A leading gun crime attorney on your side

Gun charges in the State of Minnesota often carry what is called a hard mandatory. If you have prior charges, you could be at risk of the federal government picking up your case. If so, you could be looking at a 15-year prison sentence. If your case remains in the Minnesota State Court, and it’s your second prohibited person in possession charge (or felon in possession), you are looking at a sentence of 60 months in prison (5 years).

That said, sometimes whether a gun case carries a hard mandatory is not easily discernible.

You need a criminal defense lawyer who knows the nuances of prior juvenile convictions, prior convictions involving knives as opposed to guns, and aiding and abetting.

If you are found guilty or plead guilty, these issues mean a judge may have discretion on your sentence, despite the prosecutor’s initial hard mandatory charge.

A gun case arises with a summons complaint (by mail) or a complaint by warrant (an arrest).

If you are in custody, you’ll want a lawyer who can argue for your release or lower bail at your first appearance. Sometimes a judge will release you without monetary bail but require conditions, like no weapons or electronic home monitoring.

The State of Minnesota must provide the evidence it will use to argue its case to you (or you through your attorney). Your second appearance in court is often set to allow your defense lawyer the opportunity to review and challenge this evidence.

It’s absolutely critical that you have a seasoned attorney who can identify these legal issues in the discovery.

What evidentiary challenges can an attorney pursue?

Shauna has argued for the suppression of wrongfully seized guns and won on numerous issues. These include initial stops by law enforcement that lack probable cause (suppressed by J. Garcia), and tips by informants who are not reliable (suppressed by J. Conroy).

Today, the use of informants is a hot-button issue in Minnesota.

You need a defense lawyer who can expose whether informants were really used, or whether it was actually e-surveillance by law enforcement that was never reported to the prosecutor.

When law enforcement presented a case involving weapons to the State of Minnesota, and the police reports didn’t add up, Shauna’s litigation uncovered two live-time tracking warrants to read all phone data. They hadn’t been given to the State. These warrants were filed in different counties than the one where the crime was charged, and under seal. Without this litigation, these warrants would have never been exposed.

Additionally, Shauna has challenged ION searches, no-knock warrants, and warrants that contain material misrepresentations or are too broad in scope or duration. She also knows the credible experts to hire who can enter testimony regarding ballistics, DNA, and fingerprints.

These are all tools that experienced criminal defense attorneys can use to fight for their clients.

As an example, Shauna won a felon in possession jury trial, in which her client was seen on a squad camera saying that the gun the police found was his. The mother of their infant son was seen reaching for their child at the time, as she was also about to be arrested.

By showing the very same footage, and articulating why her client would take the fall instead of the mother of his child, Shauna convinced the jury it was reasonable to believe he was protecting the mother of his child, creating skepticism that the gun was really his.

The jury acquitted her client, and he was able to go home to raise his newborn son, rather than spend the first five years of his child’s life behind bars (J. Barnette presiding).