Results
Courtroom victories
On January 26, 2021, Mr. Chen was arrested after being accused of multiple incidents of criminal sexual conduct and was charged with first degree criminal sexual conduct with a complainant under the age of 13 years old. If convicted, Mr. Chen was facing a minimum of 25 years in prison.
He was being accused by a former member of his robotics team. The team member was under the age of 13 at the time of the alleged conduct. Mr. Chen cooperated with law enforcement during their brief investigation. After his arrest, Mr. Chen was placed on administrative leave from the University of Michigan and was ostracized from many of his social circles due to the nature of the allegations – although he was supported by his family and a number of longtime friends.
Mr. Chen’s trial began on November 28, 2022. There were 10 prosecution witnesses – in addition to the alleged complainant and her parents, the prosecution also called an expert in traumatic memories. Although the defense does not have a burden of proof, we presented nine witnesses to the jury including an expert in Forensic Psychology who testified regarding traumatic memories and the forensic interviewing protocol.
The jury began deliberating at approximately 10:45 a.m. on December 2, 2022 and delivered their NOT GUILTY verdict at approximately 2:45 p.m. on December 5, 2022. Mr. Chen, his family, and his friends were relieved and overjoyed that justice was being served.
Although Mr. Chen has been acquitted of these horrific charges, life is not back to normal. Our clients find that the process to rebuilding their lives after allegations such as these takes time but find comfort in knowing that the court process is over.
Unfortunately when allegations such as these are made, people make assumptions and tend to jump to conclusions. Our clients are often guilty until proven innocent although that it is supposed to be the opposite. We are grateful to the jury for paying close attention and taking the time that they needed to come to the right result. We could not be more happy for Mr. Chen and his family!
Check out the story here
Client charged with one count of Domestic Violence against his girlfriend who alleged that he threw her through a very large fish tank in addition to other assaults. During the trial got her to admit that she had been drinking, had used a large rock to break the front of the fish tank, and lost her footing when the water rushed out causing small cuts on her legs. Jury deliberated for a brief period of time and acquitted client.
Client charged with one count of Domestic Violence after she called the police asking for help because her child’s father wouldn’t pull over and let her out of the car. She admitted on the 911 call that she “hit” him on the back of the head in an effort to get him to stop the car. She was in the car with her child’s father, his significant other, and two or three small children. During trial the alleged complainant, her child’s father, admitted to berating her by text on numerous occasions and even laughed at some of the worst messages. Client testified and again admitted to “hitting” alleged complainant in the back of the head in an effort to get him to stop the car. The jury deliberated and ultimately acquitted my client
Client charged with one count of Domestic Violence and one count of Malicious Destruction of Property after her ex-boyfriend called the police claiming that she had assaulted him and broken a light fixture. Client was approximately 5 feet tall. Her boyfriend was approximately a foot taller than her and approximately 100 lbs heavier than her. The couple had gotten into a verbal altercation inside of his residence which carried outside. While outside he claimed that she hit him in the face causing his glasses to fall to the ground. Client denied that she broke anything in his residence. During trial it was revealed that ex-boyfriend was trying to push client backwards down approximately six stairs. She tried to prevent being pushed down the stairs by grabbing ex-boyfriend’s face which caused his glasses to be knocked off of his face. Client testified and did not deny grabbing his face. The jury deliberated for a short time and acquitted my client on all counts.
Client charged with four counts of Felonious Assault/Assault with a Deadly Weapon for allegedly ramming a vehicle with two children and two adults inside. Client drove to his apartment complex after he received a call from his fiancee that someone had driven by their apartment building firing shots. Client worked nearby and left work to check on his fiancee. She described the vehicle that was driven by the shooter and when client encountered the vehicle, he maneuvered his vehicle to stop the shooter’s vehicle. The alleged shooter’s vehicle was stopped by police – a traffic stop that was recorded by the apartment complex’s security cameras – but the complete traffic stop was not recorded. During cross examination of the police officers – they eventually admitted that they did not recall the traffic stop and did not recall who was driving. They also did not recall if there were any children in the vehicle. The officer in charge testified that he was told that client’s fiancee was the victim of an assault – someone drove onto the grass to run her over with their car – but the police did not investigate those claims; instead charging client with four felonies. During cross examination of officers it was also made clear by using the surveillance video from the apartment complex, which was admitted by the prosecution, that client did not ram a vehicle. The video clearly showed client applying his breaks and veering to the left just before the shooter’s vehicle struck the front quarter panel on the passenger side of the vehicle.
The jury deliberated for approximately an hour and acquitted client of all charges. After the trial – the jury approached client outside of the courthouse and many of them gave him hugs. They knew that he had done nothing wrong.
Client accused of raping a woman that he met through a team that he was a part of. The woman claimed that she became highly intoxicated and that client took advantage of her after she asked him to drive her home. Client adamantly denied the allegations. After law enforcement investigating for approximately two years, speaking to the alleged complainant as well as other witnesses including client, the prosecutor’s office declined charges.
Client accused of sexually assaulting his granddaughter, on multiple occasions, and showing her pornographic materials. Client adamantly denied the allegations. After law enforcement fully investigated the allegations – including interviewing client – and submitted the report to the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor’s office continued to consider charging client. After approximately two years, the prosecutor’s office declined to authorize charges.
Client was accused of sexually assaulting his daughter multiple times over a period of years. Client’s daughter made a number of allegations against client including accusing him of sexually assaulting her in another state – and testifying against him in that state. Client denied the allegations made against him in both states. Client was placed on a tether, lost his job, and was not allowed to return to his home because his stepdaughter lived there.
During cross examination it was revealed that client’s daughter, and her mother, had a strong motivation behind accusing client. It was also revealed that nothing sexual happened in the other state and that the alleged complainant, her mother, and at least two other witnesses had discussed their testimony prior to trial. The trial lasted approximately 10 days – including jury selection – and at the end, the jury deliberated for approximately thirty minutes finding client not guilty.
Despite client’s daughter testifying that nothing happened in the other state – client is still awaiting trial in that state.
Client’s daughter accused him of touching her inappropriately on multiple occasions. She testified at a preliminary examination and added alleged incidents that he touched her. Children’s Protective Services sought to terminate client’s parental rights to all of his children as a result of the allegations by his daughter. That case ended when client agreed not to see his children while the criminal charges were pending.
At trial, a number of witnesses testified – including all of client’s children, law enforcement, and a sexual assault nurse. Client’s daughter made specific claims about where and how client touched her – claims that were contradicted by the physical evidence and investigation conducted by law enforcement and others. After 3 days of trial, the jury deliberated for approximately an hour and acquitted client of all counts.
Client was accused of sexually assaulting, in various ways, the daughter of his former coworker and friend. It was alleged that the assaults occurred over a number of years and in multiple locations/residences. Client retained an attorney prior to being charged with one count of third degree criminal sexual conduct. Client’s attorney decided to hold the preliminary exam after which the prosecution amended the criminal complaint to add fifteen counts of first and second degree criminal sexual conduct.
Client was scheduled to go to trial and on the day of trial was offered a plea. The plea allowed client to plead to a significantly reduced charge, without having to register as a sex offender, and completing a period of probation. After successfully completing probation, the charges against client would be dismissed pursuant to delayed sentencing. Client accepted the offer and did not have to serve any time in jail or on the sex offender registry.
Client accused of shooting at his stepson after a verbal altercation. Client lived in another state but was in Michigan visiting his family and staying at he and his wife’s residence. Client and his stepson got into a verbal altercation and client told stepson that he could not reside in the home any longer. In the middle of the night, stepson returned to the home unbeknownst to client.
At trial it was shown that client did not know that stepson was in the home but that client was fearful of stepson because of a prior physical assault by stepson. There was no dispute that a gun was fired but stepson, during cross examination, testified that he did not hear a shot until after he had crossed the opening to client’s room. This means that he was not shot at but was shot behind. The jury deliberated for a period of time and returned not guilty verdicts for Assault with Intent to Murder and Felony Firearm. The jury convicted client of Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Assault with Intent to do Great Bodily Harm Less Than Murder. Client had been in the county jail for almost two years – as a result, he was sentenced to credit for time served and two years probation. Client was allowed to return to his home state to complete his probation term.
Client was accused of sexually assaulting his mother’s boyfriend’s daughter. It was alleged that a relative witnessed the assault. A petition was filed against client and he began the court process. Client was evaluated and it was determined that he was not a high risk for reoffending nor was he considered a danger to anyone. Ultimately the matter was resolved with the consent calendar which means that client will not have a criminal record so long as he successfully completes a period of supervision.
Client accused of murdering a young man after an altercation outside of a barber shop. The altercation occurred earlier in the day between client’s relative, friend, and the deceased and his friends. During the previous altercation, the deceased or his friend produced a firearm and showed it to client’s relative. Client’s relative called him for help and they went back to the barber shop with others in an effort to confront the deceased and his friends. Client did not approach anyone but the deceased came out of the barber shop and pointed a gun at the group waving it back and forth at all of them. The deceased eventually turned to client and walked toward him all while pointing the gun at client’s head/face region. After a period of time, client was able to unholster a small firearm and fired one shot which ultimately caused the deceased’s death.
There were two trials held. At both trials, client’s relative and friend testified for the prosecution. In both trials they testified that client appeared to be afraid and described how the deceased was pointing the gun – including how he pointed it at client. There were a number of witnesses in both trials. It was admitted that client had a prior felony conviction and was not to possess a firearm. In the first trial, jury was unable to reach a verdict as to the murder charge but convicted client on the two firearms-related charges.
In the second trial, the jury deliberated for approximately five hours and found client not guilty of murder. Ultimately the jury felt that client acted in self defense when he fired the fatal shot.
Client was charged after an incident where he accidentally ran over his girlfriend killing her. Client was accused of intentionally running over his girlfriend after a verbal altercation at a nearby motel. The motel security cameras recorded part of the accident but it was dark at the time of the accident and only sound was recorded. Client denied that he intentionally ran his girlfriend over and was grief-stricken during most of the court proceedings.
A preliminary examination was held and the district court judge declined to bind the case over on manslaughter. The judge did, however, bind the case over to circuit court on the remaining charges. A number of motions were filed and a number of conversations were held. It was repeatedly said to the prosecution that it was physically impossible for client to have intentionally run his girlfriend over due to a number of issues with his vehicle.
After almost two years of litigation, the prosecution’s expert agreed with the defense as to the impossibility of client intentionally running his girlfriend over. Client ultimately pled to failing to report a dead body and was sentenced to serve a term of probation.
Client accused of shooting and killing his longtime friend. Client denied that he intentionally shot his friend but was ultimately charged after minimal investigation.
A preliminary examination was held and the district court judge agreed that client did not intentionally shoot his friend and declined to bind him over on the second degree murder charge. Client was bound over and eventually pled to manslaughter and was sentenced to a brief term of incarceration.