top of page

charges reduced





  Cases that are "in the news," publicized or otherwise well-known have become a classic --and certainly unreliable-- credibility inducing device; one routinely exploited by lawyers and others, at the expense of an audience that in large part is presumed to have adopted the view that "if someone is on the news, they must know what they're talking about."  But please know: that view is simply unfounded.  Being on the news does not render one competent, and neither does having one's case publicized. Indeed, one does not confer competency unto him or herself by merely attracting or receiving attention.  ​So, what's the reason that I would expose this, while introducing "high profile" cases I worked on?  It's obviously not to draw "credibility" from the attention of the cases themselves (i.e., I wouldn't drink from the same well I exposed as having been contaminated). Rather, it's to clarify a couple of things (see                                             ...).    

CHANNELS REPORTING: CBS, USAToday, MLive and others...

In this 2014 case, my client was charged with a host of highly prejudicial counts. But what the articles don't tell you: ​Almost immediately after the client was sentenced to probation following her plea to a count independently prosecuted in a neighboring jurisdiction, Ingham county filed charges against her for the same incident pursuant to the dual sovereignty doctrine. I was then appointed to represent the client; shortly after which, all charges filed against her were dismissed.


The following chronology accounts for what happened, and when:


Date: July 19, 2014: charge(s) were filed against my soon to be client. 


Date: July 21, 2014: I was appointed to represent the client.


Date: July 29, 2014: The case, including all charges (i.e., no plea bargain here) were dismissed: again, a result that favored the client, notwithstanding the "high profile" status ascribed to the case (this was a collaborative effort punctuated by the prosecution honoring a prior agreement).


CHANNELS REPORTING: Mortgage Fraud Investigators Miami, Attorney General presser...

This 2015 case would later prompt a change in the Michigan legislature: 



I was hired to represent the client against allegations of probation violations for a previously convicted highly publicized crime (another firm/attorney represented her during the trial that resulted in the conviction). Whispers of the client being disliked were rightfully displaced and overcome by uncovering relevant aspects of the case… At the end of the day, like every case, there were conceptual, practical and legal anomalies; and they were exposed. As a result, the client's objective was achieved (no jail time), notwithstanding the "high profile" label on the client's case).

Our Clients


CHANNELS REPORTING: Lansing State Journal; WILX...

The channels describe a hostage situation in 2019 involving a client: 



What the articles don't tell you: I was hired to represent the client in the family law context; and I came across an incident described by the media as a "hostage" situation involving that same client, so I offered to help. 


To the client's benefit, the case was resolved expeditiously, with a good arrangement and plea with the prosecutor... The client was Blessed with a "No Upfront jail time" People v. Killebrew (i.e., "Killebrew sentencing agreement-jail cap"). At the end of the day, like every case, there was more than what was reported, and a mature and developing exchange with a competent prosecutor later, and the client's objective was achieved, notwithstanding the "high profile" label on the client's case

bottom of page