Case Results

Case History: Our client, a juvenile, was confronted at school regarding allegations of a sexual assault. From the start, the school resource officer sought to prosecute our client, instead of getting to the truth of the allegations.

Our Defense: The school resource Officer pressured the County to bring charges against our client, and to try the client as an adult, instead of keeping the matter in juvenile court.  The County ended up filing charges, followed by a Youthful Offender Motion for the case to proceed in adult court. Bleile & Dawson insisted on all discovery being turned over, including the accuser’s phone, which was in controversy.  The prosecutor fought hard to prevent us from access to the phone.  After lengthy litigation, the phone was eventually turned over.  Upon careful review of the phone, it was evident there was no sexual assault.  Not to mention severe credibility issues with the accuser.  Due to the diligent representation of Bleile & Dawson, the Youthful Offender Motion was withdrawn, and our client was not prosecuted as an adult.

Case History: Our client was facing very serious sex charges against a minor.  Prior to our involvement in the case, our client was represented by a different attorney and the case had been dragging on for several years.  During that time, our client’s first attorney negotiated a plea entailing a 15-year prison sentence which included lifetime sex offender registration.  The first attorney advised our client that was the absolute best deal and recommended our client to accept the plea. Our client was adamant the allegations were completely fabricated and knew accepting such plea would be an absolute life devastator.  Our client knew a change needed to be made, so we were contacted to take over the case as new counsel. 

Our Defense: Bleile & Dawson quickly began reviewing the discovery and it was evident there were issues with the accuser’s credibility, including the accuser’s various statements.  Even the minor accuser’s parents were not certain they believed the allegations of their child. We quickly discovered this was not the first time the child had made allegations against our client, and these allegations were previously recanted when the child was confronted.  In addition, we discovered irregularities in the legal process leading to our client being charged and prosecuted.  Bleile & Dawson fought to bring all issues discovered to the attention of the Commonwealth as well as additional newly discovered evidence to light.  After months of further litigation, including the filing and arguing in Court of multiple pre-trial motions on our client’s behalf, Bleile & Dawson was able to get a complete dismissal of the entire case.  

Case History: An incident occurred at our client’s place of employment several years prior.  Unbeknownst to our client, a warrant was issued based upon the accuser’s statement and report to police.  While commuting one day, our client was arrested per the warrant for Sexual Abuse.  Due to the arrest, our client was also placed on leave from work as a result. 

Our Defense: Once retained, we immediately began reviewing all evidence in the case.  We spent an extensive amount of time reviewing the alleged video evidence of the crime as well as looking into the background of the accuser.  A plea offer was extended to our client which would have required an admission to the Sexual Abuse charge.  Our client was adamant nothing improper occurred and refused to accept any sort of plea.  If found guilty, not only would our client serve jail time, but the conviction would have impacted the ability for our client to continue in the current career.  Therefore, we set the matter for trial and continued to advocate on our client’s behalf while preparing for trial.  We engaged in extensive discussions with the Commonwealth in an attempt to resolve the case favorably for our client in the time leading up to trial.  Due to the persistence of counsel, our trial team arrived the morning of trial ready to proceed, but after final discussions, the Commonwealth agreed with our position and dismissed the entire case against our client.   

Case History: Our client was stopped for crossing over a line coming into a turning lane, something we all do on a daily basis. The client admitted to having two beers with dinner. The client refused to submit to a breathalyzer test and performed all field sobriety tests administered by the officer. Our client was arrested and charged with driving under the influence.

Our Defense: We focused our defense one two issues. First the State could not prove our client was over the legal limit for blood alcohol content. Second the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his ability to drive was substantially impaired. Through cross examination of the arresting police officer, as well as pointing to numerous facts shown on the cruiser video, the Court could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that our client was over the legal limit or that he was substantially impaired. A not guilty verdict was rendered.

Case History: Our client, the father of a child, was accused of assault by his child's maternal grandfather, for a dispute during an exchange of the child between parents.

Our Defense: We contended these allegations were simply a ploy to gain custody by one parent. The testimony of the accusing parent and grandparent were suspect and we argued this to the court. Further, the State was unable to prove any injuries to the alleged victim. In the end, our client was found not guilty at trial.

Case History: Our client had consensual sexual contact with an adult woman. The State alleged this woman did not have the mental capacity to consent and that our client new of this diminished capacity. Our client and the accuser attended the same school. Our client was in the process of applying for government jobs as a firefighter but was denied employment until the case was resolved.

Our Defense: It was our defense that this woman did in fact have the mental capacity to consent and even if she did not, our client did not know of this mental defect. We hired an expert to evaluate the case and determine the ability to consent to sexual contact. However, at trial, we did not need to call our expert to testify as we turned the State's own expert into an expert on our behalf. Essentially, the State's expert was forced to concede under our cross examination that the accuser did possess the mental capacity to consent to sex. We proved the woman did have the capacity to consent sex and our client did not know of any diminished capacity. Our client was found not guilty.

Case History: Our client was in a non-exclusive romantic relationship for several years. In early 2016, the significant other’s best friend initiated sexual conversations with our client. This escalated into sending nude pictures and increased sexually charged conversations. Shortly thereafter, our client along with the significant other, the significant other’s best friend, and a friend of our client were hanging out and drinking at the friend’s residence. While the significant other was asleep in another room, our client and the significant other’s best friend began having sex in the bedroom, while our client’s friend began recording the sexual act on a cell phone. The significant other heard the sexual encounter, barged into the bedroom, became visibly upset at the situation and punched both parties in the face. Once this occurred, the significant other’s best friend accused our client of rape in order to salvage the relationship with the best friend.

Our Defense: The State of Ohio charged our client with two counts of rape; one by force and one alleging the accuser was too intoxicated to consent to the sex act. We knew if our client was convicted of either count, it would completely destroy our client’s life and our client would likely spend decades in prison, so we immediately began investigating the background of the accuser as well as all parties present during the interaction. In addition, we filed numerous motions on our client’s behalf in order to eliminate all irrelevant and prejudicial evidence. The case progressed to trial in early 2018 where we exhibited evidence the accuser had sex with our client’s friend a few minutes prior to engaging in sexual intercourse with our client. Further, the accuser stated the sexual act with the friend was consensual, thereby negating the charge of being too intoxicated to consent. We also pointed to the video, which clearly showed a non-forcible sex act, where the accuser is heard moaning. During our cross examination of the accuser, we elicited numerous inconsistencies in the accuser’s story and we were able to attack the accuser’s credibility. After a five-day trial, the jury deliberated for approximately ten hours and could not reach a verdict. The Judge declared a mistrial.

The State of Ohio elected to bring the case again. We basically started the case over from the beginning and had to re-wind everything. Therefore, we again filed numerous motions on our client’s behalf as well as advocated on our client’s behalf at every step of the process. In addition, we investigated the backgrounds of all witnesses and performed our own independent research with the use of experts for each evidentiary item anticipated to be utilized at trial. The second rape trial was set to commence at the end of the summer 2018. Our firm tenaciously defended our client during the re-trial and focused on the video, which we were able to enhance with the use of an expert for better sound quality. Also, we again vigorously cross examined all witness, including the accuser to point out the accuser’s inconsistencies and lack of credibility. After a four-day trial and several hours of deliberating, the jury found our client not guilty.

Case History: Our client and his live in girlfriend had a toxic relationship. They also had a young child together. After a bad argument, our client's girlfriend called the police and claimed domestic violence. Our client was arrested and removed from the home. His girlfriend then immediately filed for a protective order and custody of their child.

Our Defense: The accuser had no visible injuries despite her description of forceful violence perpetrated upon her by our client. However, our client had numerous scratch marks on his body. She also had a drug addiction issue with pills. We brought to light the timing of her actions as well as the lack of injury to her and the documented injuries to our client. We were able to convince the prosecutor that the accuser was making the domestic violence claim in order to gain an advantage in a custody dispute with our client. Our client was also engaged in counseling as this child was his first and only child and he wanted to be a good father. Once we provided proof of our client's counseling sessions, the prosecutor dismissed the charges.

Case History: Our client resided in an apartment complex. Each building contained several apartments with common areas such as a laundry room. Our client was accused of confronting another tenant in the building’s laundry room. During this confrontation our client was accused of taking jewelry and money from the accuser.

Our Defense: We carefully reviewed the details of the allegation. Specifically, there were several statements, both oral and written, provided by the accuser. The details of which were not logical. As an example, the accuser did not report the matter for several days and when the incident was reported, the accuser could not identify our client. Our client and the accuser also had an amicable conversation the day after the alleged incident occurred. During this conversation, the accuser asked our client if our client saw a woman with red hair in the building the day of the incident. We found two witnesses to this conversation who were prepared to testify at trial. When the police showed up at our client’s apartment to execute the arrest they searched our client’s apartment, but did not find one item of property that belonged to the accuser. Upon our own independent research into the background of the accuser, we discovered the accuser had a history of providing false information to the government, especially as it related to immigration. We aggressively pushed the matter forward to trial. After the accuser was confronted with all the above information, the accuser decided not to pursue the matter any further and refused to attend court. Thus, the matter was dismissed.