Not Guilty of all Charges – Our Client was charged with Violation of a Protection Order in Weld County. The case involved a protection order that had been put in place against our client during a minor domestic incident a year prior. The protection order was not the type of protection order most people are familiar with. It did not prevent him from contacting someone and was not issued because he posed some sort of threat. It was simply an order that prevented harassing or intimidating any potential witnesses. This type of protection order is mandatory and issued whenever a person is charged with a crime, regardless of the nature of the crime. It is a routine part of a criminal case. What made the order in our client’s case unusual was that a box on the order was checked that also prevented him from “consuming alcohol.”

Our client resolved the minor domestic incident and went about his life. No one ever informed him of the condition that prevented him from consuming alcohol. In fact, he was told by his probation officer that he could consume alcohol as long as it was not excess.

Almost a year after our client resolved the domestic incident, he was the victim of an assault. He contacted the police to report the incident. When the police arrived, they ran his name through a system and learned that there was a protection order in place with a condition that he not drink alcohol. They asked our client if he had drank any alcohol that evening and he indicated that he drank two beers. Upon this admission, our client was arrested.

At trial, we introduced evidence establishing our client was never made aware of the existence of the condition preventing him from consuming alcohol. We then argued that, in light of that fact, the district attorney could not prove our client “knowingly” violated a protection order, as required by the statute. The jury returned a verdict finding our client not guilty of all charges. June, 2014.

Not Guilty of All Charges – Our client was charged with Driving Under the Influence in Steamboat Springs, Routt County. He was contacted by police after his truck slid off the road during a fierce winter storm that caused icy driving conditions.

When the police contacted our client, they suspected he had been drinking. They asked him to perform some voluntary roadside sobriety maneuvers. Our client agreed to perform the maneuvers despite the fact he felt he was sober and safe to drive. A video camera on the dashboard of the police car recorded these maneuvers.

Our client performed the maneuvers in a manner most people would deem consistent with sobriety. Nevertheless, the police felt differently and arrested him. At that point, the police informed our client of the express consent law which requires a person to submit to a blood or breath test to determine the amount of alcohol in his system. Our client agreed he would submit to a blood test and was taken to a hospital so the test could be administered.

At the hospital, our client was given a lengthy, poorly photocopied medical release and instructed to sign it. Our client told the officer he would be happy to sign the release, but would need to read it first. After a few short minutes, the officer told our client he needed to sign the document or he would consider his actions a refusal to take the test. Our client again stated he was not refusing, but would not sign the document without understanding what it said. The officer then took our client to jail.

Steve Louth was able to use the video of the roadside sobriety maneuvers during trial to prove our client was not under the influence. Steve was also able to get the arresting officer to admit, upon admitting the video in evidence, that our client’s performance of the roadside maneuvers was consistent with sobriety. June, 2014.

All Charges Dismissed – Our Client was charged with Sexual Assault and Unlawful Sexual Contact. The prosecution refused to offer a plea bargain that did not include our client registering as a sex offender for the rest of his life. After advising the client, we elected to take the case to jury trial. At the end of the four day jury trial, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict and a mistrial was declared. The 12 person jury was polled and they indicated that they were split 9-3, with the majority finding our client not guilty of each charge.

As a result of the mistrial, a new trial date was set. Our office used new information that arose during the trial to investigate new angles of defense.   On the last business day before the second trial was scheduled to begin, the prosecution abandoned its case and all charges were dismissed. June, 2014.

Acquitted of all charges – Our client was charged with Menacing, Harassment, and Reckless Driving. The charges stemmed from a road rage allegation. Our client was driving a flatbed work truck on a single lane road when a vehicle approached from behind at a high rate of speed. The vehicle came within inches of his bumper. When the vehicle was unable to pass because of traffic coming the other direction, it started to flash its headlights repeatedly. Our client was driving the speed limit and did not understand what the other driver expected him to do, so he simply kept driving. The other vehicle eventually passed him by driving on the shoulder of the road. For a moment, our client attempted to get close enough to the vehicle so he could obtain a license plate, but when the vehicle proceeded to reach speeds close to 100 miles per hour, our client decided to forget about reporting the incident.

The next day, our client was contacted by the police. A police officer informed our client that he had been reported for aggressive and reckless driving. Our client was shocked. He explained the situation to the police. He even provided the officer with the name and contact information of a passenger he had in the vehicle at the time of the incident. The officer said he would contact the passenger, but a few minutes later he issued a summons to our client for Harassment, Menacing, and Reckless Driving.

Since our client was driving his work truck, he was going to lose his job if he was convicted of any of these charges. When the district attorney refused to dismiss the case, we proceeded to a jury trial.

At trial, the district attorney called the officer who issued the summons as a witness. When it was our turn to cross examine the officer, we asked questions focusing on his investigation of the incident. We asked the officer if he had contacted the passenger/witness to obtain her version of events. The officer indicated that he had attempted to contact her, but that the phone number he was given was disconnected. After hearing the officer state this under oath, we asked him to confirm the number he attempted to call. Once we had confirmation of the phone number, we ended our questioning and the he was allowed to leave the witness stand.

At this point, we asked the court to allow us to take an unusual step. We asked that the court use the courtroom telephone and call the number the officer was given. The court agreed and, on speaker phone in front of the jury, dialed the number. After a few rings, the witness answered the phone. She said that she had never been contacted by the police and that her phone has never been disconnected. February, 2014.