Results

Client was assaulted by a competing business owner. Mr. Gilbert represented the client as a private prosecutor in municipal court. Following a trial, the defendant was found guilty and Mr. Gilbert's client was acquitted of the cross-complaint for assault.

Client was charged with DWI (.08) following a motor vehicle accident. A review of the discovery revealed several problems with the State's case. One of the arresting officers improperly administered the standardized field sobriety tests by failing to provide proper instructions, and the officer's narrative report made no mention that he changed the mouthpiece for the Alcotest breathalyzer during testing. Also, a review from video of the stop revealed that despite the officers' alleged observations of intoxication, as indicated in their reports, the two conversed about whether there was probable cause for an arrest and felt it was "a close call." The matter was scheduled for trial and Mr. Gilbert filed a motion to suppress the results of the field sobriety tests and the Alcotest readings. At the trial call the Prosecutor agreed to dismiss the tickets for DWI and Unsafe Lane Change.

Client was charged with assault resulting from an altercation. The purported victim claimed the client threatened her with a box cutter. The matter was remanded to the municipal court. The client filed a cross-complaint against the alleged victim for filing a false police report. Mr. Gilbert represented the client as a private prosecutor. At trial, the client testified, along with three other witnesses. The Court dismissed the assault charge against the client and found the other defendant guilty of filing a false police report. The client was awarded $500 as restitution.

Client was arrested and charged with DWI, failure to maintain lanes and tailgating. He failed the standardized field sobriety tests and his breathalyzer results revealed a blood alcohol content of .10., which is above the legal limit. Client was facing a 7-month loss of his driving privileges in addition to points on his driver's license. Mr. Gilbert was able to convince the prosecutor that there was a deviation with respect to the arresting officer's administration of the Alcotest and the breathalyzer results were suppressed. The client plead guilty to DWI based upon the police officer's observations and received only a 3-month loss of his driving privileges. The remaining tickets were dismissed.

Client was charged with acts of domestic violence for assault and harassment prompting entry of a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO"). At trial for the Final Restraining Order ("FRO"), Mr. Gilbert, was able to severely undermine the alleged victim's case through key pieces of evidence including a series of hostile and derogatory phone messages left after the Court entered the TRO. Mr. Gilbert discussed the inherent weaknesses of the alleged victim's case and both he and his client felt it was appropriate that his client not testify at the hearing. Following a relentless cross-examination and closing arguments, the Judge agreed with Mr. Gilbert's position that an FRO was not warranted, and the TRO was dismissed.

Client was charged with first degree carjacking and assault from an incident in Middlesex County. The client faced a prison sentence of over 30 years if convicted. Mr. Gilbert submitted exculpatory evidence to the prosecutor regarding his client's diminished mental state, that the prosecutor was then required to present to the grand jury. Although the client was indicted, a transcript of the grand jury proceedings (also known as "minutes") revealed that several members of the grand jury had questions for the prosecutor about the client's mental state and criminal responsibility, which caused doubt about the State's chances of a conviction at trial. Mr. Gilbert retained a psychiatrist on behalf of his client, who corroborated his client's mental deficiencies at the time of the incident. The prosecutor did not object to the defense expert's findings, and following a bench trial, the client was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.

Client was charged with DWI (.08) and careless driving. He faced significant insurance surcharges, DMV surcharges, and a loss of his driver's license for 90 days. A review of the motor vehicle recording from the arresting officer's police cruiser revealed that the client stood still for a prolonged period of time during the stop; he was not observed to be staggering, stumbling or swaying and had no difficulty maintaining his balance. The discovery also revealed that the police officer did not properly administer the breathalyzer test. The officer was required to wait a full 20 minutes and observe the client before submitting him to the breathalyzer testing. As a result the Alcotest results would be inadmissible at trial. The State conceded it would not be able to maintain its burden of proof and all charges were dismissed.

Client was charged with DWI (.08) and reckless driving following a one car accident on an icy road. He faced significant insurance surcharges, DMV surcharges, and loss of license for 90 days. Upon review of discovery from the State, it was found that one of the arresting officers did not properly administer the Alcotest breathalyzer test. The officer was required to wait a full 20 minutes and observe the client before submitting him to the breathalyzer testing. Mr. Gilbert was also able to show that due to the client's long history of back problems, the results of the field sobriety tests were not reliable as evidence of intoxication. He retained an expert on his client 's behalf and a report was submitted to the State. Mr. Gilbert convinced the municipal prosecutor that the Alocotest reading would be suppressed, and the State would have difficulty proving intoxication based upon observations of the arresting officers. The DWI charge was dismissed and the client plead guilty to reckless driving.

Client was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia following a search of his vehicle. The arresting officer alleged that he could see a grinder used for marijuana inside the client's sweatshirt pocket, even though it was dark outside. Although the client was eligible for a conditional discharge, the search was unlawful because no probable cause or exigent circumstances existed. The prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charges.