Portland Criminal Defense Law Blog

Ms. Long represented a man who was accused of violating a restraining order. The charge carries a potential for 180 days of jail. The facts were that Ms. Long's client drove by the health club where his former girlfriend (the person he could not have contact with) exercises. He saw her car parked in the parking lot. He then parked and walked in and asked at the front whether she was there at the time. They told him she was there and then he left. The main issues were whether Ms. Long's client had come within 150 feet of his former girlfriend and whether he had tried to communicate with her. It was a big club and no evidence established the distance and he didn't leave any messages. The judge (there is no right to a jury for these cases) found Ms. Long's client Not Guilty.

Ms. Long's client was accused of DUII (drunk driving), Criminal Mischief (damaging property) and contempt of court for violation of a release agreement. The DUII and Criminal Mischief were tried to a jury. Since there is no right to a jury on contempt charges, the judge decided the contempt case. A quick run down of the facts: police are called to a motel due to a concern for domestic violence. They find Ms. Long's client very drunk. He also had blood on his knuckles and the motel's door is cracked and has blood on it. Ms. Long's client tells the police that he drove here from a bar and that he has had nothing to drink since he arrived at the motel. He is arrested and takes the intoxilizer test. He had a blood alcohol level of 0.27 (0.8 is legally intoxicated for driving). Later, Ms. Long's client is released from the jail and returns to the motel. The police return and find him still drunk and he is re-arrested for violation of the release agreement he signed at the jail because they think he drank more alcohol when he got back to the motel.

At trial, Ms. Long introduced the motel's security video showing her client park his car (driving in a straight line), get out of the car and walk in a very straight line (something he could not do when the police talked to him). She also had a police officer admit that the officer saw her client drink alcohol at the motel even though Ms. Long's client had said he had not been drinking there. So, she explained that he drove there soberly and got drunk at the motel. As far as the cracked door; who knows how long the crack was there or how or when the blood got on the door?. As to drinking after his release from the jail: he was very drunk when arrested, it is no surprise that he still had alcohol in him later - that doesn't mean he drank more.

Not Guilty all counts.

Mr. White represented a man accused of using a gun to threaten and hit another man. There had been a fight and the accuser had received the worst end of that altercation. However, the accuser claimed that our client had used a gun during this incident. This raised the stakes dramatically. With an 'unlawful use of a weapon' charge, the judge was expected to impose a 'gun minimum' sentence - five years of prison. At trial, Mr. White proved that our client had defended himself from the accuser (thus defeating the assault charge) and that he had never had a gun even though the accuser claimed one actually existed (thus defeating the weapons charge and avoiding the five years of prison sentience). The jury did return of verdict of guilty to the additional misdemeanor charge of 'menacing' because after the fight our client threatened to get a gun to defend himself if the other man came back to attack our client again - the jury felt this went to far. Thankfully, with this jury verdict, our client receives probation and does not go to prison.

Mr. White represented a man accused of domestic violence. Our office handles these types of cases a lot. The issue that made this case even more severe for our client is that he was accused of having used a gun and a knife to threaten his wife. The prosecutor was pursuing a 'gun minimum' sentence - mandatory five years of prison. During a long jury trial, Mr. White brought the facts of what happened to vivid life for the jury. A just resolution came with the jury rejecting the four weapon chareges and four menacing charges against our client.  Our client had checked his gun to make sure it was safe and had also picked up a knife that fell to the floor.  He had not threatened anyone.