Burglary, robbery and assault charges dismissed

The government’s case was problematic from the outset.

Ring cameras do not lie. Body-worn cameras do not lie. CCTV footage does not lie. Phone records do not lie.

The physical evidence gathered by our investigator, Robert Kapler, overwhelmingly demonstrated that the complainant’s allegations were false. Every objective source of evidence contradicted her account.

The Burglary Charge

The complainant told police that our client appeared unexpectedly at her apartment late at night and forced his way inside when she opened the door.

That allegation formed the basis of the burglary charge. Burglary requires an unlawful entry into a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime.

The evidence showed otherwise.

A Ring camera located across the hall captured the entire encounter. The footage showed our client tap lightly on the door. The complainant then opened the door and allowed him inside. There was no forced entry and no breaking involved.

The complainant also testified under oath that our client had not been to her apartment in more than four months.

Again, the evidence told a different story.

CCTV footage from the apartment building’s lobby showed our client, the complainant, and the complainant’s son leaving the building together during the early morning hours on two separate occasions earlier that same week.

The Robbery Charge

The complainant further alleged that our client took her cell phone and left the building with it.

That allegation formed the basis of the robbery charge:  Robbery involves the unlawful taking of property from another person with the intent to permanently deprive them of it.

Phone records obtained from the complainant’s cellular provider disproved the claim.

The records established that the phone never left the apartment. Within minutes of the alleged theft, the complainant continued using the device to send text messages, make phone calls, and even contact 9-1-1.

The objective evidence conclusively contradicted the accusation.

The Assault Charge

The complainant also claimed that our client assaulted her by spraying her with a large can of bear mace.

Assault involves either the use of force or the threat of force against another person.

At a prior court proceeding, the complainant testified under oath that there was no can of bear mace in her apartment before our client arrived.

Yet Ring camera footage clearly showed that our client was not carrying a large can of bear mace when he entered the apartment.

The obvious question remained: Where did the bear mace come from?

The Result

All charges against our client were dismissed.

The Importance of Investigation

Some victories are achieved through a successful pre-trial motion to suppress. Others result from a compelling cross-examination or a persuasive closing argument at trial.

This case was different.

This result was driven by investigation.

The work performed by investigator Robert Kapler uncovered the objective evidence that exposed the false allegations and dismantled the government’s case. His investigation provided the foundation for the complete dismissal of every charge.