Tuesday, July 26, 2011
When someone hires Melowski & Associates to defend their repeat offense drunk driving charge, we not only analyze their present case, we also look back to the client's previous convictions to see if there are any challenges that can be made there, too. This can lead to incredibly beneficial results, which is precisely what happened in State of Wisconsin v. R.S. The client came to us with an OWI-3rd offense (with a .32 blood test result), a serious criminal charge with a substantial amount of jail time. In reviewing the client's previous two cases, however, Attorney Sarvan Singh discovered a serious defect in the client's second offense case from several years earlier. Attorney Singh brought this to the attention of the judge in the current case and argued that the client's second offense conviction should be thrown out and should not be counted. After hearing Attorney Singh's arguments, the judge agreed. The client's second offense would not count. That left only the client's first offense from 1998, which was too old to count under the repeater statute. This resulted in the client's original charge being reduced all the way down to a first offense, which is a non-criminal charge with no jail time.
In State of Wisconsin v. B.S., Attorney Sarvan Singh successfully convinced the judge to suppress (throw out) the marijuana found on his client that led to a felony bail jumping charge. Attorney Singh was able to successfully persuade the judge that the search of his client performed by the police was unconstitutional and illegal. As a result of the judge's ruling, this serious felony charge was completely dismissed.
Friday, July 8, 2011
In County of S. v. J.R., the original charge of OWI-1st was reduced to Reckless Driving and the remaining charge of PAC-1st (.10 blood test result) was dismissed. The client paid a $375.00 fine, but otherwise suffered no consequences as a result of this incident. The client avoided an alcohol-related conviction and never lost his license for even one day. This outstanding result came about due to aggressive litigation of the legality of the client's arrest. After Attorney Melowski's cross-examination of the arresting officer at a motion hearing, the judge made several pointed comments to the prosecutor about the weakness of the prosecution's case, prompting this resolution. Because the client's job with the county highway department required him to have a valid commercial driver's license, a conviction on either of the original charges would have resulted in his immediate termination. The successful outcome in this case saved the client's 15-year career with the highway department. Needless to say, he was thrilled.