Attorney at Law Barnet G. LeVine, Esq. (solo practitioner) licensed.  

J       -       -       -



     in the news

 charges reduced

 charges reduced


     in the news

 Presumption of Innocence disclaimer

*As an important observation, criminal defense attorneys do not endorse the commission of any crime, including that with which their client is charged. Further note, being charged is a term of art (it means being accused), distinguishable from being criminally convicted of the charged act; and there is a presumption of innocence that extends throughout the course of a defendant's criminal proceedings until a criminal conviction results. And equally important, but much less talked about:  Having a "criminal conviction" isn't necessarily indicative of the commission of a criminally convicted act; rather, it reflects a conclusion reached by a "fact-finder:" they are not the same thing).


Having acknowledged these things, please see the following clients' cases and note their disposition, which (is also included, and) reflects, among other things, a good  reason for the presumption of innocence.

"High profile" cases/clients:




Starting with the second case (vertically arranged, directly below the case immediately  following this disclaimer), it was said by some, that it "seemed unlikely" to reach a disposition that was favorable (to the client)... It was a case argued against the attorney general's office (given that I was a newer attorney, some were cynical)... But at the end of the day, competence seemed to be equally as important as "experience;" and after good arguments on both sides, the client was very happy with a more than "favorable" outcome.  


As to the first case --listed immediately below-- it resulted  in all charges against my client being dismissed (no plea bargain there).  Another instance of good work, and a good outcome for a good person, whom like others accused, was --and continues to be-- presumed innocent. 

What the articles/media don't tell you:


CBS, USAToday, Washington Times,

Missouri press.

Here, my client was charged with a host of highly prejudicial counts (for more information as to prejudicial charges, and their effect, see the "assessing the likelihood that a charge would result in its conviction" question on the criminal "FAQ" page of this site).


What the articles don't tell you: ​Almost immediately after the client was sentenced to probation following her plea to a count independently prosecuted in a neighboring jurisdiction, Ingham county filed charges against her for the same incident pursuant to the dual sovereignty doctrine. I was then appointed to represent the client; shortly after which, all charges filed against her were dismissed.


The following chronology accounts for what happened, and when:


Date: July 19, 2014: charge(s) were filed against my soon to be client.


Date: July 21, 2014: I was appointed to represent the client.


Date: July 29, 2014: The case, including all charges (i.e., no plea bargain here) were dismissed: again, a result that favored the client, notwithstanding the "high profile" status ascribed to the case (this was a collaborative effort punctuated by the prosecution honoring a prior agreement).



Mortgage Fraud Investigations Miami;

Michigan Attorney General presser.

What the articles/media don't tell you:


The articles point to the attorney general's announcement to charge a client, whose case would later prompt a change in the Michigan legislature.



I was hired to represent the client against allegations of probation violations for a previously convicted highly publicized crime (another firm/attorney represented her during the trial that resulted in the conviction). Whispers of the client being disliked were rightfully displaced and overcome by uncovering relevant aspects of the case… At the end of the day, like every case, there were conceptual, practical and legal anomalies; and they were exposed. As a result, the client's objective was achieved, notwithstanding the "high profile" label on the client's case).


Lansing State Journal; WILX; 

WLNS Channel 6.

What the articles/media don't tell you:


The articles describe a hostage situation involving a client.



I was hired to represent the client in the Family law context; and I came across an incident described by the media as a "hostage" situation involving that same client, so I offered to help. 


To the client's benefit, the case was resolved expeditiously, with a good arrangement and plea with the prosecutor... The client was Blessed with a "No Upfront jail time" People v. Killebrew (i.e., "Killebrew") sentencing agreement-jail cap. At the end of the day, like every case, there was more than what was reported, and a mature and developing exchange with a competent prosecutor later, and the client's objective was achieved, notwithstanding the "high profile" label on the client's case.