Click to Call: (248) 283 - 7000

Criminal Defense Case Results

<h1>Criminal Defense Case Results</h1>
Disclaimer: The Texas Bar does not approve or review the case results that criminal defense attorneys list on their website. If you would like to learn more about our recent case results and statements regarding the quality our work, please read and understand each of the following:
<ul>
<li>The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the facts and circumstances of the cases discussed here.</li>
<li>Not all results are provided.</li>
<li>The case results discussed here are not necessarily representative of the results obtained in all cases.</li>
<li>Each case is different and must be evaluated and handled on its own merit.</li>
</ul>
Past results are not necessarily an indication of a future result for any prospective client because the individual facts and circumstances may differ from those criminal cases mentioned herein.


Disclaimer: If you would like to learn more about our recent case results and statements regarding the quality our work, please read and understand each of the following:

  • The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the facts and circumstances of the cases discussed here.
  • Not all results are provided.
  • The case results discussed here are not necessarily representative of the results obtained in all cases.
  • Each case is different and must be evaluated and handled on its own merit.

Past results are not necessarily an indication of a future result for any prospective client because the individual facts and circumstances may differ from those criminal cases mentioned herein.


Filter Case Results

Filter by:
Charge:
Outcome:
Currently Showing 6 Results
CHARGES:
DATE:
JURISDICTION:
Dismissed
CHARGES: Driving While Intoxicated
DATE: March 2020
JURISDICTION: Oakland County

A 29-year-old man was driving his truck when the manual transmission began malfunctioning. The police officer who arrived on the scene to assist ending up charging my client with driving while intoxicated with marijuana (“drugged driving”). The State of Michigan recently passed a law allowing the recreational use of cannabis, however this does not allow for its misuse, such as driving while under its influence. We respect that, but that was not the case here, despite the prosecutor’s office attempt in making it so.

Our client heard of us through his friends and family. Client met Attorney Dallo discussed the case. That is when J. Dallo realized our client had defenses in the law. During a hearing, Dallo introduced those defenses to the judge as he challenged the prosecutor’s charges. We were able to demonstrate that our client was using cannabis responsibly, was not under the influence, was driving responsibly, and stopped for a legitimate vehicular reason. The judge, known for having a zero tolerance policy, agreed with Dallo’s well-thought-out arguments. The prosecutor’s office recognized the judge’s position and dismissed the charges midway through the hearing! Our client can now proudly return to taking care of his parents and sisters, as he was their sole provider.

Dismissed
CHARGES: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, Brandishing a Firearm
DATE: February 2020
JURISDICTION: Macomb County

Our client and his assailant were experiencing some “road rage” and blaming each other for aggressive and inconsiderate driving. They both pulled into a local coffee shop late at night while it was snowing. The assailant got out of his car and walked toward our client’s truck yelling, “Do you want to fight!?” We know this because our client actually had a dash camera recording what was happening. We could hear most of what was happening, but we couldn’t see anything happening along the side of the truck.

We were able to demonstrate that it was the assailant who acted aggressively toward our client. Our client exited the vehicle to defend himself. Of course, he should have stayed inside his truck and called authorities, but he didn’t, and so he was now exposed to physical danger. Our client had a concealed pistol license (CPL) and had his gun holstered at the time. The prosecutor claimed our client brandished the weapon in a threatening way, but we maintained that our client actually threw the gun in the truck during the scuffle because his assailant reached for it. We demonstrated that our client took the sober and responsible action and protected both parties from further harm.

It was our client who called the police; it was the assailant’s girlfriend who admitted Assailant was driving while drunk and ready to fight anyone. And we were able to demonstrate that, as well.

The examination of the case, the willingness to stand up to the prosecutor – who kept insisting that our client was the “bad guy” here – is what got us through. The evidence we revealed on behalf of our client was overwhelming. The prosecutor could have gone to trial, and we were ready, but he realized that would not have been a good idea. One should not be prosecuted for responsibly defending oneself.

Probation Only
CHARGES: Manslaughter
DATE: July 2019
JURISDICTION: Macomb County

A new mom was bathing her one-month old in the bathtub. She was distracted for a moment and stepped out of the bathroom. This brief act would change her life permanently. She returned to see her child unresponsive. She picked up and wrapped him in a towel, called 911 right away, and – while waiting for the EMT to arrive – yelled out to her neighbors to come help. This was a close-knit community with houses very close to each other so several neighbors did answer her calls and rushed inside the house to see what they could do. Sadly, no one knew CPR and tried doing things they learned from watching TV that resembled resuscitation to no avail.

Of course, you could imagine the impact this had on her psyche, on her relationship with her husband who would work all day and night and so needed to trust his wife with the welfare of their baby boy. Her husband moved out and rented his own apartment as they remained separated. The mother fell into a deep depression only to later discover that she was being formally charged with the death of her son.

After retaining other lawyers to defend her, she realized they did not care about this matter as much as she needed them to; as much as she thought they would. So, she fired them and then both the husband and wife called Dallo Law and met with Attorney Dallo. They recognized immediately that J. Dallo was engaged! They knew he cared and wanted to justice. After meeting with Dallo, the wife’s confidence increased, she began taking parenting classes on child rearing, on technique, and earned several certificates. She never stopped mourning the death of her son and still wanted to improve as a mom and kept moving forward.

Attorney Dallo attended child protective services hearings and demonstrated the mom’s efforts, that her husband had returned to her, that she has his support, that they had another son, and wanted to be a family again.

At the same time, she was facing a serious criminal charge. Attorney Dallo was able to convince the prosecutor to reduce the charge to Child Abuse – 3rd Degree, which carried with it a maximum prison sentence of 5 years, which the probation office recommended to the judge at sentencing and which the prosecutor vehemently supported. However, Dallo Law was vigorous in its defense. Attorney Dallo impressed upon the judge that this loss was not intentional, it was an unforgiveable mistake, yes, and a mistake our client would be punishing herself for for the rest of her life. The judge, understandably, was in tears, as we all were. The judge realized the mom would need treatment and classes more than anything, to learn a lesson, to never make such a mistake again. She could see the effort our client made in improving, that her husband was by her side, that they had strong family support. And, in a decision that shocked the probation office and the prosecutor, causing the prosecutor to her to raise her voice in protest, the judge sentenced my client to no jail time, and five (5) years of probation wherein our client would have to continue taking parenting classes and being supervised by probation including visits at home. This outcome made much more sense than locking her up, taking her away from her new son when she was doing everything she could to be a better mom. Instead, through Attorney Dallo’s effort, the sentence was fashioned to improve her parenting skills, her relationship with her husband, and the future of this family.

Reduced Charges
CHARGES: Three (3) counts of Criminal Sexual Conduct (Rape) in the 1st Degree
DATE: October 2018
JURISDICTION: Oakland County

In one of Oakland County, and perhaps the State of Michigan’s, most high-profile cases, the deacon of a Catholic church was charged with taking advantage of one of his teenage alter boys. Now, we know cases like these have become more and more infamous not only throughout the United States, but throughout the entire world. And, of course, if a person commits this heinous crime, that person should be punished to the full extent of the law. However, this case was not such a case…

Our client had been serving the Church for over forty (40) years. Everyone in the community loved him and recognized him as an upright man who strictly obeyed the teachings of the church. He was sixty-six (66) years old when he was charged by prosecutors office. Our client had gone to two attorneys to represent him. They promised the deacon and his family that it was just a he-said, he-said situation, that the boy was making it all up, until the detective produced the video of the interview between the detective and deacon. That is when the deacon’s attorneys’ confidence crumbled. They told the family the video is damning and that the deacon should just take a deal and plead guilty. He would do 3-5 years in prison and be on the sex offender’s registry for 25 years.

The deacon, his wife, and his three children knew he was not a rapist, he was not a violent person, that he would never take advantage of a young man like that. So, they came to Dallo Law. Upon initial review, one could see how someone who watched the video, but didn’t put in the effort to dissect it, would carelessly believe the deacon was confessing to the detective. However, after analyzing that interview, Attorney Dallo pointed out several discrepancies and suspicious acts by the church, detective, and prosecutors office… The acts were supposed to have taken place in the church, which had video cameras everywhere, but, upon cross examination by Attorney Dallo, no church leader could account for why all of the video was missing from the exact days in question. A simple viewing of the videos would support the young man’s claims, yet they were not available. The detective knew that the deacon’s English was very poor, yet he was interviewed in English without a translator there with him in-person. Instead, in an attempt to feign proper protocol, the detective used an interpreter on her cell phone who was listening via speakerphone, hardly the best way to understand someone, as we all have experienced. The interpreter was not even translating in the proper dialect and one could painfully witness the difficult our client had with understanding what was going on. Our client was never given his Miranda rights before conducting the interview. And so much more we could write a book about it!

Attorney Dallo brought these discrepancies to the judge, who still allowed the video in as evidence. During trial, and despite considerable efforts on the part of the prosecutor to convince the jury that our client should be guilty on all three counts and should serve life behind bars, the jury was not convinced. J. Dallo’s research and attention to detail was just too much. His command of the courtroom was incomparable. His cross examination of the witnesses exposed what this really was – an attempt to ruin our client’s career because of his enmity with one person: the head priest, the head of that church. The jury could not convict our client of a single 1st degree count, but only one count of 3rd degree conduct; a much less severe conviction. Nevertheless, because we believe in our client, the case is now being appealed!

Not Guilty
CHARGES: Domestic Violence
DATE: August 2015
JURISDICTION: Oakland County

A hard-working single father to three children was charged with domestic violence. His eldest son, a teenager, claimed that our client had beaten him up in the kitchen of their home during an argument. When our client heard he was being charged with a violent crime, he asked around and his close friends told him about Dallo Law. He came to us concerned that his son would press charges for something he did not do, and he would lose custody of his children.

The prosecutor would not back down, despite my attempt to reason with him regarding the son’s motivation for filing false charges. So, after several strategic meetings with our client, and our client’s wish to challenge these claims, we went to trial… and we prevailed. We executed an expert cross-examination and exposed the truth: that our client was actually defending himself. The jury agreed and unanimously found our client NOT GUILTY. These years later, we love hearing from him telling us how he and his children have a good relationship, and he continues to support them and raise them as independent, productive members of society.

Not Guilty
CHARGES: Assault w/ a Dangerous Weapon (Felonious Assault)
DATE: September 2012
JURISDICTION: Oakland County

A 30 year old construction worker who was looking for his girlfriend was told that she might be at another man’s house. Distraught, he went to the man’s house – it was an old friend he knew. He noticed two individuals sitting in a parked car in the driveway. He recognized them as the man and his girlfriend. The man looked back and saw my client, so the man immediately got out of his car and attempted to tackle my client, who successfully defended himself.

Charges were filed against my client based on the man and two other witness’s statements: the man’s brother and the brother’s friend who were both supposedly looking through window of the house. The client came to Dallo Law and explained his side of the story. In our negotiations with the prosecutor’s office, we received no offer to reduce the charge at all. We discussed the options and possible outcomes with our client and decided to go to trial.

All three of the prosecutor’s witnesses testified that they saw my client attack and beat up the man and even attempt to run him down with his truck. When J. Dallo cross-examined them, he was able to demonstrate to the jury that their testimony was made-up, varied greatly among each witness who claimed they saw everything as clear as day, and lacked credibility. The jury deliberated and found my client NOT GUILTY.