Our Case Results

In State University of New York v. XX, our client came to us after being suspended from college and arrested by the New York State Police for the supposed rape of a female acquaintance. He had already taken part in a hearing at the college and had been suspended for a year. In addition he faced up to seven years in New York State Prison. The allegation was that he had sexual intercourse with an acquaintance in her apartment without her consent. We immediately launched our own investigation. We showed that the complaining witness had serious inconsistencies in her statements. We learned that she had admitted that the sex was consensual to some members of the college. We brought our new evidence to the college and the district attorney assigned to the case. Outcome: Our client is back in school and the criminal charges have been dismissed.

Mr. Lopez was struck by a young woman that was texting. He has significant back pain and knee surgery.

Our client was a third-grade student that was struck by a speaker that fell over at school. She had a one-centimeter scar on her hairline.

A client was driving to work when a vehicle crossed the center line and struck him head-on. He broke his leg and spent several days in the hospital. Settlement maximum under the insurance policy

Our client was stopped at a red light when he was struck by another vehicle traveling at a slow rate of speed. There was only $75 damage to the vehicle’s bumper. Mr. W had ongoing neck pain, which led to surgery about a year after the accident. Mr. W had also been involved in a prior car accident that caused neck pain and resulted in a $60,000 settlement. We consulted with several medical experts, most notably a biomechanical engineer, who explained that a slow speed impact could still cause significant injury.

In State University of New York v. XX, our client, a Rochester native, was informed of a sexual abuse allegation from a night earlier in the school year at his college in New York City. Our client insisted the sex was consensual. Our investigation showed prior sexting between the couple, a night out together and other students that suggested there was no foul play. We secured text messages supporting our version. We submitted a lengthy list of questions to the accuser, consistent with the college’s investigation policy. Outcome: Our client was cleared of any wrongdoing and continues his studies today

In people v. K.R. the defendant was an honorably discharged soldier charged with beating her son with a drum stick. The defendant faced up to seven years in jail. Mr. King challenged whether the defendant had in fact injured the child. He also showed proof of involvement by child protective services and an action plan for the mother. The records were sealed, on a plea to the violation of Harassment in the second degree and the defendant paid only a $125 surcharge to New York State.

In people v. F.L. a local engineer was charged with aggravated DWI after allegedly striking a curb and disabling his vehicle. He was arrested a short distance away and returned to the scene for identification by a civilian witness. Mr. King challenged the ability of the police to make an arrest based on an anonymous tip as well as the reliability of the identification of the defendant by the civilian witness. He presented a 30 page motion including relevant case law. Prior to the beginning of the hearing on the issues Mr. King had presented, the judge convinced the prosecutor to offer a plea to a traffic ticket, which the client was happy to accept.

In people v. K.J., a seventeen-year-old young man was charged with Robbery. Police alleged that he and an accomplish had beaten another student on a bike in order to steal his cell phone. He faced up to 15 years in prison. Mr. King’s investigation showed that K.J’s co-defendant largely at fault. The evidence was brought to the prosecutor, he performed 40 hours of community service and the charges against K.J. were sealed. K.J.’s co-defendant was convicted of a felony.

Court: Federal Court, United States District Court for the Western District of New York Potential Jail Time: Up to 40 Years in Federal Prison In People v. XX, defendant was arrested following a multi-year investigation by the FBI, DEA, and Greater Rochester Area Narcotics Enforcement Team. The investigation totaled over 6,000 man hours of work by law enforcement. The sealed indictment alleged that the defendant and multiple co-defendants conspired to bring drugs in from Canada for several years. The charges alleged that the defendants used relationships with Native Americans to bring drugs across an indian reservation and into the United States from Canada. At the time the warrant was executed computers and drugs were seized from the defendant’s home. Following the arrest other allegations of criminal activity were investigated, including Witness Tampering and Obstruction of Justice. Result: Mr. King was able to negotiate a reduction to Conspiracy with the intent to distribute 100 Kilograms or more of Marijuana, with a sentence of 36 months federal prison. In addition, no new charges were brought for Obstruction of Justice. The defendant was also allowed to participate in the federal drug treatment program which reduces the prison term up to one year and allows the defendant to leave prison early and live in a half-way house prior to his official release from prison. The defendant was sentenced below the federal sentencing guidelines – a rare outcome.

In People v. R.T. the defendant was charged with Attempted Robbery in the First Degree for allegedly beating a innocent civilian with a tire iron to steal his wallet. He originally hired another leading defense attorney from Western New York. Half way through the case R.T. was looking at a lengthy term in New York State Prison. After hiring Mr. King a complete investigation was conducted. Mr. King presented evidence to the prosecutor that showed a strong likelihood of success at the upcoming Jury Trial. Based on the information, the defendant was facing 15 years in state prison. Mr. King was able to secure an offer of probation, which R.T. gladly accepted.

In People v. A.B., the 22 year old driver was stopped for speeding, making an illegal turn, and erratic driving. After failing several field sobriety tests, the defendant provided a breath test of .11. He was arrested for Drunk Driving, Driving with a Blood Alcohol Content of greater than .08 and several traffic infractions. The client was acquitted of all criminal charges at trial. Mr. King cross examined the witnesses and was able to show that the field sobriety tests were not conducted as the officer was trained. He then used the police documents to show that the proper protocol was not followed when the breath test was given.

In People v. C.V. The defendant had been sentenced to drug treatment court for possessing stolen property. Shortly after being released to a treatment program he failed to appear in court and an warrant was issued. The defendant evaded police for several months. Eventually he was arrested in an adjoining town for stealing property from a farm. To his surprise the farm was owned by an investigator in the New York State Police and there was High Definition video of the crime. The defendant had 31 prior convictions including 7 prior felony convictions. If convicted of a felony the defendant was eligible to be sentenced as a persistent felony offender and could have received 15 years to life in prison.

The defense: Mr. King conducted his own investigation and argued that the value of the stolen property was under the felony threshold of $1000. He further argued that the “victim” was experienced in the system and had inflated the value unfairly, in violation of the defendant’s rights.

Result: The defendant pled guilty to a reduced charge and served less than six months in jail on both charges.

In people v. J.R. a local business owner was charged with beating his wife. Photos showed that she had been bruised. The defendant faced up to a year in jail

Mr. King conducted a full investigation and evidence was turned over to the prosecutor. The case was dismissed.

In Case People v. Michael Joanette, Mr. King challenged whether Mr. Joanette had intentionally threatened anyone. Evidence was introduced form experts that Mr. Joanette did not have the mental capacity to proceed and the charges were dismissed.

In People v. P.S., the defendant was charged with a class A misdemeanor when his child was found outside in the cold without shirt or shoes. The defendant faced up to a year in jail as well as repercussions from Child Protective Services.

Defense – Mr. King conducted a complete investigation that showed the defendant to be a loving father that was responding to another emergency in the home when his son walked outside to see the mailman.

In people v. R.G. a prominent local business woman was charge with DWI police said she was stopped at a police checkpoint and her blood alcohol content well exceeded the legal limit. Her career was at stake

Mr. King was able to negotiate a reduction allowing for a plea to a traffic ticket at the first court appearance and kept the story out of the newspaper by working with the reporter covering the case.

In People v. R.J., the defendant was caught on video by security at a local retail center, apprehended and turned over to police. The defendant admitted to taking various clothing items. Following the arrest, Mr. King conducted his own investigation and found that the defendant was a highly successful local businessman, who had recently begun taking several new medications and had absolutely no prior police contact.

In People v. R.O. the client was accused of allowing co-conspirators to steal property from a retail location where she was employed. Video recovered by the police showed property with a value greater than $3,000 being stolen with R.O.’s help.

In people v. L.M – the defendant was charged with Harassment in the Second Degree for telling an on duty police officer he was going to “kick his ass.” Mr. King brought a motion to dismiss for defective paperwork, which the prosecutor could not oppose and the case was dismissed.

In people v. W.G. police alleged that a man had sexually abused his daughter. The defendant had made a statement to the police and the child’s mother was cooperating against him. The defendant faced 25 years to life in prison.

Mr. King developed a defense of involuntariness. A sleep study showed that the defendant’s brain waves were highly irregular during parts of his sleep. A sex abuse evaluation showed the defendant was a low risk to re-offend. Mr. King negotiated a deal with the prosecutor that allowed for monitoring through probation and 10 weekends in jail.

In People v. XX, the defendant was charged with larceny from a local retailer for stealing various clothing items. Mr. King negotiated a dismissal based on the defendant’s age and lack of prior criminal contacts.

The defendant had violated a judge’s restraining order and physically harmed his girlfriend.

In people v. R.T. the defendant was charged with possessing heroin and cocaine while inside a car in a parking lot. A police officer found the car to be “suspicious” and questioned the defendant, eventually discovering the drugs in his pocket and under the driver’s seat.

Mr. King wrote a 25 page motion challenging the police work, the paperwork submitted to the court, and the approach of the car by the police. The judge agreed with Mr. King’s legal position and dismissed the case.

In People v. E.Y. the police alleged that a 18 year old was driving a group of friends after leaving a party. He was stopped and admitted to drinking and had an open beer in the cup holder. Under New York law, a conviction would mean that he may not get a license until he turned 21. At trial Mr. King cross examined the police witnesses and showed that there were major inconsistencies between the testimony and what actually happened. Mr. King showed that there was potential video evidence that was not preserved by the police. Finally, he showed that the vehicle and traffic law that the officer relied on to stop the car was not applicable to the facts presented by the prosecutor. All charges were dismissed.

In people v. N.L. the defendant was a student accused of taking a generator and car rims from a garage and pawning them for money. There was a video of the defendant pawning the items, but no evidence of him taking the property.

Mr. King challenged the proof in the case. The case was dismissed by the Grand Jury.

I people v. K.S. defendant, a well respected teacher, was charged with allowing his 15 year old daughter to drive his car on a public road with him in the passenger seat. The vehicle allegedly collided with a police car causing injuries to the child and police officer. The defendant faced a criminal conviction and would likely lose his job as a teacher if convicted.

Mr. King a deal with the district attorney’s office that allowed K.S. to keep his job, and support his family, the only result a zero point traffic ticket for allowing an unlicensed operator.

People v. J.G. – Defendant was charged with punching his ex during child exchange, while a Judge’s restraining order was in affect. The charge was Criminal Contempt in the First Degree, a class E Felony. In addition, there was already an Order of Protection in favor of the woman from a prior case and the defendant was on probation. Mr. King was notified immediately upon arrest by J.G., even before he was arraigned by the Judge. Mr. King was able to start his investigation immediately and found a witness that was nearby and signed a statement that there was an argument, but no physical altercation. Based on the quick investigation Mr. King was able to make a strong bail application to the Judge and J.G. was released. Further work by Mr. King’s investigator led to a recantation by the woman. The witness statement and second “victim” statement were turned over to the prosecutor. The case was then dismissed by the grand jury.

In People v. R.M. the defendant was on parole for Manslaughter in the First Degree. He owed parole 2.5 years. During a search of his home by Parole a gun was found under the bed, as well as other dangerous instruments. He was charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree. He faced a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 9.5 years, because the law would require parole and a prison sentence be served consecutive, not concurrent, to each other. After conducting a complete investigation a parole hearing was held. Mr. King present photographs and testimony and argued that the gun had been put there by someone else. The judge was convinced and found R.M. guilty of only minor technical violations, which resulted in a one year sentence. Based on the win at the parole hearing Mr. King was able to negotiate a reduction to a misdemeanor on the felony gun charge, and no additional time in prison.

In People v. J.S., the defendant was charged with sexually abusing his young stepdaughter on multiple occasions. The defendant had hired another lawyer and was informed that he was looking at a plea offer of 10-15 years in New York State Prison, or 25 Years to Life, if he took the case to trial. After being retained, Mr. King challenged the forensic interview techniques used while interviewing the child. In addition, Mr. King’s investigation showed that the incident allegedly occurred years earlier, when the alleged victim was only 4 years old. Finally, the investigation showed that the “disclosure” was made on the eve of a family court trial brought by the child’s mother. Mr. King challenged the validity of the disclosure and the lack of physical evidence in the case.

In people v. C.R. the defendant and his co-defendant were charged with shooting two people when they were denied entry into a party. There were over ten witnesses and bullets and bullet casings were recovered at the scene. The defendant was facing 22 years.

Mr. King carefully reviewed the evidence and used a private investigator to find inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements. After several weeks of negotiations he allowed to plead guilty to the minimum sentence allowed by law. His co-defendant, who had retained another leading criminal attorney, received a sentence of five years.

In people v. P.G. our client was charged with one of the most serious white-collar offenses in New York, Enterprise Corruption. The police alleged that his property management company was used as a front for the distribution of illegal drugs. He faced up to 25 years in prison. We challenged the use of the enterprise corruption statute in this situation since the law was originally intended to fight the mob. After successfully challenging the enterprise corruption case, our client pled guilty to possession of marijuana and served four months jail and a term of probation.

In People v. L.S., our client was charged with DWI and refusing to submit to the chemical test. The team at King Law quickly and thoroughly investigated the case, locating witnesses who interacted with our client as well as video surveillance of our client just prior to the traffic stop, proving she was not intoxicated. The case proceeded to trial where the King Law attorneys successfully challenged the police accusations. Five minutes after closing statements the Judge found our client Not Guilty of DWI and all alcohol related charges.

King Law Recently resolved a personal injury case for a Rochester resident who fell at an establishment due to unsafe conditions caused by a pothole in the parking lot. Our client was attending a family event and walking through the parking lot when she stepped into a large erosion. The fall caused our client to suffer a trimalleolar fracture of her left ankle, which required two surgeries and three plates with screws to stabilize the fracture site in order for the fracture to heal properly. Our client was left with functional disability and pain for many months causing her to miss work which requires her to be able to stand for an extended amount of time. King law successfully negotiated a settlement with the insurer of the establishment to compensate for our client’s personal injuries.

occasions. The investigator had threatened her future and freedom if she

In people v. R.B. the police charged a young man with leaving a prominent area country club while intoxicated. They said that he nearly caused several accidents and had been reported by 911 to the police in three different towns in Monroe County. The police located the defendant as he pulled into his parent’s home. R.B was arrested for aggravated DWI, with an alleged blood alcohol content of .37, four and a half times the legal limit. He was facing up to a year in jail. Mr. King was brought a 22-page motion challenging the officer’s approach of the defendant on private property and the validity of the tickets issued by the police. The prosecutor feared potential dismissal, and offered a fine, which R.B. gladly accepted.

Facts: In people v. XX a young man was charge with a sex offense against another student from his high school. He faced the possibility of elevated attempted rape charges and sex offender registration. Mr. King’s investigation showed that the witness was not credible and the evidence was not consistent with the story being told by the complaining witness. After several rounds of negotiation the charges were dismissed.

In People v. C.V. The defendant had been sentenced to drug treatment court for possessing stolen property. Shortly after being released to a treatment program, he failed to appear in court and a warrant was issued. The defendant evaded police for several months. Eventually he was arrested in an adjoining town for stealing property from a farm. To his surprise, the farm was owned by an investigator in the New York State Police and there was High Definition video footage of the crime. The defendant had 31 prior convictions including 7 prior felony convictions on his record. If convicted of a felony, the defendant was eligible to be sentenced as a persistent felony offender and could have received 15 years to life in prison.

The defense: Mr. King conducted his own investigation and argued that the value of the stolen property was under the felony threshold of $1000. He further argued that the “victim” was experienced in the system and had inflated the value unfairly, in violation of the defendant’s rights.

In People v. H.R. the Greater Rochester Area Narcotics Enforcement Team, had investigated a suspected drug dealer for several years, the team used a confidential informant to buy cocaine from the defendant. The team then executed a search warrant that led to the recovery of over 70 grams of powder cocaine, over half a pound of marijuana and three guns a few feet away from the drugs, as the police entered his home the defendant made several incriminating statements to the police. H.R. faced upwards of 20 years for drug and gun charges. In addition, there were potential federal charges, that could have led to even more prison time.

Mr. King was hired and started an investigation immediately. He was then able to negotiate a deal by challenging the quality of the warrant, the reliability of the informant and the high likelihood of the suppression of his clients statements because he had not been read proper Miranda warnings.

In People v. S.R., the police accused the defendant of attacking a bouncer from behind while he was escorting another bar patron from a popular local hangout, causing physical injury. The prosecutor provided photographs showing injury to the bouncer’s face. Mr. King challenged whether his client was the initial aggressor.

Result: plea to disorderly conduct, a sealed violation – 24 hours community service

In People v. D.L. the client was charged with possession of stolen property after the police responded to a 911 call from noise in her garage. Three men were found disassembling expensive mountain bikes and loading them into our client’s car a short distance away. Police reports identified the co-defendants as the burglars. Mr. King argued that the client had no knowledge of the crime and that the witness’ version of events supported our position.

In people v. D.W. police raided an apartment based on a tip from a neighbor of suspected illegal behavior inside. They found nothing illegal, but a dog was found in a construction pit in the back yard. The owner was charged with animal cruelty.

Mr. King completed a complete investigation and proved that the dog was well cared. He further showed that the dog had in fact fled when the police entered the property on less than probable cause and had fallen into a work site. The case was dismissed by the judge.

In people v. B.G. the defendant was a student alleged to have been an accomplice in stealing from a grocery store. He was facing a criminal record and an uncertain future

Mr. King investigated the case and reviewed the video footage from the grocery store. He challenged whether there was any evidence of B.G. acting in concert, or even knowing, that his friend was stealing. The case was dismissed by the judge.

Court – Rochester City Court In People v. D.K., the defendant called Mr. King after being represented by another lawyer for several months. The defendant had admitted to taking money from another person’s bank account using their card and password. There was a large amount of money in question. Mr. King conducted a complete investigation and proved that the defendant had legal authority to the money, despite using the card illegally.

Mr. King was contacted by a young man and his family following a police interrogation of a nineteen year old rape suspect. The allegations included oral and vaginal sex by physical forcible compulsion. The suspect had admitted to taking a young woman to a seculeded location and having sexual contact with her. Defense – Mr. King immediately began his own investigation which showed that the complaining witness had made false sexual abuse allegations against two other young men in the past. Documents showing that the complaining witness threatened men with false allegations of sexual abuse were also recovered. Finally, the investigation showed that the complaining witness was bi-polar and had attempted was under the influence of drugs when she disclosed the sexual abuse. Mr. King notified the prosecutor of the evidence and notified the district attorney that his client would exercise his right to testify before the grand jury.

In People v. D.F., the FBI used an undercover agent to speak to a suspected producer of child pornography via social media. After a lengthy investigation they seized his computer for forensic examination, which revealed child pornography. After several months of negotiations with the US Attorney’s office the federal charges, which could have resulted in several years in federal prison, were not prosecuted. The case was then brought to Livingston County Court on a sealed indictment. The Livingston County District Attorney’s office initially pressed for state prison. After several more months of negotiations D.F. pled guilty to possessing one image of child pornography and was sentenced to 8 weekends in jail and probation. At the Sex Offender Registration hearing Mr. King argued against the judge’s initial determination of a level two sex offender by challenging the number of victims in the case, as well as whether the age could be proven. D.F. was granted level 1 sex offender status, a significant reduction.

In People v. B.G., following an altercation at a bar a fight ensued. Two people trying to break up the fight were struck by the defendant who was charged after leaving the scene. At the first court date Mr. King argued that the paperwork was defective because it did not sufficiently state the level of intent required. The case was promptly dismissed.

In People v. S.T., the defendant was a 19 year old student driving his friends home from a party. Follow his stop for a bad light he admitted to drinking alcohol. At trial the prosecutor called the arresting officer, who testified that the driver was drunk and had passed field sobriety tests. Mr. King cross examined the police witnesses calling into question their training and procedures during the arrest. The turning point in the trial may have been the successful application for a missing witness charge in regards to an alleged breath test operator, who was not called as a witness.

In People v. C.B, the police received a call from a woman admitting to stabbing her boyfriend with a knife. Upon arrival the officers found the two of them covered in blood in their apartment. Mr. King’s investigation showed that the “victim” of the crime was a suspected drug dealer. He also uncovered evidence that the incident actually involved a drug debt and fight with another person. When the man was stabbed he forced the defendant to say she had stabbed him under duress, so he could receive medical treatment without jeopardizing the code of the street and reporting the actual defendant.

In People v. xx, the defendant was cant leaving a grocery store with nearly $200 merchandise hidden on her person. She had a history of Petit Larceny from the immediate past. The prosecutor wanted jail time. Mr. King wrote a 15-page motion, which specifically challenged the police paperwork and the way the defendant was charged by the police. Instead of risking a complete loss at the motion argument, the prosecutor allowed a plea to the violation, which was acceptable to the defendant.

In People v. A.J., the defendant was represented by a “cheaper” lawyer for the majority of the case. Two weeks before trial the defendant and his family decided that a bargain attorney was not the best attorney for trial. Mr. King was hired. On the day of trial Mr. King challenged whether the breath test machine was in working order and the criminal charges were dismissed.

In people v. J.P. the defendant was a young professional charged with intentionally damaging his girlfriend’s car as part of a domestic dispute. He faced a felony conviction, a questionable future and up to three years in state prison.

Mr. King’s investigation showed that the “victim” was highly intoxicated, had tried to hit the defendant with her car, and did not make a report until she sobered up the following day. The charges were dismissed.

In people v. C.G. the police alleged that they recovered a bag of marijuana after a traffic stop.

Mr. King reviewed the documentation provided by police and realized the proper steps had not been followed to allow for a conviction at trial. He requested a bench trial. When the trail was scheduled to begin, the people could not proceed and the case was dismissed.

In people v. Anonymous, the defendant was a 17-year-old high school student charged with stealing two bottles of cologne from a local retailer. Despite the overwhelming evidence of guilt, Mr. King negotiated in Webster Town Court for a dismissal of the charges based on the lack of prior criminal history, along with the facts and circumstances of the arrest.

In People v. S.G. a 18 year old was charged with criminal possession of a weapon. Police had responded to a report of shots fired and apprehended the defendant a short distance from a loaded hand gun in the back yard. S.G. faced 15 years in prison

Mr. King started a deep investigation into the witnesses present at the location. He was able to prove that three of the “witnesses” had prior criminal records. Two of them were suspected gang members with links to illegal hand guns. The evidence was presented to the Grand Jury and the case was dismissed.

Our client was a guest on a recreational boat. The roof of the boat became detached when the boat sped up, striking our client in the head. The injury involved a minor concussion and a laceration under the hair line.

In People v. A.V., a bar fight at a local pub ended with three shots fired and a victim shot in the head and torso. The victim identified Mr. King’s client in a photo array. The Defendant had been suspected in a prior menacing with a weapon. Mr. King conducted his own investigation with the help of a private investigator and showed personal characteristics on his client that were not present on the shooter. An alibi defense was also developed. At the second court date the charges with withdrawn and dismissed by the prosecutor.