- ..... Congratulations To The Law Office of Shepherd and Osborne - Voted Best Law Firm by The Telegraph Best of Greater Nashua 2017!.....
Case Results 2011
State v. RG.,
RG was alleged to have committed the offense of operating a motor vehicle after being deemed an Habitual Offender. The State alleged that RG rode a "pocket rocket" across a busy Manchester Street and into the parking lot of a convenience store. The problem, according to the State, was this this occurred while an order from the DMV was in effect declaring that RG was a Habitual Offender (Hence he was forbidden from operating a motor vehicle on a public way). Attorney Justin Shepherd exercised RG's right to a probable cause hearing and had RG testify at the hearing. The evidence that came to light was most interesting; RG could neither read nor write English and, therefore, did not understand the DMV's order certifying him a Habitual Offender. Further, he didn't even understand DMV's order that he appear for a Habitual Offender certification hearing in the first place! Attorney Shepherd argued that RG had absolutely no knowledge that he was a Habitual Offender and, without any evidence being offered as to his knowledge, the matter must be Dismissed. The court agreed entering a finding of NO PROBABLE CAUSE.
State v. Mr. A,
Mr. A. was charged with Armed Robbery and Second Degree Assault. Armed Robbery carries a maximum punishment of 7 ½ - 15 years in prison. Second Degree Assault also carries a substantial prison sentence. Upon reviewing the police reports, Attorney Osborne saw that this case would present some major challenges at trial in securing a Not Guilty verdict. Therefore, Attorney Osborne immediately took steps to get A.A. into a residential drug rehabilitation center – which allowed him to be released from Valley Street Jail well ahead of his trial date. For the next 6 months Attorney Osborne made sure that the Court and the prosecutor were well aware of Mr. A's progress. Mr. A actively participated in his drug recovery and soon exemplified the important reasons as to why drug rehabilitation is the key to getting people out of jail and into society as productive and hard-working members.
In the meantime, Attorney Osborne also filed a few motions with the Court challenging whether the arresting detectives had sufficient probable cause to arrest Mr. A (with an emphasis on the eye-witness contradictions). After almost a year of hard work, negotiations, and intensive advocacy, Attorney Osborne was able to achieve a resolution whereby the Second Degree Assault was dropped. As for the Armed Robbery charge, Mr. A. received a suspended jail sentence and probation. Meaning, at Mr. A's last court date, he was able to walk out the front door with his family and to return to his new life, his full time job, and his continued drug counseling.
State v. MB.,
MB retained Attorney Justin Shepherd to represent him on allegations alleging that he possessed and transported marijuana. The police were working in an undercover capacity near a local movie theater. The undercover police witnessed two vehicles parked in a "suspicious" area; parked far off in the lot and away from other vehicles. The undercover officers observed a male and female exit one vehicle and entered another. The vehicle left the area and returned approximately 10 minutes later. Undercover officers surrounded the vehicles and demanded the occupants exit. According to the officers, MB's vehicle was parked in the same location where an armed robbery occurred 2 years earlier. Further, the officers felt that leaving for 10 minutes and returning was consistent with a drug transaction. Attorney Shepherd filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence as the undercover officers had no reasonable basis to believe that the occupants were engaged in criminal activity whatsoever. That MB parked his vehicle in a space utilized by a robber 2 years earlier did not justify the seizure in any way as there was no nexus between MB's vehicle and the robbery other than the misfortune of parking in the same spot. That MB left for 10 minutes and returned is wholly consistent with running out for a cup of coffee. After discussing the matter with the prosecutor the State dropped all charges.
State v. GD.,
G.D. was charged with Driving While Intoxicated. After reviewing the police reports and pointing out several "issues" to the prosecutor, Attorney Shepherd was able to get the DWI reduced to a negligent operation.
State v. AS.,
AS was stopped for a routine traffic violation. AS was a young driver. When the officer walked up and asked AS for his license and registration, AS handed them over. The officer thought AS looked nervous. The officer told AS to get out of the car. Once out of the car, the officer began interrogating AS about whether he had any drugs on him or in the car. Without the assistance of having a lawyer on scene, AS admitted to having a bag of marijuana in the car. The marijuana was seized by the officer and AS was charged with POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED DRUG. AS hired Attorney Osborne to represent him. Officer Osborne filed a motion to suppress (throw out) the marijuana as evidence. Attorney Osborne argued that the officer did not have a good enough reason to pull AS out of his car and to badger him about drugs. Attorney Osborne argued in the motion that mere nervousness is not sufficient cause to think someone has drugs on them. The prosecutor agreed. The drug charge was completely dropped and AS paid a fine for the routine traffic violation for which he was initially stopped.
State v. CC.,
CC was charged with DWI. At the DMV license revocation hearing, Attorney Osborne pointed out to the arresting officer that the officer had incorrectly administered the field sobriety tests through which he put CC. The arresting officer agreed that he had made some mistakes. The DWI charge was dropped and CC plead guilty to a reduced charge of Reckless Driving. This agreement spared CC from having to endure a longer license suspension period, an alcohol program, and a misdemeanor conviction on his record. After one year passes, CC will be able to annul the Reckless Driving conviction and get it off his driving record.
State v. AH.,
AH was driving home one night from a bar. She was pulled over. The officer who stopped her thought she was drunk. He asked AH to take some field sobriety tests. AH did (of course she did not have the benefit of an attorney as she stood alongside the road). The officer arrested AH for DWI. AH hired Attorney Osborne to represent her. At the DMV license revocation hearing, Attorney Osborne succeeded in getting the arresting officer to admit that he administered every single field sobriety test through which he put AH. Upon hearing of this, the DMV returned the license to AH. The prosecutor for this case agreed to drop the DWI charge against AH and instead AH received a fine (but no license loss) for Negligent Driving as part of a negotiated resolution proposed by Attorney Osborne.
State v. TW.,
TW was arrested and charged with Simple Assault against his girlfriend. It was alleged that he threw items and hot liquids at her. Attorney Osborne notified the prosecutor that the girlfriend had thrown hot liquids of her own at TW. TW was not convicted of Simple Assault.
State v. BC.,
B.C. was charged with STALKING. BC was served with a Stalking order that prevented BC from having any contact with a next door neighbor. The State alleged that BC violated the terms of the Stalking order by speaking to the neighbor. A close look at the facts revealed that BC was on her porch speaking with a friend. The neighbor, whose window was open, heard BC's voice and grabbed her camcorder. The neighbor then taped BC's conversation. The police seized this conversation and used this as evidence against BC.
Prior to trial Attorney Justin Shepherd brought it to the State's intention that the neighbor's conduct, willfully and surreptitiously taping his client's conversation without consent, violated the States Wiretapping statute and was a felony level offense. Further, Attorney Shepherd pointed out that it was impossible to knowingly violate the Stalking petition as the neighbor's apartment was on the other side of the building in question and not visible to BC, hence BC had absolutely no way of knowing BC was in the neighbor's proximity.
The State agreed with Attorney Shepherd's analysis and DROPPED the charge prior to the start of trial.
State v. BB.,
B.B. was accused of Possession of a Controlled Drug. Specifically, B.B. was driving down the street followed closely by a local police officer. The officer noticed a rear passenger "pop up" from the back seat, look at the officer, and duck back down. The officer conducted a motor vehicle stop on the basis that the rear seat passenger was not properly buckled. After asking for B.B.'s license and registration the officer detected the odor of marijuana. The officer subsequently located marijuana in the back seat and arrested B.B. Prior to trial Attorney Justin Shepherd filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence. Specifically, Attorney Shepherd argued that the officer had no basis to conduct a motor vehicle stop as the officer failed to note in his report that the rear seat passenger appeared young or under age 18 thus requiring a seatbelt pursuant to statute. It was not until after the motor vehicle stop that the officer observed that the male who "popped up" was under age 18; hence no legitimate basis for the stop existed. Further, Attorney Shepherd noted that the marijuana was seized in the rear of the vehicle as opposed to on B.B.'s person or in an immediate area surrounding B.B. After reading the motion and listening to Attorney Shepherd's argument regarding possession the State DROPPED the charge.
State v. MR.,
M.R. was indicted for Sale of a Controlled Drug. The State sought a lengthy prison sentence. At sentencing Attorney Justin Shepherd proposed an alternative sentence recommending that the court allow M.R. to continue with drug treatment/counseling as opposed to sticking M.R. in the state prison ( where M.R. would receive little, if any, services). The court adopted Attorney Shepherd's sentencing recommendation thus permitting M.R. to continue with treatment as opposed to the prison sentence sought by the State.
State v. AW.,
Attorney Justin Shepherd represented A.W. on a felony complaint alleging Witness Tampering. The complaint was DISMISSED as the State failed to allege a mental state in the complaint.
State v. MD.,
The police arrested M.D. for DWI and brought M.D. back to the police station. M.D. called Attorney Osborne for legal advice. Attorney Osborne advised M.D. to not take any field sobriety tests. He also advised M.D. to not take the breath test. At trial M.D. was found not guilty of DWI.
State v. CC.,
C.C. was arrested for DWI. Without the benefit of speaking to an attorney, C.C. took the field sobriety tests and a breath test. He blew almost twice the legal limit for the amount of alcohol a person is allowed to have in his/her system.
C.C. hired Attorney Osborne. During a licensing hearing a DMV, Attorney Osborne questioned the arresting officer about the manner in which he administered the field sobriety tests. Attorney Osborne informed the officer during the hearing that he had not administered the tests properly and that they would be inadmissible in court. Attorney Osborne persuaded the arresting officer to drop the DWI (a misdemeanor) down to a Reckless Driving traffic infraction.
State v. RP.,
R.P. was arrested and charged with misdemeanor counts for Simple Assault and Rioting at a local amusement park. Prior to trial, Attorney Osborne explained to the prosecutor that R.P. was not guilty of Riot, and that he had acted in self-defense. The assault charge and the riot charges were dropped and in exchange R.P. paid a nominal fine for a violation level Disorderly Conduct.
State v. ML.,
M.L. was arrested and charged with DWI. M.L. took the field sobriety tests and reportedly failed all of them. Nonetheless, prior to trial Attorney Osborne explained to the prosecutor that the arresting officer administered the sobriety tests out of the proper order. Per Attorney Osborne's request, the prosecutor agreed to drop the misdemeanor DWI down to a traffic infraction for Reckless Driving.
State v. SF.,
S.F. was mistakenly charged with Resisting Arrest/Detention. S.F. was sitting in a vacant building when a police officer yelled for S.F. to please exit the building to speak with him. S.F. decided that he would stay where he was. The officer asked S.F. a second time to come outside and speak with him. S.F. refused. The officer went into the building an arrested S.F.. S.F. was charged with Resisting Arrest/Detention. At trial, Attorney Osborne argued that one cannot be guilty of Resisting Arrest unless a police officer ORDERS someone to come outside, rather than simply ASKING. The Court agreed and the Resisting Arrest/Detention charge was dismissed.
State v. RL.,
RL was indicted by a Grand Jury for Attempted First Degree Assault and First Degree Assault. The State alleged that RL swung a shovel at his brother's head causing a severe head injury. Prior to trial the State sought a substantial State Prison sentence. Following a week long jury trial RL was found NOT GUILTY of both counts First Degree Assault. Rather, the jury convicted RL on a lesser included charge of Second Degree Assault as requested by Attorney Shepherd. Ultimately RL received a deferred State Prison sentence and was placed on probation, a far cry from the sentence sought by the government.
State v. LB.,
LB was charged with Resisting Detention and Possession of Marijuana. LB was walking from the local bus station towards Main Street with a friend, at night, when LB caught the attention of the local police (for no good reason). The Officer decided he would "check on" LB (for no good reason) and "pat frisk" LB. The officer then began to interrogate LB as to why he was walking down the street and where he was going. Not satisfied with LB's responses, the officer reached for LB's hand and slapped on a handcuff as LB protested. LB was then 'escorted' to the ground. A subsequent search of yielded a small amount of marijuana.
Prior to trial Attorney Justin Shepherd filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence arguing that the Officer had no basis to stop and question LB. Further, the Officer had no basis to conduct a "pat frisk" as there was no reason to believe that LB was armed and/or dangerous. The prosecutor agreed with Attorney Shepherd – both charges were dismissed by the State.
State v. C.M.,
Client was charged with a second DWI. The charge is a class A misdemeanor and carries mandatory jail time, several days in an in-house rehabilitation center, and 3 years loss of license.
Attorney Osborne showed up to Court ready to try C.M.'s case in front of a judge. Once he arrived he persuaded the prosecutor to drop the charge down to a Reckless Operation traffic violation (which typically only carries a minimal fine and 60 days loss of license).
Attorney Osborne was able to accomplish this by pointing out the flaws in the State's case to the prosecutor a few moments before trial. C.M. was very pleased with this result given that she did not go to jail or lose her license for three years. She also avoided having a misdemeanor conviction on her record.
State v. G.M.,
Client was charged with DWI after crashing his car into another car. The State insisted that G. M. was intoxicated because he did not perform well on the Field Sobriety Tests.
During trial, however, questions were raised as to how one's ability to take field sobriety tests would be affected after having been struck in the face/head by an airbag after a collision. During trial Attorney Osborne pointed out to the Court that G.M. had been struck in the face by an airbag at the time of the accident.
Half-way through trial Attorney Osborne persuaded the State to reduce the misdemeanor level DWI charge down to a Negligent Driving traffic violation which carried 30 days loss of license and a fine. Had G.M. been convicted of a DWI, he would have lost his license for no less than 90 days (possibly 9 months given his record), been forced to attend a drunk driver program, and received a misdemeanor conviction on his record.
State v. T.B.,
T.B. was indicted for Manufacturing a Controlled Drug. Several law enforcement agencies executed a search warrant for T.B.'s residence seizing a substantial quantity of controlled drugs. A careful review of the affidavit in support of the search warrant demonstrated a lack of probable cause to search T.B.'s home, as law enforcement had insufficient information to believe controlled drugs would be located in T.B.'s home. Attorney Shepherd filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence seized pursuant to the faulty warrant. The Motion was Granted and the evidence thrown out.
State v. R.V.,
A local police department thought it very suspicious that a vehicle was being driven on their streets. No joke. Police watched as the vehicle pulled into a residential neighborhood and came to a stop in front of a house. Suddenly, the police stormed the vehicle, requesting the driver's license and registration. Not happy with a valid license and registration, the police pressed on, requesting permission to search the vehicle, discovering a small amount of marijuana.
Attorney Justin Shepherd filed a motion to suppress the evidence as the police had no basis to conduct the motor vehicle stop and had no basis to request permission to search the vehicle. The prosecutor came to his senses on the morning of trial and rightfully dropped the charge.
State v. C.D.,
In this case this client was charged with a DWI after having taken field sobriety tests and a breath test. If convicted, the client would have received 12 months loss of license given that she was under 21 years old. Upon reviewing the police reports, Attorney Osborne noticed that the arresting officer erred in the manner and order in which he asked the client to perform the field sobriety tests. As a consequence, Attorney Osborne filed a motion calling for exclusion/suppression of the field sobriety tests results and the breath test result.
Accordingly, Attorney Osborne negotiated a resolution whereby the DWI was dropped to a Negligent Driving violation with a low fine and 30 days loss of license (instead of 12 months loss of license).
State v. K.S.,
K.S. was a passenger in her friend's car. A police officer stopped the car and asked the driver to step out and perform field sobriety tests. The driver passed the field sobriety tests. Nonetheless, the officer insisted that everyone else (including K.S.) step out of the car. The officer searched the car and found an illegal substance in K.S.'s belongings, which were in the car. K.S. was arrested and charged with Possession of a Controlled Drug.
Attorney Osborne thought that what the officer had done violated K.S.'s right to be free of unreasonable and warrantless searches. He also felt that the officer had absolutely no reason to suspect that there were illegal drugs in the car or to further detain the driver and his passengers. Attorney Osborne spoke to the prosecutor and persuaded the prosecutor to drop the charges.
State v. S.A.,
S.A. was charged with shoplifting from a well-known retail store. The State offered to drop the charge to a violation level offense. Attorney Osborne insisted that they go to trial. On the day of trial, Attorney Osborne and S.A. arrived at court ready for trial. But the security officers were no where to be found and did not come to court. The State dropped the case against S.A.
State v. A.P.,
A.P. was charged with a felony for allegedly threatening to kill her boyfriend with a knife. She was also charged with several misdemeanors for allegedly assaulting her boyfriend by choking him with her hands and slapping him in the face. After several months of negotiating with the prosecutors, Attorney Osborne was able to enroll A.P. into a substance abuse program. He was then asked the prosecutor to take note of A.P.'s clean record and sincere steps towards her rehabilitation. All charges are scheduled to be dropped upon compliance with and completion of the substance abuse program.
State v. M.J.,
M.J. was accused of Driving While Intoxicated. M.J. was pulled over for traveling 45mph in a 30mph zone. The arresting officer testified that he did not observe any of the well-known "cues" that are consistent with impaired driving, such as swerving or drifting. After observing the usual "red eyes" and "odor of alcohol" M.J. was asked to exit the motor vehicle and submit to a series of field sobriety tests. Attorney Shepherd attacked the officer's administration and interpretation of these tests, successfully getting the HGN test excluded from evidence. Attorney Shepherd attacked the breath test result of .09% arguing that M.J. may have been well under .09% at the time of the stop. M.J. was found NOT GUILTY.
State v. R.V.,
Client was arrested and charged with a felony level Possession of a Controlled Drug. Attorney Osborne filed a motion to throw out the drug evidence given that R.V.'s pants were illegally searched (while he was wearing them!) during an improper pat down by the investigating detective. The motion was granted and the evidence was thrown out. The prosecutor dropped the charge the next day.
State v. DS.,
DS was indicted for Reckless Conduct. DS was fooling around with a gun and accidentally shot his friend. The State was adamant that DS plead guilty to Reckless Conduct. Attorney Shepherd told the prosecutor this was an accident and that his client would not be pleading to anything. The State dropped the charge on the eve of trial.
State v. JB.,
JB was accused of Receiving Stolen Property and Possession of Controlled Drugs with the Intent to Distribute. An anonymous caller reported two males walking out of a wooded area carrying a backpack. Investigation revealed that the "wooded area" was actually a park. This call prompted law enforcement to pull over JB's car where police discovered a large amount of drugs and jewelry. Attorney Shepherd filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence arguing that the police had no basis to conduct a motor vehicle stop. The State agreed with Attorney Shepherd and elected to drop all the charges rather than have a hearing.
DWI/DUI in New Hampshire Menu
Proudly Serving New Hampshire