Case No. 1968030 – William A.
DISMISSED September 3, 2014
William was under a Pre-Trial Intervention contract with the DA’s office for a prior case of Interfering with Police Duties with one month to go when he picked up this Harassment case. He needed this new case dismissed to save the pending Dismissal of his Interference case. Complainant was a new girlfriend who told police she & her husband had now reconciled & that they wanted Will to leave her alone – that she had not contacted Will since reconciling with her husband. She also stated Will had threatened to kill her husband, that he was stalking her, & had followed her to a gas station where he assaulted her husband, jumped into her car & stole her ID. A witness to the contrary Will provided police could not be located. Police verified from call records that Complainant & her husband had called police on Will recently for coming to their home. Even while police were interviewing the Complainant – Will called her. An officer answered & told Will to stop calling & going to her house, which Will stated he refused to do, as she was still in love with him. Police advised Complainants to file a No Contact Order & initiated a special watch on their house. Video footage at the gas station was inconclusive. Later Complainant retracted her statement, saying her husband, of whom she is afraid, coerced her into it. Despite the evidence largely stacked against us, we fought & argued the case on these grounds & prevailed with a Dismissal which was in effect 2 Dismissals – as this one guaranteed the Dismissal of the prior case.
I came to Carl with two cases. I had an Interference with a Public Servant charge that I was serving a year of Pre-Trial Intervention for, and -with one month left- I entangled myself in a verbal harassment case where a witness used my fiancée’s name and filed harassment charges against me. Notwithstanding that I had already completed all the requirements of the agreed upon Pre-Trial intervention, if the new charges had not been dismissed, I would have been revoked, and could have been sentenced to a year in jail. Needless to say the verbal harassment case was so convoluted you almost literally needed a sword to cut through to the truth. ‘This is one of the worst cases of “he said she said” I’ve ever seen’, Carl proclaimed. Carl made the distorted clear and justice was served. I came to Carl in my hour of need the first time out of curiosity, but the second time because I needed a definitive result in my favor. I am happy to say that now my fiancée and I can get on with our lives together and live the quintessential American dream. We are free of the heavy burden that was upon us and Mr. Haggard -along with God- made that possible. I am proud to say Mr. Haggard is my lawyer and plan to use him again when my cases are up for expungement in two years. The end result is such that I walked away with two cases dismissed, a clean slate, clean record, and most importantly my freedom. ~ William A.
Case No. 1732942 – Rohit M.
DISMISSED WHILE SET FOR JURY TRIAL
This digital software nightmare case was a challenge for us all – attorneys, DA’s, our private investigator, even our computer forensics expert. Complainant was receiving offensive text messages “in a manner likely to harass or offend” her, as the statutory language reads. The texts were sent to her phone through Pinger via textfree.com, an Apple app that allows wi-fi SMS [text] messages. We compiled and argued evidence to the DA’s of how easily texts can be hacked – proving it can be done in as little as 20 seconds. Rohit was the one who advised Complainant – a friend – to go to police, never dreaming they would trace the messages back to his iPad and iPhone. Yet that is exactly what happened after a Grand Jury subpoena was issued. His iTunes account had been hacked and the obscene texts were coming through an app that both Rohit and Complainant had on their iPhones. Our correspondence with Pinger further revealed that the Apple UDID’s (Unique Device Identifiers) were those of Rohit’s devices and … to complicate things, the Offense Report contained non-Pinger numbers and data and other mistakes. We then subpoenaed the IP addresses on the devices used to send the harassing texts – but this was not enough to solve the enigma or obtain a Dismissal, as Complainant was receiving texts from more than one number. We prepared for Trial, filing Business Records Affidavits with 600 pages of our client’s iPhone data, several layers of Supplemental Discovery Motions, a Motion to Quash the Indictment and fighting the DA’s on their attempt to use their own forensics expert without identifying him in advance – according to Rules. Our [identified] forensics expert explained that the masking of Rohit’s device ID’s would have to be proven for Rohit to be culpable and we presented his research which revealed that for this to happen the device must be “jail broken” and non-Apple software substituted. Even after the case had been set for Trial we continued to fight for a Dismissal in several meetings with the DA’s office in which we successfully proved that Rohit’s UDID’s had never been masked. We also tendered his iPhone and iPad to the State to run reconstruction diagnostics and prove up his iPad history as intact from the date of purchase. Our efforts eventually paid off … with a hard-won Dismissal.
Mr. Haggard handled my case extremely professionally right from the beginning. Although my case was very complicated … Mr. Haggard was always patient and listened to whatever I had to tell him, including matters seemingly irrelevant to my case. He gave me sound advice about what to do to protect myself while the case was going on. In court, he is very efficient and knows exactly what he needs to do to protect his clients. He will not hesitate to approach or communicate with the DA directly. Mr. Haggard knows when to be complacent and when to get aggressive in court. He took the time to understand the complexity of my case and got it dismissed without having to go Trial. He and his staff were always courteous with me. Mr. Haggard has my highest recommendation as a seasoned and diligent attorney. ~ Rohit M.
Case No. 9840015 – Alfred B.
Clients estranged wife accused him of threatening and verbally harassing her by phone. We sufficiently proved lack of evidence to obtain a Dismissal.
Mr. Haggard was a tough negotiator and got the D.A. to dismiss my case. ~ Alfred B.