Case Results for Detroit Michigan Attorney Ray E. Richards

State v D.J.

Mr. D.J. was charged with Criminal Sexual Conduct 1^st against the scorned mother of his children from which he was estranged. Mr. D.J. was facing a life sentence. Scorned mother of his children had convinced the police, prosecutor and even his children (who were sleep when this alleged violent occurrence occurred) that he raped her. Mr. D.J. as found not guilty!

U.S. vs. Mr. P.

Mr. P. a faithful, practicing, black Muslim and well known and respected physical education teacher was arrested from his classroom on various gun charges and charges related to alleged pseudo terrorist activities. His religious leader was killed during an FBI raid. All the members of the mosque were rounded up by the government to face charges. Most of them were detained, to await trial for fear of flight and being a danger to the community. Mr. P. was initially detained under these pretenses but the client and Mr. P would not and could not take this decision without a fight. At a detention hearing appealing the intial detention order, Attorney Richards won the release of Mr. P. on bond and the return of the valuable seized from him as a result of the arrest.

State v. Mr. Th. S.

Mr. Th.S., a record executive/producer, rapper and songwriter, was charged with Murder in the 1^st Degree, and four counts of Assault with intent to Murder against police officers and numerous other weapons charges. Case was dismissed on motion by the Judge. Case was then appealed and sent back to the trial court for a retrial. Other jury found him not guilty. Client (who was shot in the ordeal) netted a six figure settlement in the civil suit against the police department.

State v Mr. T.S.

Mr. T.S. was a financial professional, charged with 33 counts of Forgery, Identity Theft, and Fraud in three different cities. Client facing a minimum of 10 years. On the prosecutions Motion to Dismiss on the day of trial, all cases were dismissed by the Judge.

State v. Mr. H.A.

Mr. H.A. was a businessman charged with arson. At the evidentiary hearing on Motion by the defense – case dismissed.

U.S. vs. M.H.

Ms. M. H. was a entrepreneur under Grand Jury Investigation in regards to a multi state mortgage fraud prosecution-no indictment returned.

Crown of Provence of Ontario vs. Mr. D.A.D.

Forfeiture of cash amounting in six figures by the Canadian officials. Canadian government returned (after intense motion practice and negotiations)80% of what was seized.

State vs. A.G.

Mr. A.G. newly released from prison on an enhanced gun conviction, was now facing life on a new gun possession and brandishing charge. Being he was an habitual offender the prosecution pulled out the stops to move in for the life sentence. At the preliminary exam case was dismissed.

State vs. Mr. C.T.

Mr. C.T. was charged with multiple gun charges assault with intent to murder. It was alleged he tried to hunt down and execute a victim who was a federal witness. Found not guilty. Snitch witness was then investigated for perjury charges.

Mr. C.T. was a registered licensed nurse. State revoked his license. Attorney Richards fought to have his license restored to once again practice nursing.

State vs. S.EL.

Mr. S. El a well known entertainment promoter, talent scout and professional was under investigation for potential charges of Criminal Sexual Conduct 1^st Degree after a party at his home got a bit sexually raunchy and hyped. After the pictures were viewed, the video was reviewed and the witness discredited- charges were dropped at the arraignment.

State vs. D.G.

Mr. D.G. a real estate investment professional was charged with Fraud, Identify Theft, False Pretences and using a telecommunications Device for a fraudulent purpose. Case pressed on to trial wherein, right before opening statements the prosecution dismissed all the charges.

US vs. J.C.

Mr. J.C. was charged with multiple counts of Armored Car Robbery, bank robbery of $1.0M and weapons offenses. Mr. J.C. went to trial and was found guilty. At sentencing Mr. Richards persuaded the Judge to depart from the guidelines and he served significantly less than the 15 years he was facing.

State vs. A.A.

Mr. A.A. an entrepreneur was a professional truck driver/company owner, was stopped by police driving a his tractor trailer 18 wheeler, carrying 789 lbs of marijuana hidden in lettuce. Mr. AA who was not an American citizen, fought the charges. After intense negotiations after the filing of numerous dispositive suppression motions the prosecution dismissed the original felony charges and charged him with a misdemeanor wherein he served 90 days in jail and, was not deported.

State vs. J.P.

Mr. J.P. a union electrician for the auto industry, was charged with his 7^th Drunk driving offense. After a hard fought trial the jury found him guilty of a lesser offense. At sentencing Mr. J.P. was facing a prison sentence of 1 to 5 years. Mr. J.P. was sentenced to alcohol tether and released within 48 hours of his sentencing!

State vs. A.L.

Mr. A.L. was charged with domestic violence his second in three years. The state sought an enhancement; he was convicted. His self defense argument and the intense cross examination of the “victim” led to the acquittal.

State vs. A.M.

Mr. A.M. a college student and Junior ROTC leader, was charged with multiple counts of armed robbery, embezzlement and larceny charges in multiple jurisdictions. On the eve of trial, after the prosecution was faced with trying all of those cases separately with the same "incredible" snitch witnesses, dismissed two of the three armed robbery and embezzlement charges. Client pled to one charge of armed robbery. Attorney Richards wasn’t done quite yet! Prior to the dismissal on the reduced charges his guidelines factored in at 48 months. At sentencing, after filing a sentencing memorandum, requesting downward departure from the guidelines and making a persuasive argument to the court– Attorney Richards convinced the Judge to depart downward- 24 months! Mr. A.M. was looking at life initially, now as only going to serve 24 months! It must be noted that during and throughout the case he was out on bond!

State vs. D.M.G

The Law office of Ray E. Richards, II rarely takes cases involving criminal sexual conduct involving minor children. The case was referred by a well-known, internationally respected criminal defense firm. The client after intense interviews, and the client making a lasting, positive impression upon Attorney Richards, took the case. He first secured the release of Mr. D.M.G. on bond. Then he craftfully negotiated a plea from the life sentence to a misdemeanor, after standing ready to try the case in a very conservative non diverse county that was not “brother friendly”. Mr. D.M.G. was initially looking at life in prison and he walked away from the matter with a misdemeanor and returned to his family in the South.

U.S. vs M.R.

Mr. M.R. was charged with Conspiracy to transport, and sell guns across Interstate boundaries. Mr. M.R. was young and had a checkered past. The client wanted to fight the charges being the circumstances under which he was involved was defensible. The case went to trial three times, only to be adjourned to work out an a possible settlement/plea. After, much wrangling with the government and a persuasive sentencing memorandum on behalf of Mr. M.R.- a resolution was reached. It was initially recommended that the client would agree to plea to the five year maximum offense. His sentencing guidelines were 21 months to 40 months to be incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. But after a spirited and passionate argument by Attorney Ray Richards to the Court, he was sentenced to 1 day prison, credit time served and 2 years supervised release! He went home with his family and didn't have to serve any jail/prison time.

Copyright © 2011 Ray E. Richards II, All rights reserved. Site design by Mousetrap Mobile

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that we are not responsible for the content or privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of any other site that collects personally identifiable information.