Obstructing Legal Process Case Results

Obstructing Legal Process Case Results

obstructing legal process mnTo see just how successful our approach is, here are some representative obstructing legal process case results:

State v. A.I.

March 2017

Charges: Obstruct Legal Process, 5th Degree Assault (2 Counts), and Disorderly Conduct

Resolution: Case was dismissed. Mr. Gempeler utilized a big picture approach with a like-minded and thoughtful prosecutor to prove that the client was simply not the person that committed the alleged offense. Instead, the client was at a low point, caused by mental health issues. Over the course of a year since the date of the incident, the client took significant and meaningful strides to improve his mental health and gain stability in his life, thus demonstrating that he was not a public safety concern. The prosecutor recognized this and agreed that a dismissal was appropriate and deserved. This is the type of personalized legal strategy that North Star offers its clients – an understanding of who they are, what happened, and how to get them back on their feet, which benefits them personally, but also leads to these type of terrific results.

State v. A.I.

December 2016

Charges: Obstructing Legal Process – Misdemeanor, License Plate Fraud

Resolution: Continuance for Dismissal. This matter was resolved by a continuance for dismissal, that in early negotiations was termed “impossible” to achieve. Hard work by Mr. Adkins, and careful avoidance of additional silly decision-making by a wise and creative client, meant the impossible became par for the course. This matter also exemplifies the importance of a client participating meaningfully in the process; his videotape evidence was essential in moving a prosecutor from leery to sympathetic.

State v. E.A.

December 2016

Charges: Obstructing Legal Process – Misdemeanor

Resolution: Dismissed. Client has a clean criminal record, which was imperative to maintain in order for him to continue volunteering with his kids extra-curricular activities. The initial offer – a stay of adjudication, which would have resulted in a dismissal – was authorized to be accepted by the client. Still, Mr. Gempeler knew that the right approach to pushing the City Attorney could lead to a better result. After further negotiations and discussions, the City Attorney agreed that there was no merit for the charge.

State v. A.S..

November 2016

Charges: Obstructing Legal Process – Misdemeanor

Resolution: Continuance for Dismissal – 6 mo. and costs of only $100. Typically, city prosecutors are reluctant to make reasonable offers on this type of charge. Mr. Gempeler was aggressive in asserting that the charges were trumped up. Short of a contested hearing, the prosecutor agreed that a continuance for dismissal for a short six months was appropriate. The client simply couldn’t turn this offer down because it got the result deserved and desired – a dismissal. In addition, there is a mutual understanding that the client will get an expungement after the six months. A terrific result for a young and deserving client.

State v. N.A.

October 2016

Charges: Gross Misdemeanor Second Degree DWI, Obstructing Legal Process

Resolution: This high-test DUI with general non-compliance (to put it politely) from the client to local police upon arrest was successfully reduced to a misdemeanor after careful negotiations, supportive therapies for and by the client, and great good luck in finding a prosecutor and a judge in remarkably workable good moods on the day of trial. Client escapes a life-altering outcome through his own hard work and the talents of his team at North Star.

State v. D.J.

October 2016

Charges: Felony Drug Charge, Obstructing Legal Process

Resolution: Diversion program. We are often approached by clients who have made an initial appearance in court, expecting a soft landing, who have been advised they don’t qualify for diversion, or another favorable program to resolve their matter. In this instance, a patient approach with a thoughtful prosecutor resulted in a late-admission into diversionary outcome that was utterly unavailable at arraignment. These sorts of outcomes quite literally make our month.

Schedule a Consultation

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

© 2017 Aggressive and Respected Criminal Defense Attorneys All Rights Reserved.

Web Site Design Powered by Rocket Matter IMS.