Results

Sherburne County. Osborn was successful in getting her client acquitted on a felony strangulation case and domestic assault case. Her client was elated when the ruling was read and all charges dismissed.

Stearns County. Osborn was success again in persuading a Stearns County prosecutor to dismiss the their case against her client. The case for the state lacked probable cause to proceed to trial and the prosecutor agreed that the case lacked to the requisite facts to proceed to trial.

Sharon Osborn successfully won the dismissal of another domestic assault today when she persuaded the Mille Lacs County prosecutor that the case that the state had against her client was weak and would not stand up to the state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sharon Osborn was successful in getting her client’s driver’s license back in the Implied Consent (IC) portion of the DWI case. The client had previously pleaded guilty to a careless driving in the criminal portion of the DWI case. A win on the IC means that the case is a total “win” and the client will not have any enhancement penalties moving forward.

Ms. Osborn was successful in getting a Ramsey County judge to agree that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to support its lack of a warrantless search. As a result, the judge ruled that the state could not use the breath test result against her client.

Sharon Osborn won a DWI IC case in Stearns Co. on behalf of her client. A Stearns Co. judge agreed with Osborn that the warrantless search of her client was unconstitutional and the resulting breath test result must be thrown out. This argument, as many are aware, is based upon the recent Supreme Court decision of Missouri v. McNeely where the U.S. Supreme Court over-turned Mn DWI law. Osborn also received a winning order today in a DWI case in Hubbard Co. in which she argued the warrantless search and seizure was a violation of her client’s constitutional rights. Osborn raised the issue at the end of last year even before the McNeely case had been argued or answered at the U.S. Supreme Court. The Hubbard Co. judge’s denial was based upon Mn law at the end of last year . But, by raising the issue at that time – Osborn preserved the issue for her client. After McNeely was decided – Osborn filed a motion to reconsider. The judge agreed with Osborn, over the Hubbard County Attorney’s objection, and is now reconsidering his earlier decision.

Mille Lacs County: Sharon Osborn’s client was elated when Sharon got the case dismissed. The client was charged with a domestic assault arising from a dispute between the client and the client’s spouse. Immediately Sharon dug into the facts of the case and prepared to litigate. Ultimately Sharon was able to persuade the Prosecution of the weaknesses in the State’s case and the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the case outright.

Sherburne County: Sharon Osborn was successful in defending her DWI client through jury trial when the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. Osborn’s client was charged with 4th degree DWI based upon field sobriety testing and a urine test result of .14. After a hard fought pre-trial battle where Osborn convinced the judge to exclude the urine test result because it was not reliable, Osborn proceeded to jury trial. Knowing that the state could gets its conviction without the urine test result – Osborn knew she needed to attack the roadside field sobriety testing. Osborn started with the HGN and went down the line, heal to toe, one-legged stand, showing to the jury, each step of the way,that law enforcement had failed in its duty to properly conduct this testing. Ultimately, the jury came back with an acquittal for Osborn’s client who upon the reading of the verdict stood up and cried with joy thanking Osborn for a job well done.

Sherburne County: Attorney Sharon R. Osborn’s client was being charged with DWI in which the state was relying on a urine test result claiming the test showed that the client was over .08. At the contested omnibus hearing Osborn raised questions regarding the reliability of that urine test result including whether the test result could pass muster under a Frye-Mack analysis. The judge agreed with Osborn’s objection to the test result being used as evidence against her client. Ultimately the judge ruled that the state cannot use the test – and threw out the urine test.

Washington County: Osborn’s client was being charged with gross-misdemeanor refusal to submit to chemical testing. In the Implied Consent Hearing in January, Osborn argued that the state lacked the temporal connection to support a probable cause determination – so the Commissioner of Public Safety’s revocation of the client’s driving privileges should be rescinded. The Judge agreed with Osborn and granted the request. Thus, Osborn saved her client from this refusal being on her record and as an future enhancement . Osborn then went on to fight the Criminal portion of the case at an Omnibus Hearing in June. Osborn presented evidence through several witnesses and cross-examined the arresting officer. After presentation of her case, Osborn again argued that the state lacked the requisite Probable Cause to invoked the implied consent law and to proceed to trial. The judge in that case agreed with Osborn and dismissed the charges against Osborn’s client. Osborn’s client walked away without a criminal conviction!

Osborn argued to a Dakota County Judge recently that the type of urine testing done in Minnesota is not generally accepted within the general forensic science community and thus should be not be used against her client. To support her argument, Osborn presented evidence through the testimony of forensic scientist Thomas Burr. Burr testified that the forensic science community does not support this type of testing. The state’s expert agreed with Osborn that a urine test could show that a person was above the legal limit of .08 and yet be at .00 on a blood test. Osborn argued that urine testing violates due process and does not pass the Frye-Mack standard for admissibility. The Judge AGREED with Osborn and threw the test result out and rescinded the revocation of the client’s driving privileges.

In a recent Itasca County case Osborn convinced the state to amend her client’s DWI to a Careless Driving. Osborn’s client was charged with DWI as a result of a urine test that showed a result above the legal limit. With recent research in hand regarding the impropriety of pooled urine testing in Minnesota – Osborn convinced the Prosecutor that she would fight tooth and nail against the state if it attempted to use the urine test against her client. The prosecutor agreed to amend the charge to a careless driving. In the related Implied consent case Osborn convinced the judge that the state failed to meet its evidentiary burden to prove that the urine test was administered according to scientifically acceptable procedure and the judge ruled that the test could not be used. Thus, Osborn WON the implied consent case for her client. A win on both the Criminal DWI and the Civil Implied Consent Cases – means that the client walks away without a DWI on her criminal record or an alcohol related driving offense on her driving record.

In a recent Anoka County DWI Refusal case Osborn convinced the Judge that the client’s failed attempts at taking the breath test were not a result of refusal to submit. The state had charged Osborn’s client with refusal after the machine showed an invalid reading. The state argued that Osborn’s client caused the invalid reading by “not blowing hard enough.” But – Osborn – educated on the operation of Minnesota’s breath testing equipment – successfully convinced the judge that the machine was the cause of the invalid reading and not her client. The judge dismissed the state’s case.

In a recent Hennepin County Domestic Abuse case Osborn convinced the prosecutor to continue the case for dismissal for a one year period. That means that after one year if her client does not get a similar conviction that the state will dismiss the case and Osborn’s client walks away without a criminal conviction.

As in every DWI case, a person must win two cases in order for it to result without conviction/revocation on their record – the civil and criminal case. At Osborn Law Office, we zealously defend persons in the criminal case and aggressively assert their rights in the civil case. In a recent DWI case, Sharon Osborn won in the civil case when a Dakota County Judge rescinded the revocation of Osborn’s clients driving privileges. As a result, the arrest, breath test result and license revocation were all deleted from her client’s driving record. Knowing that a win in the civil case was not the end of the fight, Osborn then moved forward with a zealous defense in the criminal case. Using the civil discovery rules, Osborn inundated the prosecutor with Motions to exclude certain evidence, Motions to determine the admissibility of exhibits and other evidence, and a Request for Production of Document. Osborn then retained a forensic scientist to attack the the state’s alcohol breath test results. On the day of trial Osborn was ready to move forward. The prosecutor then offered to amend the charge from Gross Misdemeanor DWI, to a charge of Careless Driving. Osborn’s client accepted the offer. Thus, the case was “won.” Osborn’s client was not convicted of a DWI in the criminal case, nor did the revocation stand in the civil case.

Ms. Osborn secured the return of her client’s 2001 GMC pick-up truck. The Washington County Sheriff had seized the vehicle for forfeiture under Minnesota’s DWI forfeiture law. Believing the vehicle was not subject to forfeiture under the “innocent owner” exception, Osborn took the offensive. Using the civil discovery rules, she inundated the prosecutor with Requests for Production of Documents, Requests for Admissions and Interrogatories. After receipt of this paperwork, the prosecutor called Osborn and agreed to return the vehicle. Osborn was able also to secure the return of the vehicle to the client with minimal costs, the client had to pay the initial towing charges, there were no storage fees. If you have been accused of a DWI or DUI and your car, boat or motorcycle has been seized for forfeiture, call Sharon Osborn immediately. If you fail to file certain documents within 30 days, you will likely be unable to have your vehicle returned.

Osborn was successful in getting a 1st degree Criminal Sexual Conduct charge and arrest expunged from her client’s criminal record. At the expungement hearing, Osborn convinced the Anoka County District Court that her client’s criminal records should be expunged. Also, Osborn argued that all government agencies holding a record of the offense seal all files and records relating to the alleged offenses, and refrain from disclosing or revealing the contents thereof. The Anoka County Judge agreed with Osborn’s position and issued an order granting the judicial and administrative expungement.

In Hennepin County, Ms. Osborn successfully procured the return of her client’s property which was seized two years earlier. Pursuant to a search warrant, police had seized property from the home of Osborn’s client. After numerous attempts to regain his property, the client contacted Osborn for help. Osborn sought a court order for return of the property. At the motion hearing, Osborn demanded prompt return of the property. The Hennepin County Judge agreed with Osborn and ordered that the property be return within a week of the hearing date. The property was returned that week.

Sharon Osborn’s client was charged with First Degree Burglary. Osborn immediately got to work gathering evidence and researching creative ways to beat the charges. At a pretrial hearing Osborn attacked the State’s case. Both the prosecutor and the judge agreed with Osborn’s position – and agreed to a Stay of Adjudication. Osborn secured the Stay of Adjudication, which resulted in her client avoiding a criminal conviction – without the expense and emotional stress of trial. “A stay of adjudication is essentially a continuance of sentencing, without final adjudication of guilt, usually upon certain conditions, and with the prospect of avoiding a final conviction.” 9 Henry W. McCarr & Jack S. Nordby, Minnesota Practice – Criminal Law and Procedure § 36.3 (3d ed. 2006)

Sharon R. Osborn successfully defended her client on Domestic Assault charges brought in Dakota County. The day of the jury trial, the State moved to dismiss all charges against Ms. Osborn’s client. The prosecutor agreed with Ms. Osborn that the State did not have enough evidence to proceed to trial.

Sharon Osborn was successful in getting a felony conviction expunged from her client’s criminal record. At the expungement hearing, Osborn argued that the Hennepin County District Court, under its inherent authority, should seal her client’s criminal record. Osborn argued that the facts of the case supported a ruling in favor of her client. Specifically, her client had shown significant rehabilitation, he had had a long period of unsupervised good behavior, and there was evidence that the criminal record was causing her client considerable hardship. The judge, applying a balancing test, determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that the benefit of expungement to Ms. Osborn’s client was greater than the disadvantage to the public. The judge issued his order expunging the felony conviction. Upon getting the good news, Osborn’s client said that the outcome was “a rebirth” for him.

Attorney Sharon Osborn convinced the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office to return the $30,000 vehicle it had seized just the week before. Osborn immediately took aggressive action. She knew that the county would have to appear at a hearing before a judge within 96 hours of the seizure… Sharon Osborn convinced the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office to return the $30,000 vehicle it had seized just the week before. The circumstance that resulted in the seizure was that a Minnesota state trooper noticed Osborn’s client, JS, traveling at a high rate of speed. The trooper traveled at speeds around 125 miles per hour to catch the vehicle. Because of the speed he traveled to catch JS’s vehicle, he claimed that JS had intentionally tried to evade him and arrested her for felony fleeing a peace officer. Because the state can forfeit an automobile used in the commission of such a crime, the trooper eagerly sought to take the car. He issued JS a notice of forfeiture for the 2005 Acura. JS hired our firm to represent her for the criminal charges and to prevent the government from legally “stealing” her car. Sharon Osborn, immediately took aggressive action. She knew that the county would have to appear at a hearing before a judge within 96 hours of the seizure. Sharon, armed with the latest research, believed she could get the vehicle back and took on an unsuspecting Assistant Hennepin County Attorney. At the conclusion of the hearing the judge told the parties that he needed time to review the issue. Shortly afterward, the state called Sharon and agreed to return the vehicle provided JS pay for the towing charges. The vehicle was return to JS safe and sound.