Philadelphia, PA. – Richard J. Kravets secured a not guilty verdict for a client accused of misdemeanor crimes that he didn’t commit. State officials charged the Defendant with having committed terroristic threats and simple assault. Defendant was accused of violently punching and gripping a complaining witness, and thereby causing injury. The Defendant was also accused of threatening to kill the complaining witness. At stake – a term of imprisonment and a record not eligible for expungement.
Mr. Kravets understands that preparation is the key to winning. Upon taking the case, he gathered as much information as possible, created detailed timelines, a blueprint of the area where the alleged offense occurred, and also investigated the background of any potential witnesses. He discovered and verified information about the key witnesses the Commonwealth was planning to call to testify and used what he discovered to the Defendant’s advantage. During his cross examination of one of the accusers, Mr. Kravets exposed inconsistencies, motive and bias. By doing so, Mr. Kravets raised real doubt and ultimately put the accuser’s credibility at issue.
At trial, the Commonwealth presented their case with in-court identifications of the Defendant, submitted photographs into evidence that depicted several wounds, cuts, and abrasions, alleged to have been caused by the Defendant. Mr. Kravets performed a skillful and deliberate cross examination. The Commonwealth rested. It was now Mr. Kravets’ turn.
The Defense called the Defendant. Through the use of a Spanish interpreter, Mr. Kravets elicited testimony that was vital, articulate, and clear. The Defendant displayed confidence and held his composure all throughout his testimony, including his cross examination. During his closing, Mr. Kravets poked holes at the Commonwealth’s case and filled their gaps with rationale and logic. He articulated the motive and bias held against the Defendant. There was no question that the complaining witness had started the fight and Defendant was justified in using self-defense for protection.
After hearing and seeing the evidence, the Judge came to a verdict: Not Guilty. Despite the Commonwealth attempts to convict an innocent person, the preparation, tenacity, and skill of a good trial lawyer saved the Defendant from a conviction.