Steven Louth and Zachary Louth handle situations that have the potential to be life altering for their clients.  They strive for success and pride themselves on providing a high quality defense for each client. This page provides examples of notable outcomes and victories achieved. Each case has its own set of facts and circumstances, past successes are not a guarantee of specific results in future cases.

Jury Trial


Our Client was charged with Violation of a Protection Order in Weld County. The case involved a protection order that had been put in place against our client during a minor domestic incident a year prior. The protection order was not the type of protection order most people are familiar with. It did not prevent him from contacting someone and was not issued because he posed some sort of threat. It was simply an order that prevented harassing or intimidating any potential witnesses. This type of protection order is mandatory and issued whenever a person is charged with a crime, regardless of the nature of the crime. It is a routine part of a criminal case. What made the order in our client’s case unusual was that a box on the order was checked that also prevented him from “consuming alcohol.”

Our client resolved the minor domestic incident and went about his life. No one ever informed him of the condition that prevented him from consuming alcohol. In fact, he was told by his probation officer that he could consume alcohol as long as it was not excess.

Almost a year after our client resolved the domestic incident, he was the victim of an assault. He contacted the police to report the incident. When the police arrived, they ran his name through a system and learned that there was a protection order in place with a condition that he not drink alcohol. They asked our client if he had drank any alcohol that evening and he indicated that he drank two beers. Upon this admission, our client was arrested.

At trial, we introduced evidence establishing our client was never made aware of the existence of the condition preventing him from consuming alcohol. We then argued that, in light of that fact, the district attorney could not prove our client “knowingly” violated a protection order, as required by the statute. The jury returned a verdict finding our client not guilty of all charges. June, 2014. Not Guilty of all Charges.


Our client was charged with Driving Under the Influence in Steamboat Springs, Routt County. He was contacted by police after his truck slid off the road during a fierce winter storm that caused icy driving conditions.

When the police contacted our client, they suspected he had been drinking. They asked him to perform some voluntary roadside sobriety maneuvers. Our client agreed to perform the maneuvers despite the fact he felt he was sober and safe to drive. A video camera on the dashboard of the police car recorded these maneuvers.

Our client performed the maneuvers in a manner most people would deem consistent with sobriety. Nevertheless, the police felt differently and arrested him. At that point, the police informed our client of the express consent law which requires a person to submit to a blood or breath test to determine the amount of alcohol in his system. Our client agreed he would submit to a blood test and was taken to a hospital so the test could be administered.

At the hospital, our client was given a lengthy, poorly photocopied medical release and instructed to sign it. Our client told the officer he would be happy to sign the release, but would need to read it first. After a few short minutes, the officer told our client he needed to sign the document or he would consider his actions a refusal to take the test. Our client again stated he was not refusing, but would not sign the document without understanding what it said. The officer then took our client to jail.

Steve Louth was able to use the video of the roadside sobriety maneuvers during trial to prove our client was not under the influence. Steve was also able to get the arresting officer to admit, upon admitting the video in evidence, that our client’s performance of the roadside maneuvers was consistent with sobriety. June, 2014. Not Guilty of All Charges.


Our Client was charged with Sexual Assault and Unlawful Sexual Contact. The prosecution refused to offer a plea bargain that did not include our client registering as a sex offender for the rest of his life. After advising the client, we elected to take the case to jury trial. At the end of the four day jury trial, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict and a mistrial was declared. The 12 person jury was polled and they indicated that they were split 9-3, with the majority finding our client not guilty of each charge.

As a result of the mistrial, a new trial date was set. Our office used new information that arose during the trial to investigate new angles of defense.   On the last business day before the second trial was scheduled to begin, the prosecution abandoned its case and all charges were dismissed. June, 2014. All Charges Dismissed.


Our client was charged with Menacing, Harassment, and Reckless Driving. The charges stemmed from a road rage allegation. Our client was driving a flatbed work truck on a single lane road when a vehicle approached from behind at a high rate of speed. The vehicle came within inches of his bumper. When the vehicle was unable to pass because of traffic coming the other direction, it started to flash its headlights repeatedly. Our client was driving the speed limit and did not understand what the other driver expected him to do, so he simply kept driving. The other vehicle eventually passed him by driving on the shoulder of the road. For a moment, our client attempted to get close enough to the vehicle so he could obtain a license plate, but when the vehicle proceeded to reach speeds close to 100 miles per hour, our client decided to forget about reporting the incident.

The next day, our client was contacted by the police. A police officer informed our client that he had been reported for aggressive and reckless driving. Our client was shocked. He explained the situation to the police. He even provided the officer with the name and contact information of a passenger he had in the vehicle at the time of the incident. The officer said he would contact the passenger, but a few minutes later he issued a summons to our client for Harassment, Menacing, and Reckless Driving.

Since our client was driving his work truck, he was going to lose his job if he was convicted of any of these charges. When the district attorney refused to dismiss the case, we proceeded to a jury trial.

At trial, the district attorney called the officer who issued the summons as a witness. When it was our turn to cross examine the officer, we asked questions focusing on his investigation of the incident. We asked the officer if he had contacted the passenger/witness to obtain her version of events. The officer indicated that he had attempted to contact her, but that the phone number he was given was disconnected. After hearing the officer state this under oath, we asked him to confirm the number he attempted to call. Once we had confirmation of the phone number, we ended our questioning and the he was allowed to leave the witness stand.

At this point, we asked the court to allow us to take an unusual step. We asked that the court use the courtroom telephone and call the number the officer was given. The court agreed and, on speaker phone in front of the jury, dialed the number. After a few rings, the witness answered the phone. She said that she had never been contacted by the police and that her phone has never been disconnected. February, 2014. Acquitted of all charges.


Our client was charged with sexual assault against his wife in Hugo, Colorado. The alleged victim stated she drove six hours to see her husband and pick up their daughter. When she arrived her husband locked her in the bathroom and used force to violently rape her. She ran from the hotel room shaking and in tears when a passerby contacted her and called the police. She reported the rape. Our client was arrested and the bond was set at $350,000. He was also facing deportation because he did not have American citizenship. He denied the allegations and the case was set for jury trial.

At trial we established the alleged victim had a motive to lie. Our client had made some poor decisions and had slept with his wife's sister and had a baby with her. Understandably, his wife was extremely upset with his infidelity and we argued this is why she had concocted the story about the sexual assault. Further, we introduced Facebook messages where she told a friend “he got what he had coming to him”.

We also established she claimed he used immense force to choke her and hold her down. However, police took photographs of her within an hour of the event and there were  no red marks, cuts, scrapes or bruises. There were also no defensive wounds to her hands or any marks on our client. After three hours of jury deliberation our client was found not guilty. Not Guilty of All Charges.



Our client was charged with Driving Under the Influence in the Longmont division of Boulder County Court. She was contacted by police after she was found unconscious in the bathroom of a Longmont area Wal-Mart at 3:30 a.m.

The police found her car in the parking lot. The vehicle had sustained substantial damage and was inoperable. The rubber had been shredded off all four tires. The police followed a trail of debris out of the parking lot and down the highway to a median that appeared to have recently been hit by a car and a knocked over traffic sign.

After a blood test, our client was found to have a substantial amount of anti-anxiety medication in her system. The prosecution claimed that she was under the influence of this medication at the time she was operating the vehicle and that constituted DUI.

What had actually happened was that after our client was in the traffic accident, she went in to Wal-Mart to report it and call for help. She soon realized she was having a panic attack and took her prescribed medication. The medication was quick acting and made her loopy. She started to behave erratically. She then entered the bathroom where she passed out.

Our client had previous DUIs and was facing a substantial jail sentence if she was convicted. As a result we took the case to trial. At trial, we presented evidence that our client was not under the influence while she was operating the vehicle and it was not until after the vehicle was inoperable that she took any medication.

The jury found her not guilty of DUI or DWAI and only convicted her of minor traffic offenses related to the traffic accident. Longmont. July, 2013. Acquitted of DUI and DWAI.


Our client was charged with Reckless Endangerment in the Longmont division of Boulder County Court. The charges stemmed from an allegation that our client, while legally practice shooting his handgun on private property in rural, unincorporated Longmont, had struck a house with an errant bullet.

Our client was fully licensed and took great care to be a responsible gun owner. He vehemently denied that one of his rounds could have struck a house. No bullet was ever recovered, so no match could be done on the firearm.

After the prosecutor refused to dismiss the case, we proceeded to jury trial. At trial, we presented evidence that given the angle our client was practice shooting and the caliber of the gun he was using, his bullet could not have possibly struck the home, which was a mile and a half away.

Following a short deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts. July, 2013. Longmont. Acquitted of all charges.


Our Client was charged Third Degree Assault, Harassment, and Attempt to Commit Third Degree Assault in Boulder County Court in the Longmont division. All charges were tagged as domestic violence.

The case arose from an incident at our client’s apartment on the North side of Longmont.  Our client worked the overnight shift at a local factory. After returning home from work in the morning, our client went to sleep, as was his normal custom.

While he was asleep, his recently ex-girlfriend came to his apartment and let herself in. She entered his bedroom and started throwing things around. When our client woke up and asked her what was going on, she screamed she was looking for some things she had left. Our client patiently waited as she ransacked his room. It was not until she started to break things that he asked her to leave. She refused to leave. She then attacked our client by striking and scratching him. Our client, in an effort to end the attack, picked her up, carried her out of his apartment, and locked the door behind her.

A half hour later, officers with the Longmont Police Department were beating on his door. The ex-girlfriend had called and alleged that he assaulted her, going as far as saying “he attempted to kill (her).” The officers spoke to our client who calmly explained the situation to them. They also spoke with our client’s developmentally disabled brother, who lived in the apartment and was present at the time, and he confirmed our client’s story. Despite this, the officers arrested our client because they claimed they noticed a red abrasion on the ex-girlfriend’s wrist.

The prosecutor not only refused to dismiss the case, he only offered our client a plea bargain that would require our client to spend a considerable amount of time in the Boulder County Jail. When the client refused to accept the plea bargain, the prosecutor said that for the trial, he intended to subpoena our client’s brother, who had to move to Atlanta to live with family after our client lost his job because of the allegations. The prosecutor said that once our client was convicted, he would include the last minute plane ticket purchased by the prosecutor’s office  as prosecution costs and require our client pay for it.

We and our client held strong in the belief of his innocence and we pushed the case to jury trial. At trial, the evidence played out just as we expected. After the ex-girlfriend testified, it was clear she had completely fabricated her story. In between apparently uncontrollable sobs, she testified that she had been beaten within an inch of death and was lucky to escape with her life. Then during a recess from trial, she walked past us in the courthouse hallway, smiled, and winked. It was evil. We opened our closing argument by simply holding a picture of the ex-girlfriend, which was taken the day of the incident and showed her completely unblemished, and asking the jury “does this photo match the testimony you heard from (the ex-girlfriend).” Several jurors visibly shook their heads no.

Fortunately, justice prevailed. The jury quickly returned not guilty verdicts on all counts. Best of all, once the verdicts were returned, the jury was allowed to speak with us and the prosecutor. One juror asked the prosecutor two very blunt questions- “Why did you waste our time with this case? And, why was the ex-girlfriend not the one charged with crimes?”  October, 2012. Longmont. Acquitted of all charges


Our client was charged with sexual assault. One morning he was at his home getting ready to go to work. His sister's friend was also getting ready in the bathroom for the day. After a few exchanges, our client felt their was a sexual vibe and they began to rub against each other. Our client pulled his pants down and then pulled her pants down and they engaged in anal sex. She did not resist, she did not say no and she gave no indication the sex was against her will. She left the home and immediately reported that she had been raped. She was interviewed and the next day our client was arrested and charged. Our client believed she wanted to have sex that morning and refused to accept a plea deal. The case proceeded to jury trial. Losing at trial meant our client could receive an indeterminate prison sentence of two years to life, where many inmates are incarcerated for well over twenty years.

At trial we argued the sex was consensual and the elements for sexual assault had not been met. The alleged victim made statements that she believed our client thought the interaction was consensual. She admitted at first she was not even sure if it was in fact rape. We argued the two individuals had known each other and flirted in the past, there were other people in the home at the time of the alleged assault and she was embarrassed about engaging in sex because she had a boyfriend and it was her friend's brother. The jury was deliberating for over eleven hours and rendered a verdict of not guilty on all three charges. Not Guilty of All Charges.


Our client was on driving home from work when he noticed another vehicle make a sharp turn and cut off another car. He pulled up next to this vehicle and told the driver he was not driving appropriately. They exchanged profanities and the other vehicle made a right turn and our client went straight. The other vehicle then made a sharp illegal u-turn to follow our client. For over a mile he was tailgated. A few blocks away from home, our client got nervous and thought this was enough. He got out of his vehicle with a ball-peen hammer to tell the driver to “get out of here”. Our client was tackled and a scuffle ensued. Witnesses began calling the police. Our client returned to his vehicle and drove home where police contacted him and arrested him. He was facing mandatory minimum 5 years prison if convicted of the assault charge.

Our client had worked for one company for 29 years and was just months away from retiring. Any felony conviction would force him to lose his retirement benefits. Due to prior criminal history, the prosecution would not offer a misdemeanor. At trial we established our client was not the aggressor, this other individual was asking for a fight. We brought in witnesses who spoke about this individual's dangerous and erratic driving. We also argued our client never intended to hit the other individual. We admitted to the jury he did not make the best decision to exit the vehicle with the hammer. He was acquitted of all felony charges and convicted of disorderly conduct and received 12 months of probation. Not Guilty of All Felony Charges.


When a car was parked in front of a woman's home she called the police. Our client was found asleep in the drivers side. Officers began talking to our client who was clearly intoxicated. He had consented to a blood test which showed he was above a .20 BAC. He was arrested and charged with DUI.

At trial the prosecution argued our client had exercised control of the vehicle and common sense proved he had driven the vehicle that evening while intoxicated. One of our client's friends testified that she had driven our client's car that evening. Our client then became belligerent and was too intoxicated and she got out of the vehicle and left him, which was where police found our client parked. We also established the vehicle was not warm, our client did not have his hands on the steering wheel, the seat belt was not on and there we no signs that the car had been driven recently.

The jury returned a not guilty verdict on all counts. (Client did not testify)


Our client and her finance were terminating their relationship on a Sunday afternoon. Our client was in the process of packing her belongings and moving out of her fiance's house. It was a rough and emotional day and she decided to have a several drinks during the day as she was packing up her belongings. At some point she was putting belonging in her car when neighbors contacted the police because of a strange vehicle in front of their house and our client appeared emotional and distressed. When an officer arrived he determined no crime had occurred and left.

Both parties returned to the home and our client and her fiancé being arguing. She decided to remove herself from the situation. Her phone was low on battery and she got in her vehicle and turned on the ignition to charge her phone and wait until a friend could pick her up. Her fiancé called the police and reported she was driving. The officer noted the car had been parked in a different position when he first made contact with our client. She was arrested for DUI.

At the first trial, the jury could not come to a decision and a mistrial was declared. The prosecution elected to  retry the case. At the second trial, Attorney Zach Louth asked the jurors during jury selection if they ever sat in the driver seat of a vehicle with the ignition on without any intent to drive. Most jurors had done so. During cross examination of the witnesses, Mr. Louth established no one saw our client actually driving the vehicle. He also established our client was intoxicated and knew she could not drive, she was being responsible by sitting in her car trying to call a friend to pick her up. He also brought out the fact the officer could not recall if our client was wearing a seat belt.

After only twenty-five minutes the jury returned with a not guilty verdict on all counts. (Client did testify)


Our client went out for a drink with two business associates. After having several drinks at a microbrewery, our client and his associates decided to go back to their office space to have a few more drinks. Our client had participated in the sport of wrestling throughout his life and had recently been hired as a volunteer wrestling coach at a local school.

While at the office, our client and one of the associates got into a discussion about wrestling and self-defense. The associate asked our client if he would show him how to defend himself. Our client obliged. He asked the associate to act as if he was going to tackle him. The demonstration was done at a walk through pace, but, without warning, the associate became very aggressive and slammed our client into an adjacent wall. This resulted in a whole being punctured into the dry wall. At trial, the associate explained his actions by saying, “(he) was trying to beat the expert.” Our client, surprised and frightened by the unexpected tackle, immediately pinned the associate to the ground. At that point, the associate punched our client in the face. Our client reacted by pinning the associate to the ground with more force. The other associate, who was not involved in the wrestling, saw this and ran across the room. He proceeded to strike our client in the back of the head repeatedly. Our client struggled to his feet and punched this associate in the head causing him to fall. Immediately, our client fearing for his safety after being attacked by both associates, kicked at the associate who had fallen from the punch. This caused serious injury to the associate's orbital socket.

Our client was charged with Second Degree Assault. If our client was convicted of this charge, he would have been sentenced to a mandatory minimum of five years in the department of corrections.

At trial, we argued that our client was acting in self defense and his actions were reasonable considering he was unexpectedly attacked by two men. After a three day jury trial, the jury found our client not guilty. (Client did testify)


Our client was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. Our client, a restaurant employee, had a few drinks after work one night. When our client went to leave, he decided he should call a taxi. While waiting for the taxi, our client choose to sit in his car because it was mid-winter and the temperature outside at the time was approximately 20 degrees.

Before the taxi arrived, police officers happened to approach our client while he was inside his vehicle. Although he had not driven and he explained he was only in the car waiting for his taxi to arrive, our client was arrested and charged with DUI.

At trial, we argued that our client had not exercised the control over the vehicle that is required to be convicted of Driving Under the Influence. After 6 hours of deliberations, the jury could not reach a unanimous decision and a mistrial was declared. After the mistrial, the district attorney agreed to dismiss the Driving Under the Influence charge in exchange for the client pleading guilty to a minor traffic offense.


21 year old female client was looking for a parking space in a crowded parking garage at a local ski area when she was accosted by a large, muscle bound man. The man was under the false impression that the client was attempting to take a parking space he claimed to be waiting for. The man threatened the client and took off his watch and shirt, apparently to show that he was preparing to use physical violence. The client sat terrified in her locked vehicle for approximately 3 minutes while this took place. Eventually, in an attempt to extricate herself from the situation, the client attempted to drive away. When she did this, the man walked into the front of her car and the front end of the car slightly bumped the man. The man then went berserk. He pounded on the hood of the client’s vehicle and ripped off her windshield wiper. The client was ultimately able to back out of the garage while the man chased her. Unfortunately, the client did not call the police, and therefore, the man was the first to report the incident.

Despite the incident being on video tape, the client was charged with reckless endangerment and careless driving. According to the prosecution, the client consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of serious bodily injury when the man was bumped.

After I discussed the case with the prosecution, they decided to charge the man with disorderly conduct, but refused to drop the charges against my client. Therefore, we took the case to trial. At trial, through the use of video evidence and testimony, we were able to prove the defendant did not act reckless or careless. The jury came back, within minutes, acquitting the client of both charges.


21 year old client was accused of having sex with his ex-girlfriend’s 14 year old sister. Our client faced a minimum 50 year sentence if convicted of this charge. During jury selection, I asked potential jurors if they remembered their first sexual encounters. I did this because the alleged victim gave several different accounts about what had occurred. She described the alleged sexual contact as happening in no fewer than three different locations and gave numerous timelines of the event. Every single juror I posed the question to answered that they remembered the exact time and place of their first sexual encounter. During cross examination of the alleged victim, I was able to show that she had concocted the alleged sexual contact and that, through her multiple interviews, she mixed up her story. DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF SEXUAL ASSUALT ON A CHILD.


On his way home from work, our client stopped at a liquor store to buy a bottle of Vodka. He was not allowed to drink around his step-children so he took a couple of swigs from the bottle before leaving the parking lot. Minutes later he arrived home and he noticed two police cars in the drive way. The police had responded to the residence because a worried neighbor had contacted them after seeing the word “help” written in soap over one of the windows. This was in mid-November and the soap written “help” was actually a left over Halloween decoration. After some discussion, our client was able to explain this to the police. However, in doing so, one of the officers noticed the odor of alcohol on his breath and asked him to perform a portable breath test. Our client consented and the test came back showing our client had a blood alcohol content slightly over the legal limit. He was charged with D.U.I.

At trial, I used maps and the liquor store receipt to argue that, given the time and distance, the alcohol didn’t take effect until after our client got home and spent 30 minutes talking with the police. Therefore, he was not over the legal limit at the time he was driving. RESULT: DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY.


My 29-year-old client worked as a security guard at a bar that had a reputation as a location with a high amount of criminal activity, i.e. brawling and drug dealing. My client finished his shift one evening and went to another drinking establishment down the road from his work place to relax and have a few beers. There were two females drinking inside the bar my client walked into who earlier in the evening were ejected from the bar my client worked at by the client. Both females were ejected from the bar my client worked at as a security guard for presenting fictitious identification at the front door.

The two females claimed at trial that they were afraid of my client and that they felt uncomfortable drinking in the same bar as him. The females left the bar and got into their car parked out in front of the bar. Once outside of the bar, they asked a security guard if he would run back inside the bar and buy them some burritos while they waited in the car. Thereafter, they claim that my client came from inside of the bar to the front door and walked up to their car window carrying a law enforcement baton that resembles a small metal baseball bat. The two females claimed that my client opened the front door of their car and threatened to hit them with the baton, stating “You bitches just don't fucking get it, do you?” The driver stated she quickly pulled the car forward so that they would not get hit and that my client responded by hitting the roof of their car with the baton and breaking out the rear tail light of the car.

Through cross examination, I was able to show that the two females were antagonizing my client and that they were making up the story to get even with him for ejecting them from the other bar earlier in the evening. JURY RETURNED NOT GUILTY VERDICT ON CRIMINAL MISCHIEF AND HUNG JURY VERDICT ON THE REMAINING COUNT OF FELONY MENACING WITH A DEADLY WEAPON (Later, prosecution dismissed menacing with a deadly weapon count rather than re-trying the client.) (Client did not testify


Client was accused of having sex with his 17 year old step-daughter. According to the step-daughter, she would sleep with the client in exchange for heroin and she came forward because she didn’t want him in the house anymore. If convicted, our client faced a minimum of 50 years in prison. RESULT: CASE DISMISSED BY JUDGE AT JURY TRIAL.


My twenty four year old client was driving from Thornton to his family's home in Basalt Colorado on Christmas Eve when he lost control of his Dodge Durango, crossed the median on I-70, just below the Eisenhower Tunnel, killing a man who was driving home from Keystone with his two daughters in the back seat. Client was charged with criminally negligent homicide and Felony child abuse after the State Patrol calculated that his speed, just before losing control of his vehicle, was between 93 and and 102 miles per hour.

During jury selection, I asked potential jurors, all of whom were infinitely familiar with commuting I-70, if they were familiar with the traffic levels on I-70 at various times of the day and various times of the year concerning holidays. Also, asked them if any of them owned a vehicle that they thought was capable of operating at a 100 mph up the mountain from Georgetown to the tunnel. In addition, I inquired as to their perception of the degree of difficulty it is to drive faster or slower than the flow of traffic when the highway was filled with fellow commuters.

To defend my client, I provided an expert accident reconstruction expert to testify that the State Patrol failed to take into consideration the condition of the client's tires and the condition of the median in determining my client's speed. I argued that my client, who was seriously injured and did not have any recollection of the accident, must have been driving with the flow of traffic and simply fell to sleep, losing control of his vehicle and crossing the median. Finally, I argued that the accident was by all accounts tragic and the client should be held accountable financially in civil court because he failed to keep control of his vehicle, however, his conduct was not criminal. Client found NOT GUILTY


My client was contacted and arrested by the police as he was sitting behind the wheel of a street sweeper with the keys in the ignition. He reportedly stated to the police that he was attempting to drive the vehicle home after some friends dropped him off and dared him to take the vehicle as his form of transportation home. The arresting officer noted that it appeared that the Defendant had started the vehicle and drove it into a light pole situated about one foot in front of the street sweeper. In support of that theory, the officer took pictures of what appeared to be fresh tire marks between the pole and the street sweeper and a small dent on the front of the street sweeper.

At trial, I established that the officer never physically felt the engine of the street sweeper to see if it was warm and, therefore, it was possible that the last operator to use the vehicle had accidentally hit the light pole and left the vehicle parked there. Additionally, I established that my client's alcohol level was shown to be almost a lethal dose of alcohol poisoning at a .288. The Defendant testified that the last thing he remembered that evening was leaving on foot to walk home from a bar where he had attended a friend's 21st birthday celebration. In retrospect, the Defendant believes he became disoriented and walked the wrong direction home. He testified that he wasn't dressed for the cold weather that February night and that maybe he crawled up into the cab of street sweeper to seek shelter. In any event, he thanked the officer for possibly saving his life that evening because he was obviously very confused and lost. Defendant found NOT GUILTY of DUI.


My client was described by police as “being slumped over the wheel of her car with the engine running and lights on.” She blew a .130 on the intoxilyzer. At trial we proved that client was attending housewarming party up the street from where she was contacted by the police and that she realized as she was walking out of the home that she had consumed too much alcohol to drive. She testified at trial that she couldn't call a cab in her small town where she was visiting and that she was too embarrassed to call anyone for assistance. My client made the decision to “sleep it off” when the next thing she remembered was being talked to by the police. She testified that she didn't remember how the engine got turned on but she surmised that, given the time of year and weather that evening, she must have turned the engine on to start up the heater at one point after waking up. Client found NOT GUILTY of DUI.

FIRST DEGREE ASSAULT (mandatory minimum 10 year prison sentence if convicted)

Client was arrested and charged with First Degree Assault after he hit another man in the head with 750ml bottle. The man suffered a severe laceration across the face as a result of the blow. According to the police reports, the blow was almost completely unprovoked. The best plea bargain that was offered to my client was plead guilty and serve 5 years in prison. Despite the risks of going to trial, a minimum 10 years prison and a possible 32 years prison, the client chose to take his case trial.

At trial, I was able to establish that the other man provoked my client by throwing rocks at the vehicle the client was a passenger in and, when the client confronted him, punching him in the face. None of these facts were contained in the police reports and were gathered through the use of a private investigator I retained to investigate the circumstances surrounding the event.  The client was found NOT GUILTY of first degree assault, and was convicted of a lesser offense, Assault in the Second Degree Under Provocation, which carried only a mandatory 18 months prison.


Friend of my client's wife asked my client to watch her two daughters, age five and nine, for short period of time. Later, when the friend picked up her two daughters, the oldest daughter informed her mother that my client had shown her and her little sister a video tape of naked women dancing around and then afterwards, taken her clothes off, poured “baby sauce” on her private and described acts committed by the client on her that would constitute oral sex. The five-year-old daughter stated that my client did the same thing to her. Prior to trial, my client was offered a plea bargain of four years in prison. At trial, I was able to show that the search of my client's house did not reveal any videotapes of naked women, nor did it reveal anything that could be construed as “baby sauce”. JURY RETURNED NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON BOTH COUNTS (Client did not testify)


Our 32-year-old client was facing a minimum 56 year prison sentence if convicted at trial of sex assault on child – use of force and pattern of abuse charge. He was accused of having sexual contact with his three-year-old daughter during court ordered visits in his divorce case. At trial, we were able to show that our client's ex-wife had shopped her daughter around to various professionals before she found one professional who would state that they believed her child was being sexually abused. JURY RETURNED NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL COUNTS (Client did not testify).


My 18-year-old client was charged with raping a 16-year-old girl. My client was unable to post bond and sat in jail for four months awaiting trial. My client was found not guilty at trial after I was able to establish through cross examination of prosecution witnesses that the 16 year old girl became upset with my client after having consensual sexual intercourse with him and that she made up the story of rape in order to get even with the client. NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL COUNTS (Client did not testify)

SECOND DEGREE ASSAULT (mandatory minimum 5 year prison sentence if convicted)

A live-in girlfriend moves back to her parents' home and reports that my client strangled her during a recent argument. Specifically, in regard to the strangulation, the girlfriend alleged that my client squeezed her neck with his hands until she experienced ” a ringing in her ears” and “a white out” with her vision.

My client reported that the argument began after he and his girlfriend were sleeping one night and their six month old baby woke up in the middle of the night crying. He reported that he got up to comfort the baby while his girlfriend got up to retrieve a bottle of milk from the kitchen. When my client couldn't find a pacifier to comfort the baby, he made a sarcastic remark to his girlfriend about leaving all of the pacifiers over at her mother's house. The girlfriend responded by winging the baby bottle at my client while he was holding the baby. This angered my client to the point where he pushed his girlfriend while she stormed back into the bedroom to go to bed. The girlfriend pushed my client back while he was holding the baby. My client placed the baby down and pushed his girlfriend to the floor where she laid and refused to get up. My client bent down to lift his girlfriend up. His girlfriend went limp while he was picking her up in bear hug fashion, causing her to slide throw his arms to the point that his arms were across her neck momentarily. Client then gave up and left the house to go spend the night with his parents.

I was able to show that my client's girlfriend had motive to exaggerate the extent of the physicality of the argument because she was attempting to get sole custody of the child and prevent my client from having overnight visitation with his child. Defendant found NOT GUILTY of felony Second Degree Assault (the strangulation) and found guilty of pushing the girl friend (misdemeanor).

SECOND DEGREE ASSAULT (mandatory minimum 5 year prison sentence if convicted)

Client was charged with 2nd Degree Assault, a felony charge that carried a minimum 5 year prison sentence. Client was out on University Hill with his friends when a man approached him and accused him of breaking a nearby fence. The alleged victim pushed our client and a scuffle ensued. Many people became involved and what started out as a wrestling match between two people turned into a giant brawl. At some point, the alleged victim was severely injured, but there was no evidence as to who caused the serious injury. At trial I showed there was no indication of who caused the injury by cross examining the alleged victim. RESULT: DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY OF SECOND DEGREE ASSUALT, CONVICTED OF A REDUCED MISDEMEANOR CHARGE- APPEAL PENDING.




Our client was charged with Third Degree Assault in Boulder County. The allegation was that he and another individual “jumped” the alleged victim at a local park. Our client was adamant that he was not even in the area at the time the incident allegedly occurred.

We set the case for trial. Prior to trial, we pieced together a timeline of our client’s whereabouts and the event. We then endorsed alibi witnesses who could corroborate our client’s story. Upon learning of our alibi witnesses, the district attorney dismissed the case. August 2014. All Charges Dismissed.


Our client was charged with Theft in Denver County. The allegation was that he and some coworkers, all employees of a national company, had submitted fraudulent invoices to the company and then embezzled the money. The amount alleged to have been stolen was over $250,000.00.

The scope of the investigation conducted by law enforcement was enormous. The district attorney turned over 5,000 pages of police reports and other documents related to the investigation.

After a thorough review of the evidence, we determined there was not a provable case against our client. Several of his co-defendants accepted plea bargains from the district attorney, but we held firm and eventually, the district attorney dismissed the charges against our client. December 2013. All Charges Dismissed.

First Degree Assault (mandatory 10 years prison sentence if convicted)

One evening two buddies went out to TGIF to grab some drinks and socialize. At 1:45 a.m. the bartenders did last call. Our client and another patron in the bar exchanged “bar banter” that both individuals thought was funny. A third party saw this behavior, possibly thinking there  was a serious argument, and approached our client and demanded he leave the bar. Our client told this man he was finishing his drinks, the bar was still open, he had not been asked to leave by any employees and he was not leaving. This man became upset and pushed our client fifteen feet backward into a table while his hands were around our client's neck. Our client was still holding his beer glass and swung his hand at this individual. The beer glass shattered on this individual's neck and he suffered a severe wound. This exchange was recorded on video. We later learned this individual was an off duty police officer.

Our client was arrested and charged with first degree assault. Our client awaiting his day in court for eighteen months. Three days before trial, I convinced the DA they did not have a strong case and the charges were dismissed.

 Third Degree Assault and Criminal Mischief-Domestic Violence

One evening our client arrived home after a day of work. When he entered his home, his intoxicated wife was upset over the prospect of losing their home in bankruptcy. She began yelling at her husband. He was tired and just wanted to lay down but she did not let him. In frustration he pushed a coffee mug off the counter. The mug shattered on the floor and cut his finger but did not injure his wife. His wife called 911, hung up before answering their questions and began ripping items from the wall. Police followed up and found our client outside the home. He explained what happened and that he pushed a mug off the counter and the police arrested him.

After his arrest his wife wrote letters to the DA explaining how she was at fault as well and she did not want to see anything happen to her husband. I discussed this situation with the DA noting that there had never been any problems in their thirty year marriage. The DA agreed with my analysis and the charges were dismissed.

 False Imprisonment and Harassment-Domestic Violence

Our client was dating a woman from another country who spoke broken English. One night the couple got into an argument and our client did not want her partner to take her BMW. Our client did have a Toyota and she parked that car behind the BMW so her partner could take that vehicle. Her partner got into the BMW and backed it into the Toyota. Our client was upset with this and followed her partner who called 911. The partner gave police an exaggerated statement due to her lack of understanding of English. She contacted the DA and explained this. I asked the DA to review the case and all charges were dismissed.

Third Degree Assault-Domestic Violence

Our client was charged with third degree assault after his ex-girlfriend told police he had hit her. The ex-girlfriend threw our client's laptop computer through a closed window, shattering the computer and the glass. When contacted by police our client admitted to slapping her to get her to come out of what he said were psychotic delusions. His ex-girlfriend had previous convictions of domestic violence and had a no contact order preventing her from visiting our client. Despite all this, our client was charged with third degree assault.

At the onset of the case we talked to the prosecutor in hopes of getting him to dismiss the case. The prosecutor did not agree so we set the case for jury trial. In the interim we conducted our own investigation of witnesses who have seen the ex-girlfriends previous drunken tirades. A week before the trial we again explained the situation to the prosecutor and he agreed to dismiss the case. CASE DISMISSED BY DA


The client was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance- Schedule II.  Our client was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for a traffic violation. The police officer stated in his report that, prior to the stop, he observed the vehicle swerve partially into the other traffic lane and that when he neared the suspect vehicle, he observed the occupants rolling a few of the windows in the vehicle “part way down. The officer stated he attempted to stop the vehicle by turning on his overhead lights and directing the driver, via the squad car’s loud speaker, to turn right and pull over to the side of the road. The driver complied and pulled the vehicle over. According to the officer, upon approaching the vehicle, he detected the odor of marijuana smoke being emitted from the vehicle. The officer then claimed that the driver consented to a search of the vehicle. While conducting the vehicle search, the officer removed our client and the other passengers from the vehicle one by one. The officer conducted a pat-down search of the Defendant and the other passengers. Our client stated that the officer asked him and the other vehicle occupants if any of them were in possession of a medical marijuana license. Our client, who did have a license to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, informed the officer that he was in possession of a medical marijuana card. The officer stated in his report that he then asked our client where his medical marijuana card was located. According to the officer, our client pointed to a black bag located in the vehicle’s rear passenger seat and said “that’s my bag.” The officer took the bag and performed “a pat-down search of the bag for weapons prior to handing it to the (Defendant).” After feeling an iPod located inside the bag, the officer decided it was warranted to open the bag and rummage through its contents for “officer safety reasons.”

After reviewing the case, I filed a motion to suppress all the evidence obtained by the officer because I believed the searches and seizures conducted by the officer were in violation of the client’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. In the motion I stated that the officer did not have a valid search warrant, nor did he rely on a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, so any evidence he obtained was not admissible. RESULT: CASE DISMISSED AFTER PROVING UNCONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH.


The wife of my 41-year-old client told police that she and my client got into an argument while staying in a motel near Glenwood Springs. Specifically, the wife claimed that my client threw her against the bed in their room hurting her left breast, then kicked her in the right lower leg causing a bruise. The Wife also claimed that client then took her car keys before leaving the motel and threw them inside her car before locking the doors to the car (tampering).

I was able to prove to the DA that the wife's story was not believable and that she had a motive to exaggerate and not tell the truth since she was filing a divorce action against my client and claiming he was not fit to share custody of the children. CASE DISMISSED BY THE DA.


My 21-year-old client was accused of entering a coffee shop during after hours and stealing $1,670.00. My client was arrested after the store owner allegedly identified my client on videotape breaking into the store safe. I was able to prove to the DA that my client had a good alibi for the time that the burglary was allegedly committed and that the picture of the burglar on the videotape was not a clear enough image to base and support a prosecution against my client. CASE DISMISSED BY DA


No Charges Filed


For several nights in a row, all three Denver television network stations broadcast a physical description of my 18-year-old client along with an allegation that he raped and kidnapped a University of Colorado freshman student. My client claimed that the CU student had initiated sex with him after he had picked her and a friend up in his mother's white Escalade. I was able to obtain various witnesses who stated that the college student appeared to be having a good time that evening until someone said something derogatory about her cheating on her “boyfriend”. I then arranged an interview on behalf of my client with two local newspapers to broadcast his version of the events so that the police and the DA's office would understand that the case was going to be impossible to prove. After the articles were published in the newspapers, I supplied all of my leads to the detectives on the case and asked them to investigate the case further. RESULT: NO CHARGES FILED


The DEA discovered that my client ordered and received 225 lbs of safrole oil and oil of sassafras, the main ingredients for Ecstasy. The DEA claimed that these essential oils were intended to produce over 100 million dollars worth of Ecstasy and that my client should be spending the rest of his life in Federal prison. I convinced the DEA's office that there was no evidence of intent to manufacture illegal drugs and that my client had been working on an insect bite deterrent that he had patented. Thereafter, an agreement was negotiated wherein my client conveyed possession of the oil to the DEA with an agreement via the U.S. Attorney's Office that NO CHARGES WOULD BE FILED


Charged with Attempted Murder-Pleaded Guilty to 3rd Degree Assault (misdemeanor)

Two roommates were out at a bar drinking. When they returned home their third roommate was upset they were being so loud. A fight broke out and the two intoxicated males knocked their roommate to the ground. One male continued to throw punches while our client did not continue the fight. The victim finally got away and walked to the bar but could not communicate with the bar staff due to his injuries. Our client was charged with attempted second degree murder and first degree assault. I discussed this case with the DA and pointed out there was no evidence our client caused these serious injuries. He withdrew from the fight after the victim was originally knocked to the ground. During the course of this case I was able to get the DA to offer a misdemeanor.

Charged with Second Degree Assault-Received Deferred Sentence to Menacing

Our client, his girlfriend and her friends were out at a bar. Another male approached our client's girlfriend and he observed her begin to cry. He asked her what happened and she explained that male had sexually taken advantage of her in the past and made her feel very uncomfortable. She had advised him to stay away from her. Our client was outraged at this male and followed him into the bathroom where he confronted him about his actions. The male made a facetious remark and our client hit him in the face. The bouncers called 911 and our client was charged with second degree assault (mandatory 5 years prison). Our client stated he made a poor decision and should not have confronted and swung at this guy. We explained to the DA this history of this male and wanted our client to be able to seal the arrest record in the future. We were able to work out a plea deal where our client received a deferred sentence, meaning he could seal the records after two years of staying out of trouble and taking some classes.

Charged with Third Degree Assault-Received Six Month Deferred Sentence to Harassment

Our client and his wife were getting a divorce when an argument began. She stated our client had hit her and he was arrested for third degree assault. Our client wanted to leave the state immediately and avoid bringing his children to trial to testify and prove his innocence. We worked out a plea deal where he would receive a six month unsupervised deferred sentence, where he would be able to seal his arrest records from the case.

Charged with Driving While Ability Impaired-Pleaded Guilty to Reckless Driving (traffic offense)

Our client was out to dinner and consumed alcohol. On the way home a police officer observed him swerving and pulled him over. The officer noticed an odor of alcohol and bloodshot watery eyes. Our client chose to do a blood test. Those results indicated a BAC of .0685, violating the DWAI statue. We were able to work out a plea deal with the DA to a non-criminal offense, reckless driving. Our client kept his license and avoided a criminal conviction.


Charged with First Degree Assault-Pleaded Guilty Second Degree Assault with Stipulated 5 Years Prison 

Our client was out at the bars in downtown Boulder celebrating his engagement with his group of friends. He was playing pool when his heavily intoxicated brother dropped a glass that shattered all over the floor. A nearby group made some comments to him. Our client walked over to this group and a argument ensued. Our client swung his beer glass at this other individual, shattering the glass and striking the victim in the eye. The victim permanently lost vision in the injured eye and needed several other stitches. Our client was facing 10-32 years prison and we felt this was one of the more aggravated cases we see. Our client wanted to take responsibility and wanted us to work to minimize the length of prison he would need to serve. After several discussions with the prosecutor, we were able to work out a plea deal where our client received 5 years prison and pleaded guilty to second degree assault. He will serve approximately half the sentence before he is eligible to be back in the community.

contact us

Time is of the essence. Don’t answer another question without your attorney.
24/7 Confidential Contact Form