Representative Cases

The following are some of the criminal cases Gerald has defended.   These cases certainly do not encompass all the successful cases Gerald has handled.   They are meant to be only a brief representation and examples of his efforts.

It is important to note that all cases are different and success in one case cannot ensure success in another despite apparent similarities. No lawyer can guarantee the outcome of any case. Gerald does promise his aggressive and diligent efforts in any case.

United States v. Stanger. Mr. Stanger was charged with 3 counts of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of using a firearm in a crime of violence.   He faced a minimum of 12 years in prison and possibly as much as 20 years.   A co-defendant pled guilty and was sentenced.   Gerald’s efforts at trial resulted in Mr. Stanger being found not guilty.

United States v. Matt. Mr. Matt was charged with assault with intent to inflict bodily harm, a felony that carried a potential 10-year sentence. He stabbed the victim in the leg, causing a wound that required over $7,000 in medical attention. At trial, the jury found him guilty of misdemeanor assault, a "lesser included offense. " He was sentenced to a term of probation.

United States v. Brewitt. This case involved two felony charges: using a computer to induce a minor to engage in sexual activity and crossing state lines to engage in sexual activity with a minor. Mr. Brewitt and the alleged victim met online in a gay chat room and communicated for several weeks. Mr. Brewitt traveled from Washington to Idaho to meet the 15-year-old alleged victim. He did not deny these facts, but asserted he did not intend to have sexual contact with the teenager, but merely to discuss the gay life with him. After a lengthy trial, the jury found Mr. Brewitt not guilty of both counts.

United States v. Bories. In this case, Gerald had mixed success. Mr. Bories was charged with a co-defendant in a 105 count indictment charging wire fraud and money laundering. The case went to trial and Mr. Bories was acquitted on 100 counts, including all the money laundering counts, but found guilty on 5 counts. He was sentenced to 30 months (2 years, 6 months) in prison. His co-defendant, with separate counsel, was found guilty on 85 counts, including several of the money laundering counts, and was sentenced to 162 months (13 years, 6 months).

United States v. Logwood. Mr. Logwood was charged with a co-defendant with distributing crack cocaine. Both defendants faced a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison, a sentence that could have been increased significantly based on their criminal histories. Mr. Logwood was arrested much later than his co-defendant and by that time the co-defendant’s counsel had already filed a motion to suppress evidence, which was denied. Gerald brought a new motion for suppression, arguing that the affidavit in support of a search warrant contained deliberately or recklessly false information. The Court agreed and suppressed the evidence. The charges were dismissed.

United States v. Blount. Gerald was not the trial attorney in this case. At the end of the government’s evidence, Mr. Blount asked the judge to find the government had not proven its case on the most serious charges. The judge gave the prosecutor the option of having the jury instructed on lesser included offenses, but the prosecutor agreed just to have those charges dismissed and proceed on the remaining counts. The next day, following the defense case, the prosecutor said he had reconsidered and asked that the jury be instructed on the lesser included offense. On appeal, Gerald argued this constituted double jeopardy. The government asserted it was not double jeopardy because the jury had not been dismissed. The Ninth Court of Appeals held it was indeed double jeopardy and vacated the convictions on those counts.

United States v. Gust. Mr. Gust was charged with possession of a sawed-off shotgun after police responded to reports of gunfire in a secluded area. Before arresting him, the police opened two gun cases, one of which contained the sawed-off shotgun. Gerald moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds of an illegal search, but the trial court denied the motion. After a conditional plea which allowed an appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed the search was unconstitutional and the charges were dismissed.

United States v. Nieuwenhuis. Mr. Nieuwenhuis was charged with importing marijuana from Canada. He was found carrying two large duffel bags near the border. Border Patrol agents asked if they could look into the bags and he said they could. They emptied the bags and found several pounds of marijuana. The government argued this was a search by consent, but Gerald argued consent to "look into" the bags fell short of consent to empty them. The Court agreed and the charges were dismissed.

United States v. Thuillard. The defendant was a Border Patrol agent. She and her husband had a small business in which they refilled ink cartridges for computer printers. She was charged with failing to collect a required duty when her husband brought ink into the country from Canada. Gerald successfully got these charges dismissed on the basis that the vehicle the defendant’s husband drove when bringing the ink into the country did not fit the definition of a commercial vehicle on which the duty is imposed.

United States v. Herron. Mr. Herron was charged with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. If he had been convicted of that crime, he would have been sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act. We moved to dismiss on the grounds that the state court had restored the rights Mr. Herron had lost as a result of his three burglary convictions many years earlier. The government argued the restoration did not include the right to possess a firearm. The trial court dismissed the indictment and after the government appealed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

United States v. Patterson. The defendant was charged with growing more than 100 marijuana plants. He elected to plead guilty without agreeing to the number of plants. At the time of his plea, judges determined the number of plants at the time of sentencing. Based on 100 plants and Mr. Patterson’s status as a career offender, he could have been sentenced to more than 15 years in prison. After the plea, but before sentencing the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), in which it held that any factor which increases the maximum sentence must be admitted to in the guilty plea or specifically found by a jury. At sentencing, Gerald argued that because the number of plants had not been admitted to, Mr. Patterson’s maximum sentence was 5 years. Instead the Court vacated the plea, and Mr. Patterson went to trial and was sentenced to 188 months (15 years, 8 months) in prison, consecutive to another 5-year sentence he had previously received in another court. On appeal, Gerald argued there was no authority to vacate the guilty plea over Mr. Patterson’s objection and the ensuing trial violated his constitutional double jeopardy rights. After hearing and rehearing, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed sent the case back to the District Court for sentencing to no more than 5 years. Mr. Patterson was sentenced to 46 months (3 years, 10 months). Instead, of being in prison until December 2016, Mr. Patterson finished his sentence in August 2006.