Mike Brandt’s client came to him because a fellow parishioner at his client’s church was seeking a Harassment Restraining Order, claiming that Mike’s client had engaged in harassing behavior. In preparation for the hearing, Mike had his investigator interview nearly a dozen witnesses, who were prepared to attest that trial to his client’s good character. Mike also had his investigator dig up damaging information regarding the person seeking the HRO.
At Court, the Petitioner was not willing to dismiss her petition so the matter went before a Judge on a formal hearing (trial) in Anoka County. Mike had prepared his client for his testimony and had prepared several witnesses to testify.
At the trial the Petitioner called four witnesses and she herself testified. Mike subjected each witness to cross-examination and at the end of the Petitioner’s evidence, Mike brought a motion to have the case dismissed—arguing that the Petitioner had not put forth sufficient evidence to show that his client had engaged in harassing behavior. The Judge agreed with Mike’s argument and dismissed the case. While Mike was prepared to put on his defense and had numerous witnesses prepared to testify on his client’s behalf, because of his successful motion, it was not necessary.