Popular searches:
medical lawsuits civil litigation insurance lawsuits help avoid foreclosure
Marc A. Joseph, P.A.
Marc A. Joseph, P.A.
Main Office
3111 West MLK Blvd, Suite 100
Tampa, FL 33607
YOUR BEST DEFENSE
Summary
| Years of Experience | 10 | |
|---|---|---|
| Education |
|
|
| Websites | ||
Overview
The Law Office of Marc A. Joseph, PA has 2 primary goals for all clients:
- First for all clients to avoid jail if at all possible
- Second for all clients to avoid a criminal conviction
The philosophy of Marc A. Joseph, PA is comprised of two main principles:
- First, we will strive to provide an aggressive defense.
- Second, you will be provided with the hishest possible level of personal service, and will always be given information regarding the status of your case.
- Please Contact us for help with your legal issues
Case History
State v. S.J.
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Description: My client was accused of helping his sister beat up a woman in front of a nightclub. The alleged victim received a black eye but no permanent damage. Three witnesses testified in this case and all of their stories differed.
Outcome: Since there was conflict in the testimonies and the judge could not determine who to believe, the judge ruled that my client and his sister were not guilty.
State v. R.L.
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Description: My juvenile client was charged with battery against a classmate. The girl accusing him of the offense brought a witness with her to court. Neither the girl nor the witness were credible because of the obvious bias they both had towards my client.
Outcome: The judge could see that there was a bias and could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that my client even touched this girl. The judge ruled in favor of my client, not guilty.
State v. P.J.
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Description: My client was charged with possession of a concealed firearm. The gun in question is a 1851 Colt Navy .36 Caliber Revolver reproduction. A security guard saw my client sitting in a car in the parking lot of the VA Hospital and decided to call the police. By the time the police got there, the gun was partially hidden under a towel. The client tried to explain to the police that it was a reproduction and didn’t even fire. At arraignment, I argued under Fla. Stat. 790.001 the revolver would be classified as an antique firearm and is excluded from Fla. Stat. 790.01(2)(possession of a concealed firearm statute). Coincidentally, the judge is a gun collector and owns the exact type of gun in question. The Assistant State Attorney refused to get rid of this case at arraignment and insisted on a written motion. At the motion hearing, ASA Falcone waited for the police to bring the actual gun to court for inspection, but the officer never showed up. Mr. Falcone decided to stand silent on the motion. The Judge quickly granted the motion to dismiss.
Outcome: At the motion hearing the judge quickly granted my motion to dismiss.
State v. P.S.
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Description: The client allegedly violated probation by not being home at the time the probation officer came to the house. The probation officer testified that he came to the house knocked on the door a few times and then knocked on one of the side windows. He then spoke to a neighbor who had not seen my client. The probation officer never called out for the probationer or did he attempt to go into the backyard. My client claimed that he was in the backyard. When the client testified, it became apparent that he had a hearing problem. The judge determined that my client could not hear the probation officer knocking and dismissed the affidavit. If given the chance I would have argued Brown v. State, 813 So2d 202 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002), which ruled that a probation officer merely knocking on the door with no answer is not a violation.
Outcome: Violation of probation affidavit was dismissed.
State v. C.S.
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Description: My client was charged with domestic violence battery. The victim in this case accused my client of pushing him and then slapping him twice. There were no marks on the victim. The alleged victim came over to my client’s house uninvited to discuss child support. The victim was angry that my client called his boss in regards to his child support. When the victim arrived, he argued with my client and my client asked him to leave. The victim refused to leave and my client pushed him out of the house. The strategy was self-defense and we claimed that the motive for the victim pursuing this case was revenge. My client had the victim arrested and subsequently convicted of domestic violence battery a year ago. My client testified that she was scared when the alleged victim became enraged and initially refused to leave. She shoved the victim so that he could get out of her house.
Outcome: The court agreed with our claim of self-defense and found my client not guilty.
State v. M.D.
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Description: My client was charged with grand theft third degree. The alleged victim in this case accused the client of stealing money she entrusted to him to fix her car that was wrecked in an auto accident. The alleged victim and her mother contradicted themselves several times during cross examination and did not portray themselves as credible. The client after hearing the state’s case decided not to testify because the victim did a great job of ruining the state’s case.
Outcome: The jury deliberated for less than fifteen minutes and came back with a not guilty verdict.
State v. M.S.
Practice Area: DUI and DWI
Description: My client was charged with driving under the influence of marijuana. The charge was based on smelling marijuana on his person and in his car. They also based it on glassy eyes and slurred speech. There was no evidence that his driving was impaired. When asking the deputy about my client’s driving pattern, he stated the there was nothing unusual about how he was driving and only stopped him because of a broken tag light. He also did not notice any stumbling or wobbling when my client exited the vehicle. The DUI investigator testified that my client was leaning against the car and could not keep himself steady. The two deputies contradicted each other. On the tape, my client did not look impaired at all and completed the field sobriety exercises well. The defendant blew a .000, but refused the urine test. He also admitted to the deputy that he refused the urine test because he smoked marijuana the day before. I argued that my client was not impaired while driving even though he admitted to smoking marijuana.
Outcome: As a result of the videotape and the conflicting testimonies of the law enforcement officers, the jury found my client not guilty in ten minutes.
Resume
Lawyers
Location: Tampa, FL
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, DUI and DWI, Probate