As a 19-year old, soon-to-be college student, our client's arrest on felony charges for possession with intent to deliver marijuana cast her future in doubt. Law enforcement contacted our client in the early morning hours after a resident reported a suspicious vehicle in their neighborhood. Our client and a passenger admitted to smoking marijuana in the vehicle minutes before police arrived on scene. Upon searching the car, police found marijuana, smoking devices, paraphernalia, and various packaging materials. They also found one ecstasy pill. The client was arrested and taken to jail on felony charges of possession with intent to deliver THC. She immediately hired Chirafisi & Verhoff to help. Our lawyers contacted the District Attorney's Office. Attorney Verhoff was able present information to the lawyer tasked with making a charging decision. He explained why what was located in the vehicle was consistent with someone who used marijuana, but did not sell it. Convinced, the prosecutor agreed not to charge a felony for dealing. Instead, the prosecutor filed a misdemeanor charges of possession of THC, possession of a controlled substance for the ecstasy, and possession of drug paraphernalia. But Attorney Verhoff was not done. The case was then assigned to a different prosecutor to handle in court. After several meetings between the lawyers, the assigned prosecutor conceded he could not prove it was our client's ecstasy versus the passenger's ecstasy. Still, the prosecutor wanted the client to plead to the marijuana and paraphernalia charges. Attorney Verhoff pressed on and argued the case was worth no more than a non-criminal citation for casual possession of marijuana. Finally, the prosecutor gave up and agreed to amend the charges to a non-criminal violation with a penalty of only court costs, not even a fine.
Child Abuse Case Declined
In this case, the client contacted Chirafisi & Verhoff after receiving a referral to our office from a different criminal defense lawyer in the Madison area. Detectives wanted to speak with the client about a potential child abuse case after authorities became aware of bruising on a toddler. Rather than speaking with law enforcement and representatives from human services, the client took our advice and invoked his constitutional right to remain silent. Having obtained statements from other family members, who reported that if anything happened to the child it was accidental, law enforcement still referred the case to the District Attorney's office for prosecution. Our lawyers then met with the prosecutor tasked with reviewing the case. Our lawyers pointed out what we believed were problems with the case for the prosecution. After listening to our lawyers, the District Attorney agreed and declined to file criminal charges in the matter.
Client Avoids Felony Convictions In Two Different Counties
Our client had been working with a different lawyer when he came to Chirafisi & Verhoff. The lawyer suggested the client hire our firm given the severity of the situation. The client was charged with felony OWI-causing Injury as a third offense in Dane County. He had been in a t-bone accident and had a reported alcohol concentration of 0.21 percent at the time of the crash. The stakes were high, as a felony conviction would cost our client the job he held for more than 30 years. Our firm went to work, reviewing the reports and medical records. Our attorneys immediately saw the records showed the other driver was a 0.16 at the time of driving. In addition, the attorneys could not locate evidence of an injury that would satisfy the "causing injury" portion of the case. Once Attorney Verhoff pointed this out to the district attorney, he was forced to amend the case from a felony charge to a misdemeanor. But things became even more complicated. Out on bail in the case, our client was stopped by a DNR warden while driving through a park in a different county. The client panicked drove away, allegedly at a high rate of speed. Law enforcement also suspected he had been drinking. Prosecutors in that county charged our client with a felony eluding charge one week before the client was set to resolve his case in Dane County. Attorney Verhoff had his work cut out for him. To best serve our client's legal interest, he needed to get the Sauk County case resolved before finishing the Dane County case. Not an easy task, as cases typically take months to resolve. And because the client would lose his job if convicted of a felony, Attorney Verhoff not only had to resolve the Sauk County case quickly, he had to get it resolved as a non-felony. Fortunately for the client, Attorney Verhoff was able to negotiate a resolution of the Sauk County case on misdemeanor grounds the day before the case in Dane County settled. When the parties showed up for court in Dane County, the prosecutor, who had learned about the Sauk County case, was grinning. He informed Attorney Verhoff, "Your client has a new felony case." Attorney Verhoff told him to "check again." He did and saw the case had been resolved the day before for misdemeanors. In disbelief, the prosecutor simply said, "How do you always get those kinds of result for your clients? Unbelievable!"
OWI 1st- Dane County – Case dismissed
While we like to tell people of the great results we are able to obtain in these types of cases, this case is a little different. This case proves that having a lawyer sometimes is what you really need to get the results that you want.
Client was charged with 1st offense OWI when he was stopped for being in a parking lot after the business had closed late one weekend night. The officer then turned that stop into a full fledged OWI arrest. When the client went to the police station to provide a chemical test of his breath, he was actually under the legal limit.
Because he was under the legal limit he thought he could handle the case on his own. He made the court appearance and attempted to speak to the prosecutor about the case. When the prosecutor explained that the offer in the case would require that he enter a plea to the charge, the client decided it was time to get some help.
The client reached out to Chirafisi & Verhoff for assistance. After hearing the facts of the case it was clear that the government would never be able to prove the case if it went to trial. The client was charged a very nominal fee for filing paperwork and demanding a jury trial. Shortly after the pretrial was held with us representing him at the hearing, all charges were dismissed. Sometimes all it takes is having a lawyer present.
Felony Child Abuse, Domestic Disorderly Conduct Declined
In what can only be described as an incredible outcome for our client, Dane County prosecutors recently agreed not to charge him with felony child abuse and domestic disorderly conduct. Police arrested our client, who is 17 years old and considered an adult for purposes of criminal prosecution. Law enforcement took him to jail after he got into an argument with his father and allegedly punched his younger brother. A good student and a high school athlete, our client's future was on the line. Based on a recommendation from someone close to the Dane County legal community, the client's family turned to our firm for assistance. Attorney Verhoff immediately contacted the prosecution and arranged for a bail hearing, getting the client out of jail that same day. Attorney Verhoff then met with prosecutors to discuss the case. Ultimately, he brokered a deal by which the client agreed to engage in some community service and upon completion, the prosecution agreed to formally decline prosecution of the case. Having held up his end of the bargain, our client can now honestly answer, if ever asked, that he was never charged or convicted of a criminal offense in his life.
Felony Child Abuse Charge Dropped
Prosecutors in Dane County charged our client with child abuse after the client got into physical altercation with his teenage son. A neighbor witnessed the event and called police. When law enforcement arrived on scene, our client admitted to punching his child, but said he did so only after the teen charged at him. Our attorneys recognized the client had a self-defense claim and discussed the potential defense with the client and the prosecution. Before trial, Attorney Verhoff engaged in settlement discussions with the assistant district attorney and reached an agreement to resolve the case short of a trial. The client had two options: he could go to trial on the felony charge and raise self-defense, but risk a conviction. Or he could avoid a trial and agree to be convicted of the lowest-level crime in Wisconsin, a disorderly conduct charge. Under terms of the agreement, the client would not be required to go on probation, serve any jail time, or pay any fines. He would only be required to pay statutory court costs. Our client decided to settle his case and avoid the risk of a felony conviction at trial, which would have had a significant impact on his career. Although the client was convicted of disorderly conduct, this case is an an example a situation that we, and our client, consider to be a victory.
Assault Case Dismissed in Dane County
What started out as a fun night with friends ended with our client arrested and in jail. But that is not the end of the story. Our client went out to celebrate a friend's birthday. Included in the group was the client's former roommate. By all accounts, everyone in the group had consumed a fair amount of alcohol that evening. After taking a taxi cab home, our client and the former roommate got into a physical confrontation. Police arrested our client and booked her into jail on charges of domestic battery and domestic disorderly conduct. The case was considered "domestic" because the altercation involved a person with whom the client previously lived, even though they were not romantically involved. The client posted bail and was released from custody. Before charges were actually issued, however, she hired our firm. Attorney Verhoff immediately contacted the District Attorney's Office. His goal was to convince the prosecutor assigned to make the charging decision that the case lacked merit and should not be charged. His efforts were partially successful. The prosecutor met with Attorney Verhoff and understood there were proof problems. Rather than filing criminal charges, the prosecutor filed a non-criminal citation for violating the county code of ordinances. This was a partial win for the client because she knew she would not be convicted of a crime under any circumstance. After making the initial appearance in court, Attorney Verhoff again met with a representative with the District Attorney's Office and brokered a deal. If our client did an alcohol assessment, the prosecution would agree to dismiss the case. But Attorney Verhoff did not stop there. He waited a few weeks and met with the prosecutor assigned to the case for trial. He informed the prosecutor that our client would be willing to undergo an alcohol assessment to achieve a dismissal. But he again explained why he thought the case lacked merit. This time, the assigned prosecutor listened and dismissed the case. The client was not required to incur the additional expense of an alcohol assessment and was thrilled that this case resulted in an outright dismissal.
Drug Charges Avoided Dane County
While investigating an unrelated incident, police approached our client and questioned him. Authorities determined he was not involved in their investigation, but they asked to search his backpack. He agreed, and law enforcement located "whippits" (cartridges filed with nitrous oxide, often used as a recreational drug). Police arrested our client and sent the case to the District Attorney's Office, asking that he be charged criminally with possessing a hazardous substance. Our lawyers became involved in the matter before the prosecutors reached a charging decisions. Attorney Verhoff worked out an agreement for an uncharged deferral. Essentially, our client will be required to comply with an AODA, perform some community service, and stay out of trouble for several months. Assuming the client meets these goals, the District Attorney's Office will not file charges against him.
Manufacturing THC- All Evidence Suppressed- Case Dismissed- Dane County
Drug cases many times involve the execution of a search warrant for defendant's homes. In this particular case, the client’s residence was searched with a signed warrant for an alleged marijuana grow operation. That warrant was based on a confidential informant’s statement to law enforcement that the defendant was growing pot. Law enforcement then went and reviewed electric bills for the defendant’s residence which showed electric usage rates which were almost double of other homes in the area. Based on that information, law enforcement sought, and were granted by judge, a warrant to search the premises.
Once on the premises, law enforcement seized over 3,000 grams of marijuana, multiple marijuana plants and digital scales. The defendant was charged with a felony that could have resulted in a felony conviction and possible prison sentence.
The defendant was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff in an effort to try and find a way to beat the case. Once the attorneys reviewed the search warrants (there were 2 in this case) they found the weakness in the State's case. The warrant contained information that was stale (the information was old and there was no way that it could be relied upon) and it also had information from a confidential informant which was useless and could not be considered reliable.
Chirafisi & Verhoff then filed a motion to suppress all the evidence obtained from the faulty search warrant. After multiple briefs, and argument to the Court, the Judge agreed with our arguments and suppressed all the evidence. The Government shortly thereafter dismissed the entire case.
Another High-End OWI Avoids Prison
For the vast majority of people convicted of a sixth-offense OWI in Dane County, prison is the result. In this case, the client did not originally hire Chirafisi & Verhoff. He chose a different firm. And it looked like prison was where he was headed. The client was arrested after police observed him speeding and driving the wrong way down a major road in the Madison area. He agreed to take a blood test, which returned a reported value in excess of 0.20 percent. The client also told police he was impaired and should not have been driving. As his case moved toward trial, the prosecutor was insisting on a lengthy prison sentence. Frustrated, the client decided to go in a different direction for legal represented and turned to our firm for help. From the outset, he indicated he really did not want to have a jury trial in the case. But he also did not want to go to prison. Attorney Tim Verhoff began by reviewing the client’s prior convictions to see if they were valid. This was something the first lawyer did not do. Attorney Verhoff realized that while all of the priors appeared valid at first blush, the only documentation he could find for one of them was on the client’s driving record. Attorney Verhoff could not locate an actual court record associated with the conviction. Attorney Verhoff brought this to the attention of the prosecutor. In addition, Attorney Verhoff began a series of meetings with the prosecution to explain why probation, not prison, was appropriate for his client.
The prosecutor, who had been adamant that a prison sentence was necessary, began to change her mind. Ultimately, she agreed if Attorney Verhoff did not challenge the questionable prior conviction, she would recommend the judge place the client on probation with some conditional jail time. The parties appeared before the judge for the plea hearing and recommended a probationary sentence. At first the judge was skeptical. But after hearing Attorney Verhoff explain why the parties thought probation was appropriate, the judge agreed and sentenced him to probation. Although the client was ordered to serve a jail sentence as a condition of probation, the jail sentence meant the client would not lose his job and could continue to care for his ailing mother. A few days after the sentence was imposed, Attorney Verhoff received a call from a grateful client. Not only did the client avoid prison, but he called our office to let us know the Sheriff’s Department had authorized him to serve his sentence on a home-detention monitoring system. Needless to say, the client was happy that he decided to switch attorneys and hire our firm.
Injunction Petition Dismissed in Dane County
Our client found himself in the middle of a messy family court situation involving child custody issues. Also wrapped up in the situation was a piece of property that the petitioner’s parents owned and had allowed the couple to occupy for several years on a “rent-to-own” agreement. As the relationship deteriorated, the parents sought to remove our client from the property. Our client filed an action in family court regarding placement of the child he shared in common with the petitioner, and the petitioner, in turn, filed a harassment injunction against the client. Concerned about how an injunction would impact him, the client turned to our lawyers for assistance. Attorney Verhoff sat down with the client to review all of the relevant documents and evidence. He discussed the case with the client, came up with a strategy, and prepared the client for court. Attorney Verhoff liked our client’s chances in court on the merits, but explained to the client that the ultimate decision on whether or not to issue an injunction would be up to the judge. Attorney Verhoff recognized if an injunction was issued against the client, it would definitely hurt the client in his quest for child custody. On the morning of the injunction hearing, Attorney Verhoff met with the petitioner’s lawyer and worked out an agreement by which the petitioner agreed to dismiss the injunction without having the judge hear the case. In doing so, our firm secured an agreement by which no injunction was ever issued against our client, helping to preserve his case for custody in family court.
Shooting Case Dismissal in Dane County
Sometimes good people find themselves in bad situations. A college student and member of the United States military, our client received word that he had been selected for officer training. To celebrate, he went out to the bars. He returned home intoxicated and got into an argument with his live-in girlfriend. In a drunken state, he grabbed his service rifle during the argument and threatened to harm himself. Worried, his girlfriend tried to take the rifle away from him. Unfortunately, it discharged, and she received a complex gunshot wound to the hand. When police arrived, he made statement to law enforcement, essentially a confession. Police arrested the client, and prosecutors charged him with a felony for endangering safety and a misdemeanor for possessing a firearm while intoxicated. Attorney Tim Verhoff knew the case would not be easy, given the serious nature of the allegations. He knew the prosecution would be skeptical. And the facts were certainly not in our client’s favor. The client followed our advice, enrolled in alcohol treatment, saw a psychiatrist, and saw a therapist for domestic violence counseling. The client did well with his treatment providers, and our lawyers were able to use the opinions of those experts to convince the prosecution this was an isolated event and the client did not present an ongoing threat. Ultimately, our lawyers struck a deal with the prosecution by which the client would complete a deferred prosecution program and the case would be dismissed upon his successful completion. This outcome was a huge success for the client because it avoided a conviction for any charge, which would have resulted in losing his right to possess a firearm and ended his military career.
OWI 2nd Dane County (.12 breath test result) DISMISSED
A former client of ours had been stopped for an OWI 2nd and called our firm for assistance right away. The client tested at a 0.12 so when he came to meet with us, he was pretty concerned about the consequences he might be facing. Like many people in his situation, he believed that because he was over the legal limit, there was very little that could be done for him.
Once Attorney Corey Chirafisi reviewed the police reports, he found the soft spot to attack. The client had been stopped for a valid reason (rolling through a stop sign), had admitted to drinking and there was an odor of intoxicants coming from the vehicle. The defense focused on whether or not there was a basis to believe the defendant was, in fact, intoxicated and whether the officer had a basis to have him step out of the vehicle to perform Field Sobriety Tests.
Attorney Chirafisi filed a Motion to Suppress evidence, challenging the unlawful detention. A hearing was held and at the conclusion, the Court found that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe the client was intoxicated. The Court suppressed all evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful detention, which included the client’s breath test results. At the conclusion of the hearing the prosecution dismissed the case. Our client was thrilled, as he ended up with no jail time, no fines and no revocation of his license.
Dane County Felony Drug Case to be Dismissed
A felony charge of possession with intent to deliver approximately five pounds of marijuana will be dismissed against one of Chirafisi and Verhoff’s clients. The client was arrested after the United States Postal Service became suspicious that the client was having marijuana shipped through the mail from a different state. Law enforcement set up a sting operation and recovered approximately five pounds of marijuana that had been mailed to our client. In an agreement with the prosecution, our Attorneys worked out a deal by which our client will participate in a deferred prosecution program. At the conclusion of that program, the charge against our client will be dismissed.
Burglary Charge in Dane County Declined
When our client received a summons to appear in circuit court for a felony burglary charge in Dane County, he was stricken with panic. On supervision for charges at the time, the burglary charge did not just mean he could face prison time in the new case. It mean that his supervision could be revoked and he could face additional prison time on some older offenses for which he already had been convicted. The client did not wait to appear in court on the new burglary charge before contacting a lawyer. He contacted our office right away. In the new burglary case, police had obtained a surveillance video of the perpetrator who looked a lot like our client. Our client denied committing the crime, and he had no connections to Dane County. Attorney Verhoff went to work right away. He learned that the client had a partial alibi. A friend said she was with the client in the Milwaukee area on night in question. It was not a perfect alibi because the friend said our client left her home at approximately 1 a.m. This would have given our client enough time to drive to Dane County to commit the offense, but it made the scenario of our client driving from Milwaukee to the Madison area to committee a burglary and then return to the Milwaukee area with enough time to report to work the next day less plausible. Attorney Verhoff also obtained information that bolstered the claim of our client’s friend that they were together that night. In addition, Attorney Verhoff obtained a photograph of a different individual, who did have ties to the Dane County area, who looked almost exactly like our client. Armed with this information, Attorney Verhoff contacted the client’s probation agent who agreed not to initiate revocation proceedings, provided no charges were filed in Dane County. Attorney Verhoff then met with the prosecution and in a move that some defense attorneys would consider risky, laid out the entire defense to the prosecutor so she could compare the evidence in favor of the government to the evidence in favor of the client. She got a good idea of how the case would look in trial. After considering this information, the prosecutor agreed she could not prove the case in court and decided not to issue a charge against our client.
Vandalism Case Dismissed in Dane County
Our client was charged for damaging a window and given a citation for underage alcohol consumption after he allegedly punched through a window at a local residence hall. In settlement negotiation with the District Attorney’s Office, our lawyers were able to obtain a resolution which required our client to pay for the damaged window and submit to alcohol counseling. The prosecution then agreed to dismiss both the damage charge and the underage alcohol citation against our client.
Hit and Run Case Dismissed Dane County
Often times, law enforcement will simply assume the worst. On a recent wintery night, our client was in a traffic accident. He was driving in a rural area in the fog. Due to weather conditions, he lost control of his truck and went into the ditch, striking a tree and the fence on the adjacent property. The homeowner came out contacted with our client. Our client asked if the homeowner had a tractor to pull the truck out of the ditch, but he did not. So our client called his wife from his cell phone with the intent to return the next day remove the truck with the help of a friend. After our client left, the homeowner called local law enforcement to report the crash. Law enforcement responded and had his truck towed. Our client returned to the scene the next day, he found his truck was already gone. He immediately contacted law enforcement, and was informed the truck had been towed. The deputy, who noted in his report that there were no signs of intoxicating beverages, bottles or cans in or around the truck when it was towed, began questioning our client about how much alcohol he consumed before the crash. Our client denied consuming any alcohol. The deputy provided information about how to get the truck back, but also charged our client with hit and run, failure to notify police of an accident, and failure to control a vehicle. Our client, a middle-aged man with no criminal record and a clean driving record contacted our attorneys. When our attorneys first spoke with the District Attorney’s Office, the prosecution immediately accused our client of having consumed alcohol before the crash. Our attorney’s meticulously pointed out why there was ample evidence to the contrary. Ultimately, our lawyers picked apart the charges, arguing why the prosecution could not sustain a hit and run charge. Based on our attorney’s presentation, the prosecution dismissed the charges of hit and run and failure to notify police of an accident before trial. The prosecution also agreed to amend the charge of failure to maintain control of a vehicle to a non-moving, equipment violation.
Unlawful Driving Case Dismissed
Our client was stopped in Madison while driving one morning and was arrested because his license was revoked. He faced a conviction, fines, and up to a year in jail. The client had been convicted of a third-offense OWI almost approximately 18 months earlier. As a result of that conviction, the Department of Transportation revoked his driving privileges. Unfortunately the client, who was not originally represented by Chirafisi & Verhoff in the OWI case, did not know he could obtain an occupational permit that would allow him to drive lawfully on a limited basis. When the client met with our attorneys, we immediately recognized that he was eligible for an occupational permit and advised him to obtain one as soon as possible. As for the criminal charge of operating after revocation, prosecutors initially sought a conviction in the case. But when our attorneys explained that the client was stopped on his way to work at 8:30 in the morning, was eligible for an occupational permit at the time but didn't know, and presented the prosecution with the client’s newly-obtained occupational permit, the District Attorney simply agreed to dismiss the charge against him, much to our client’s delight.
OWI Dismissed in Dane County
In most OWI cases, an amendment to a “reckless driving” citation is considered a win for the defense. But in one recent case, our client listened to the advice of counsel and rejected such an offer – only to have the biggest payoff of all, an outright dismissal. Our client was stopped for speeding in the early morning hours. The client admitted to the officer that he had been drinking, but said he did not feel like he was in excess of the legal limit. The officer continued with the investigation and demanded our client perform field sobriety tests, which the officer concluded he failed. The client was arrested and agreed to submit to the chemical analysis of his breath, resulting in a reported result of 0.07 percent. Although under the legal limit, the police and prosecution decided to move forward with the OWI case based upon the client’s speeding, admission of drinking and performance on the field sobriety tests. The client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff to try to help him out. With our lawyers on board at the next hearing, the prosecutor gave ground on the OWI and offered to amend the case to a reckless driving citation. But after reviewing the evidence, our lawyers didn’t believe a jury would convict the client and advised him to reject the offer – much to the prosecutor’s surprise. The case moved forward toward trial until the prosecutor conceded about the only thing she could prove was a speeding violation. This case provides yet another example of how an unrepresented individual is at a significant disadvantage when dealing with a prosecutor. It also shows that you don’t have to accept ever offer that comes from the government. Sticking to the plan in this case resulted in the best possible result for our client - a dismissal without trial.
Injunction Denied in Dane County
Some relationships end badly. For our client, it was a worst-case scenario. After our client broke up with his long-time girlfriend, she petitioned the court for harassment injunction against him. Our client, an avid hunter, was particularly concerned because his former girlfriend sought to have him barred from possessing firearms during the four-year injunction period. She alleged a variety of poor behavior on the part of our client, including a physical assault and stalking. Our client denied this and was prepared to testify.
At the injunction hearing, the former girlfriend and another witness for her testified. Attorney Verhoff meticulously picked apart the testimony about the alleged assault and “stalking” behavior. He confronted the girlfriend about her allegations and used text records and social media records against her. At the conclusion of cross examination, the judge stated he did not need to hear from Attorney Verhoff’s witnesses. Based on the cross examination alone, the judge denied the injunction and said, from the record before him, it could be suggested that the girlfriend had harassed our client, not the other way around.