Case Results

Bicycle Accident in Washington D.C. | Hit and Run Defense Resulting in a Suspended Sentence

A nighttime bicycle accident in Washington D.C. can quickly escalate into a serious criminal matter when the driver is alleged to have been speeding, injures a cyclist, and then leaves the scene without providing required information or aid. Under District of Columbia law, conduct after a collision is strictly regulated by the “Leaving After Colliding” statute, and speeding that results in bodily injury can be charged as reckless or aggravated reckless driving. In this case study, a driver involved in a bicycle accident in Washington D.C. faced charges under D.C. Code § 50-2201.05c for leaving after colliding and exposure to penalties under D.C. Code § 50-2201.04 for aggravated reckless driving, but ultimately received a suspended sentence after a structured mitigation strategy and careful presentation of the client’s circumstances. The matter illustrates how early legal intervention, restitution to the injured cyclist, and a clear demonstration of remorse can significantly influence the court’s exercise of discretion in a serious bicycle accident case.

Defense Strategies for Criminal Offenses in Washington D.C. Achieving a Non Prosecution Outcome

Clients facing allegations involving controlled substances in Washington D.C. often confront immediate exposure to serious criminal offenses, including potential imprisonment, supervised release, and long term collateral consequences. Because District law imposes strict penalties for possession or use of Schedule II substances such as methamphetamine prompt legal intervention becomes essential to shaping the investigative record and influencing prosecutorial discretion. In this case study, the defense team assisted a client who had been reported for personal use drug activity and successfully secured a non prosecution disposition, avoiding formal charges and long term criminal exposure.This matter illustrates how early engagement, mitigation development, and strategic communication with prosecutors can yield favorable outcomes even in cases involving controlled substances categorized.

Drug Test | Case Result Through Structured Mitigation

A controlled substance investigation in Washington D.C. can quickly escalate into a criminal case, particularly when drug test results, witness statements, and digital evidence support an allegation of unlawful use under the District of Columbia Controlled Substances Act. In this matter, the client sought legal representation immediately after learning that a close acquaintance had been arrested and had disclosed the client’s own past drug use during interrogation. Because ketamine is classified in Washington D.C. as a Schedule III controlled substance and the unlawful use or possession of any Schedule I, II, or III substance may trigger prosecution and potential incarceration, the client required a comprehensive defense strategy capable of mitigating sentencing exposure, addressing the implications of drug test expectations, and presenting compelling evidence of rehabilitation. The following case study outlines how defense counsel analyzed the client’s circumstances, prepared a strategic plan to address both evidentiary concerns and drug test–related issues, and secured a suspended sentence under D.C. law through structured advocacy.

Criminal Trial in New York Defense Strategy for a Repeat Offender Accused of Forcible Touching

A criminal trial involving allegations of forcible touching in New York requires a precise understanding of statutory elements, evidentiary thresholds, and sentencing risks particularly when the accused has a prior conviction for a sexual offense. Under the New York Penal Law governing sexual offenses, repeat conduct substantially increases the likelihood of incarceration. This case study outlines how a defense team reframed the narrative, addressed aggravating factors, and presented structured mitigation to secure a suspended sentence for a client facing a second sexual offense allegation. The analysis demonstrates how targeted intervention, fact based advocacy, and rehabilitative efforts can influence prosecutorial evaluation and judicial discretion during a criminal trial, even when the odds initially appear unfavorable.