Attorneys Serving Boise & All of Idaho
Free Consultations 208.286.2111

Case Successes

History of Proven Excellence in Idaho Criminal Defense

These case successes represent a sample of cases that have gone to jury trial and have received not-guilty verdicts as well as favorable results. We also included a sample of dismissals. With an outstanding not-guilty ratio against Idaho state prosecutors, our trial success is hard to beat. Keep in mind that, over the years, our attorneys have achieved numerous dismissals and reduction of charges prior to a case ever getting to jury trial, and due to the enormous task of tracking all past and future cases, we have chosen to include only a sample of dismissals from May to September.

Dismissals:

  • Lewd Conduct with a Minor
  • Sexual Battery of a Minor
  • Sexually Explicit Material
  • Felony Attempted Strangulation
  • Misdemeanor Domestic Battery
  • Felony Aggravated Battery
  • Misdemeanor Drug Paraphernalia
  • Felony Leaving the Scene of Injury Accident
  • Felony Attempted Strangulation
  • Misdemeanor Battery
  • Felony Burglary
  • Felony Attempted Strangulation
  • Misdemeanor Drug Possession
  • Felony Aggravated Assault
  • Felony Weapons Enhancement
    • STATE V REITZEL: 2 COUNTS BATTERY, (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      In 2006, Ms. Reitzel had been in a dispute with her sister and her mother. On the day in question, she wanted to see her nephew and his child, so she met the two at POJOS in Boise. Unbeknownst to her, the sister and mother showed up uninvited. A dispute broke out and eye witnesses claimed that Ms. Reitzel pushed her seventy four year old mother multiple times, causing her to fall to the ground and sustain multiple injuries. The sister then followed Ms. Reitzel outside and claimed Ms. Reitzel battered her as well. Charges were filed, and Ms. Reitzel left the jurisdiction. In 2014, she contacted Bublitz Law and said she wanted to take care of her legal issues. We spoke with her husband who had a different account of what took place that day. He indicated he did not see Ms. Reitzel push her mother, but rather Ms. Reitzel was trying to prevent her mom from grabbing her son and inadvertantly fell as a result. The State evaluated the case and agreed to DISMISS the battery charge against the sister, but proceeded to jury trial on the alleged battery of Ms. Reitzel's mother. All witnesses from both the State and the Defense were equally credible and equally believable. We told the jury that under one theory Ms. Reitzel was guilty and under the other she was not criminally liable. However, when both sides are equally believable, you cannot flip a coin to decide someone's fate (the State bears the burden of proving the guilt of an accused). The jury agreed. NOT GUILTY

    • STATE V SANFORD: FELONY RAPE, FELONY RAPE, FELONY ATTEMPTED RAPE (ADA COUNTY) Misdemeanor Disturbing the Peace

      In 2016, Mr. Sanford was enjoying an evening out with his friend from Seattle, when he ran into a old buddy (and his wife) at a local bar. After hanging out at the bar, they proceeded to go to the local friends house for drinks and relaxation. Sometime in the early morning hours, Mr. Sanford decided to go to bed (same bed where his friend's wife had fallen asleep). The Wife alleged Mr. Sanford had forced himself upon her and she called 911. Mr. Sanford was questioned, and after an investigation by law enforcement, they decided to charge Mr. Sanford with Rape. Furthermore, during Mr. Sanford's interview he had brought up similar accusation stemming back to 2011, 2012. As a result, the State Indicted Mr. Sanford on separate counts of Rape from 2016, 2012, and an Attempted Rape allegation from 2011 (both in 2011 and 2012, Mr. Sanford was investigated for misconduct by law enforcement, but never formally charged). The State attempted to try all 3 counts together, but Mr. Bublitz filed a motion to sever the counts with the court (as well as filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, which proved unsuccessful). The Judge ultimately agreed with Mr. Bublitz, and severed the counts.

      The 2016 allegation proceeded to trial. The jury heard the testimony, as well as video evidence (there was a video recording of the incident) and concluded that any and all sexual contact was consenual and found Mr. Sanford NOT GUILTY. Due to the weakness of the Attempted Rape case standing on its own, the State agreed to dismiss the charge. After spending a year in jail, on a $500,000 bond, and the fear of facing another Rape trial, Mr Sanford agreed to plead to a misdemeanor disturbing the peace on the remaining Rape allegation. In exchange for his plea to misdemeanor disturbing the peace, the state agreed to release Mr. Sanford.

    • STATE V. APODOCA: DOMESTIC BATTERY (CANYON COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Neighbor called in a battery that she claimed she had observed. Officers arrive and without doing a proper investigation, they arrest Mr. Apodoca for Domestic Battery. State believed the officer's version of events along with the eye witness. Mr. Bublitz takes it to jury trial, where the alleged victims asserted that she lied and in fact nothing happened. After making the eye witness look biased, the jury found an easy path to a NOT GUILTY verdict.

    • STATE V. BILYEU: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN PRESENCE OF CHILDREN, COMPUTER CRIME--ACCESS OR ATTEMPTS ACCESS ANY COMPUTER (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Bilyeu found himself in an unfortunate situation. At the time of the allegations, he was nearing the end of a contentious marriage with a wife who was becoming manipulative and dishonest and a child who was going to be contested for visitation rights. The complaining witness was able to convince the officers and County Prosecutor that she was the victim of a domestic violence. Furthermore, she convinced the officers to subsequently charge Mr. Bilyeu with a computer crime as defined in Idaho Code 18-2202. The computer crime was assigned to a Boise City Prosecutor, who could read the statute and determine that Mr. Bilyeu's actions did not constitute a criminal offense and the case was dismissed. However, the County Prosecutor saw the battery differently and we proceeded to jury trial. At trial, the complaining witnesse's did not come across truthful, and her own father testified to her dishonesty and untruthfulness allowing the jury to quickly acquit Mr. Bilyeu of any wrong doing. NOT GUILTY

    • STATE V. BOYD: FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TRAUMATIC INJURY (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Boyd was celebrating his girlfriend's twenty-first birthday in downtown Boise when she became too intoxicated and could no longer continue the evening. The couple tried to take a cab home, but were inadvertantly dropped off at an unknown location. Because of the alleged victim's intoxication, she was unable to walk to their apartment. As a result, two independant witnesses claim they saw Mr. Boyd kicking her in the face, back and buttocks in an attempt to get her to stand up and walk. The witnesses called the police and paramedics were also ordered to the scene. The State called the eye witnesses, police officers, and paramedics to try and establish their case. Ultimately, the jury found there to be insufficient evidence to convict Mr. Boyd of a felony.

    • STATE V. CHRISTIAN: FELONY DUI (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Ms. Christian was observed operating a motor vehicle contrary to State Laws. Subsequent to approaching Ms. Christian, the officer believed she was under the influence of a non-alcohol related drug. As a result, a drug recognition expert was called to the station and a series of tests were preformed to determine whether Ms. Christian was in fact under the influence. After the test, Ms. Christian was charged with a felony dui (3 dui's within a 10 year time frame). The State disclosed all of its evidence, along with two certified prior judgments out of Harris County, Texas (where Ms. Christian had previously been convicted). Idaho Law requires the prior offenses to be certified copies of judgements under seal, which we believed the State had not complied with. At the end of a jury trial, the Judge asked the State for the prior judgements and agreed that the State had failed to comply with the requirements of producing certified copies under seal and entered a NOT GUILTY verdict for felony driving under the influence. As the old adage goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

    • STATE V. COX: FELONY COCAINE POSSESSION (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Cox was caught shoplifting at a local store. As the Officer searched Mr. Cox incident to arrest for the shoplifting, he discovered two baggies of cocaine in Mr. Cox's jacket pocket. State was being unreasonable in their pretrial offers. Took it to jury trial and jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. State couldn't prove that Mr. Cox knew that cocaine was in his pocket.

    • STATE V. CUMMINGS: 2 COUNTS OF BATTERY (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty on both counts

      Mr. Cummings and his family were at Cowgirls in Kuna when he called for a taxi. The taxi showed, and subsequently Mr. Cummings and the driver got into a verbal dispute. As a result, the driver's wife yelled obscenities at Mr. Cumming's family. According to independant eye witnesses, Mr. Cummings punched the female cabie and then proceeded to wrestle with the male cab driver. However, after questioning all the State's witnesses (including independant eye witnesses), it became clear that Mr. Cummings was acting in self-defense and as a result inadvertantly struck the female cab driver.

    • STATE V. DELANEY: MINOR IN CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL (CANYON COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Delaney was at a house party when local police officers arrived. A Police Officer testified that Mr. Delaney admitted to consuming alcohol and that he was under age. The officer took photos of the alcohol and the State presented the evidence to the jury, along with the testimony of the officer. Mr. Delaney testified that he never admitted to consuming alcohol and in fact he doesn't even drink. After making the officer seem less than credible, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

    • STATE V. DEMEYER: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL. (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Demeyer was driving a friend home from a bar when he was pulled over by the Ada County Sheriff Department for expired registration. Upon approaching Mr. Demeyer, the Officer alleged that he smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the vehicle and that Mr. Demeyer's eyes were bloodshot. After a series of questions, Mr. Demeyer admitted to having three, four or five beers, but maintained that he was not under the influence of alcohol. After running Mr. Demeyer through a series of field sobriety test, the officer arrested Mr. Demeyer and took him to the station to preform the breath test. The results of the breath test were .085, .087 respectively. Mr. Bublitz argued that the test was not accurate, and that the duration Mr. Demeyer had consumed the beers was sufficient in length that his body would have metabolized the alcohol and that Mr. Demeyer would have been under the legal limit at the time he was pulled over.

    • STATE V. EDICK: DOMESIC BATTERY (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Edick's girlfriend called the police when she believed she had been battered. Subsequently, Mr. Edick was arrested and charged with domestic battery. After some time to reflect, the girlfriend believed that it was a misunderstanding. She believed that in Mr. Edick's mind, he was acting in self-defense. Subsequently, she contacted the victim witness cordinator and the prosecutor's office to disclose her revelation. However, they did not wish to hear her story and proceeded with the charges against Mr. Edick. The jury did listen to the girlfriend's revelation, and as a result had no problem finding Mr. Edick NOT GUILTY.

    • STATE V. GARRETT: FELONY RAPE, MISDEMEANOR BATTERY (ELMORE COUNTY) Not Guilty on both counts

      Mr. Garrett had arrived home from work when he was invited next door to have drinks with his neighbors. Later in the evening, Mr. Garrett returned to his apartment to hang out with one of the neighbors (a female). Some time went by and neighbors heard screams coming from Mr. Garrett's apartment. Subsequently, three males busted in Mr. Garrett's door and observed Mr. Garrett near the female, with the female partially clothed. One male approached Mr. Garrett and the individual was struck by Mr. Garrett above his eye, sustaining a large lacerasion. The female claimed Mr. Garrett had raped her, which Mr. Garrett denied. The defense brought in a private investigator who interviewed everyone in the apartment complex as well as anyone who had contact with the complaining witness subsequent to the alleged event. During our investigation, it became clear that the complaining witness gave multiple accounts of what took place. We presented this evidence to the prosecution and they declined to consider it. The State offered a 30 year prison sentence with 10 to be served before parole eligibiity. We declined the offer and proceeded to trial. Jury not only found Mr. Garrett NOT GUILTY of Rape, but also found that he was allowed to use self defense against the male who confronted him. NOT GUILTY both counts.

    • STATE V. HALL: FELONY GRAND THEFT (CANYON COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Hall is pulled over driving a stolen vehicle. After an hour of questioning (all on audio), Mr. Hall admitted that he was the one who took the vehicle. Mr. Bublitz listened to the audio and determined that the confession was false and that the officer crossed his professional boundaries when obtaining the confession. Mr. Bublitz called in an expert from Boise State University who is trained in the field of practice of false confession and proper police interrogation.

    • STATE V. KLINE: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (CANYON COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Kline was driving home from Boise when a local citizen called in his driving pattern. The driving pattern included running stop signs at high rates of speed, crossing center and outer lines of travel, and wide turns. Officer initiates traffic stop and conducts field sobriety test (FST's) on Mr. Kline. FST's are on video and you can clearly see Mr. Kline was having a hard time. However, the wind was blowing 50 mph and Mr. Kline has a hard time standing anyway. Mr. Kline refused to blow. Jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

    • STATE V. KOLENIC: FELONY ATTEMPTED STRANGULATION (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Kolenic was at home with his daughter when his live in girlfriend claimed that he choked her and strangled her. She called the police and Mr. Kolenic was arrested. The State refused to offer a misdemeanor, so we took it to trial. Defense offered numerous witnesses on how the victim was not trustworthy and how Mr. Kolenic is a peaceful person. After Mr. Bublitz caught the victim in numerous lies on the stand, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

    • STATE V. MARTIN: DOMESTIC BATTERY (CANYON COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Wife calls police and is observed with a goose egg type lump on her forehead. Defense argues that the bump was self-imposed and that Mr. Martin never struck the alleged victim. Furthermore, Mr. Bublitz argued to the jury that the whole charge was fabricated to get full custody of the couples daughter. After catching the alleged victim in a blatant lie, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

    • STATE V. MEEKS: BATTERY (CANYON COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Meeks was at home when he heard pounding coming from down below in another apartment. He went down there to see what the noise was when according to the victim, Mr. Meeks struck him. Mr. Meeks admitted to hitting the victim, but only after the victim struck him in the arm with his hammer. The officer did not believe Mr. Meeks version of events and nor did the State. We called in the physicians assistant who treated Mr. Meeks for his injuries and she verified that his injury was consistent with being struck with a hammer. Mr. Meeks argued self-defense and the jury found him NOT GUILTY.

    • STATE V. MENDOZA: FELONY AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, FELONY WEAPON ENHANCEMENT (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Mendoza was at a concert at the Knitting Factory when he got into an argument with his wife. Shortly after arriving home from the concert, his wife alleged that Mr. Mendoza threatened her life with a knife. She called the police and Mr. Mendoza was arrested and arraigned on the charges of aggravated assault, weapon enhancement, and persistent violator of the law. The court system, believing he was guilty, set bail excessively high. As a result, Mr. Mendoza was held in Ada County Jail for six months pending trial. After a two day trial, it took the jury one hour to find him NOT GUILTY.

    • STATE V. MONROE: DOMESTIC BATTERY IN THE PRESENCE OF CHILDREN, MALICIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Ms. Monroe was at home when her live in boyfriend took her phone and locked himself in the restroom. As a result thereof, Ms. Monroe busted down the door and grabbed her phone back. The complaining witness called 911 and told the officers that she had unlawful contact with him. The allegations were that she pushing him into the tub, held him down, and repeatedly shoved him. Mr. Bublitz told the State that they would not get a conviction on the domestic battery in the presence of children, but that Ms. Monroe willing to plead to the malicious injury to property. The State declined and we proceeded to trial. At trial, Mr. Bublitz didn't use any preemptive strikes against the jury panel, and allowed the State to choose who ever they wanted. Even with the jury box loaded with the State's selection, they still were unable to get a conviction on the domestic battery. This case should never have proceeded to trial. NOT GUILTY, domestic battery in the presence of children.

    • STATE V. MUNIZ: TRESPASSING (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Charges were pressed against Mr. Muniz by a company called Car Park. Car Park claimed that Mr. Muniz had been told not to put flyers on automobiles parked within their lots, and as a result was tresspassed from their property earlier in the year. The State called in the owner of Car Park, along with the employee that claimed to have had the authority to tresspass Mr. Muniz previously. As the trial progressed, it became apparant that the case had nothing to do with putting flyers on cars. The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

    • STATE V. PIERCE: FELONY ATTEMPTED STRANGULATION, FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2 COUNTS OF FELONY INJURY TO CHILD, (PAYETTE COUNTY) Charges Reduced to Misdemeanor

      Mr. Pierce was charged with four serious felony offenses. The allegations were that he choked his girlfriend to the point of unconsciousness, and struck her multiple times in the torso and head region. Also, that he had smothered her daughter and had thrown the child down the stairs in her car seat. After two days of trial testimony, the Judge instructed the complaining witness not to go into certain unrelated facts of the case (mainly, Mr. Pierce's violent past). However, sua sponte, the witness claimed that Mr. Pierce had a gun and was going to kill a police officer. As a result thereof, the Defense moved for a mistrial and the Judge granted it. The State, having seen two days of testimony, agreed that they may not get a conviction. The parties met, and agreed to resolve the case as one count of misdemeanor disturbing the peace, and one count of misdemeanor battery with no additional jail time.

    • STATE V. R.T. : INJURY TO CHILD (CANYON COUNTY) Not Guilty

      This case culminated when R.T.'s wife was charged with a serious felony that the State was unable to prove. During the investigation of her case, R.T. stood his ground and demanded the police, state workers, and prosecution to use correct procedure. The State did not like R.T.'s actions, and nor did they appreciate that his wife was not guilty of a felony. As a result, they filed charges against R.T. and we proceeded to jury trial. In this case, R.T. didn't do anything wrong, and was a victim of circumstance as well as prosecutorial misjudgment. This case was not charged based upon the facts, but rather the emotions of the State and their inability to remain professional when things did not go their way. NOT GUILTY

    • STATE V. SALAS: FELONY AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, ENHANCEMENT-USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON IN COMMISSION OF A FELONY (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Salas and his neighbor were in ongoing disputes regarding Mr. Salas riding his motorcycle through the subdivision where they both resided. On the date in question, Mr. Salas confronted his neighbor and asked what his problem was. An argument ensued, and his neighbor claimed that Mr. Salas pulled a handgun from his waist band and pointed it at his forehead. The police were subsequently called and Mr. Salas was arrested with a firearm on his person. At trial, the complaining witness could not give accurate accounts of what took place, while character witnesses testified that Mr. Salas is a peaceful person. Ultimately, we gave the jury a reason why the neighbor would fabricate such an event, and given the totality of evidence the jury found Mr. Salas NOT GUILTY.

    • STATE V. SHOLOTYUK: FELONY 1ST DEGREE STALKING (CANYON COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Sholotyuk was in the midst of a bitter divorce when this charge was brought against him by the State of Idaho. The State refused to dismiss or reduce the charge believing that Mr. Sholotyuk was guilty. Thank God we have trial by jury.

    • STATE V. STARBUCK: TELEPHONE HARRASSMENT (CANYON COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Starbuck was in the midst of getting a divorce when his wife complained that he would not stop calling her, despite her repeated requests to cease conversations. She reported Mr. Starbuck's conduct to the police and they arrested him for the crime of telephone harrassment. To our dismay, the prosecution refused to dismiss the case and believed that Mr. Starbuck should have plead guilty to the charge. Some things are part of everyday life and do not belong in our criminal justice system. The jury agreed. NOT GUILTY

    • STATE V. STEIGER: DOMESTIC BATTERY (ADA COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Steiger was at the Western Idaho Fair when a situation arose with his wife. According to eye witnesses, Mr. Steiger grabbed his wife, and pinned her against a wall. Police were called and Mr. Steiger was arrested. The police never questioned the wife, never questioned Mr. Steiger, and completely ignored proper police investigative techniques. The State called two teenaged eye witnesses who alleged they saw this incident. However, neither one of them could give the same story. Furthermore, no one from the Ada County Prosecutor's Office would listen to Mr. Steiger's wife when she tried to give the actual events of the evening. Unbelievable, that the Steiger's were put through this embarrassment.

    • STATE V. THOMPSON: DOMESTIC BATTERY (CANYON COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Thompson was arrested by the Caldwell City Police Department when his girlfriend claimed that he had battered her. It is unclear on why she fabricated the story, but there was no physical evidence to support it. The Caldwell City Posecutor (who is no longer with the office) did not look at the evidence objectively. Instead, she offered a disturbing the peace. The offer was declined by Mr. Bublitz and his client.

    • STATE V. WHITE: FELONY CHILD ENTICING OVER THE INTERNET (ADA COUNTY) Hung Jury (Misdemeanor Resolution)

      Mr. White was in an internet chat room and began engaging in chats with an undercover police officer posing as a 14 year old female. After a series of sexually explicit exchanges between the two, they agreed to meet up for sexual intercourse. When Mr. White failed to show up at the meeting place, officers stormed his house and arrested him on location. We argued that there was never any intent to meet the 14 year old, and without any affirmative steps he wasn't guilty of actual enticement. Ultimately, the jury couldn't come to a conclusion and were split at the end of deliberations. Instead of retrying the case a second time, the State offered Mr. White a misdemeanor resolution that prevented him from having to register as a sex offender or be labled as a felon. HUNG JURY (misdemeanor resolution)

    • STATE V. WILLIAMS: 3 COUNTS OF FELONY ATTEMPTED STRANGULATION, 1 COUNT OF FELONY DOMESTIC BATTERY TRAUMATIC INJURY, 1 COUNT OF Not Guilty

      Mr Williams was at his house when his live in girlfriend alleged that she was strangled on three different occasions, beaten to the point of unconsciousness and was prevented from leaving the residence at her own free will. After a year of preparation and numerous motions by the Defense, the State dismissed the three counts of attempted strangulation and we proceeded to jury trial on the Felony Domestic Battery and false imprisonment charge. The State called in numerous witnesses, including a medical expert, to try and establish their case. Ultimately, the Jury decided that there wasn't enough evidence for the Felony Domestic Battery or the False Imprisonment charge.

    • STATE V. WILLIAMSON: DOMESTIC BATTERY (CANYON COUNTY) Not Guilty

      Mr. Williamson, a prominent business owner, was working at his office in the late evening hours. Upon arriving home, he encountered his live-in girlfriend who was being belligerent, combative, and smoking in his log home. Mr. Williamson told her to leave his residence, grabbed the cigarette from her, which caused the female to burn her hand. Subsequently, the police were called and Mr. Williamson was arrested. Prosecutor offered a reduce charge of disturbing the peace, but Mr. Bublitz and his client declined the offer. Mr. Williamson should never have been charged!

    • UNITED STATES V. ALMAREZ: FEDERAL DRUG TRAFFICKING, AND CONSPIRACY TO TRAFFIC IN METHAMPHETAMINE Dismissed

      Federal Government conducts a methamphetamine sting operation for approximately six months. 17 individuals were arrested, but only 1 man walked away. Mr. Bublitz's client was implicated by a DEA Agent for setting up a controlled buy. Mr. Bublitz's client claims it wasn't him on the day in question. We had the audio sent to a voice recognition expert out of Virginia and ultimately Mr. Bublitz got the United States of America to Dismiss the charge for lack of evidence.