Achieving a Favorable Outcome in a Protective Order Violation Case
A Case Study
In criminal defense, it is often the thorough preparation and strategic arguments that lead to a favorable outcome for the client. A recent case involving allegations of violating a protective order showcases the importance of these elements in achieving justice.
The Charge and Allegations
Our client was accused of violating an order of protection.
An order of protection or protective order sometimes called a restraining order, is a legal directive issued by a court to protect an individual from harassment, abuse, stalking, or threats by another person. It typically imposes specific restrictions on the behavior of the person it is issued against, such as prohibiting contact with the protected individual, maintaining a certain distance from them, or avoiding specific locations like their home or workplace. A protective order aims to ensure the safety and well-being of the person seeking protection by legally enforcing boundaries and providing a mechanism for legal recourse if the order is violated.
In Arizona, violating a protective order is governed by A.R.S. § 13-2810, which addresses interfering with judicial proceedings. This law makes it a crime to knowingly disobey or resist a lawful court order, including orders of protection and injunctions against harassment. These protective orders are designed to prevent contact and harassment by prohibiting specific behaviors, such as contacting the protected individual or approaching certain locations. Violating a protective order is generally classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, which can result in fines, probation, and up to six months in jail. Additionally, violators can face civil contempt charges, leading to further penalties imposed by the court.
In our client’s case, the allegations were serious: it was alleged that our client had made two early morning phone calls to their ex-spouse, despite a standing order of protection. According to the ex-spouse, the second call included a menacing message from an unknown number, allegedly made by our client.
Strategic Defense Approach
From the beginning, our defense strategy centered on two main objectives: scrutinizing the reliability of the ex-spouse’s identification of the caller and exposing the deficiencies in the investigation conducted by law enforcement.
1. Challenging the Reliability of the Identification:
In Arizona, the authentication of voice identification evidence is governed by Rule 901(b)(5) of the Arizona Rules of Evidence. This rule requires that a voice can be identified based on an opinion formed by hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker. Whether the voice was heard directly or through a recording, the witness must have a basis for recognizing the voice, such as previous interactions. To satisfy the authentication requirement, the proponent must produce sufficient evidence to support a finding that the voice is what it is claimed to be. This rule ensures that voice identification is reliable and based on a credible foundation, which is crucial in cases where such evidence plays a key role.
The alleged calls occurred at 5:15 a.m., a time when people are generally not fully alert. We argued that the ex-spouse, having just woken up, was not in the best state to accurately identify a voice. Furthermore, the description of the caller’s tone as "low and menacing" was inconsistent with our client’s known manner of speaking.
2. Exposing Investigative Shortcomings:
Our review of the investigative process revealed several critical gaps:
No Verification of the Phone Number: The investigating officer did not verify the ownership of the phone number that made the calls.
Lack of Follow-Up: The officer did not call the number back, subpoena phone records from the service provider, or question our client about the alleged calls.
These investigative deficiencies became the cornerstone of our defense, highlighting the reasonable doubt inherent in the prosecution’s case.
Presenting the Issues
We focused on presenting the following key points:
State of Alertness and Potential Bias:
Grogginess: We highlighted that the ex-spouse was likely groggy and not fully awake during the calls, affecting their perception and memory.
Ongoing Disputes: We brought attention to the ongoing issues between the ex-spouse and our client, suggesting that these disputes could have biased the ex-spouse’s identification, or even served as a motive to fabricate.
Substance Use:
Impaired Perception: We argued that the ex-spouse’s occasional use of sleeping pills and marijuana could have further impaired their ability to accurately identify the caller.
Investigative Failures:
Lack of Verification: We emphasized that the officer did not verify the phone number or trace it back to our client.
No Subpoena: We pointed out that the officer did not subpoena phone records, which could have provided crucial evidence.
Failure to Question: We highlighted that the officer did not interview our client regarding the calls.
The Outcome
By meticulously identifying these issues and presenting them effectively during pre-trial negotiations, we were able to demonstrate the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. This strategic approach led to a favorable outcome for our client, avoiding the need for a trial.
This case illustrates how a thorough defense strategy, focused on uncovering investigative shortcomings and questioning the reliability of witness testimony, can lead to a successful resolution even before trial. If you or someone you know is facing similar charges, it’s crucial to have experienced legal representation who will rigorously examine every aspect of the case to achieve the best possible outcome.
If you are facing criminal charges in Tucson or Pima County, Arizona, having a skilled and experienced attorney on your side is essential. Amanda Bynum at AJB Law Firm is experienced in criminal defense and is dedicated to providing comprehensive legal representation. With a deep understanding of Arizona’s legal standards, including the nuances of evidence authentication, Amanda Bynum ensures that every aspect of your case is thoroughly examined and defended.
As a leading Tucson and Pima County criminal defense attorney, Amanda Bynum leverages her extensive experience to challenge unreliable evidence and highlight investigative shortcomings. Her commitment to justice and strategic approach has helped numerous clients achieve favorable outcomes. If you need a dedicated and knowledgeable defense attorney, contact Amanda Bynum at AJB Law Firm to protect your rights and secure the best possible result for your case.
