NYC Prosecutors Dismiss Two False Domestic Violence Arrests Against Saland Law Clients

Saland Law is pleased to share that we secured to meritorious dismissals for two clients wrongfully accused of domestic violence crimes in the New York City area. While in the court of public opinion, the rule of law is frequently the first casualty, both our clients had the benefit of prosecutors who worked hard, followed the evidence and did not prejudge the allegations against them. Unfortunately, while domestic violence crimes demand an enhanced examination, when these same domestic violence allegations are made, society is often dangerously quick to judge, automatically branding the accused with a presumption of guilt long before a single piece of evidence is tested. In the public arena, an arrest is routinely falsely conflated with a conviction. Some people do not understand that an arrest or indictment is not proof of guilt and other people simply do not care. Yet, when it comes to the rule of law, convenience, emotional outrage, and premature prejudgment are no substitute for the bedrock principles of our justice system: the presumption of innocence and due process. Thankfully for the efforts of the assigned New York City prosecutors who thoroughly reviewed the cases of Assault and both Criminal Possession of a Weapon and Menacing against Saland Law’s two clients respectively, two men walked away from fictitious allegations after the District Attorney’s Office dismissed their cases on the merits.

In both cases, the unique dynamics of domestic incident responses mandated an immediate arrest based solely on the accusers’ statements. However, through aggressive defense work and a commitment to digging past superficial claims, our firm secured total dismissals for both individuals after prosecutors questioned the veracity of the allegations and recognized they could not prove either case beyond a reasonable doubt.

While these matters involved two entirely distinct sets of allegations, the underlying legal trajectory was the same. The first case involved a purported charge of Third Degree Assault against an intimate partner, a common misdemeanor in domestic arrests. The second case, however, exposed the severe dangers of unchecked fabrications, as the client faced far more frightening allegation from his brief then-girlfriend: Criminal Possession of a Weapon and Menacing. More specifically, the second case perfectly highlighted how easily the criminal justice system can be weaponized. The complainant alleged that our client had brandished a firearm and threatened to pistol whip his then-girlfriend or commit a far more violent act by pulling the trigger. Emphatically denying any wrongdoing or even possessing or owning a gun, the complainant alleged that when this happened, she felt an imminent fear of physical injury or death. Had these allegations stood unchallenged, the client faced devastating lifelong consequences, including potential incarceration and a permanent violent criminal record. Complicating matters, our client was a legal resident but not a citizen.

Our defense strategy required a meticulous, exhaustive evaluation of the evidence to dismantle the accuser’s narrative and even exposing her motive. By conducting thorough due diligence—most importantly which included reviewing their text communications and timelines, and securing video surveillance that recorded the time and location of the purported attack (as well as that from immediately before and after), it became overwhelmingly clear that our client’s now ex-girlfriend fabricated the non-incident. Faced with objective discrepancies that directly contradicted the claims of gun possession and threats, the District Attorney’s Office did their own homework, and met with the complainant before questioning her truthfulness and the veracity of her words.  

Recognizing that the evidence did not warrant a viable prosecution and genuinely concerned over the honesty of the complainants’ stories to the NYPD and to their office, prosecutors took proactive, atypical steps to resolve the matters. In the first case, prosecutors advanced the court date specifically to dismiss the charges on the merits. In the second case involving the claimed gun, the matter was slated for dismissal on procedural grounds on the regular court date. Understanding that a technical dismissal leaves an unfair cloud of suspicion, prosecutors agreed with Saland Law’s request make a formal record. In doing so, the District Attorney’s Office explicitly stated in open court that the case could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ensuring our client’s name was fully cleared, and the matter was not dismissed on procedural, timeliness grounds.

Expediency has no place in the rule of law. It is undeniably easier for far too many in the public and on social media to cast aside critical thinking when someone else’s life and innocence is on the line, not their own or someone they care about. But true justice requires law enforcement and prosecutors to execute their ethical duties with integrity. In these cases, the District Attorney’s Office did their job, did it well, and allowed the presumption of innocence to prevail over the convenience of prejudgment. For that, we are grateful.