There are very few attorneys in the nation that have more experience representing clients in federal court than Clint Broden & Mick Mickelsen. More importantly, there are very few attorneys in the nation that have achieved the results in federal court that have been achieved by Broden & Mickelsen.*
FRAUD CASE EXAMPLES
A prominent Dallas business executive was charged in a complex case involving allegations of financial fraud of over $6 million. After a week long trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, he was found NOT GUILTY.
See News Article
2nd News Article
A jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas NOT GUILTY verdicts on
all 79 counts of a multi-defendant environmental lab
fraud case. The case was tried by Mick Mickelsen and other prominent Dallas attorneys.
See News Article
A jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas found a client charged with passing counterfeit money at the Galleria Mall NOT GUILTY.
DRUG CASE EXAMPLES
On February 21, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Midland Division), a client with three prior federal drug convictions who was facing 22-27 years imprisonment for being a career criminal was found NOT GUILTY of a new drug charge after a three day trial.
A District Judge in the Southern District of Florida, after the filing of a" Hyde Amendment Motion" by Broden & Mickelsen, found that the government's prosecution of the defendant had been in bad faith and actually ordered the government to pay all attorney fees and costs incurred by the defendant. This is one of only a handful of Hyde Amendment motions that have ever been granted. See News Article
A client who was charged with distributing large amounts of marijuana was found NOT GUILTY by a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas after our investigation proved that the client was not in Dallas during the times the government claimed he was distributing marijuana.
A United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a federal drug case involving large amounts of cocaine on the second day of trial because of the government's discovery violations. The client, who had previously been represented by ten different lawyers, was released after spending over seven years in prison.
OTHER CASE EXAMPLES
Two defendants were charged with computer sabotage in federal court in the the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. One defendant was represented by Mick Mickelsen and was
found NOT GUILTY of all counts by the jury. The other defendant, represented by another lawyer, was convicted.
Several months later, another client was charged with computer sabotage this time in the Northern District of Texas Forth Worth Division. The client, who was represented by Clint Broden, was facing approximately three years imprisonment but was
found NOT GUILTY by the jury on all counts.
A client charged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas with being a felon in possession of a firearm was found NOT GUILTY after only nine minutes of deliberation by a federal jury.
A Motion
to Dismiss was granted by the District Court for the Northern
District of Florida in a case in which a Texas
father was charged with failure to pay child
support. The defendant was actually the husband of an employee of the federal probation department.
Broden and Mickelsen was appointed to represent a man charged with threatening to kill President Clinton. Both Mick Mickelsen and Clint Broden represented the client at trial and he was found NOT GUILTY after a bench trial. See News Article
EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED
All evidence was suppressed following a roadside stop by DPS officers in a bankruptcy fraud case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
See News Article
All evidence was suppressed following the search of a client's car and the seizure of a gun in a case in which the client faced a fifteen year mandatory imprisonment sentence because of his prior felony record. The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
All evidence suppressed following the search of a client's home in a case in which the client faced a ten year mandatory imprisonment sentence. The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
All evidence suppressed following search of a client's home in a case in which the client faced a five year mandatory imprisonment sentence. The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
SENTENCING HEARINGS
A client charged with dumping toxic waste was convicted at a trial held in the Northern District of Texas while being represented by another lawyer. The client faced more than six year imprisonment. After a lengthy sentencing hearing, the client was sentenced to only fifteen months imprisonment.
A client charged with bank fraud in the Fort Worth Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas was convicted at a trial while being represented by another lawyer. The client faced approximately three year imprisonment. After a lengthy sentencing hearing, the client was sentenced to only six months imprisonment.
A client went to trial and was convicted with another attorney in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas but hired Broden & Mickelsen to represent him at sentencing. Despite facing 5 years imprisonment under the sentencing guidelines, the client was sentenced to only 1 year imprisonment over the vehement protests of the United States Attorney's Office.
A client who pleaded guilty and admitted to being part of a $30,000,000 fraud scheme in the Northern District of Texas received a sentence of probation based upon the firm's advocacy at sentencing.
