot the victim during a robbery. The police asked the co-defendant to wear a wire and obtain a confession from the client. The audio tape created as a result of the wire did not conclusively establish the client was the shooter, but contained incriminating evidence. The client was arrested and charged as a adult. At trial the defense called a criminal scene reconstructionist to give expert testimony. The expert testified based on his examination of the crime scene and location of the gun shot wounds on the victim's body that it was likely the shooter was facing the victim at the time of the shooting. The co-defendant had a prior relationship with the victim and until the date of the shooting the client had never met the victim. A murder weapon was never recovered. The co-defendant refused to testify on behalf of the State of Indiana during the client's jury trial. Very emotional trial.
Criminal defense
United States of America vs. Robert S. Looney, NA 03-18-CR H/N
Jul 27, 2004
OUTCOME: Not Guilty of charge
Client charged under federal statute with Possession of Firearms by Convicted Felon. Based on a confidential source the DEA obtained a search warrant for a home where the client had been staying frequ...ently with his girlfriend. A large number of firearms were discovered, some of which older collectable guns. The client was a convicted felon, but was not actually found in possession of the guns. The Assistant United States Attorney presented evidence that the client lived in the home and had access to the guns and therefore had violated the federal statute. The defense argued there was no evidence directly linking the client to the guns and there was no evidence of his intent to exercise control over them. The client was facing over 10 years in federal prison.
Criminal defense
State of Indiana vs. Delvin Fields, 10D03-0210-CM-476
May 22, 2003
OUTCOME: Not Guilty of Domestic Battery
Client charged with domestic battery, Class A misdemeanor. The prosecutor offered the client a one year sentence. The client maintained he was not the aggressor and simply defended himself when the a...lleged victim became irate and attacked him. The client claimed the alleged victim's injuries were sustained during the time he was defending himself. During cross- examination the defense was able to establish the alleged victim was the aggressor and her demeanor on the stand showed she had a short temper.
Criminal defense
State of Indiana vs. Trevor Middleton, 10D01-0108-CF-102
Mar 13, 2002
OUTCOME: Not Guilty of Burglary
The client was charged with one count of residential burglary, Class B Felony. The prosecution alleged the client had entered the victim's home shortly after the victim saw and talked to the client a ...short distance from their home. The only physical evidence was a broken window which the victim stated was the point of entry into the home. There was no physical evidence connecting the client with the burglary. The client denied burglarizing the home. The defense presented evidence the client could not have committed the crime or gained access through the window. The client was a very large person and his entry through a window would have been very difficult, if not impossible. Because none of the stolen property had been recovered, the defense alleged the victim had staged the burglary to make a claim against his home owner's insurance and recover a significant amount of money. The defense showed the victim was in need of money and had motive to fake the burglary, blame the client and submitted a false insurance claim to recover money the victim needed.
Criminal defense
State of Indiana vs. Louis Ramon Castillo, 10D02-9911-CF-186
Jun 22, 2000
OUTCOME: Not Guilty of all charges
Hispanic client charged with Dealing in Marijuana, Class C Felony and Possession of Marijuana, Class D Felony. Client received a package via United States mail which contained a shop vac containing a ...large quantity of marijuana. The client took possession of the package but never opened the package. Law enforcement officers arrested the client and took possession of the package. In the client's wallet law enforcement found contact information from where the package originated. The prosecutor called numerous witnesses, but on cross examination by the defense none of the witnesses were able to conclusively show the client knew what was in the package at the time it was received. The jury could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt the client knowingly or intentionally possessed the marijuana with the intent to deliver, or that he knew what was in the package at the time it was received.
The client spoke Spanish and spoke minimal English.
Criminal defense
State of Indiana vs. Steven La'maris Overton, 10D01-9909CF-063
Dec 21, 1999
OUTCOME: Not guilty of all charges
Client charged with three counts of Attempted Murder, Class A Felony and three counts of Criminal Recklessness, Class C Felony. The client was charged with a drive by shooting at a dance party, where ...individual was shot and to others were targeted. The State alleged the shooting was a result of a dispute between rival rap gangs. During the jury trial the defense attacked the circumstantial evidence case on the basis the police failed to investigate other substantial leads regarding the perpetrators and only focused on the client due to community belief the client was capable of such action. After a five day trial and little credible evidence to support the State's theory of prosecution the jury found the client not guilty of all counts.
Criminal defense
State of Indiana vs. Ruford Terry, 79D01-9712-DF-950
Oct 05, 1999
OUTCOME: Not Guilty of the charge
Scott County, Indiana case where the client was charged with Neglect of a Dependent, Class D Felony. The State alleged the client maintained a filthy home which placed the children's health at risk. ...There were also allegations the client was selling marijuana out of the home. Defense counsel was able to show when law enforcement entered the client's home they held the children at gun point. It addition, the defense argued the State did not have a legal right to determine how a family lives or kept their home as long as the children were healthy and received proper care.
