[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/6″][vc_single_image][/vc_column][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]State of Minnesota v. X.X.

A XXX case where the Defendant allegedly


State of Minnesota v. A.Y.

A fifth degree assault case where the Defendant allegedly hid in the back seat of the victim’s vehicle and choking him from behind. Security videos showed the alleged victim park his vehicle and enter a shopping center. Video also showed the Defendant enter the back seat of the alleged victim’s vehicle, the alleged victim enter the driver’s seat of the vehicle, what seemed to be an altercation in the vehicle, and finally the Defendant running away from the vehicle. During the course of a three-day trial Mr. Davis pointed out inconsistencies between police reports and police testimony, as well as inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s story. During his closing argument, Mr. Davis walked the jury through the evidence presented during the course of the trail, and again focused on the unreliability of the evidence presented by the State. The Jury deliberated for less than one hour before returning a verdict of not guilty on all counts.

State of Minnesota v. J.M.

A domestic assault case where the Defendant was accused of punching her boyfriend in the head as he slept on the couch. The Defendant in this case had a long history of excessive drinking and was no stranger to 911-dispatch and law enforcement. Because the State was unwilling to offer a lesser charge, at his client’s request, Mr. Davis refused to plead his client guilty and took the case to trial. At trial Mr. Davis asserted self-defense based on his client’s recollection of the events. He pointed out several inconsistencies in the facts as presented by the State and was able to get the alleged victim and the only witness’s criminal history into evidence. After a strong closing argument the jury deliberated for less than one hour and the Defendant was found not guilty of all charges.

State of Minnesota v. J.R.

The Defendant was charged with fifth degree possession of drugs. Mr. Davis challenged the constitutionality of his client’s vehicle search, arguing it violated the Constitution because there was an insufficient basis to stop the vehicle, there was an insufficient basis to believe that a search was necessary, and that the search was done without the consent of the driver. The Judge agreed with Mr. Davis and outright dismissed charges against the Defendant.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/6″][/vc_column][/vc_row]