Criminal Case Results: A Proud Record Of Vigorously Defending Constitutional Rights
At Matthew D. Barrett, P.C. Attorney at Law, I am dedicated to ensuring justice and due process for the accused. I always approach each criminal defense case with an eye toward obtaining a not-guilty verdict at trial. Rather than simply looking for a quick and easy plea agreement, I will investigate all facets of your case and plan an attack on the prosecution’s evidence. Aggressively defending my clients’ rights means relentless preparation and planning. There is no other road to success.
Although I have been able to obtain favorable results for many clients without the necessity of trial (i.e., either by way of a dismissal or plea agreement), I am always prepared to take a case to court if I feel it is the best way to protect a client’s rights. I believe strongly that every client has a right to a vigorous defense. While not every case goes to trial, the best plea agreements come from a position of strength and only after a thorough analysis of the issues. And I will never, never allow my clients to be bullied by the police or prosecutor.
Below is a sample of my not-guilty verdicts, reversals on appeal, suppression motions and post-conviction relief results:
Jury Trial – Not Guilty Verdict
The prosecutor charged Client with Robbery Resulting In Serious Bodily Injury, a Class A felony. Client was initially represented by a different defense attorney at trial where Client was found guilty and received a 45-year sentence in the Department of Correction. The Indiana Court of Appeals overturned the conviction and sentence due to an error by the trial judge. Client was then represented by attorney Barrett during the second jury trial. During the 4-day trial, attorney Barrett showed evidence to the jury that the police had conducted an incomplete investigation and that the State’s witnesses were not credible. The jury found the Client not guilty of the charge.
Jury Trial – Not Guilty Verdict
The prosecutor charged Client with 2 criminal charges: Dealing In Cocaine (Class B felony) and Possession of Cocaine (Class D felony). During a 3-day jury trial, attorney Barrett presented evidence that showed the State’s confidential informant had been dishonest and the police rushed to judgment on a number of matters without proper investigation. The jury found Client not guilty on all charges.
Jury Trial – Not Guilty Verdict
The prosecutor charged Client with 13 criminal charges: 6 charges of Criminal Confinement (all were Class B felonies); 2 charges of Robbery (each a Class B felonies; 3 charges of Theft (each a Class D felony); Attempted Auto Theft (Class D felony); and Possession of Marijuana (Class A misdemeanor). During a very tough 3-day jury trial, attorney Barrett presented evidence that showed many of the State’s witnesses had misrepresented facts and the police failed to properly investigate the case. The jury found Client not guilty on all charges.
Jury Trial – Not Guilty Verdict
The prosecutor charged Client with Aggravated Battery, a Class B felony. Client had been a patron at a bar. The bar owner falsely accused Client of starting some trouble in the bar. The bar owner and about a dozen other individuals beat Client and then dragged him outside the bar. During those events, Client punched the bar owner in the face based on self-defense, but was still charged with committing a crime. During the 2-day jury trial, attorney Barrett presented evidence that showed the bar owner had lied and that the police had conducted an incredibly sloppy and biased investigation. Specifically, the lead police investigator admitted that he questioned the bar owner for about 35 minutes but only questioned Client for about 20 seconds. The jury deliberated for a record 8 minutes and found Client not guilty.
Jury Trial – Not Guilty Verdict
The Prosecutor charged Client with Child Molesting, a Class B felony. Client was 19 years old and had sex with a 12 year old. During a 3-day jury trial, attorney Barrett presented evidence that the 12 year old had lied about her age on Facebook and Mypace pages, wore adult-oriented clothing, wore excessive make-up on her face, had no curfew, hung around older teenagers, and had a love interest in a 23-year old. Client asserted a defense that he reasonably believed shat the 12 year old was 14 years or older at the time of the sexual intercourse, which was a defense under the statute. The Jury agreed and found Client not guilty after a little over 2 hours of deliberating.
Jury Trial – Not Guilty Verdict
The prosecutor charged Client with Child Molesting (Class C felony) and Sexual Battery (Class C felony). During a 3-day jury trial, attorney Barrett presented evidence that showed the police had significantly mishandled the investigation and that the complaining child admitted that she lied about all of the allegations. The jury found the Client not guilty on all charges.
Jury Trial – Not Guilty Verdict
The prosecutor charged Client with Attempted Murder, a Class A felony, relating to an alleged stabbing incident. The jury trial lasted for 3-days and several State witnesses admitted that they lied to the police and in sworn depositions taken by attorney Barrett. The jury found Client not guilty of Attempted Murder.
Conviction Overturned On Appeal
Client was convicted of Robbery, a Class B felony, and received an 18-year prison sentence. Attorney Barrett was then hired to handle Client’s appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals overturned Client’s conviction and sentence due to the deputy prosecutor having engaged in misconduct during his closing statement at trial by showing the jury an irrelevant and highly prejudicial video of how a person can conceal multiple firearms under clothing.
Conviction Overturned On Appeal
Client was convicted of Dealing In Cocaine, a Class B felony, and received a 10-year prison sentence. Attorney Barrett was then hired to handle Client’s appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals picked this case as one of very few cases to be heard each year by oral argument in addition to the filing of appellate briefs. Attorney Barrett successfully presented an oral argument against the Indiana Attorney General’s Office before a live 3-Judge Court of Appeals Panel. The Court of Appeals overturned Client’s conviction and sentence because Client’s original attorney trial rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the trial judge’s involvement in the case. The trial judge had a conflict of interest due to him having previously served as a deputy prosecutor in the same case, but he failed to disqualify himself.
Conviction Overturned On Appeal
Client accepted a plea agreement where he pleaded guilty to a Class D felony for Nonsupport of a Child, which was a lesser included offense of the original Class C felony, and received a 2 year sentence all suspended to probation. Less than one month later, Client missed a single $294.00 weekly child support payment and a probation violation was filed against him. Attorney Barrett then became involved and defended Client at the fact-finding hearing. The evidence showed that Client had a crushed foot which prevented him from gaining employment. Client testified that he hunted wild game from his back door and even turned roadkill deer into food for his family. Client’s only income came from selling firewood and old barn wood and he had in fact provided clothing and other forms of support to his children. Despite the fact that non-payment of child-support needed to be proven “willful,” the trial court found Client guilty of violating his probation and reinstated the 2 year sentence to a prison term. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and held that there was insufficient evidence to support the probation violation. Client was then released from prison.
Dismissal Of Criminal Charge
The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana charged the Client and thirteen other individuals each with a single count of Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances, including a mixture or substance which contained cocaine over 500 grams and/or marijuana over 100 kilograms. The federal indictment was filed after a grand jury found probable cause. Attorney Barrett filed a motion to Suppress Wiretap Evidence and 48-page supporting Brief with exhibits showing the Indiana State Police having violated the Client’s Fourth Amendment rights in numerous manners when they applied for several wiretaps. The Client maintained his innocence to the charge. Two days before the scheduled suppression hearing in federal court, the U.S. Attorney agreed to dismiss the charge against the Client.
Dismissal Of Criminal Charge
The prosecutor charged the Client with Child Molesting, a Class C felony. After attorney Barrett took depositions of the alleged victim, numerous witnesses and a police officer, it was discovered that the allegations had no merit due to a mistaken identity involving the Client as the alleged perpetrator and that numerous inconsistent statements existed between the witnesses. The alleged victim became uncooperative and the prosecutor dismissed the charge on the eve of the jury trial.
Suppression Of Evidence
Five (5) police officers appeared on the doorstep of Client’s home. The police alleged the Client was the target of an alleged methamphetamine investigation and asked to enter the home. The Client allowed entry and the police found a small amount of marijuana and paraphernalia. No methamphetamine was found. The Prosecutor charged the Client with felony Conspiracy to Commit Dealing in Methamphetamine, Neglect of a Dependent, Possession of Marijuana, and Possession of Paraphernalia. A motion to suppress was filed based on the following grounds: the “knock and talk” investigation amounted to an unlawful seizure; the police obtained invalid consent to enter and search; the Client did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights; and all derivatively seized evidence should be suppressed, too, based on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Following a hearing, the court granted the Client’s motion to suppress and suppressed all evidence and statements gained by the police during the investigation. Afterwards, the Prosecutor dismissed all charges.
Suppression Of Evidence
A police officer conducted an illegal pat-down search on Client and found marijuana while Client was standing on a street corner waiting for a car ride home. The court granted the Client’s motion to suppress evidence and the prosecutor then dismissed the entire case.
Suppression Of Evidence
Client was the general manager of a mall. Based on an anonymous tip, a police officer unlawfully searched Client’s mall office and seized a voluminous amount of paperwork as part of an embezzlement investigation. The police officer arrested Client and the prosecutor filed five felony charges of theft against Client alleging Client stole more than $30,000.00 from the mall. A motion to suppress evidence and statements was filed. The court determined that the police officer violated Client’s constitutional rights and granted the motion. Thereafter, the prosecutor dismissed all of the charges.
Suppression Of Evidence
The Client was charged with a Class A felony for allegedly Dealing in Cocaine. Pursuant to Client’s motion, the court suppressed a recorded audio obtained by a confidential informant during the controlled buy due to it being unintelligible.
Post-Conviction Relief
Client’s former defense attorney failed to properly investigate an A felony charge involving Dealing in Cocaine and coerced Client into accepting a plea agreement that required Client to serve a 30-year sentence. Client then hired attorney Barrett who filed a petition for post-conviction relief arguing that Client received ineffective assistance of counsel from the original defense attorney. The court granted the petition and set-aside the Client’s conviction and 30-year sentence. Attorney Barrett negotiated a new plea agreement where the prosecutor agreed to allow Client plead to a reduced D felony for Possession of Cocaine and receive time-served on the sentence.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
The foregoing case examples and results are from actual cases handled by attorney Matthew D. Barrett, but are for informational purposes only. Past results cannot guarantee future performance. Any testimonial, endorsement or result in any singular particular case does not constitute a promise or guarantee regarding the outcome of any other case. Mr. Barrett works aggressively in an effort to obtain the very best results possible for each client; however, each case is different with its own set of unique facts and laws of the jurisdiction where the lawsuit must be filed. Likewise, results will always be different from case to case. For that reason, the result Mr. Barrett obtained in one case is in no way a guarantee that the same or similar result will occur in any future case.
