STATE V. B.T. (DRUG TRAFFICKING)

STATE V. B.T. (DRUG TRAFFICKING)

The client was charged with drug trafficking and had hired a prominent Fort Lauderdale attorney to represent him.  However, after hiring the attorney, the client realized that his needs were not being met and he was being pressured into taking a plea.

After meeting with Mr. O’Toole, a new theory of a defense surfaced.  The defense of entrapment by the police!  Mr. O’Toole quickly hired an expert in jury consulting to see how the defense would go over in front of a jury.  It didn’t look good.  Two out of ten jurors in the mock trials believed the Defendant was entrapped.  This meant there was an 80% chance of him being convicted at trial.

On the day of trial, the lead detective and prosecutor had a closed door meeting with Mr. O’Toole calling his theory of entrapment crazy and that the client should take a plea to avoid a more lengthy prison sentence.

Mr. O’Toole did not give up and neither did the client.  Mr. O’Toole narrowed his focus and at trial, he called the lead “detective” and lead “creative” because of the fact that he created this crime.  That is, he caused the Defendant to commit the crime by asserting pressure and rushing the deal while the Defendant was hesitant.

The closing argument was brilliant and the jury came back with a NOT GUILTY on the drug trafficking charge as a result of police entrapment.  Following the trial, the lead detective told Mr. O’Toole that he was a brilliant trial lawyer.

By |2018-11-15T07:06:55+00:00November 15th, 2018|CASE DISMISSALS|0 Comments

About the Author:

Leave A Comment