Don’t be fooled by attorneys who brag about a high dismissal rate when what they are actually talking about is charges that are dismissed in exchange for a plea. No plea is a “good deal” when you are innocent. You need the best to achieve the best, and the proof is in the results.
Recent Notable Victories in Which All Charges Were Dismissed Outright – No Plea
State v. N.B. – Violation of HRO – Dismissed by Court Order (April 2023)
State v. P.S. – Violation of an HRO (Case 1) – Not Guilty (March 2023)
Client was charged with Violation of an HRO for contact he had with the protected person. Client was an elderly military veteran with significant mental health issues. The Defense contended that Client could not be held accountable for his actions because of mental illness. After repeated attempts to persuade the State to simply dismiss the case, we had bench trial and the Court agreed with the Defense and found him not guilty.
State v. P.S. – Violation of an HRO (Case 2) – Not Guilty (March 2023)
Client was again charged with a second Violation of an HRO for contact he kept having with the protected person. Client was an elderly military veteran with significant mental health issues. The Defense contended that Client could not be held accountable for his actions because of mental illness. After repeated attempts to persuade the State to simply dismiss the case, we had bench trial and the Court agreed with the Defense and found him not guilty.
State v. T.D. – Probation Violation – Dismissed by Court Order (March 2023)
Client was charged with a violation of his probation for being removed from Specialty Court. The State was seeking execution of Client’s full 64 month prison sentence. This was Client’s fourth violation. At the contested hearing, the Defense argued that someone’s failure to complete a specialty court, if due to mental health issues, was insufficient as a matter of law to support a probation violation, which requires that the violation be “knowing, voluntary, and without excuse.” The Court agreed and dismissed the probation violation.
State v. P.S. -Probation Violation – Dismissed Pre-trial (March 2023)
The State brought a probation violation when client was again charged with two new violations of an HRO. Client was an elderly military veteran with significant mental health issues. The Defense contended that Client’s actions could not amount to a violation of probation because they were the result of mental illness and therefore not “intentional, deliberate, and without excuse. When the Court sided with the defense and dismissed the two charges, the State then voluntarily dismissed the probation violation file.
Client was charged with violation of an HRO that allowed her to have contact with the protected person “regarding child related issues.” During the text exchanges, client was rude in her language, swore, and called the protected person a name. We challenged the charges on the grounds that the conduct indeed related to the children, and rude language does not constitute “harassment” as a matter of law. The Court agreed and dismissed the charge.
State v. J.M. – DWI Aggravated 3rd Degree – Dismissed by Court Order (February 2023)
Client was charged with an aggravated third degree DWI after being pulled over for speeding. Because he had a prior DWI, it was aggravated to a 3rd Degree and he was facing the mandatory minimum 30 day jail sentence if convicted. Because of the officer involved and the circumstances of the case, Mr. Cadem had a suspicion that client was pulled over merely because it was the weekend before the 4th of July holiday and client had a prior DWI. Upon investigation we learned that client’s license plate had been run by three different officers in the span of about 20 minutes. Ultimately, at an omnibus hearing we challenged the basis for the stop (speeding), and the expansion of the scope and duration of the routine traffic stop. On the second day of the hearing after the court heard our evidence that the officer had not properly calibrated or tuned his speed measuring device (radar) correctly the entire time he had it, and did not even possess the user manual, the Court ended the hearing early and dismissed the case.
J.M. v. Commissioner of Public Safety – Dismissed after Trial Verdict (February 2023)
Client has his driving privileges revoked as a result of an aggravated DWI. The case was highly contentious and ultimately, at the contested implied consent trial, we established that the officer had not ever properly calibrated his radar device and as a result, the stop was not supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion. The Court agreed and granted Client’s petition to reinstate.
State v. T. E. – Domestic Assault – Dismissed Pre-trial (February 2023)
Client was charged for domestic assault by allegation. Client’s girlfriend had taken Client’s phone away from him during an argument. When Client attempted to get the phone back, he allegedly “pushed” the alleged victim. The problem with such a case is that pushing someone, even intentionally, is not assault unless the State can prove that it was done with intent to “inflict bodily harm” or “fear of immediate bodily harm or death.” 609.2242, subd. 1(1-2). The fact that a victim felt fear is not the question. While the matter was pending, Mr. Cadem’s investigation revealed that this alleged victim was working as a prostitute, had made more than a half dozen other false reports to police, including about strangers, and that when asked about the events in question, her story completely changed, including an allegation that Client tried to run her over with his car after the incident. In the face of these facts, the prosecutor dismissed the file.
CAH v. ACH. – Harassment Restraining Order appeal challenging a District Court’s authority to dismiss a petition without granting a hearing. In a first-time published opinion, the Court sided with our client, reversed the district court, and set binding precedent that the district court lacks the authority to act as a gatekeeper as to whether it will hear a petition for an HRO, even while family law proceedings are ongoing in a related file. – (A22-0174; Feb. 8, 2022)
State v. N.H. – Gross Misd. Violation of a Harassment Restraining Order – Dismissed Pre-trial (Apr. 2022)
State v. B.B. – Burning Violation – Dismissed Pre-trial (Mar. 2022)
In Re A.K. – Disorderly Conduct – Dismissed by Court Order (Mar. 2022)
Client was charged with disorderly conduct for his alleged role in a road rage incident wherein he was a passenger in a friend’s truck looking for another person with whom his friends had beef. When they located the individual traveling on the highway, the truck in which he was a passenger and another friend’s car boxed in the car and forced him to the shoulder. Some of the individuals involved then went over to the car and began pounding on the windows. One of them wielded a crowbar and struck the car leaving damage. The damaged car then fled and called the police. As a result, Client and all of his friends were charged with various crimes. We brought a motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of identity because the State could not prove Client participated in any meaningful way in the driving conduct, banging on the windows, or striking the car with the crowbar. After a contested hearing and briefing, the Court agreed and dismissed the case against client.
State v. C.H. – Felony 5th Degree Drugs – Dismissed by Court Order (Feb. 2022)
Client was charged with possession of marijuana oil that law enforcement found in his sock after he was strip-searched for booking on a shoplifting charge. Minnesota retains the very old statute § 629.336 subd. 2, which allows a custodial arrest of even petty shoplifters. It is at odds with Minn. R. Crim. P. 6.01 which only allows the arrest of misdemeanor offenders in very limited circumstances not present here. Even though client was only accused of stealing less than $10 worth of merchandise, they arrested him, strip searched him, and booked him into jail. We filed a motion challenging the application of the statute in these circumstances, the formal arrest, and also the strip-search as unconstitutional. After a contested omnibus hearing with testimony, we submitted two briefs on the various issues. Ultimately, the Court granted our Motion and dismissed the case. This was a back-to-back victory for this client.
State v. M.H. – Violation of Felony Probation – Dismissed Pre-hearing (Jan. 2022)
State v. M.H. – Felony Domestic Assault – Dismissed Pre-trial (December 2021)
Client was charged with felony domestic assault after his girlfriend alleged that she was hit, slapped, and/or punched in the head multiple times. The alleged victim was very intoxicated at the time of the alleged assault, had been up all night drinking, and had no scrapes or bruising consistent with her account. Defendant had been sleeping and just awoke to go to work when he noticed the alleged victim’s state of intoxication and incoherence and told her to move out. Despite her level of intoxication and the inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s recitation of events, client was arrested and charged with felony domestic assault (based upon having two priors on his record). We took a scorched-earth posture and made clear to the prosecutor that there would be no plea on the file, not even a disorderly conduct with a stay. Two weeks before the speedy trial was scheduled to commence, the State dismissed all charges.
State v. Z.T. – Reckless Driving; Speeding – Dismissed Pre-trial (December 2021)
Client’s baby was bitten in the face by the family dog. Because he lived in a very rural location, client decided it was best to drive his baby to the emergency room to assure immediate medical care. Client was pulled over for driving 110 MPH and weaving in and out of traffic. This case was charged on the heels of another speeding case Mr. Cadem tried against the same prosecutor. During the trial of the prior speeding case, Mr. Cadem elicited testimony from the officer that not only had law enforcement never received or reviewed the user manual for his Stalker Radar device, he had not been calibrating it properly. The same defenses were asserted in this matter and it was dismissed outright pre-trial.
State v. Z.T. – Reckless Driving; Speeding – Dismissed Pre-trial (December 2021)
Client’s baby was bitten in the face by the family dog. Because he lived in a very rural location, client decided it was best to drive his baby to the emergency room to assure immediate medical care. Client was pulled over for driving 110 MPH and weaving in and out of traffic. This case was charged on the heels of another speeding case Mr. Cadem tried against the same prosecutor. During the trial of the prior speeding case, Mr. Cadem elicited testimony from the officer that not only had law enforcement never received or reviewed the user manual for their Stalker Radar device, they had not been calibrating it properly. The same defenses were asserted in this matter and it was dismissed outright pre-trial.
State v. M.H. – Felony Domestic Assault – Dismissed Pre-trial (December 2021)
Client was charged with felony domestic assault after his girlfriend alleged that she was hit, slapped, and/or punched in the head multiple times. The alleged victim was very intoxicated at the time of the alleged assault, had been up all night drinking, and had no scrapes or bruising consistent with her account. Defendant had been sleeping and just awoke to go to work when he noticed the alleged victim’s state of intoxication and incoherence and told her to move out. Despite her level of intoxication and the inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s recitation of events, client was arrested and charged with felony domestic assault (based upon having two priors on his record). We took a scorched-earth posture and made clear to the prosecutor that there would be no plea on the file, not even a disorderly conduct with a stay. Two weeks before the speedy trial was scheduled to commence, the State dismissed all charges.
State v. Casey Frankl – 1st Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct – Two Victims under Age 13 (November 2021)
In a very unusual circumstance, Mr. Cadem served as a prosecutor in a case. Just three business days before the trial of Casey Frankl was scheduled to begin, Mr. Cadem was asked to step into the case as a special prosecutor due to the prosecutor’s ongoing COVID-19 complications. Mr. Cadem was asked to handle the file as a special prosecutor because the prosecutor had a lot of experience dealing with Mr. Cadem and was very aware of Mr. Cadem’s trial experience and expertise. He also knew that very few attorneys have the experience and ability necessary to successfully try a complex multi-victim 1st degree criminal sexual conduct case, much less one with almost no time to prepare. The allegations were that Mr. Frankl had been sexually penetrating a 9 and 11 year old for over three years. Such trials are notoriously difficult because child witnesses tend to be inconsistent and easily manipulated. Despite the overwhelmingly short notice, Mr. Cadem, with the assistance of Ms. Cadem, stepped in and tried the case. He obtained convictions on the four original charges and three additional charges he added upon reviewing the evidence.
State v. S.P. – False Report of a Crime – Dismissed Pretrial (July 2021)
Client was charged with falsely reporting a crime after she called 911 during a domestic incident. She refused to cooperate with law enforcement or to give a statement against her husband. The State charged her with the crime in an effort to force her to testify against him. We filed a motion to dismiss and the prosecutor continued to refuse to dismiss the case. After briefing the issue and while the matter was under consideration by the Court, the State finally dismiss the case. We are presently filing a citizen complaint to initiate criminal charges against the law enforcement agency that brought charges for violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.43, subd. (1)(2)(3) & (4) and criminal coercion in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.27, Subd. 1(5).
State v. M.S. – Disorderly Conduct – Dismissed Pretrial (July 2021)
Client was charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly swearing at a Burger King employee, raising his voice, using the “F” word, and calling the employee a “bitch.” Burger King insisted that Client be prosecuted. The law enforcement officers and prosecutor involved apparently failed their constitutional law classes because they seemingly forgot that disorderly conduct requires “fighting words” or a physical act of aggression to avoid the statute being unconstitutional. We were happy to educate them and the State dismissed the case almost immediately upon the filing of our Motion and memorandum.
State v. C.H. – Felony 1st Degree Drugs (>50 Grams Meth), Felon in Possession of Firearm/Ammo, Fleeing; All charges dismissed by Court Order (July 2021)
Client was facing more than a 7-year executed prison sentence for charges stemming from a search warrant raid. He was suspected of trafficking methamphetamine based upon prior drug convictions, a recent visit to known drug dealer’s house, and his failure to answer the door or the telephone calls and texts of his probation officer. Rather than just seeking a warrant for his arrest, law enforcement applied for a warrant to also search his house and car for drugs. The warrant was issued and they found more than 50 grams of methamphetamine and handgun ammunition. Client retained Christopher Cadem after his first attorney advised him that his case was hopeless. We quickly got to work, including doing an independent investigation of some of the allegations in the affidavit for the warrant. Our investigation revealed that the warrant affidavit contained statements that, although strictly true, omitted information which eroded the strength and relevance of the information. We brought a motion to suppress the results of the search and to dismiss the charges on the basis that the allegations supporting the warrant lacked any nexus with the places to be searched. The Court granted the motion to suppress and it dismissed all charges.
State v. L.R. – Disorderly Conduct; All charges dismissed by Court Order (Feb. 2021).
State v. L.B. – Felony 5th Degree Drugs, Possession of a Pistol without Permit, Drug Para; All charges dismissed by Court Order (Feb. 2021)
Client was stopped in the early morning hours because of a burned out headlight. The officer stated Client had dilated pupils, red eyes, and was coming from a known drug house. The officer conducted a K9 sniff search of the vehicle which alerted to the presence of methamphetamine in the vehicle. The search revealed drugs, a meth pipe, and a gun. We brought a motion to suppress the results of the search on the basis that the officer unlawfully expanded the scope and duration of a routine traffic stop. After a roughly three hour contested hearing, the Court granted our motion and dismissed all criminal charges.
State v. D.S. – Violation of a Harassment Restraining Order (three separate files); All charges dismissed before the contested pretrial hearing (Jan 2021)
Client was charged with three separate incidents of violation of an HRO. Although client admitted to having contact with the protected person in two of the files and he was willing to accept the plea offered by the State, our investigation revealed a defect in the underlying HRO which provided a legal footing to challenge the charges in all three files. We filed a detailed motion challenging the charges on legal grounds. Just days before the contested pretrial hearings, the State dismissed the charges in all three files.
State v. B.L. – Felony 5th Degree Drugs; All charges dismissed pre-omnibus (Jan 2021)
Client was charged with drugs found during the raid of her boyfriend’s house at which she was not living. They questioned her after the raid and, according to police, Client admitted that a bag of illegal pills found within the bedroom belonged to her. Other than her confession, law enforcement had no evidence linking Client to the drugs. Law enforcement failed to produce an audio recording of the confession. We brought a motion to dismiss on the basis that the confession was inadmissible under the doctrine established in State v. Scales. On the eve of the contested omnibus hearing, the State dismissed all charges.
State v. D.M. – Felon in Possession of a Firearm; 5th Degree Drugs – All charges Dismissed pre-trial (Dec. 2020)
State v. G.D. – 3rd Degree Drug Sales – Methamphetamine – All charges dismissed pre-trial (Dec. 2020)
State v. S.S. -Violation of an OFP (two files); All charges dismissed before trial (Dec. 2020)
State v. J.D. – Terroristic Threats; Prohibited Person in Possession of a Firearm (Dec. 2020) – No charges brought
Client sent a snapchat to friends in which he was holding an old rifle his mother had brought home while administering an estate. Client did not believe the firearm mattered because it was an antique and presumed inoperable. The problem for Client was that the operability of the firearm is not an element of the offence, he had been convicted of a felony just two months prior, and one of his “friends” was a snitch. We took immediate action to prevent the filing of the charges. Ultimately, after we had a number of conversations with the prosecutor and his felony probation officer, the State agreed not to bring charges and the Department of Corrections agreed not to file a probation violation.
State v. B.B – Disorderly Conduct – All charges dismissed before pretrial (Nov. 2020)
State v. A.J. – DWI Refusal; DWI – All charges dismissed by Court order (Nov. 2020)
Client was pulled over for weaving within her lane and because the license plate came back to Client’s father who had an expired license plate. Although client passed nearly every roadside sobriety test, she was arrested for suspicion of DWI and ultimately failed to provide a sample for testing. We brought a motion to suppress and dismiss the case on the basis that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and that the officer lacked a basis to expand the scope and duration of the routine traffic stop to request sobriety testing. After a long omnibus hearing during which extensive testimony was taken, we submitted a 20 page memorandum to the Court detailing why the case should be dismissed. The Court ruled in Client’s favor, suppressed the evidence and dismissed the charges. The Court found that both the basis for the stop and the expansion of the scope of the stop were impermissible.
State v. A.J. – DWI Refusal; DWI – All charges dismissed by Court order (Nov. 2020)
Client was pulled over for weaving within her lane and because the license plate came back to Client’s father who had an expired license plate. Although client passed nearly every roadside sobriety test, she was arrested for suspicion of DWI and ultimately failed to provide a sample for testing. We brought a motion to suppress and dismiss the case on the basis that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop and that the officer lacked a basis to expand the scope and duration of the routine traffic stop to request sobriety testing. After a long omnibus hearing during which extensive testimony was taken, we submitted a 20 page memorandum to the Court detailing why the case should be dismissed. The Court ruled in Client’s favor, suppressed the evidence and dismissed the charges. The Court found that both the basis for the stop and the expansion of the scope of the stop were impermissible.
State v. N.H. – Felony Domestic by Strangulation – All charges dismissed before trial (Nov. 2020)
Client was charged with domestic assault by strangulation. Our investigation revealed multiple inconsistent statements by the alleged victim and her children. By enhancing the audio recording for one of the children’s telephone statements we were able to hear the alleged victim in the background telling her daughter what to say to police. Although we were date-certain for a five-day trial just days away, upon re-reviewing the audio, the prosecutor dismissed the case.
State v. C.E. – Violation of Stay at Home Order – All charges dismissed before pretrial (Oct. 2020)
Client was charged with violation of the Governor’s stay at home order for attending a bonfire with friends. We challenged the constitutionality of the order and challenged the application of the order to Client on the basis that he was a law enforcement officer and by the terms of the Governor’s order, it did not apply to law enforcement personnel. Unlike other exceptions within the order, the provisions relating to law enforcement were not limited to when they were on duty. All charges were dismissed prior to the pretrial.
In Re OFP of N.S. – Order for Protection – Case dismissed before trial (Oct. 2020)
State v. M.P. – Receiving Stolen Property and Felony DWI – All charges expunged; Firearms rights restored (Oct. 2020)
State v. M.O. – 5th Degree Drugs – All charges dismissed before omnibus (Oct. 2020)
Client was seen leaving a known drug house. Law enforcement followed him. When he was turning out of a school parking lot, he failed to use his blinker and the officer used that a basis for a traffic stop. The stop revealed a significant number of drugs and a large amount of cash. We challenged the stop on the basis that the law does not require the use of a blinker when leaving private property. All charges were dismissed and his forfeited vehicle and money were returned.
State v. E.S. – 5th Degree Drugs – All charges dismissed before trial (Sept 2020)
In Re OFP of J.O. – Order for Protection – Case dismissed before trial (Sept. 2020)
In Re OFP of R.D. – Order for Protection – Case dismissed after trial (Sept. 2020)
State v. John Doe – Driving after Revocation; Driving without Insurance. All charges dismissed pretrial. (April 2020)
State v. K.S. – Driving after Revocation; Driving without Insurance. All charges dismissed pretrial. (March 2020)
State v. K.B. – 5th & 4th Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct, Criminal Neglect of a Child; Indecent Exposure; 5th Degree Drugs; Drug Paraphernalia; All Charges Dismissed. (Jan. 2020)
Few cases have motivated me to fight harder due to the clear and overwhelming injustice of the charges. Our client was charged with sexually assaulting his disabled 15-year-old daughter, failing to provide her life saving medication, criminal neglect of the child, and possession of methamphetamines and meth pipes. The charges stemmed from allegations made by people who saw my client in a hot tub at a hotel. They did not know my client’s daughter, although 15, had the intellect of a 2 year old. They did not know that my client was required to hold his daughter on his lap to control her in the hot tub. They assumed the worst and called the police claiming he was abusing a drugged underage girl. Law enforcement wrote reports that included as facts alleged statements that the witnesses saw things they had not reported seeing. Law enforcement also made up multiple reasons to search my client’s hotel room where they then found drugs and other illegal items. Our extensive investigation revealed that the witnesses did not report seeing the things the officers reported. Our investigation also revealed that a number of other “facts” the officers reported were false. We filed multiple omnibus motions and aggressively cross-examined the officers which significantly impeached their reports and prior testimony. The Court granted our motion to suppress all evidence located within my client’s hotel room during the search. While preparing for trial on the criminal sexual conduct charges, our investigation revealed additional evidence that the officers lied. We also uncovered a recording of the lead detective making disparaging remarks about my client’s character while apparently trying to manipulate a key witness into changing her statement. We brought another motion to dismiss the remaining charges on the basis of prosecutorial abuse, Brady violations and violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.43—Minnesota’s Public Officer Misconduct Statute. In the face of the filings and lack of true evidence of any wrongdoing, the State dismissed all remaining charges.
State v. B.B. – Noise Complaint and Disturbing the Peace – Dismissed before arraignment. (Jan. 2020.)
State v. L.E. – 3rd Probation Violation Seeking Execution – Petition for Violation Dismissed Prior to Hearing (Nov. 2019)
Our client had another attorney for her underlying case and prior probation violations. She hired us when a third violation was filed. She had previously been told she was being discharged from probation by her probation officer. She had a complete abstinence order as a condition of probation. A month later, before the order was signed, she called 911 during a domestic and it was discovered that she was intoxicated. Because this was a third violation of probation, the State was seeking execution of her full sentence. The State needed to be reminded by attorney Christopher Cadem that the State must prove all of the Austin factors to revoke probation. One of those factors is that the violation was intentional or inexcusable. Although the State claimed L.E. was told that the discharge was not official until signed by a judge, we were able to obtain copies of the text message exchanges with the probation officer showing that no such communication occurred. As we approached the admit/deny hearing, the State first offered a sanction of 120 days in jail and reinstatement. Closer to the hearing, it offered 45 days in jail. We rejected all offers. On the day of the probation violation hearing, the State withdrew the probation violation entirely. L.E. served zero additional time in jail and was actually discharged from probation at the conclusion of the hearing. As a note to others, it is important to know that even if you are “discharged from probation early,” you technically remain on probation and subject to the original conditions of the probation order for the full term of the pronounced probation. Had L.E. been represented by Cadem Law Group from the start, she would have known that.
State. M.L. – Felony Drugs – All charges dismissed after arraignment (Oct 2019)
Our client was charged with possession of prescription drugs found within a prescription pill bottle found within the car she was driving. The pills did not match the prescription pill bottle. We immediately filed a motion challenging the traffic stop which was based upon the level of tint. Our investigation revealed that the same officer pulled over the vehicle just two weeks prior and knew that the owner had purchased the vehicle in another state and that the tint was factory applied and therefore was not illegal under Minnesota law. We also challenged the unlawful expansion of the scope of the stop. The officer had zero articulable suspicion to ask to search the vehicle after having stopped M.L. for a routine traffic offense. Finally, we challenged probable cause for the charge of possession under State v. Sam because the prescription drugs were found within the prescription pill bottle in the name of the owner of the vehicle, which was located between the driver’s seat and the center console, and the driver had no reason to know they were there or to look within someone else’s prescription bottle. In light of the case law we presented and the evidence we gathered, the State dismissed all charges prior to the omnibus hearing.
State v. E.W. – Attack by dog: All charges dismissed pretrial (August 2019)
Our client was charged with attack by animal under a local city ordinance that provided:
It shall be unlawful for any person’s animal to inflict or attempt to inflict bodily injury to any person or other animal whether or not the owner is present.
Our client’s dog was playing in the yard of her apartment building when it jumped up on and bruised the face of another resident of the building. We defended the case on the basis that the ordinance was preempted by State law, was unconstitutionally vague because it penalized the “attempt” of an animal, and that the ordinance was unconstitutional and violates due process because it penalizes a Defendant for actions and conduct of an animal irrespective of the Defendant’s actions, inactions, or knowledge. The State dismissed the complaint upon the filing of Defendant’s Motion.
State v. T.H. – Felony 2nd Degree Burglary and Theft: All charges dismissed pretrial (August 2019)
Our client was charged with burglary of a friend’s home. The friend claimed to witness our client fleeing from the home after the burglary. Our on-staff investigator conducted many interviews, including of close friends of the victim. The investigation revealed that the alleged victim lied about the time of the alleged burglary and lied that he witnessed our client fleeing. Our investigation also turned up three alibi witnesses, one of whom had a date stamped video depicting our client at least 20 miles away from the scene of the burglary at the time the burglary allegedly happened. A week before the contested omnibus in which we subpoenaed three witnesses to testify, the prosecutor dismissed all charges in light of the defense evidence and anticipated testimony.
State v. T.S., – Violation of HRO: All charges dismissed pretrial (March 2019)
Our client was charged in Ramsey County with violation of an OFP when he allegedly sent a text message to his ex-girlfriend who had an ex-parte OFP against him. Our investigation revealed that the alleged victim used a “spoofing app” to first send an anonymous message and attachment to our client to which our client responded “hello?” Our client was charged because the alleged victim’s phone and telephone records did not contain her first anonymous outgoing text message (due to use of the spoofing app) and showed the message from our client directly to her telephone number, even though his phone showed a completely different telephone number. After obtaining data and text messaging records, we showed the prosecutor the forensic fingerprint of the spoof app: the text our client received first was an “iMessage” but our client’s text was a traditional text message, despite the alleged victim also using an iPhone. We also demonstrated that the alleged victim waited 8 days to report the alleged offense (the night before the formal OFP hearing) in hopes that he would be taken into custody and would therefore not be able to appear at the OFP hearing. In light of the evidence we uncovered and clearly presented, the State dismissed the charges the day before the pretrial.
State v. Domier – Domestic Assault appeal (A18-0221; Jan. 7, 2019)
In this case, we challenged the sufficiency of evidence for our client’s conviction and the aggravation of his crime to the felony level using multiple convictions arising from a single behavioral incident in North Dakota. While our appeal was pending decision, the Court of Appeals created new law in Minnesota directly addressing the issue.
State v. K.S., – Violation of HRO: All charges dismissed pretrial (Jan. 2019)
Our client was charged with a violation of an OFP for allegedly traveling to the alleged victim’s home to pick up his granddaughter. Our in-house investigator obtained statements from numerous witnesses which revealed that Defendant actually parked a block from the house as required by the OFP and had his fiancé retrieve his granddaughter. We took an aggressive approach to the file and made trial disclosure, including recordings, transcripts, exhibit lists, and motions in limine. Upon receipt of our filings, the State dismissed all charges.
State v. K.S. – Aiding and Abetting DAC Inimical: All charges dismissed pretrial (Oct 2018)
Our client was charged with aiding and abetting driving after cancellation when he allegedly allowed his daughter to drive his vehicle knowing her driver’s license was cancelled IPS. Our investigation revealed that our client was not even home when the vehicle was taken and, despite what law enforcement reported our client said, a careful review of the recorded interview revealed the opposite. The charges were dismissed prior to the pretrial hearing.
State v. G.H. – Disorderly Conduct, Brawling/Fighting: All charges dismissed pretrial (July 2018)
Our client was a high school student who was being harassed by a group of boys at school. One day, it was rumored that the boys were going to fight him after school. As he left the school, the boys approached him in the parking lot and directed him to a grassy field. Our client, feeling he had no choice but to either go to the grassy area or be beaten up on the pavement, went to the grassy area where he was attacked and beaten by three boys. Shockingly, our client was also charged with brawling/fighting based upon third-party statements that it was a mutual fight. Our investigation was able to obtain security footage from the school parking lot which caught the entire event on camera from multiple angles. Not only did our client not fight, at one point he sat down on the ground while the other three took turns beating him. Our investigation was also able to uncover that the third-party statements that the fight was mutual were actually from friends of the assailants. When this evidence was revealed to the State, all charges were dismissed against our client pretrial.
State v. R.E. – Fleeing in a Motor Vehicle; all charges dismissed pretrial (July 2018)
Our client was charged in Grant County with felony fleeing police in a motor vehicle. The problem, for the State, was that although the vehicle they were chasing was registered to our client, they never had visual confirmation of his identity, other than that it was “a white male with shaggy hair,” or what I like to call “50% of the Grant County population.” Although our motion to dismiss was denied by the Court, the State dismissed the charges a few weeks before trial when our client refused to accept a plea, even to a substitute misdemeanor reckless driving.
State v. J. L. – Disorderly Conduct; all charges dismissed by Court Order (June 2018)
Our client was a high school student having a bad day. He was suspended from school. On his way out of the school, he stopped in the principal’s office, swore at staff, and threw his books across the room. He was charged with disorderly conduct. We brought a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause (also called “Florence Challenge.”) We argued that our client’s behavior, while poor, was protected first amendment speech, and that Minnesota’s disorderly conduct statute is unconstitutionally vague and overly broad. The Court granted our motion and all charges were dismissed.
State v. R.E. – Obstruction of Justice; all charges dismissed pretrial (June 2018)
Our client was charged with obstruction of justice for giving false information to law enforcement while they were investigating him for the commission of another crime. They were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to prosecute our client for the crime they were investigating, so they charged him with obstruction. Unfortunately, for the State, lying to law enforcement is not obstruction, even under the most tortured view of the Statute. The State dismissed the charges pretrial.
State v. A.J. – Violation of HRO; all charges dismissed pretrial (April 2018)
State v. N.G. – Violation of HRO; all charges dismissed pretrial (April 2018)
State v. T.D. – Felony 2nd Degree Assault with a firearm; all charges dismissed pre-trial (March 2018)
Our client was charged with 2nd Degree Assault with a firearm which has a mandatory minimum sentence of 21 months in prison. The State alleged that when he and his brother got into a fight while driving, our client allegedly pulled out a firearm and threatened to shoot him. Law enforcement reported that a witness driving by saw our client running with the gun in his hand and acting aggressively. Our investigation revealed that in fact our client was actually punched repeatedly while driving, pulled over to escape the attack, and grabbed his firearm from the vehicle as he fled to assure his brother did not attempt to use it. Our investigation also revealed that the third-party witness actually identified the alleged victim as the aggressive one at the scene, not our client. We were also able to obtain copies of receipts from a restaurant and another store to directly contradict the alleged victim’s account of why the fight occurred. Based upon the evidence we uncovered the State dismissed all charges pretrial.
State v. L.C. – Felony Overwork/Mistreat Animals-Death/Torture; all charges dismissed pre-trial (Feb. 2018)
Our client was charged in Otter Tail County with a felony for killing a neighbor’s dog. Our investigation revealed that the dog had continually come into her yard, chased her cattle, and acted aggressively toward her and her children. We asserted a necessity defense, defense of property/chattel, and a defense under a little-known nuisance-animal statute. We also obtained statements from five other property owners who had witnessed the actions of the dog and justifying our client’s actions. Although the State took a firm approach to the case, they ultimately yielded and dismissed all charges a week before trial.
State v. N.F. – Felony Theft over $1000; all charges dismissed pretrial (Feb. 2018)
State v. J.S. – Shoplifting; all charges dismissed by Court Order (Feb. 2018)
State v. A.S. – 5th Degree Drugs, Open Bottle, Possession under 21, Paraphernalia; all charges dismissed by Court Order (Jan 8, 2018)
State v. L.S. – 3rd Degree Assault, Substantial Bodily Harm; all charges dismissed pre-trial (December 2017)
State v. C.E. – Fleeing police; all charges dismissed after initial hearing (Sept 11, 2017)
State v. C.E. –Driving after Revocation; all charges dismissed after initial hearing (Sept 9, 2017)
State v. W.Z. – Violation of City building ordinances; all charges dismissed pre-trial (August 2017)
State v. C.E. – Obstruction; all charges dismissed after initial hearing (August 2017)
State v. T.L. – 5th Degree Possession and Domestic Assault – All dismissed pre-trial. (June 28, 2017)
In the Matter of Welfare of the Children of A.B. and J.R. – CHIPS file dismissed by Court Order (May 19, 2017)
State v. J.M. – Felony Domestic Assault – All charges dismissed after initial appearance. (May 2017)
T.S. OFP – Dismissed after initial hearing. (April 2017)
State v. D.P. – $138,000 worth of marijuana and marijuana products – All charges dismissed by Court Order (April 2017)
State v. M. E. – Attack by animal; Animal at large (3 files) – All charges in all three files dismissed by Court Order (March 2017)
State v. T. S. – Driving after cancellation Inimical to public safety (gross misd.) – All charges dismissed pre-trial (March 2017)
State v. B.R. – Disorderly Conduct, Brawling/Fighting—All charges dismissed pretrial (December 2016)
State v. D.S. – Theft—All charges dismissed pretrial (November 2016)
State v. S. S. – 5th Degree Possession Controlled Substance; All charges dismissed by Court Order (October 2016)
State v. D.M. Smith – 4th Degree DWI – All charges dismissed pre-trial (October 2016)
State v. McGinnis – 1st and 2nd Degree Murder appeal (A15-1043; July 11, 2016)
Our client came to Cadem Law Group after he had been convicted for the murder. We filed an appeal challenging, among many other things, the sufficiency of evidence and inconsistent verdicts. The jury had simultaneously found that defendant had not possessed the murder weapon and that he used it to murder the victim.
A.S. and T.S.– Child in Need of Protection or Services Appeal (CHIPS) (A15-0199; July 20, 2015)
Our client had her parental rights terminated by the District Court when she came to our office seeking help. We filed an appeal challenging the simple fact of chemical dependency as basis for terminating parental rights without showing some relationship to, or affect upon, parenting the subject children.
Ecker v. Comm’r Pub. Safety – Implied Consent Appeal (A14-2098; June 29, 2015)
Our client’s driver’s license was revoked when he was found sleeping in a motor vehicle in a grocery store parking lot. The arresting officer did not establish that the vehicle was his, did not locate the keys to operate the vehicle, and did not establish a time period in which Mr. Ecker actually operative the vehicle.
State v. Stall, 845 N.W.2d 246 – Unlawful search and seizure appeal (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
Our client was directed to stop his tractor trailer at a random commercial vehicle checkpoint. During the stop, he was cited for a number of crimes. Although we lost our motion to dismiss at the District Court, we appealed the decision. In a published opinion making new law in Minnesota, the Court of Appeals held that random commercial vehicle checkpoint stops in these circumstances is unconstitutional.
C.A.H. v. A.C.H. (A22-0174; Feb. 8, 2022) – Harassment Restraining Order appeal challenging a District Court’s authority to dismiss a petition without granting a hearing.
State v. McGinnis (A15-1043; July 11, 2016) – 1st and 2nd Degree Murder appeal.
Our client came to Cadem Law Group after he had been convicted for the murder. We filed an appeal challenging, among many other things, the sufficiency of evidence and inconsistent verdicts. The jury had simultaneously found that defendant had not possessed the murder weapon and that he used it to murder the victim.
Ecker v. Comm’r Pub. Safety (A14-2098; June 29, 2015) – Implied Consent Appeal.
Our client’s driver’s license was revoked when he was found sleeping in a motor vehicle in a grocery store parking lot. The arresting officer did not establish that the vehicle was his, did not locate the keys to operate the vehicle, and did not establish a time period in which Mr. Ecker actually operative the vehicle.
In the Matter of the Child of A.S. and T.S. (A15-0199; July 20, 2015) – Child in Need of Protection or Services Appeal (CHIPS)
Our client had her parental rights terminated by the District Court when she came to our office seeking help. We filed an appeal challenging the simple fact of chemical dependency as basis for terminating parental rights without showing some relationship to, or affect upon, parenting the subject children.
State v. Stall, 845 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014) – Unlawful search and seizure appeal.
Our client was directed to stop his tractor trailer at a random commercial vehicle checkpoint. During the stop, he was cited for a number of crimes. Although we lost our motion to dismiss at the District Court, we appealed the decision. In a published opinion making new law in Minnesota, the Court of Appeals held that random commercial vehicle checkpoint stops in these circumstances is unconstitutional.
State v. Betancourt (A-13-072; Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2013) – Felony Domestic Assault appeal challenging, among other things, the District Court’s forfeiture of defendant’s 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause rights and other procedural defects in the trial.
Banks v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, No. A12-2288; Minn. Ct. App. July 29, 2013.
Implied consent appeal.
Our client had been charged with DWI after being stopped by law enforcement for “weaving within his lane” while driving a motorcycle. We challenged the denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of impaired driving behavior and because the District Court’s relied on officer testimony which was directly contradicted by the officer’ audio/video evidence.
Recent Large Jury Trial Acquittals Receiving Significant Press Coverage
State v. T.S. – Six Charges of Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Second Degree (two alleged victims)—Jury Verdict: Not Guilty all six charges. (October 2017)
State v. D. D. – 1st and 2nd Degree Murder – Jury Verdict: Not Guilty all charges (Mar. 2, 2017)
State v. D. H – Four Counts of Criminal Vehicular Homicide – Jury Verdict: Not guilty all charges (Mar. 23, 2015)
State v. J.A. – 1st Degree Rape – Jury Verdict: Not guilty all charges (Jan. 13, 2015)
***These victories reflect recent select cases in which there was an outright dismissal of all charges in the file. They do not reflect the 100’s of cases we handle in which charges are significantly reduced by plea, receive a probation only sentence, or a stayed sentence is achieved.