Representative Cases

D.P. was charged with Malice Murder, Felony Murder, and two (2) counts of Aggravated Assault. The State’s alleged that D.P. was responsible for shooting at C.J., resulting in his death, and G.A., who allegedly witnessed the shooting and survived. Mr. Crews was hired approximately two (2) to three (3) weeks before trial was set to begin. The State’s pre-trial offer to D.P. of life in prison was rejected. During trial, G.A. testified against D.P., and identified D.P. as the individual that shot and killed C.J., and also tried to shoot and kill him. Another eyewitness also accused D.P. of being responsible for the shooting. Mr. Crews hammered the testifying eyewitnesses on cross-examination and used the State’s cell phone tower expert to introduce evidence that contradicted the eyewitnesses’ testimony. After a four day trial before Judge Trammell, D.P. was found not guilty of all charges and he went home with his family.

State v. M.L., Troup County Superior Court (Record Restricted) (2023)

M.L. was charged with Aggravated Assault, Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon, and Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Crime after an individual was captured on camera shooting at a vehicle. Law Enforcement identified the individual as M.L. After being hired, Mr. Crews investigated and discovered a witness that cleared M.L., as the individual shown shooting in the surveillance video. As a result, M.L.’s criminal charges and his probation revocation matter were dismissed. M.L.’s record was restricted to the fullest extent of the law.

State v. D.W., Fayette County Superior Court (Record Restricted) (2025)

D.W. was charged with Theft by Receiving Stolen Property after a firearm that was found in his possession had been reported stolen. Based upon Mr. Crews’ pre-trial motions and advocacy, the State dismissed the case. D.W.’s record was restricted to the fullest extent of the law.revocation matter were dismissed. M.L.’s record was restricted to the fullest extent of the law.

C.G. was charged with Possession of Cocaine after a search warrant was issued for the search of his home. Before hiring Mr. Crews, C.G. had previously hired two attorneys to represent him at separate times during the pendency of his case. After being advised by both of his previous counsels that his best options was to enter a plea, C.G. hired Mr. Crews. Mr. Crews aggressively attacked the case with pre-trial motions, including a Motion to Suppress, which resulted in the prosecutor agreeing to the suppression and dismissal of C.G.’s case.

J.D., along with a co-defendant, was charged with theft of county funds as the city treasurer. The co-defendant entered into a guilty plea. Mr. Crews vigorously litigated the case with pre-trial motions attacking the indictment. On the eve of trial, Mr. Crews’ pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment was granted. J.D. was cleared of all criminal accusations. His arrest record was restricted to the fullest extent of the law.

C.W. was arrested for Rape and Mr. Crews secured a dismissal of the charge before indictment and C.W.’s record was restricted to the fullest extent of the law.

T.N. was on misdemeanor probation and was arrested for allegedly committing a criminal offense while on probation. While in jail, after hiring Mr. Crews, T.N.’s probation officer presented a consent probation violation and revocation order that T.N. signed without being advised of his right to counsel. After Mr. Crews filed a motion to void the consent probation revocation order, on the eve of the hearing the prosecutor agreed to void T.N.’s admission to violating probation and dismissed the probation violation matter.

Mr. Crews thoroughly investigated Child Molestation claims against his client and persuaded the prosecution to dismiss the case after presenting evidence that the claims were false.

A.T. sought to amend his sex offender conditions of probation due to a said conditions interfering with his ability to marry. After extensive research, Mr. Crews filed a modification petition arguing that several conditions of A.T.’s sex offender probation were unconstitutional and required amendment, and one of the conditions required removal. Mr. Crews vigorously attacked the constitutionality of A.T.’s conditions resulting in amendments to several sex offender conditions and removal of one.

K.J. entered a guilty plea without counsel and after learning of his sentence hired Mr. Crews to withdraw his plea. Mr. Crews litigated the issue in the municipal court, whom denied his request to withdraw the plea. Mr. Crews appealed the municipal court’s denial and on appeal, the municipal court’s denial of K.J.’s motion to withdraw his plea was reversed.

R.H. was charged with five (5) felonies including aggravated assault against a police officer after engaging in a standoff and shootout with law enforcement officers. The prosecutions offer included a substantial amount of incarceration time. Mr. Crews aggressively attacked the prosecutor’s case pre-trial and employed expert assistance to assemble a comprehensive explanation of events, which neutralized the allegations. Mr. Crews was able to obtain R.H.’s release from jail, and the prosecution agreed to dismiss all charges against R.H., and restrict his record to the fullest extent of the law after completion of necessary mental health treatment.