Home Our Locations The Courts Attorney Resources Client Victories Contact Us
Quick Legal Advice
Most questions are answered within 24hours
Name :
Phone :
Email :
Your Question :
     
 
  Criminal Sexual Conduct - I
  Criminal Sexual Conduct II
  Criminal Sexual Conduct III
  Criminal Sexual Conduct IV
  Indecent Exposure
  Sexually Delinquent Person
  Gross Indecency
  Possession of Child Pornography
  Second or Subsequent Offenses
  Failure to Register
  Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual Conduct
  Victim need not resist in 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th degree Criminal Sexual Conduct
  Victim need not resist in Assault with Intent to Commit Criminal Sexual Conduct
  Spouses Can Be Charged
  Lifetime Electronic Monitoring
  People vs Stough
  People vs Lee
  People vs Koester
  People vs Kirby
 
 
  DRUNK DRIVING / DUI / OWI
  SEX CRIMES / CSC
  ASSAULT - MURDER
  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
  THEFT / LARCENY
  DRUG CRIMES
  MDOP - ARSON
  WEAPONS CRIMES
  INTERNET CRIMES
  CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
  TRAFFIC VIOLATION
  DRIVERS LICENSE RESTORATION
  PERSONAL PROTECTION ORDERS
  JUVENILE CRIMES
 
Follow AmbroseLawGroup on Twitter

Follow AmbroseLawGroup on Wordpress
   
 

Contact Daniel Ambrose directly for fast answers to your Criminal Law Questions at the Office at (248) 624-5500, on his cell phone at (248) 808-3130 or by email at daniel@ambroselawgroup.com

 
CLIENT VICTORIES
 
  People v. Kirby (Criminal Sexual Conduct)

Accused of forcing himself on his roommate, Mark was facing a tough challenge, especially after lying about having sex with her. It took the jury six hours, but they finally found Mark NOT GUILTY!

Mark and his buddy Jamie were accused of raping Billy. Billy was Mark's apartment mate and had sex with both Mark and Jamie before. One night when they were all drinking they had a threesome. Billy went to the police the next day and accused them of rape. There was no rape. Mark was kicking Billy out of the apartment because she had lost her job and could not pay rent. She knew she could not get into the woman’s shelter unless she alleged abuse or rape.
Billy alleged that Mark grabbed her head and forced her to perform oral sex on him and that while this was happening Jamie had anal sex with her. She had no injuries consistent with a struggle(bruising, scrapes, cuts). The police arrested Mark and Jamie later that night. When they questioned Mark he repeatedly denied having sex with Billy. The police video taped this interrogation.

I initially declined representation in this case. Mark simply did not have the money to pay the fee. Two days after talking with Mark I had the honor of meeting an extraordinary man, Kenny Wymenko. Kenny spent ten years in prison for a rape he did not commit. He was freed by the innocence project. I believed that my meeting of Kenny to be a sign that I had a duty as a human being to step up and prevent an innocent man from spending thirty years in prison, if I could.

The video of Mark lying presented a special challenge. The tape bothered me because people do not lie unless they have reason, unless they are hiding something. I know that if it bothered me then it would bother the jury. I had to find a way to explain why an innocent man would repeatedly lie. To do this I had to reverse roles with Mark at the time of the interrogation. To put myself in his shoes in that interrogation room, to see the world through his eyes. When I did this I was able to explain to the jury how afraid he was, how he felt nobody would believe him and only believe his accuser.

During the trial for the first time Billy testified how Mark had repeatedly forced her to have sex with him. She told the jury how she was basically kept prisoner in Mark’s apartment. And that Mark threatened to kill her if she told anybody about his raping her. On cross examination Billy admitted that the force he used amounted to him “telling” her to give him oral sex and her feeling like she “just had to.” That in fact she came and went from the apartment as she wanted to. And that the prosecutor told her to tell the jury that Mark had threatened her life.
The jury acquitted both men after about six hours of deliberation.


 
  Video Clips

Mark Is Interrogated

The Co-Defendant is Interrogated

Cross Examination Officer Galarneau

Cross Exam of Trooper Moore

Cross Exam of the Alleged Victim (Part 1)

Cross Exam of Alleged Victim (Part 2)

Cross Exam of Blood Test Technician

Cross Exam of Examining Nurse

Direct Exam of Alleged Victim's Friend

Direct Exam of Alleged Victim's Friend

 
  The Ambrose Law Group are trial lawyers focused on defending DWI, OWI, DUI, Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence,
Drug Defense, and other Criminal Defense cases in Oakland and Macomb Counties, including Berkley,Bloomfield Hills,
Farmington Hills, Troy, Novi, Brighton, Oxford, RochesterHills, Roseville, and Walled Lake.
  © Copyright 2009 Ambrose Law Group, all right reserved. Designed by Adventum