NOT GUILTY OF MURDER. A 26 year old client was facing the possibility of life in prison for allegations that he shot and killed his best friend. Mr. Somerville argued to the District Attorney that there was a lack of evidence to support the charges. However, the district attorney refused to dismiss the charges. Mr. Somerville spent over one (1) year investigating this matter - including interviewing dozens of witnesses. Mr. Somerville conducted a three (3) day suppression hearing. The Court agreed with Mr. Somerville and suppressed much of the "evidence" the District Attorney obtained. Following a three (3) week jury trial Mr. Somerville convinced the 12 person jury that there was insufficient evidence to convict the client of Murder. The client will now be released from prison much sooner than if he were convicted of the Murder charges.
Defendant charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, a Class "B" Felony. He faced up to 9 years in state prison. Mr. Somerville argued that the police, in raiding the house, acted illegally and thus any drugs found should be suppressed. The DA opposed this motion. Following a pre-trial suppression hearing, the court agreed with Mr. Somerville and suppressed the search of the house. Ultimately, the court dismissed the felony charges and the defendant is now a free man.
The defendant was charged with a Robbery in the Second Degree, a Class "C" Violent Felony and faced up to 15 years in state prison. The defendant insisted that he was wrongly accused. Mr. Somerville challenged the identification of the defendant by the victim. Following a pre-trial suppression hearing, the court dismissed the felony charges. The defendant did not have to serve any additional time in jail and is now a free man.
A 19 year old man was charged with stabbing another man, and charged with an Assault in the Second Degree, a Class "D" Violent Felony. He faced up to 7 years in state prison. The defendant said he acted in self-defense and would not plead guilty. Mr. Somerville hired a private investigator and found witnesses to back up the defendants claims. After presenting this evidence to the court, the DA still opposed the dismissal of the charges. However, the court agreed with Mr. Somerville and dismissed the felony assault charges. The defendant is now a free man and is attending college.
The defendant, a 16 year old boy, and his friend, were arrested for 2 counts of Robbery in the First Degree, class "B" felonies. The police alleged that the young man hit the victims with gun. The defendant denied ever possessing or hitting the victim with a weapon. The defendant faced up to 25 - 50 years in state prison. Mr. Somerville was able to successfully argue that the defendant had no prior criminal record and deserved a second chance. The court agreed and adjudicated him a Youthful Offender which meant he will not have a criminal record. The court also agreed with Mr. Somerville's argument at sentencing and instead of state prison, the defendant received 5 years probation.
A 19 year old boy was arrested for a dwi. The DA alleged that his blood alcohol level was .17%, more than twice the legal limit. He faced up to 1 year in jail and 3 years probation. He could have also lost his license for 2 years because he is under the age of 21. Within 3 weeks Mr. Somerville convinced the DA to dismiss the dwi charge because the stop of the car was illegal and the breath test was flawed.
The defendant was charged with a class "E" felony dwi. She faced up to 1 1/3 to 4 years in state prison and 5 years probation. The DA originally wanted the defendant to plead guilty to a felony with 6 months in county jail and 5 years probation. Mr. Somerville successfully argued to the DA that there were problems with the chemical test results and that a felony was not appropriate. The DA agreed and ultimately dismissed the felony. The defendant did not have to serve any time in jail and was not put on probation.
The defendant, a 66 year old man, was charged with a refusal dwi. At the DMV administrative hearing, Mr. Somerville successfully argued that the police failed to properly advice the defendant of his rights. The defendant was able to keep his license now can drive both himself and his wife to their doctor appointments.
