When we combine our passion for fighting for your constitutional rights with our dedication, determination, and expertise, we are proud to say that we have successfully led many of our clients to victory.
Read below to learn more about some of our proudest victories in the State of Minnesota.
FELONY DRUG CHARGE EXPUNGED
Prior to retaining us, T.J.Z. pled guilty to a felony drug offense. After T.J.Z. successfully completed probation, we filed a petition asking the district court to expunge his conviction. Over the prosecutor’s objection, the district court granted T.J.Z.’s expungement petition.
COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS EXPUNGEMENT
After the district court granted T.J.Z.’s expungement petition, the prosecutor appealed to the court of appeals. In a unanimous decision, the court of appeals affirmed T.J.Z.’s expungement. Read the decision here: https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2015/opa140756-022315.pdf
HARASSMENT RESTRAINING ORDER VACATED, FILE EXPUNGED
D.S. filed for a harassment restraining order against her husband, S.S. The district court granted a temporary harassment restraining order pending a final hearing. That’s when S.S. retained us. Before the final hearing, D.S. attempted to negotiate a settlement that prevented S.S. from going to their common home for four months. S.S. swiftly rejected that offer. At the final hearing, we convinced the judge to vacate the temporary harassment restraining order and dismiss D.S.’s petition at the close of D.S.’s case-in-chief. At our request, the judge also expunged the file.
FELONY DOMESTIC ASSAULT CASE DISMISSED
The prosecution charged C.D.C. with Felony Domestic Assault. The case hinged predominantly on uncorroborated accusations made by the alleged victim. As the trial drew near, the prosecution offered C.D.C. a misdemeanor conviction. In our experience, that signaled the prosecution knew it had a weak case. Accordingly, we rejected the offer and demanded a trial. The prosecution dismissed the case shortly thereafter.
CIVIL COMMITMENT PETITION DISMISSED
Prior to retaining us, J.S. agreed to a stayed civil commitment order. Under Minnesota Statute Chapter 253B, the petitioner must file a “60-90-day report” before 90 days after the district court files the order. When the petitioner failed to timely file the 60-90-day report, we filed a motion asking the district court to dismiss the petition. The district court granted our motion and dismissed J.S.’s stayed commitment order.
CIVIL COMMITMENT PETITION DISMISSED AT TRIAL, FILE EXPUNGED
This is one of Repka Law’s most rewarding victories. The hospital petitioned to civilly commit A.M. as mentally ill. After all attempts to resolve the case failed, we went to trial. In a surprising turn of events, the first court-appointed examiner changed his mind during his cross-examination testimony: A.M. did not meet criteria as mentally ill. The second court-appointed examiner agreed. At the close of the petitioner’s case-in-chief, we moved for dismissal of the petition. The district court granted our motion and agreed to expunge the file.
CIVIL COMMITMENT PETITION DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING
This is one of Repka Law’s favorite victories. K.L. retained us after we prevailed in “In re the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: A.M.,” The petitioner was not pleased about our victory in that case. Accordingly, the petitioner told us they would settle for nothing short of a full commitment of K.L. One week later, the petitioner discharged K.L. from the hospital and dismissed the petition.
CIVIL COMMITMENT PETITION DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING
Luckily, L.W. retained us before the University of Minnesota Hospital filed a petition for civil commitment. We advised L.W. to require our presence during all of the examinations ordered by the district court. Before the preliminary hearing, the court-appointed examiner agreed that L.W. did not meet criteria for civil commitment. Accordingly, the petitioner dismissed the civil commitment petition.
STAY OF COMMITMENT ORDERED AFTER TRIAL
This was one of Repka Law’s hardest-fought civil commitment victories. A hospital filed a petition seeking to civilly commit S.K. as mentally ill and chemically dependent. The first court-appointed examiner returned an unfavorable opinion. We requested a second opinion. That court-appointed examiner’s opinion was more favorable to S.K., but it did not persuade the petitioner. Accordingly, we went to trial. The trial represented a quintessential “battle of the experts.” At the end of the full-day trial, the district court judge agreed with our argument to stay S.K.’s commitment.
CIVIL COMMITMENT CONVERTED TO A STAY OF COMMITMENT
Before retaining us, the petitioner committed B.U. After B.U. retained us, we filed a “.17 petition,” which asked the district court to convert the commitment to a “stay of commitment.” The district court agreed and released B.U. from his compulsory locked detention at the hospital.
CIVIL COMMITMENT DISMISSED
Before retaining us, the petitioner committed J.G. as chemically dependent. We filed a “.17 petition” and convinced the petitioner and district court to dismiss the commitment petition.
CIVIL COMMITMENT PETITION DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING
After a Rule 20 evaluation deemed B.E. incompetent, the district court referred B.E. for civil commitment. We convinced the county attorney to dismiss the petition before the preliminary hearing.
DISPOSITIONAL DEPARTURE GRANTED IN MANDATORY 60-MONTH PRISON CASE
The prosecution charged K.B. with Ineligible Person in Possession of a Firearm—a felony that requires a 60-month prison sentence upon conviction. We demanded a speedy trial, as K.B. could not secure release from pre-trial custody. As the jury pool waited outside the courtroom, the judge granted our request to give K.B. probation instead of the 60-month prison sentence required by law.
FELONY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CRIME IN THE FIRST DEGREE DISMISSED
The prosecution charged A.P.W. with Controlled Substance Crime in the First Degree—a felony that, upon conviction, mandates a prison sentence. At the contested Omnibus Hearing, we successfully argued that law enforcement unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop. Accordingly, the district court suppressed the 600 pounds of marijuana seized by law enforcement. The district court promptly dismissed the case for lack of probable cause.
GROSS MISDEMEANOR DWI CASE DISMISSED
The prosecution charged M.L.X. with Driving While Intoxicated in the Third Degree, a gross misdemeanor. Law enforcement arrested M.L.X. for DWI after he, as a front-seat passenger, switched seats with the driver. At the contested Omnibus Hearing, we argued that M.L.X. had not driven, operated, or exercised physical control over the vehicle. The district court agreed and dismissed the case for lack of probable cause.
COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSES STATE’S APPEAL
After the district court dismissed M.L.X.’s case, the prosecution appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. We filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, as the prosecution’s appeal was not allowed under the rules. The court of appeals ultimately dismissed the prosecution’s appeal.
FELONY FLEEING A PEACE OFFICER CASE DISMISSED
After a traffic stop ended in an abandoned high-speed case, the prosecution charged S.M.O. with felony Fleeing a Peace Officer in a Motor Vehicle. We proved that the driver of the vehicle who gave chase to law enforcement was not S.M.O. Accordingly, the prosecution dismissed its case against S.M.O.
FELONY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE CRIME IN THE FIFTH DEGREE DISMISSED
The prosecution charged F.J.M. with Controlled Substance Crime in the Fifth Degree after a traffic stop yielded the presence of methamphetamine. At the contested Omnibus Hearing, we argued that law enforcement unlawfully expanded the traffic stop by asking F.J.M. to search his car without probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion. The district court agreed, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the case for lack of probable cause.
ACQUITTAL ON BURGLARY IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND FELONY DOMESTIC ASSAULT
A jury acquitted D.L.B. on felony Burglary in the First Degree and Felony Domestic Assault by Strangulation.
TEXTING WHILE DRIVING CASE DISMISSED
The prosecution charged T.J.Z. with Texting While Driving based on an officer’s observations that T.J.Z. used his phone while driving. We presented the prosecution with T.J.Z.’s phone records, which proved he was not texting or calling during the officer’s observations of T.J.Z. With evidence of T.J.Z.’s innocence, the prosecution dismissed the case.
GROSS MISDEMEANOR DWI CASE DISMISSED, TWICE!
The prosecution charged A.J.G. with two counts of gross misdemeanor DWI. We filed a motion to dismiss the first DWI count, as the prosecution erroneously charged A.J.G. with “test refusal.” The prosecution dismissed that count without giving the district court an opportunity to hear the motion. On the Friday before Monday’s trial, the prosecution dismissed the second DWI charge.
PROBATION VIOLATION DISMISSED
The prosecution alleged that K.A.S. failed to comply with the conditions of probation by not maintaining contact with K.A.S.’s probation agent. We demanded a contested probation violation hearing. On the day of the hearing, the probation agent failed to appear to testify (probably because the agent knew she would lose!). Accordingly, the prosecution dismissed the probation violation.
FELONY CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY CASE DISMISSED
The prosecution charged C.J.L. with felony Criminal Damage to Property. Law enforcement arrested C.J.L. on the charge and transported him to jail. We convinced the prosecution to dismiss the case.
FELONY BURGLARY CHARGE DISMISSED
The prosecution charged Z.W.J. with felony Burglary after his ex-girlfriend alleged he broke into her house. Through discovery (evidence exchange between the parties), we discovered that Z.W.J.’s ex-girlfriend invited him over through Snapchat. Because we proved that Z.W.J.’s ex-girlfriend consented to Z.W.J.’s entry into her apartment, the prosecution could not prove Z.W.J. committed burglary. Accordingly, it dismissed the burglary charge against Z.W.J.
FELONY DOMESTIC ASSAULT DISMISSED, DISPOSITIONAL DEPARTURE ON TERRORISTIC THREATS
At sentencing, we convinced the district court to convert J.R.T.’s felony Terroristic Threats charge to a gross misdemeanor.
Ensure Justice Is Served
We pride ourselves on our upstanding reputation in the legal community, our high level of communication with our clients, and our transparency throughout the entirety of the legal process.
Level the playing field and make sure your day in court is a fair one.