Call Us 24/7: (772) 489-8501 | Jonathan Jay Kirschner, Esq., & Associates, LLC

News / Blog

Lawson Dismissal – Fort Pierce Battery Lawyer

ALL CHARGES DISMISSED

In State of Florida v. Z.L., St. Lucie County case numbers 56-2013-MM-3874-A and 56-2013-MM-3651-A, the Defendant was charged with committing a Battery on his fiance’,  after the two had argued after having consumed some alcohol.

Although the State initially elected not to pursue the criminal charge, some two (2) months later, when the Defendant and his fiance’ had yet another confrontation at her home, the Government not only charged the Defendant with the two (2) new charges, but also reconsidered its decision on the initial battery case, and elected to file on that charge as well.

The Defendant now was the target of three prosecutions, putting him at risk of over two (2) years in the County Jail.

Although in many cases, the approach that yields the best results is one of confrontation and adversary litigation, in the instant case, the fiance’ was cooperative, in that she did not want to see her intended go to jail.

Though the State initially sought substantial restrictions on the Defendant’s liberty as punishment for the alleged crimes, as they gradually were provided with more information by the JJK/LLC law firm, their position eventually became more reasonable, and resulted ultimately in their being persuaded to dismiss all three (3) charges against Z.L.

But dismissals do not come easily.   In the instant case, when the Government dragged it’s feet instead of dropping the case, Fort Pierce Battery Lawyer Jay Kirschner filed a “Demand for Speedy Trial” on behalf of the Defendant.   Speedy Trial demands are rarely filed in our system of justice, as both prosecutors and judges fear having a case dismissed by what they like to refer to as a “legal technicalities”—in this instance an accused’s right to obtain a speedy trial upon demand, (which has its antecedents in the U.S. Constitution).  The trial court set the case for an immediate trial.   Both the Defendant and his counsel appeared on the appointed day and time—–and the State, facing the ignominy of having a case dismissed on a “technicality”, filed their dismissals of all counts in open Court.

Perhaps not an ‘earth-shattering’ case in the grand scheme of things, but the prospective loss of 2 years + of liberty certainly was of significant importance to Z.L.