Client's father-in-law allowed police to search his residence which was located in a separate building on property owned by his father-in-law. When police arrived the client and his wife objected to the search but the police relied on the father-in-law’s permission. We argued to the trial court that the police did not have the right to search the premises based on the constitutional doctrine of “apparent authority” under the Fourth Amendment. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the conviction, which was upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Felony conviction reversed.
Client on federal probation for a fraud conviction. He was accused by probation officer of missing meetings, taking lines of credit without permission and violating several other finance related rules. Birdsall was able to prove through cross examination of the agent that while there were some technical violations, there was insufficient grounds to revoke his client’s probation.
Client’s brother was recently released from prison after 12 years for several armed robberies. They were driving around Milwaukee smoking marijuana when the brother said: “pull over here.” The client’s brother went into a nearby bar and robbed all of the patrons at gunpoint. The client had no prior knowledge that his brother was going to commit a robbery and didn’t even know afterward until he was arrested as an “accomplice after the fact.” He was also charged with helping in 3 other robberies which even his brother denied. He faced 60 years of federal prison. Birdsall proved, through investigation and analysis of the evidence, that the client was not involved in any of the prior robberies and that was an unwitting participant in the last one. He was allowed to plead to a lesser charge and the government agreed to recommend probation.
Client and his brother are charged with crimes stemming from a bank robbery. The client and his brother are convicted of assaulting a bank employee and stealing approximately $70,000.00 from the bank. Because of the fact that there was a gun involved, the client was facing 25 years in prison for the crime. John argued that the gun used in the crime did not qualify as an enhance as it was a BB gun, thus did not qualify as a “firearm” under the sentencing guidelines.
Client arrested after bizarre behavior brought police to his house numerous times including answering the door with a drawn loaded gun. He was arrested on a pretense - lying on a federal firearm application form. Client was clearly suffering from a mental breakdown. We were able to negotiate with government to get him needed psychological help. This diversion program allowed John’s client to avoid a jail sentence or probation.
