Our client was charged with criminal offenses for operating while intoxicated and operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration in Dane County. Attorney Tim Verhoff attended what he expected to be a routine initial appearance in the case. But the court appearance turned out to be far from routine. Attorney Verhoff received a copy of the criminal complaint minutes before the hearing and reviewed it. The complaint indicated law enforcement had been called out in the early morning hours regarding a report of a vehicle in the ditch. Police made contact with out client, who appeared to be intoxicated. Authorities put him through field sobriety tests, and arrested him. He submitted to a breath test, which resulted in a reported value of 0.17 percent. In court at the initial appearance, Attorney Verhoff made an oral motion to dismiss both charges. He argued the complaint failed to show probable cause supporting the charges. He argued there was no indication the vehicle was running when authorities arrived. There was no information showing our client was the driver. And there was no indication of the time at which the vehicle went into the ditch (an important piece of information in determining if a person is intoxicated at the time of driving). The unsuspecting prosecutor objected to the motion and made several arguments why the case should proceed. Over the prosecutor's objection, the court commissioner granted Attorney Verhoff's motion and dismissed the case against our client.
OWI 3rd- PAC .18 amended to Reckless Driving
Our client was pretty concerned, as he was charged with a 3rd offense OWI when he was called in for sleeping in his vehicle in a gas station parking lot. Client had looked around for lawyers and ultimately called Chirafisi & Verhoff for representation.
Prior to the administrative hearing, Corey Chirafisi reviewed the police reports and video and found what was ultimately the issue that got the case amended. The reports were unclear as to what time the client had arrived at the gas station, which put admission of his test result in jeopardy for the prosecution. The prosecutor initially was unwilling to move off of the OWI and wanted significant jail time and a lengthy driver’s license revocation.
Finally, about 2 days before trial, the prosecutor realized that his case was starting to fall apart. He was very hesitant to amend the OWI charge because it was the client's 3rd offense. However, he did agree at the final conference to amend the charge to a reckless driving where the client paid a $200.00 fine and walked away with no revocation, jail or criminal conviction.
OWI 1st/ PAC .10- Charge amended to Reckless Driving
Our client worked at the circuit courthouse in this county and was very concerned about how a conviction could impact not only her job, but her reputation at work. She called around and was told that she should call Corey Chirafisi to see if he could help her out of this very stressful situation.
The client was stopped for speeding early one morning. After she was stopped, the usual happened: she was questioned about drinking and ultimately was put through field sobriety tests and arrested for OWI. At the police station, she was asked to submit to a breath test and her result was .10.
Because this case was in municipal court, Attorney Chirafisi had the advantage of doing the trial in the municipal court and then appealing to circuit court if the client was unsuccessful. It wasn’t necessary. On the evening of the trial the prosecutor, who has been unwilling to amend OWI cases in every other situation this firm has had in that court, agreed to amend the OWI charge to a reckless driving for a small fine. The client was thrilled, she did not have concerns about losing her job or having to explain the conviction to the other people in the courthouse.
OWI 1st/ PAC .13, Reckless Driving
Our client called Chirafisi & Verhoff after being accused of drunk driving while smashing his vehicle into his garage damaging the actual structure of the building. Our client was worried because if he had his driving privileges suspended for even a single day, it would cost him his job. He called Attorney Corey Chirafisi to see what could be done.
The groundwork was laid at the administrative suspension review hearing for our Motion. The police had a time of operation, since someone witnessed the client strike the building, but the question was did the police have a basis to go into the house without a warrant? In this firm's opinion, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has broadened the community caretaker role of the police in this state to the point of ridiculousness. This was a big concern for Attorney Chirafisi, so at the administrative hearing, Attorney Chirafisi was able to get the necessary information from the officer to file the Motion challenging entry into the home.
On the morning of the motion hearing, the prosecutor called (and even though the law is as bad as it is for the defendant’s on this issue) they indicated that they believed it was possible that based on Attorney Chirafisi's Motion, they may lose the case entirely. The prosecutor then offered to dismiss the OWI and PAC charge for a plea to the reckless driving ticket. Our client was able to save his career as his license was never suspended.
OWI & PAC 1st, THC charges all dismissed
Our client had been stopped by police for allegedly swerving in an unsafe manner around two squad cars that were involved in the stop of a different vehicle. The police began following our client and also believed that she had deviated outside of her lane onto the shoulder of the roadway. During the contact with the client, marijuana was located on her person and she was charged with possession of THC as well.
The client didn’t really believe that she could beat the case. Her friend had used Attorney Corey Chirafisi previously and told the client to give him a call to see what he could do to help.
Attorney Chirafisi started out through the administrative review hearing by locking the officer into certain statements that proved to be the tipping point in the case. After that administrative hearing, Attorney Chirafisi watched the video and noted that the information provided by the officer at the administrative hearing did not match what was clearly on the video.
The prosecutor realized that there could be some problems; and without ever filing a motion, Attorney Chirafisi convinced the State to dismiss the OWI/PAC and THC charges. In exchange for the dismissal, the client agreed to pay a $187.00 ticket. She was more than happy, especially since when the case began, she had no real hopes of being successful. It's cases like these which should serve as a reminder to all that talking to an experienced lawyer who knows OWI defense is always a good idea.
Dane County Client Avoids Felony OWI Charge at a 0.31 Test and Crash
Our client was involved in a traffic crash, striking a vehicle from behind, which resulted in a chain reaction. Authorities responded to the scene and smelled an odor of intoxicants coming from our client, who admitted to consuming alcohol before the crash. Due to injuries, the client could not fully perform field sobriety tests. He agreed to a preliminary breath test (PBT), which registered 0.13 percent. Authorities transported him to a local hospital, and he agreed to a blood test with a reported value of 0.31 percent. One of the other drivers also was transported to a local hospital, reporting a headache and general pain. He was later diagnosed with a concussion. The client immediately hired Chirafisi & Verhoff. He made it clear that he needed to avoid a felony charge and conviction at all costs, as a felony would have catastrophic consequences on his family. Even before the test results came back from the laboratory, Attorney Verhoff began negotiating the case with prosecutors. The other driver had suffered an injury that could form the basis to file a felony charge, but Attorney Verhoff argued that the delay in diagnosis meant he could attack it. In addition, Attorney Verhoff obtained maintenance records for the laboratory equipment used to test the client's blood. He learned that the laboratory was having two different mechanical problems with equipment in the days leading up to the client's test, and the equipment had to be taken off-line for repair days after the client's test. Attorney Verhoff argued, given the difference between the PBT and blood test results, the 0.31 blood test may have been faulty due to mechanical problems in the laboratory. In addition, given the timing of the client's last drink and his body weight, it was possible he was under a 0.08 percent at the time of operation. In the end, the prosecution agreed not to charge the client with a felony crime, but simply a misdemeanor OWI-2nd. The client ultimately entered a plea and was convicted of the charge, but considered it a huge victory under the circumstances.
Great Bodily Harm OWI Avoids Felony Conviction
This case is another example of why hiring an attorney as soon as possible in a case, even before a charged is issued, can be critical to the outcome. About one year ago, our client was involved in a terrible crash. The other driver was significantly injured, suffering a broken back, which has never completely healed. At the time of the crash, our client had a reported alcohol concentration that was in excess of 0.21 percent. Only days after the incident, the client hired Chirafisi & Verhoff, based on a recommendation from another lawyer in Madison. Attorney Verhoff immediately contacted the prosecution and began negotiating the case. Through his efforts, the prosecution agreed to forego charging a felony; instead, filing a misdemeanor charge of OWI causing injury. The client later entered a plea and was convicted. Because Attorney Verhoff was not able to reach a negotiated settlement for sentence, the parties argued to the judge what they thought the appropriate sentence should be. Going into the hearing, Attorney Verhoff believed the prosecutor was likely to argue the significant injury and a high alcohol concentration merited a lengthy jail sentence. Attorney Verhoff knew he would have to counter these powerful, emotionally-charged arguments. Prior to sentencing, he prepared and filed an extensive memorandum that provided the judge information about the client, including records to document the client's extensive alcohol treatment after the crash, her voluntary use of a sobrietor while the case was pending, her participation in alcohol awareness programs, her volunteer efforts in her community, and many character references describing her qualities as a person. After reading our sentencing memorandum, the prosecutor indicated he still planned to ask for a lengthy sentence. However, he decided to recommend a sentence that was five months less than originally planned. The parties appeared at the sentencing hearing and the prosecution recommended six months in jail. Attorney Verhoff recommended half that amount. In the end, the judge agreed with Attorney Verhoff and sentenced the client to 90 days in jail. Although ultimately convicted of a criminal offense, the client avoided a felony on her record and received a sentence that was approximately nine months less than the prosecution originally demanded at the beginning of the case.
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 with 0.26 BAC Amended to Reckless Driving
Our firm secured a recent victory in Madison Municipal Court. The facts of the case were somewhat unusual. The client, who had been drinking, called a family member from an apartment complex and sounded in distress. The family member believed the client had been unknowingly drugged and contacted police to investigate. When police arrived on the scene, they interviewed witnesses, including our client. She was clearly impaired and admitted to driving to the apartment complex earlier in the evening. However police were unable to determine exactly when she drove there. Authorities took her to the hospital for an evaluation. Medical personnel drew her blood, which showed an alcohol concentration of 0.26 percent. Several hours later, after placing her under arrest for OWI, law enforcement performed a legal blood draw, which had a reported value of 0.169 percent. Throughout negotiations, the prosecutor insisted on a conviction for OWI, reasoning the client was clearly drunk when police arrived at the scene and was in an elimination phase. Attorney Verhoff filed several motions in the case and sought to have the test result deemed inadmissible for trial. Although Attorney Verhoff did not dispute the client was intoxicated when police arrived, he told the prosecutor he did not believe the government could establish that she was impaired when she drove to the complex. Attorney Verhoff knew he was on solid legal ground to have the test result stripped of its presumption of admissibility. Moreover, he knew an expert would have difficulty estimating the client's alcohol concentration at some vague point earlier in the evening. After six months of litigation and just days before the motions were to be heard by the judge, the prosecutor threw in the towel, offering to amend the case to a reckless driving for a small fine. The client agreed to accept the amendment, saving her an OWI conviction, large fines, a significant license revocation, and an ignition interlock device order.
OWI 3rd amended to 1st offense- Green County
Our client was stopped for not having functional tail lamps one evening. That stop led to her arrest for Operating While Intoxicated as a 3rd offense. Our client was very concerned considering the substantial penalties associated with a 3rd offense. Our client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff for our expert knowledge in this type of case, our experience in handling these types of matters, and our success rate.
Corey Chirafisi reviewed the file and was able to determine that a prior conviction from over 20 years ago may be invalid as the client did not have a lawyer on that case. After much digging, it was firmly established that the client did not have a lawyer and Corey and the client were able to attack that prior conviction.
The government put up more fight than usual on the issue of whether the client had made a prima facie showing. The parties filed motions, affidavits and briefs on the issue. After much debate, the Court found that in fact the client had made the necessary prima facie showing and at that point Attorney Chirafisi knew the hearing was likely won. He was right, at the actual motion hearing, the prosecution conceded that they would not be able to meet their burden and agreed that the client would not be charged with an OWI 3rd, but rather an OWI 1st. Our client was thrilled, no criminal conviction and no jail with the charge.
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.
OWI 1st / Refusal- Amended to Reckless Driving During Trial
Our client came to us with two problems: he was arrested for OWI and a refusal, but he also had a CDL that he needed for his occupation.
He knew he needed to fight the charges in order to save his career, so he hired Chirafisi & Verhoff to help him do just that. The prosecutor would not dismiss the case outright, as he had a refusal to work with and knew that if the defendant lost on the refusal, his driver’s license would be revoked and he would lose his CDL.
The matter proceeded to trial. After the prosecution called the arresting officer and rested his case, it was Chirafisi & Verhoff’s turn. The arresting officer was questioned about her observations and tests she performed on the client during the incident. By the end of the cross examination, the officer admitted that she did not perform the field sobriety tests correctly and the Court found that there was a problem with probable cause based on that testimony.
Before the Court made any specific findings on the Operating While Intoxicated charge, the prosecution offered to amend the OWI to Reckless Driving and to dismiss the refusal charge. The client was thrilled, as he was able to keep his CDL and his job.
No Charges in Drug Case
The Wisconsin State Patrol stopped our client for speeding. During the course of the stop, the trooper located containers with a variety of prescription medications, marijuana and other drug paraphernalia in the vehicle. At the conclusion of the investigation, our client was arrested on criminal charges for possession of an illegally obtained prescription, possession of THC, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trooper also cited the client for OWI, speeding, open intoxicants, and refusing to submit to a blood test. The case was forwarded to the District Attorney's Office for review. Attorney Verhoff spoke with prosecutors before charges were formally filed. They agreed to only file the traffic citations, and to not pursue the criminal drug charges. Chirafisi & Verhoff continued representing the client in the traffic matters and later brokered a deal in which the client agreed to be convicted of OWI, but the remaining citations were dismissed. As part of the deal, the prosecution agreed not to require an ignition interlock device as part of any sentence, an unusual outcome when a refusal is involved.
OWI/PAC 1st- .12 with an Accident– Charges Dismissed
Our client somehow found his vehicle on the wrong side of the concrete barrier under an interstate overpass. The State Patrol arrived on the scene and believed the client to be intoxicated. According to police, he had slurred speech, an odor of intoxicants and admitted to drinking--not to mention the vehicle was on the wrong side of the concrete barrier.
Attorney Corey Chirafisi began working on the case, and after review all the reports and viewing the video on the case, he discovered that there was no indication as to what time the vehicle and been operated. None of the four or five officers on the scene ever asked the client what time the accident occurred, and the client never made any statements providing that information.
Attorney Chirafisi filed a Motion to Strip the Test of its Presumption of Reliability based on a lack of information as to the test being taken within three (3) hours of driving. The trooper conceded that she had no idea what time the driving occurred in the case. The government then conceded that the test result would not be able to be admitted into evidence. Shortly after, they gave their entire case up. All charges were dismissed.
Case Dismissed! Operating a Motor Vehicle above a .00- CDL driver while on duty time
At Chirafisi & Verhoff, many of our clients are CDL drivers. Their ability to be able to drive is their livelihood. They trust us to be able to help them avoid losing not only their license, but their jobs.
Our client is an over-the-road truck driver. He was at a weigh station speaking to a State Trooper when the trooper noticed an odor of intoxicants coming from the client’s breath. The client stated that he had consumed alcohol the night before driving. The problem for the client was that because he was in his semi truck at the time, his legal limit was 0.00. The client provided a preliminary breath test which registered a 0.02. He was then ticketed for driving above a 0.00 in a commercial motor vehicle.
The client was referred to Chirafisi & Verhoff as he knew if was convicted, he would lose his job. Almost immediately, Corey Chirafisi was able to see that there was no possible way that the government would be able to prove the case. First, while the officer was allowed to ask the client to submit to a preliminary breath test, that test would not be admissible in court against the client. The trooper never took the client in for a breath test, which would have been admissible in court. Further, the trooper, believing that the client had consumed alcohol but wasn’t impaired, never put the client through any field sobriety tests.
Once all of these facts were pointed out by Chirafisi & Verhoff, the Assistant District Attorney agreed and moved to dismiss the charges outright. Our client was relieved knowing that he would be able to continue with his employment.
OWI 1st- PAC .150- Charges Amended to Reckless Driving
Our client had an all-or-nothing proposition in front of him: he was arrested for Operating While Intoxicated and he had a CDL which he used daily for his job. A conviction would have resulted in him be fired from a job that he had for many years.
The case was a little odd in that the client wasn’t stopped by law enforcement. The police were called because a person who knew the defendant said that he was likely impaired and had driven to a local gym. When the police showed up they made contact with the client and ultimately arrested him for OWI. When the client agreed to perform a breath test, that result came back at 0.15.
The client knew that his career was on the line and made a decision to hire Chirafisi & Verhoff in an effort to deal with the case. Interestingly enough, after much discussion with the prosecutor discussing various motions, the prosecutor agreed that his case may be in trouble and he agreed to amend the charge to reckless driving. That deal went away when shortly before the agreement was given to the Court, as the client was stopped on a different incident date and had open intoxicants in his vehicle. The prosecutor was not very happy and pulled the deal. The matter was set for trial.
On the morning of trial, Attorney Corey Chirafisi did something he rarely ever does: he told the prosecutor about a problem with the Intoximeter which the prosecutor would otherwise not have been aware of. Attorney Chirafisi had obtained the data of all the tests performed by the machine which tested the client’s breath and found a problem with the maintenance of the machine. After much review and conversation with the police, the prosecutor put the offer for a reckless driving back on the table. That meant no suspension or revocation and no conviction of an alcohol related offense for the client. He was able to keep his job and only received a fine.
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.
Lifetime, 12th-Offense OWI Avoids Prison in Dane County
At Chirafisi & Verhoff, we want the best outcome in every case. In some cases, our clients still get convicted of an offense. But limiting the damage from the conviction is often a success for our client. This case is an excellent example of when that happens. Our client is a middle-aged man. Married with children, he has maintained a good job in the construction industry and supported his family throughout his entire life. He also has struggled with alcohol since he was a teen.
Our client’s work has taken him around the country. During that time, he has been arrested, charged and convicted of OWI in many states, including Wisconsin. In this case, the Sun Prairie Police Department stopped him for speeding and quickly realized he was impaired. He refused field sobriety tests, as well as a blood test. Police obtained a warrant, and drew his blood. The reported results were a 0.17 percent. During his contact with police, who thought it was a third-offense, the client was less-than cooperative. He was also arrested for resisting.
The client contacted our firm. Attorney Tim Verhoff quickly recognized this was not a third offense and was more likely one that carried mandatory prison if convicted. He advised the client to get into alcohol treatment. The client’s only desire was to avoid a prison sentence – no small hurdle given the likely charges. We waited for the blood results to be returned and arrived at the initial court appearance. Sure enough, the District Attorney’s Office had located the prior offenses. The was charged with OWI-7th, PAC-7th and resisting.
The first problem was that OWI-7th carries a mandatory prison sentence. If the client wanted to avoid prison, we needed to get at least one of the prior offenses kicked out. Attorney Verhoff went to work, ordering records from out of state to determine if any of the prior convictions could be attacked. Luckily, he found one that could and he successfully attacked it. The prosecution then filed an amended charging document, reducing the case to an OWI-6th. This was helpful because a prison sentence was no longer mandatory. But as Attorney Verhoff knew, the judge could still order it.
The case took approximately one-year to complete. During that time, our client continued working at his job. He engaged in significant treatment, and he was subjected to a monitoring that required him to submit three alcohol tests per day and engage in random urinalysis. Between the time the case was charged and the time the case concluded, the client took more than 990 tests with no reported positives for alcohol. Attorney Verhoff pressed the prosecution to resolve this matter for an agreement by which the parties both recommended the judge impose probation. But the prosecution wouldn’t budge. The District Attorney’s Office took the position that this was only a sixth offense because of the successful attack on the prior. Moreover, the prosecution was aware of 12 OWI cases from around the country involving our client. Only five of those cases could be used legally for purposes of counting priors, but the prosecution planned to use that as ammunition to seek prison. The offer on the case was simple, plead to the OWI-6th and argue sentence.
Of course, our client had an option. He could try the case, but the facts were bad and a conviction was highly likely. Attorney Verhoff believed an argued sentence was in his best interest, and Attorney Verhoff made a very unusual strategic decision. He knew that to avoid prison, he would have to recommend a significant jail sentence. The jail sentence would be preferable because it would enable the client to receive work-release – a significant goal for the client. Attorney Verhoff knew he had to structure his proposed sentence in a way that made sense to the judge. The prosecution had not demanded the client plead to the resisting charge. Doing so would increase the possible amount of incarceration the client faced. But Attorney Verhoff had a carefully weighed the sentence he wanted to recommend, giving the client the best shot at probation. He told the client to plead to more charges than the prosecution was seeking.
Prior to the plea and sentencing hearing, Attorney Verhoff submitted a lengthy memorandum to the judge. He outlined his arguments, provided background on his client, character letters, and treatment documents. The parties appeared before the judge. The client entered pleas to both the OWI and the resisting. The prosecution then began a lengthy argument, focusing on the 12 prior offenses.
When the prosecutor finished her argument, the judge was clearly unhappy with our client. She turned to Attorney Verhoff, stating “I can’t wait to hear what you have to say.” Attorney Verhoff then meticulously and passionately went through his arguments. He addressed all the sentencing factors, and explained why his proposal – vastly different from the one made by the prosecution -- satisfied the factors. He concluded by explaining why society was actually better off and the community was actually safer with his recommendation. By the time Attorney Verhoff finished the argument, the judge was on board. The judge informed the prosecutor that there was nothing “wrong” with her recommendation for prison, but she flatly rejected it and adopted Attorney Verhoff’s recommendation in its entirety. As he walked out of the courtroom, several stunned lawyers approached telling Attorney Verhoff they couldn’t believe he had been able to achieve this outcome. Even the prosecutor contacted him the next day to tell him how good she thought the argument was. Most importantly, the client was utterly delighted.
Criminal OWI with Minor Passenger Dismissed
Our client, an Illinois resident, traveled to Wisconsin with family to visit some waterparks. On the trip home, she was stopped for weaving on the highway. The trooper asked the client she had consumed any alcohol, and our client admitted to having one drink earlier at the water park. The trooper also reported that she looked “tired.” The trooper asked our client to get out of the car to perform field sobriety tests. She performed poorly and submitted to a preliminary breath test (PBT) with a reported result of 0.13. Based on this information, the trooper arrested our client and asked her to submit to a blood test, which she refused to do. Although it was her first time being arrested for OWI, usually a non-criminal citation in Wisconsin, our client was charged with a criminal offense because she had two children in the vehicle. She also received a citation for refusing to submit to the blood test and for deviating from her lane. Attorney Verhoff filed a suppression motion, arguing that the trooper did not have sufficient grounds to ask the client to submit to field sobriety tests. Although the client admitted to drinking, she did not have other, typical signs of impairment such as slurred speech, a thick tongue, red and glassy eyes, a flushed face or problems responding to questions. But a hearing on the motion was never held. After discussing the facts and the motion with Attorney Verhoff, the prosecutor agreed to a unique settlement. The prosecutor agreed that if Attorney Verhoff withdrew his motion, he would dismiss the criminal charge of OWI with a minor passenger and lane deviation. In exchange, the prosecutor wanted the client to plead to the refusal, which carries no jail or fines as a penalty. The client accepted this offer. While she was found to have refused the test, she avoided a criminal conviction, significant fines and lengthy jail sentence.
OWI/PAC (.10) Dismissed--Prosecutor gives up in the middle of trial
Our client was working up north traveling from job site to job site. In November he had come back to the hotel he was staying at for the week and decided to have a drink after work. As the night was passing, and before he was ready to go to bed, he decided to move his work truck to a better location in the hotel parking lot. That is where the problems started.
The equipment on the back of his truck severely damaged the awning at the hotel, nearly knocking it down. The workers at the hotel called the police and they came to the hotel to question the client.
The client initially denied driving but ultimately told the officer that he was driving and acknowledged drinking alcohol in his room. He provided a breath test after arrest and he blew a 0.10.
The prosecutor would not speak to us about the case. She would not return phone calls, and wouldn’t discuss the facts which is quite unusual.
The case proceeded to trial. The prosecution called the arresting officer to testify and everything fell apart for them. Attorney Corey Chirafisi knows the law and objected to everything improperly done by the Prosecutor. The officer could not establish a time of operation, and because the prosecution could not establish a time of operation, the test result was in serious jeopardy of not being admitted.
The prosecutor tried several times, in multiple different ways, to get the test result in but the judge would not let it in without proper foundation. Attorney Chirafisi continued to make it difficult for the prosecutor to do her job. Then something happened that we have never seen before: in the middle of the arresting officer’s testimony, the prosecutor stood up, literally threw her arms in the air and said that she gave up. She then proceeded to dismiss all the charges against the client. It was a new way to get a great result for the client.