Oregon Criminal Defense Success Stories

H was arrested for robbery and theft after a bad interaction with a sales attendant and a big box store.
The manager of the store told police that the client had forcefully taken merchandise from the store.
However, the surveillance video told a different story. Instead, the video showed that the sales
attendant had been harassing and even physically pushing H while H was trying to check out. Eventually,
H decided to leave money on the counter for her items, and she left. At trial, the judge dismissed the
theft charge because the prosecution failed to prove the value of the allegedly stolen items. The jury
then deliberated regarding the robbery charge and found H not guilty.

M was arrested on allegations of sexual abuse, assault in the second degree, and unlawful use of a
weapon against his daughter, R. R claimed that M had physically and sexually abused her for years, and
M was facing years in prison. After investigating the allegations, our team learned that R wanted to
leave her family to pursue another life. At a four-day jury trial, R changed her telling of the events
between her and M. While prior versions of R’s story claimed that her siblings as victims of abuse, she
testified at trial that her older brother had participated in the abuse against her. After compelling
testimony from R’s older brother, the jury found M not guilty of all charges.

C was arrested on allegations of threatening his wife with a weapon and was eventually charged with
Unlawful Use of a Weapon and Menacing. C’s wife had been suffering from mental health complications
and after calling police, claimed that she had made up the entire event. Additionally, the allegedly
involved weapon, a pellet gun, was found by law enforcement the night of the alleged incident.
However, the pellet gun was not functional, and law enforcement never tested the pellet gun. At a two-
day jury trial, our team showed that the pellet gun was not functional and did not meet the legal
definition of a dangerous weapon. As a result, the judge dismissed the weapons charge. After presenting
our case, including C’s testimony, the jury found C NOT GUILTY of the menacing charge, and C was able
to return home the same day.

J was arrested on charges of Sexual Abuse for alleged incidents eight years earlier. The District Attorney filed charges multiple charges for Sodomy, Unlawful Sexual Penetration and Rape. The victim claimed that the abuse happened over the courts of several nights when the victim was staying at J’s home. Though J denied the allegations when first contacted by law enforcement, they did not believe his story. As these charges were all Measure 11 charges, J was facing the possibility of over 37 years in prison. We hired experts to review the victim statements, hired an investigator to interview family, friends and witnesses, and filed motions to compel the production of evidence that would be helpful to J’s defense. After six months of diligent work on the matter, we were able to obtain a dismissal of all charges against J. Jay never spent a single day in prison and was able to clear his good name.

V, while visiting Oregon from another state, had been arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUI / DWI). V was charged in Oregon, with DUII as well as Criminal Mischief and Recklessly Endangering Another Person. The State objected to his participating in the DUII Diversion program and insisted upon multiple convictions and jail time for the incident. The incident involved an accident in which he collided with another vehicle. V’s wife and children were passengers in his car. Because there was good evidence that V had in fact been intoxicated at the time, we suggested he enter the DUII Diversion program, even though the State objected. At a hearing on the diversion, the judge overruled the State’s object, and granted V’s petition for the diversion. Despite resolving the DUII charge, V still faced charges for Criminal Mischief and three (3) counts of Recklessly Endangering Charges (one added because V did not accept the State’s offer to plead guilty). The day of trial, the Criminal Mischief Charge was dismissed due to lack of evidence. After a jury trial, V was found “not guilty” of all charges and was acquitted of all counts of Recklessly Endangering. In the end, all charges were dismissed (including the DUII) upon successful completion of the diversion.

K was charged with multiple counts of Measure 11 crimes, including Rape in the First Degree, Sodomy and Strangulation involving two prior spouses. He faced over 16 years in prison if convicted. K denied that he had committed any of these crimes and maintained his desire to take the case to trial for over one year. After investigation, multiple motions, court appearances and negotiations with the State, K agreed to enter a plea to a misdemeanor in exchange for dismissal of all original charges. As a sentence, he received 5 years of probation, a fine and restitution to a former spouse. Other than the original time he served when arrested, he served no further time in jail, avoided multiple Ballot Measure 11 convictions, and avoided any felony convictions.

T was charged with 19 felony counts including: Aggravated Identity Theft, Theft in the First Degree, ID Theft, and Criminal Mistreatment of an elderly person. Upon conviction, he was facing over ten years minimum in prison. The allegations arose due to financial transactions involving a family member. The case was designated a “complex case” due to the extensive documentary evidence involved, the number of charges, and the length of time over which the alleged crimes occurred. After review of over 700 pages of evidence, and through working together with T, counsel filed multiple motions to limit evide3nce, and to present the state from presenting “evidence” against T. Counsel also filed motions requiring the state to specifically elect which individual transactions (detailed in the over 700 pages of documents) were related to each specific charge. The State eventually conceded the extreme difficulty in proving the case in light of an aggressive defense and agreed to a “no contest” plea to two (2) counts of Identity Theft. All other charges were dismissed. T was placed on 18 months of probation (with no travel restrictions), no fine, no restitution, and 80 hours of community service. It was further ordered that after 12 months of probation, the felony convictions would be reduced to misdemeanor convictions.

J called our office because he needed an experienced criminal defense attorney. He had been arrested in Polk County and jailed for Domestic Assault. According to reports, officers claimed he assaulted and strangled his girlfriend. The State charged him with Strangulation – Felony, a Class C Felony, and Assault in the Fourth Degree Constituting Domestic Violence, a Misdemeanor. After obtaining the facts from our client, we provided our written and accurate account of the incident to the district attorney, suggesting that the case should be dismissed. The truth was that J had decided not to tell the officers what really happened. He remained silent. He was concerned that his girlfriend would go to jail if he told the officers what happened – his girlfriend had assaulted him with a knife. It was only after his arrest and during transport to jail that he mentioned the knife wound on his throat and admitted that his obviously bruised face was the result of her attack. Reports noted that officers had observed injuries to J’s face and hand, but officers believed they were caused by J’s girlfriend as part of self-defense. Further investigation revealed that the injuries were caused by J’s girlfriend when she also attacked him with a fork. Counsel went to court with J, and once recommended that the case should be dismissed. As the result of the information provided by our office, about a month after the initial court appearance the State filed its motion to dismiss all charges.

C was stopped by Salem Police officers on suspicion of DUII due to observed erratic driving. He performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested on suspicion of DUII. While securing the vehicle for impound, the arresting officer noticed what appeared to be a diabetic test kit in the vehicle, and asked C if he was diabetic. C indicated that he was in fact diabetic. Paramedics were called and his blood sugar was tested, revealing it was dangerously low. He was removed from the patrol car and transported to the hospital. C had recently changed medications (insulin) and was having some difficulties controlling his blood sugars. He told the officer of an incident several weeks earlier in which he was found “passed out” in a parking lot. He told the officer he could not remember much about driving but admitted that he “knew better” and that he “screwed up.” The officer determined he no longer had probable cause for DUII, but instead issued a citation for Criminal Reckless Driving, a misdemeanor. The prosecutor originally insisted that C plead “guilty” to Reckless Driving, complete community service, pay a substantial fine, and lose his license for 90 days. During negotiations with the City Attorney, Counsel pointed out that the State would be required to prove that C’s actions constituted a conscious disregard for a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Counsel argued that given C’s diabetic emergency, that he was not acting “consciously” and that further prosecution was not appropriate. C eventually entered a diversion program that allowed him to avoid any criminal conviction and keep his license. The reckless driving charge was ultimately dismissed.

J was originally assigned a public defender but had become dissatisfied. J decided that he should hire an experienced attorney and so he retained Gunn & Gunn to handle his defense. J was facing two counts of Assault in the Fourth Degree and Contempt of Court. As a result, he was facing up to a year in jail and a $6,250.00 fine, as well as sanctions for Contempt. Prior to the incident, J’s estranged wife had obtained a restraining order which prevented J from coming to the home. He was still allowed contact with his children, and routinely took them to school. Dropping them off after school one afternoon, he saw an unfamiliar male outside of an R.V. trailer parked at his home. He knew that a female friend of his estranged wife (who had a criminal and drug history) was being allowed to live in the R.V., but was extremely concerned about the unknown male being on the property near his children. Later in the day, J, troubled by the unknown male’s presence and being unable to sleep, went to the home at about two a.m. to ensure his children were safe. He noticed that his wife was not home and saw that another female was in the house with the children. J, decided to investigate the RV to see if anyone was still inside the R.V. The door was open and the same male he had seen earlier was inside, engaged in an activity he recognized as related to “drug currency.” He challenged the male about his criminal activity and a fight ensued, beginning inside the R.V. and continuing outside. During the fight, the female resident of the R.V. suddenly came home and entered the fray on behalf of the male. She was accidentally struck by our client. J was charged with Assaulting both the unknown male and the female inside the R.V. Though he admitted being on the property (in violation of the restraining order) he denied he assaulted either the unknown male or the female. He insisted that he was acting in self-defense. At trial, the jury found him “not guilty” of both Assault charges and those charges were dismissed. He admitted violation of the Contempt charge, paid a $250.00 fine, and completed 40 hours of community service.

D was charged with alleged physical abuse of his teenage son. He was charged with Criminal Mistreatment, Assault and Strangulation. The incident had arisen when D was trying to discipline his teenage son after his son had become physically violent. Though D admitted restraining his son, to prevent injury, he denied any injury to his child. At trial D asserted the defense that he was engaging in appropriate discipline, and that his son’s allegations were exaggerated because the child was unhappy with the restrictions that had been placed on him due to his inappropriate behavior. The case went to trial in front of a jury, and after a two-day trial D was found “not guilty” of all charges.

B was employed as a driver for a transportation company. He was arrested for the crime of Theft, alleging that he had stollen money from his employer. B denied having taken any money and believed that he had been targeted by other employees. While preparing the case for trial, it was discovered that the company had been going through various ownership changes within a short period of time. It became clear that there was an ongoing ownership dispute, that did not involve B, but which created a division among the owners of the company. We were able have one of the former owners of the company testify on B’s behalf to establish that B had followed the protocol established at the time B was employed and therefore, any loss of funds would not have been due to any conduct on B’s part. B was found “not guilty” of all charges.

S was stopped by Oregon State Police in Marion County following his erratic driving on the Interstate 5 freeway. The officer claimed S was seen weaving across three lanes of traffic and passing vehicles inappropriately. Initially the officers discussed charging him with DUII but settled instead on Reckless Driving, a crime with a maximum license revocation of one year and a fine of $6,250.00. They noted that S appeared disoriented and physically uncoordinated. S also provided officers with “inaccurate and contradictory medical information”. We suspected a bona fide sudden onset of a medical condition was the cause of the erratic driving. In consulting with S’s primary physician, we were able to gather supporting records and testimony to provide to the jury. At trial, the trooper testified honestly about his observations. S’s physician provided his medical opinion as to the reason for the observed symptoms of impairment. The Court found the client “not guilty”, specifically noting that S was not acting recklessly at the time of the driving, even though his driving was clearly dangerous and did endanger others. All charges against S were dropped, he avoided any time in jail and there was no negative impact on his license.

J was charged with Unlawful Possession of a Firearm because when stopped for speeding ticket and officer located an unloaded pistol in the glove compartment of his car. Because the glove compartment was not locked, he was charged with having a concealed weapon in his car without a concealed carry permit. J maintained that the gun was not his, but instead it was his father’s gun. His father did hold a concealed carry permit. The district attorney continued prosecution of the case through the day of trial. The morning of trial, while meeting with the trial judge and the prosecutor, counsel asserted that he would be calling the father as a witness and that the father would establish that the gun was in fact his. J would continue to deny that he was aware of the existence of the gun, and we would be asking the jury to find J “not guilty”. The judge presiding over the case indicated, that if in fact such evidence were to be presented, he would find J “not guilty.” Counsel from our office suggested that we may consider waiving a jury and would instead allow the judge to decide all facts. The D.A. decided not to continue any further, and the case against J was dismissed.

P was charged with the crime of Animal Abuse. The District Attorney alleged that P had “cruelly caused the death of an animal” in violation of State law. For several years prior to the charges, P had been having difficulty with some neighbors in a rural neighborhood. The neighbors had various animals, including ducks and chickens which would stray from the neighbor’s property, across the road, and then damage P’s yard. On multiple prior occasions, P had spoken to law enforcement officers about the problem, and they had repeatedly told the neighbors to keep their animals off P’s property. Despite such efforts, on the day in question a duck belonging to the neighbor’s was once again on P’s property. The duck was pulling up newly planted bulbs and plants. P loaded his shotgun and killed the duck using bird shot. At trial, among the witnesses called was the arresting Sheriff Deputy. During cross examination, the deputy testified that the duck was killed with a single shot with a shotgun using birdshot. The Deputy admitted during cross examination that the method of dispatching the duck, was consistent with the same method used during waterfowl hunting season. The deputy admitted that had this been “duck season” and had this been a “wild duck” the shooting would have been perfectly legal. Counsel argued to the jury that (1) P was lawfully entitled to kill the duck and (2) the method used was in no way cruel. The jury, after deliberation, found J “not guilty.” To the best of our information, the problem with the straying animals also was favorably resolved.

L was charged with hindering prosecution. The State alleged that law enforcement officers were attempting to contact L’s son, who had an outstanding felony warrant. When officers went to L’s home, and asked if she knew where her son was, she told law enforcement that she did not know where he was. Despite her assertion that she did not know where her son was, law enforcement still searched the property. Her son was located on the property, but not in the home. He had apparently come to the home over night, without telling L and was sleeping in one of the outbuildings. L asserted her innocence and the case was taken to a jury trial. After the State had presented its evidence, counsel asked that the case be dismissed for failure by the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. After considering counsel’s argument, the Judge agreed, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

A Juvenile Delinquency Petition was filed against B, alleging that he had committed acts as a juvenile, which would constitute the crimes of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree and Sodomy in the First Degree. Throughout the entire case, B insisted that he had not ever touched the victim inappropriate and believed that the allegations were false. The victim’s family insisted that B had committed this crime against the victim, and that they believed B too was the victim of sexual abuse – despite a complete lack of any evidence. We were able to find multiple individuals (youth and adults) willing to testify that B was known as an honest and truthful individual with the propensity to tell the truth in all situations. At trial it was a classic “he said he said” situation, where the victim testified and B also testified. Character witnesses were also called for B, to establish his reputation for honesty. The Judge, after hearing all the evidence, decided that the State had not proven that B was within the jurisdiction of the court. All allegations were dismissed.

D was arrested and charged with the crime of Possession of a Controlled Substance. During a traffic stop, officers had searched D’s vehicle and had located a plastic baggie with residue the tested positive as methamphetamine in her purse. D denied that she used drugs at all and denied knowing about the methamphetamine. Despite her continuing denial of the charges, the State elected to take the case to trial, and the case was heard by a jury. At trial, the prosecutor commented that she questioned why any attorney would take “such a clear PCS” case to trial. During the case, counsel established through witnesses, that D and her mother has several weeks before gone to a “swap meet” and had purchased some jewelry. D’s mother confirmed that the jewelry was sold to her in a small plastic bag, and that the bag that contained the residue looked to be the same bag. In addition to finding the residue in the bag, it was also established that when the bag was seized it contained a pair of earrings. Counsel argued, successfully, that D would have no reason to know that there was methamphetamine in the bag, but rather obtained the bag at the “swap meet” when she purchased the jewelry. A unanimous jury found D “not guilty”.

S was employed as a poker dealer at Spirit Mountain Casino. It was alleged that he had stolen money while acting as a dealer. The State, and the Casino alleged that his conduct was “caught on video.” During the case, we obtained a copy of the video and despite reviewing the video were unable to “see” the supposed theft. Despite pointing this out to the State, the District Attorney insisted on taking the case to trial. At trial, the video was presented as evidence, and the casino security manager acted as the State’s witness. The witness claimed that the video did in fact show the theft. During cross examination, counsel used the video and asked the State’s witness to show exactly when the theft occurred. Moving frame by frame, counsel narrowed down when the supposed theft occurred and then asked the jury to note the exact time stamp on the video. Counsel then allowed S to testify. We obtained a poker table, exactly like the one used at the casino, and had S demonstrate his duties. He explained how poker was to be dealt. He showed how to deal, explained how blinds were received, and showed how the casino’s share of each hand was deposited in a slot on the table. He also demonstrated the process for a dealer to receive a “tip” from a patrol. After having conducted this demonstration, the video was again used to show that happened the day of the “incident”. S, who had just provided a live display of how poker worked, explained to the jury each step he took in the video, showed how he deposited the money, and showed that the money he took as his own was actually a tip from a patron. He was found “not guilty.”

J was charged with the crime of Animal Abuse because he shot and killed a dog. The dog that was killed had been causing multiple problems for many years in the rural neighborhood. Though the use of an investigator, it was discovered that multiple neighbors had been terrorized by the dog, and in fact some neighbors had erected cement walls to protect their children from this dog. It was also discovered, that on multiple occasions law enforcement had been called due to the dog being at large, and its aggressive nature. J was aware of this reputation and was also aware of a prior attack by the dog against a neighbor. On the day in question, J’s wife had been out in their yard when the dog had chased her back into her house. J took his shot gun and went out into his yard. As he came around the corner, he saw the dog in the neighbor’s yard. The dog turned and charged toward him. J aimed and shot, hitting the dog as it crossed into his yard killing it instantly. J’s wife had already called the Sheriff who arrived a few minutes later. The State asserted that J was not entitled to kill the dog and argued that J could not claim “self-defense” against and animal. Counsel researched the matter extensively and was able to provide the court with sufficient precedent to establish that J was entitled to claim “self-defense” and further that killing the dog on his own property was a lawful action. After a trial to a jury, J was found “not guilty.”

Q was charged with Assault, Harassment, Disorderly Conduct, and 8 counts of menacing. All of this conduct supposedly occurred when Q and members of his family were patrons at a now closed “club” in Portland. It was alleged that while at the club, Q and others in his family, had engaged in fighting with “bouncers” and that they had thrown Q and his family out of the establishment. The “bouncers” claimed further that Q had gone outside, obtained a gun from his trunk, and then pointed the gun at eight individuals (all bouncers). Q denied any such conduct. At trial, the State attempted to prove not only the specific conduct, but also that Q was particularly “dangerous” due to prior training he had received as part of his profession. Q denied that he ever assaulted or injured anyone, but rather that he and his family had been targeted for no apparent reason by the bouncers. Video evidence was obtained and presented at trial. The State, however, presented a “new” version of the video, with the ability to show each camera separately. Counsel moved to sanction the prosecution for a discovery violation, and the court agreed to allow counsel to argue that the State had violated discovery rules but did not dismiss the case. Using this newly provided video, counsel argued that the video actually showed that Q and his family were not the aggressors, and further showed that he never had the alleged “gun” reportedly seen by all eight of the State’s witnesses. After three days of trial, and over two more days of deliberation, Q and all co-defendants (family members) were found “not guilty.” Q eventually filed a civil action against the establishment due to racial discrimination. The case was settled, Q and his family were compensated, and the business closed shortly thereafter.

D was driving his vehicle on I-5 when he was aggressively pursued by an individual. The situation escalated to the point that D and the other driver exited the freeway and pulled off to the side of the road. The other driver got out of his car and charged D. D also got out of his car, and when the driver attacked, D punched the driver in the face knocking him to the ground. A witness who observed the situation was unable to tell who “started” the fight but did notice knife on the ground. D denied that he owned the knife. D claimed it must have belonged to the driver who had attacked him. There were no fingerprints found to prove that the other drive had used the knife. Fortunately, D suffered only minor injuries to his hand, but the other driver was not as lucky – being taken to the hospital. The State alleged that D had intentionally caused serious physical injury, and charged him with Assault in the Second Degree, a crime that carried a mandatory 75 months in prison. A careful review of medical records seemed to indicate that the injury was not as “serious” as the State had alleged. Counsel hired medical experts and consulted with the physician who had provided the original diagnosis. The treating physician reviewed the medical records again and reviewed all images in the medical file. After counsel explained the legal standard for “serious physical injury”, the physician agreed that the injury in this case would not be a “serious injury” under the criminal code. He further confirmed that the injury had quickly healed and that he did not believe there would be any long-term consequences resulting from the injuries. Armed with this information, counsel was able (after several months and multiple deputy district attorneys) to get the state to agree to dismiss the Assault II charge. Instead, D agreed that he “recklessly caused physical injury” and accepted a negotiated plea. He served less than 30 days in the county jail.

J had been out for drinks in Lincoln County and ended up being arrested and charged for Menacing (x2) and Harassment, all against three different victims.  According to police, J had punched one victim in the head and had threated two others with “imminent serious physical injury.”  J denied all charges and plead “not guilty.”  Investigation of the facts revealed that there was a fight that started outside of the bar where J has been drinking.  It was alleged that J had punched another person in the head, chased two other “victims” down the street, and then assaulted a third person.  J denied he punched anyone, claiming that he was in fact the victim of being attacked.  When Police responded to the scene, it was determined that some of those involved in the fight had fled the scene and were never located.  Multiple witnesses had differing versions of the event and no one was entirely clear about who did what when.  It was clear, however, that J had been badly injured by two of the “witnesses” when they chased him down and beat him.  Despite his assertion that he was the victim, Police Officers arrested J.  During the discovery process, counsel requested that in addition to written reports, that the State produce any video evidence in the State’s possession.  Officer body cameras were provided, but that evidence simply confused the issues, as witness statements were inconsistent and it was clear that officers were confused as to what actually happened.  Because J maintained he was innocent, J decided to plead “not guilty” and we scheduled the case for trial.  As we were preparing the case for trial, our investigator was able to speak to the “victims” in the case.  They were “surprised” to be named as victims.  They clarified statements made to police.  The “victims” indicated that it looked like J may have been defending himself and it was made clear that he was running away from the fight.  One of the “victims” clarified that he “ran right past her”, despite Police reports indicating that J “chased the victim down the road.”  They also clarified that two men chased after J as he was leaving the area. After providing this information to the prosecution, as well as explaining that the other “victim” was almost certainly the aggressor (having chased J and beat him severely), the prosecutor dismissed all charges.