Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

In another matter involving retail-theft allegations at a large commercial store, our firm represented a client accused of acting together with another individual to steal merchandise. The incident occurred months before our client was arrested, and by the time charges were filed, prosecutors were offering a misdemeanor plea that included a three-month jail sentence.

We conducted a careful review of the police paperwork and the investigative file prepared by the detective assigned to the case. The documentation raised serious questions about how our client had been identified as a suspect. Key details about the identification process were missing or incomplete, and the sequence of steps taken by law enforcement did not appear to follow standard procedures designed to protect against mistaken identification.

Relying on these concerns, we pressed the District Attorney’s office to review the investigation more closely. In response, prosecutors learned that the detective claimed he recognized our client from reviewing store video and, based on that claimed prior familiarity alone, identified our client as a suspect. Only afterward, months after the incident, did the detective place our client’s photograph into an array that was then shown to a witness. This sequence, in which the detective’s uncorroborated personal identification was the sole basis for including our client in the photo array, raised significant concerns about the reliability of the identification evidence and whether it would withstand challenge in court.

After reassessing the strength of the case in light of these problems, the prosecution changed their position and agreed to resolve the matter with a non-criminal disposition. A plea to disorderly conduct with no jail time, in place of the original misdemeanor offer carrying three months of incarceration. 

While every case turns on its own facts and no particular outcome can be guaranteed, this result shows how thorough review of investigative steps and a focused challenge to questionable identification procedures can lead to a more favorable resolution in a retail-theft prosecution.