Archive

Case Results

State v. Confidential, December, 2016

Charges: Hit and Run, Failure to Report Property Damage Accident

Resolution: Dismissal. In this matter, wherein a person of significant local fame faced a matter that would have proven quite embarrassing had it reached the papers or the local news, Mr. Adkins secured a dismissal before the first court date. Outright dismissal, no fees, no term of conditions.

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.

U.S. v. Confidential, December, 2016

Charges: Possible Money Laundering/Postal Fraud, Possible Litigation Abuse/Copyright Fraud

Resolution: In two separate investigations, our clients received notices (but not quite a formal target letter) indicating they might be subject to an indictment if they were unwilling to come forward and proffer (formally answer questions about possible crimes, of their own or other people). In light of Mr. Adkins' more than two decades of experience in these matters, North Star is uniquely positioned to assist in these matters, including isolating issues with the investigators before a meeting, ample and aggressive meeting preparation for the client in advance of the proffer, artful postures throughout the meeting (which can be confrontational and unpleasant), and careful follow-up post-meeting. In both of these matters, the clients were quickly and comprehensively excluded from any prosecution, and their involvement going forward (as, say, trial witnesses) may well be eliminated. This work is detailed, and takes a light hand. Never ever handle these sorts of meetings without a talented and aggressive team of attorneys.

State v. L.G., November, 2016

Charges: Gross Misdemeanor Unauthorized Computer Access

Resolution: Expungement Granted. Client had previously sought an expungement, but was denied. Through the guidance and counsel of Mr. Gempeler, she successfully expunged a record that had caused her to miss more than a dozen employment opportunities. For a mother of young children, this expungement was critical for her and her family's future.

State v. J.R., November, 2016

Charges: Felony 3rd Degree Assault

Resolution: Stay of Adjudication. The client was placed on 5 years probation (with the understanding being that he'll be released early around the halfway mark) with minimal terms and conditions and costs ordered for $100. For a father of two with a clean criminal record, it was imperative to earn the opportunity to keep his record clean and put him in a position to have this matter expunged. Without any real viable defenses, this is a remarkable outcome achieved through strong advocacy and a client that was proactive in addressing possible chemical dependency and anger issues before a plea.

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. M.G., November, 2016

Charges: Felony identity theft and fraud

Resolution: Dismissed. This matter, involving crimes of a turpitude nature (lying/cheating/stealing, the sort of stuff that could result in a person being refused a loan, employment, residential applications being tossed, trial testimony rendered worthless, etc.), was dismissed after a year-long negotiation, in light of some thoughtful and aggressive investigation by Mr. Adkins and his team, and the client was returned to a safe position with his large-scale business and his pristine reputation as a savvy but fair businessman.

State v. B.S. / State v. J.B., November, 2016

Charges: B.S.--over 24 open cases, including Felony Identity Theft and Theft; J.B.--two open Felony DANCO matters, multiple probationary offenses.

Resolution: North Star has become literally the place to go for assistance via a furlough to inpatient dual-diagnosis treatment and therapies. Both of these clients--staring a months-long delay in custody with bail that simply could not be posted (or on hold-without-bail, worse yet), prior to trial and potential long prison sentences--received judicially-approved placement at treatment facilities that may well keep them out of any further custodial time, while North Star attorneys work feverishly on soft landings or a favorable trial strategy. No firm, literally no firm, has the record that North Star has created in this field.

State v. B.A., November, 2016

Charges: 3rd Degree DWI - Gross Misdemeanor

Resolution: Pled guilty to 4th Degree DWI, Misdemeanor. Client picked up her second offense within 5 years. Statutory minimum requires 48 hours in custody and 28 days on house arrest. Due to the tactful approach of North Star, the client obtained a misdemeanor result, no jail, a minimal fine, and only 2 days of sentence to service. The client was ecstatic with this terrific result.

State v. M.T., November, 2016

Charges: Expungement - Felony Theft

Resolution: Expungement granted. Client was convicted of a felony theft that was eligible for an expungement. But, due to a conviction in 2011, the Court considered whether the waiting period was satisfied based upon the ambiguous language in the statute. Mr. Gempeler's persuasive oral argument convinced the judge that the client was eligible for an expungement. And, as always, Mr. Gempeler's diligence and thoroughness in preparing the Petition carried the day for a deserving client.

© 2019 Aggressive and Respected Criminal Defense Attorneys All Rights Reserved.

Web Site Design Powered by Rocket Matter IMS.