At Ness & Jett, LLC, we are proud of the results and outcomes that we obtain and negotiate for our clients charged with a crime. We truly believe that regardless of the crime for which a person is charged, he or she is entitled to due process, a fair trial, and a competent defense. We have helped sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and children (under 18). A few of our Criminal Defense results and outcomes are listed below.
DISCLAIMER: Any result our law firm may achieve on behalf of one client in one matter does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients. Every case is unique and must be evaluated based on its specific facts and circumstances. Our law firm’s prior results listed below should not create an expectation or assumption that you will receive a favorable result in your case.
1. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Trafficking Cocaine and Trafficking MDMA or Ecstasy (Molly) while driving on Interstate 95 from North Carolina to Florida. In this particular circumstance, each felony charge carried a potential sentence of 10 years in prison, for a total of 20 years in prison. The initial reason for the stop was for failing to maintain lanes. Within minutes, and on a wild hunch, law enforcement called for a K9 drug detection to come to the scene to do a “free air sniff” of our client’s vehicle. The K9 eventually alerted to the possible presence of drugs, and trafficking weight cocaine and molly were found inside the vehicle. After fighting for 10 months to obtain the body camera footage, it was discovered that law enforcement had no objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion to extend the traffic stop and call in the K9 to smell for the possible presence of drugs. We immediately filed a Motion for Suppression to suppress all drug evidence. The prosecuting authority agreed with us and dismissed the case approximately 1 week later. All charges were dismissed. The saying, “In law, the ends do not justify the means,” was intended for this case.
2. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client, a minor under the age of eighteen (18) years old, was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor Under Eleven Years Old (CSC w/ Minor Under 11), and Assault and Battery First Degree (A&B 1st). The CSC charge was a felony that carried a potential sentence of 25 years to Life in prison, and the A&B 1st charge was a felony that carried a potential sentence of 10 years in prison. Our client had a tough case and very few facts in his favor. We were able to successfully negotiate all charges down to only an A&B 2nd, which is a misdemeanor offense, and we were also able to prevent our client (a minor) from being listed on the Sex Offender Registry. Ultimately, our client was also able to get professional mental health counseling and treatment.
3. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana (PWID Marijuana), Possession with Intent to Distribute Crack Cocaine (PWID Crack), Driving with a Suspended License (DUS), and Operating an Uninsured Motor Vehicle (UMV). In this particular circumstance, our client faced a potential prison sentence of 20 years in prison. After we were hired and reviewed the evidence, we discussed the case with the prosecuting authority, and the prosecuting authority agreed with us prior to trial that it could not prove any of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. All charges were dismissed.
4. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Assault and Battery – Second Degree (A&B 2nd), Malicious Injury to Personal Property $2,000 or less, and Simple Possession of Marijuana – First Offense. The prosecuting authority agreed with us prior to trial that it could not prove any of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. All charges were dismissed.
5. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Harassment, Stalking, and Unlawful Use of a Telephone. An ex-girlfriend accused our client of using Snapchat to send her threatening messages, and also accused our client of driving by her house repeatedly. Local law enforcement arrested our client on two different occasions regarding the same circumstances. We were ultimately able to prove to the prosecuting authority that the ex-girlfriend had fabricated the entire story, including the Snapchat messages. All charges were dismissed.
6. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was arrested for Shoplifting wine at a retailer on a Sunday while blue laws were in effect (preventing alcohol sales on Sunday). The client had been using the self-checkout aisle and allegedly failed to pay for the item. The retailer and employees pushed for her arrest. After we were hired and got involved in the case, we reviewed all of the body camera footage and security footage. It was clear on video the client scanned the wine, along with all of her other items, and the computer system failed to ring-up the item at the end, because it was a Sunday and blue laws were in effect. Unknowingly, the client paid for every item, except the wine, because it didn’t ring up. We immediately made a phone call to the prosecuting authority, and they agreed they could not prove this charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge was dismissed. After we successfully defended our client on the criminal charge, we filed a civil suit against the retailer for False Arrest and Defamation. We settled her civil suit for a confidential amount.
7. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client, who was the appointed Personal Representative of an Estate, was arrested by local law enforcement for Larceny / Grand Larceny, valued more than $2,000 but less than $1,000, for allegedly stealing an automobile that belonged to the Estate. Our client did not steal the vehicle, and was only marshalling and protecting Estate assets, as she was entitled and required to do as the appointed Personal Representative. Our client had possession of the title and vehicle, but local law enforcement, who was misinformed as to the law and facts, decided to pursue criminal charges. After the case was elevated to be prosecuted by the Solicitor’s Office, the charge was immediately dismissed. After we successfully defended out client on the criminal charge, we filed a civil suit against for Negligence / Gross Negligence, False Arrest, and Defamation. We settled her civil suit for a confidential amount.
8. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Driving Under the Influence – First Offense (DUI 1st). Local law enforcement failed to Mirandize our client before incriminating statements were made. The charge was dismissed.
9. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Harassment and Trespass After Notice. A co-worker and casual friend accused our client of repeatedly and inappropriately contacting her, and also driving by her house after a No Trespassing Notice had been given to him. We were able to successfully negotiate a PTI (Pre-Trial Intervention) deal for our client. After successful completion of the PTI requirements, all charges were dismissed.
10. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Assault and Battery First Degree (A&B 1st), and Unlawful Use of a Telephone. The prosecuting authority ultimately agreed with us prior to trial that it could not prove either charge beyond a reasonable doubt. All charges were dismissed.
11. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Driving Under the Influence – First Offense (DUI 1st). Local law enforcement stopped our client, who was leaving a gas station after buying alcohol. After being arrested, our client refused to provide a breath sample at the detention center, so law enforcement also revoked our client’s driver’s license. At an Administrative License Hearing, law enforcement unsuccessfully prosecuted the license revocation case, so our client’s driver’s license was reinstated, in full. On the criminal charge of DUI 1st, our client had a tough case and very few facts in his favor, but we were able to successfully negotiate the charge down to a Reckless Driving.
12. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Driving Under the Influence – First Offense (DUI 1st) and Open Container. After being arrested, our client provided a breath sample at the detention center of an amount greater than .15, so law enforcement also revoked our client’s driver’s license. At an Administrative License Hearing, law enforcement unsuccessfully prosecuted the license revocation case, so our client’s driver’s license was reinstated, in full. On the criminal charge of DUI 1st, our client had a tough case and very few facts in her favor, but we were able to successfully negotiate the charge down to a Reckless Driving.
13. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Assault and Battery – Third Degree (A&B 3rd) by local law enforcement. Our client was alleged to have visited a local store and summoned the victim (an employee at the store) to the back of the store to discuss pricing on an item. While in the back of the store, our client was alleged to have assaulted the victim. After we were hired and got involved in the case, it became clear the prosecuting authority had no evidence to substantiate the crime. There were no videos, no pictures, no medical records, no physical evidence, and the victim did not want law enforcement to prosecute the crime. The prosecuting authority agreed with us prior to trial that it could not prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge was dismissed.
14. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Driving Under the Influence – First Offense (DUI 1st) and Open Container. After we were hired and got involved in the case, it became clear the prosecuting authority had no evidence to substantiate the crime of DUI but had ample evidence to convict our client on the Open Container charge. The DUI charge was dismissed, and the client pled guilty to Open Container and paid a small fine.
15. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client, a minor under the age of eighteen (18) years old, was charged with Assault and Battery – Third Degree (A&B 3rd) by local law enforcement, stemming from an alleged fight at a school. We were hired by the minor’s parents to represent the minor. After law enforcement turned the case over to the prosecuting authority, it was dismissed and declined to be prosecuted.
16. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Boating Under the Influence – First Offense (BUI), Insufficient Personal Flotation Device, and Registration Violation. Law enforcement suspected our client of driving a boat under the influence of alcohol. Initially, law enforcement seemed focused and adamant that our client was under the influence of alcohol, which was apparent during the DataMaster Room video. Our client willingly provided a breath sample at the detention center and blew a 0.02, which means that it is conclusively presumed that our client was not under the influence of alcohol. After our client was bonded and out of jail, law enforcement shifted their story and accused our client of being under the influence of drugs (something other than alcohol). Once we were hired and reviewed the DataMaster Room video, it clearly showed that at no time during any of the conversations on video was there any discussion of our client potentially being under the influence of anything other than alcohol. Law enforcement’s story did not match the facts, and the BUI charge was eventually dismissed prior to a trial. Our client paid a small fine on the remaining two charged for Insufficient PFD and Registration Violation.
17. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client, a minor under the age of eighteen (18) years old, was charged with Minor in Possession of Alcohol (MIP), while on summer vacation with her family at the beach. Our client was the driver of a vehicle in which a few teenagers were joy riding around the island with a cooler full of beer in the rear trunk. Our client was not drinking and had not had anything to drink that night. Law enforcement stopped the vehicle for a minor traffic violation. After coming to a complete stop, all of the teenagers, except our client who was the driver, jumped out the vehicle and ran down the beach in the dark, escaping law enforcement. Law enforcement eventually made their way back to the stopped vehicle and found our client still sitting in the vehicle, waiting. Law enforcement searched the entire vehicle, found the cooler full of beer in the trunk, and ticketed our client with the MIP charge. Once we were hired and reviewed the body camera footage, we were of the opinion that law enforcement had unlawfully searched the vehicle. We immediately filed a Motion for Suppression to suppress all evidence. The Judge agreed with us at a suppression hearing and suppressed all evidence. The charge was dismissed.
18. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client, a first-time offender, was charged with Assault and Battery – Third Degree (A&B 3rd) by local law enforcement. As a result of this specific charge, his Concealed Weapons Permit (CWP) was also in jeopardy. Our client was defending his son regarding a dispute between the victim and his son. The charge was quickly dismissed at a pre-trial hearing for failure to prosecute.
19. State of South Carolina v. Client* – Our client was charged with Resisting Arrest, Failure to Stop for Blue Light – Second Offense, and Driving with a Suspended License. She was driving herself to the nearest hospital for a medical emergency and had no other means of transportation other than to drive herself (with no license). Law Enforcement stopped her and charged her with the above-state offenses after a brief incident, and she spent approximately 48 hours in the local detention center. Ultimately, because of tough facts, we were able to secure a time-served sentence for the client, and she walked out of the courtroom with our attorney after a plea.
20. State of South Carolina v. Client*– Our client was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana (PWID Marijuana). Local law enforcement failed to send the drugs off for analysis and testing. The charge was dismissed by the prosecuting authority.
*Even though each case and criminal charge listed above is public record, for privacy and attorney-client privilege reasons, we have opted to use the word “Client” instead of real names.