STATE v. PAUL HUEBL:

Paul was working as a private investigator in Phoenix and one night served an eviction notice on a white collar con-man who was behind on the rent for his large house in upscale Paradise Valley. With his guard down because of his surroundings, Paul wasn't alarmed by the middle aged man coming toward him as he walked to his car after serving the notice to the man's wife. Suddenly the man clubbed Paul over the head with a .45 caliber pistol and threatend to shoot him. Paul was fighting for his life. Emptying his .38 revolver at the looming figure, uncertain in the darkness if he had struck him. A police investigation, botched at best, left Paul facing a mandatory 15 year prison term for aggravated assault. Eighteen months of exhaustive trial preparation ensued. Paul turned down a misdemeanor "anything short of dismissal" plea offer and we went to trial. After a six week trial, the jury retired to deliberate. Four minutes later they sent out a note, ask ng if they could find the "victim" guilty of perjury! As eager as the government had been to prosecute Paul, they suddenly seemed to forget how to find the courthouse for this perjury charge. We spent over a year rattling doors before the "victim" was finally charged and pled guilty.

THE CHIPMAN ROAD CASE:

In 1996, a young woman, after having gone missing over night, reported to her mother that she had been sexually assaulted by numerous members of a gang in an empty house on Chipman road. One of the poorest neighborhoods in Phoenix, the local residents were no strangers to all manner of crime and violence but this incident polarized the neighborhood, and soon, the entire community. Some local residents doubted the story from the outset, others believed the worst. The case dragged on, in part just due to the number of Defendants, but also because of the fierce battle being fought over discovery and pretrial motions. Meanwhile the twelve defenants, all of them minors themselves, languished in jail, unable to post the high bonds which had been set. As the two year mark approached with no trial in sight, family members began demonstrating in front of the courthouse. The newspapers ran editorials. The NAACP got involved. The battle had to be fought in the press as well as the courtroom. The State was showcasing the prosecution as proof it was cleaning up street gangs. Family members, and some others in the community thought the prosecution was racially motivated, even though the alleged victim was Black as well. As the Lawyer for one of the defendants, I had to find a middle ground, somewhere the public could stand and see my client, and the victim too, as people, rather than some stereotype. Slowly, the public dialogue about the case switched from "whose side are you on?" to broader issues of community, poverty and responsibility. Bail was finally reduced and most of the young men were released pending trial. Most of them finally accepted plea bargains to lesser charges, including my client. It allowed him to avoid the prospect of not only going to prison, but to avoid being labeled a sex offender as well. He had done so well since his release on bond that he not only did not receive any further jail time, the probation officer who had been supervising him while on release came to his sentencing to speak on his behalf.