Theft & Shoplifting Case Results

To see just how successful our approach is, here are some representative results:

State v. Confidential

November, 2017
Charges: Credit Card Fraud and Identity Theft - Felonies

Client who was seized literally from the door of her courtroom at an omnibus hearing, and detained by INS officials for weeks thereafter, resolves her case with a no-jail-time misdemeanor, no fine, NO PROBATION... when the felony counts contemplated a significant fine, probation for up to 10 years, and almost certain deportation in this post-reality Federal Administration. An ideal outcome.

State v. K.J.

July, 2017
Charges: Shoplifting - Misdemeanor

Our team at North Star was able to swing a diversion program for our client. Additionally, a bare minimum in fees and conditions during diversion were imposed. As long as the client remains law abiding, gets to keep her record clear as a result. Another great win for the North Star team.

State v. (Confidential)

June, 2017
Charges: Theft (Receiving Stolen Property) - Felony

Client with multiple counts of identical conduct, also on probation for similar offenses, avoided a prison term or even additional jail, via reduced counts and stays of imposition. Radically fast action by our lawyers and contrition on the part of the client avoided a mandatory minimum prison term, and sets the young man up to continue raising his family without fear of interdiction.

State v. M.K.L.

April, 2017
Charges: Shoplifting - Misdemeanor

Continuance for dismissal. The City Attorney took a firm stance on the offer being a stay of adjudication - a great result that the client would have been pleased with. But, Mr. Gempeler knew a better outcome was obtainable with the proper approach. After counseling the client about ways to be proactive in a manner that could lead to a better result, Mr. Gempeler aggressively negotiated the better result for the client - a continuance for a dismissal. For a client that must disclose her criminal record for her job, the distinction is significant in that she no longer has to state she pled guilty to the offense. The client is relieved that her mistake won't impact her future due to the aggressive approach by Mr. Gempeler.

State v. (Confidential)

April, 2017
Charges: Fraud/Theft by Deception/Receiving Stolen Property, Felony

Case out of Washington County was Continued for Dismissal/Diverson. An outstanding client gets a better result. Complex facts, unfortunately rather easy to prove as misconduct and insurance fraud, was disproven sufficiently by aggressive investigation and outstanding work by North Star support staff for the State to offer a short-term dismissal program, no guilty plea required. Client, a professional and highly concerned about his reputation in the community, can move forward with confidence and a clean sheet. One of three ideal outcomes, on the same morning in Washington County.

State v. M.Y.

April, 2017
Charges: Shoplifting - Misdemeanor Theft

Continuance for Dismissal. Shoplifting (theft) case out of Anoka County. Besides an outright dismissal, this is the best possible result a client can achieve in their case. Assuming our client stays law abiding for a year, this case will be completely dismissed and stay off their record.

U.S. v. Confidential

December, 2016
Charges: Possible Money Laundering/Postal Fraud, Possible Litigation Abuse/Copyright Fraud

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. 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.

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. M.G.

November, 2016
Charges: Felony identity theft and fraud

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. M.T.

November, 2016
Charges: Expungement - Felony Theft

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.