top of page


The cases here represent some of the victories won by Attorney Ganzhorn when litigation took place, i.e., when the Government actually fought but we won anyway. 

State v. J.O.:

After a hunting accident, client's father-in-law was left with a left thigh full of buckshot. The Government went after my client for falsely reporting a crime (dropped pretrial), as well as intentionally, recklessly, and negligently discharging a firearm. At trial, we showed the jury that not all mistakes are criminal, and the Government has to meet legal standards before it wants to confiscate your guns and put you in jail. The result: Not guilty on all counts, and rifle returned. 

State v. D.T.:

Client was registered going 107 in a 70 mph zone, and caught on squad car video swerving between a semi and a sedan. Sound hopeless? Effective cross-examination showed that the citing officer had not properly calibrated his radar machine and was not well-acquainted with how the machine functioned (few officers are!). More than that, the Government could not prove the offense took place in the county they claimed it did. The result: Not guilty of reckless driving. 

State v. A.C.:

Client was charged with Third-Degree Sexual Assault arising out of a consensual encounter the other party had a change of heart about. At jury trial, we used cross-examination to expose the lies underlying the false claim. Not guilty on all counts.

State v. E.S.:

Client was charged with an HRO violation, reported by her ex's new girlfriend. We showed that the client's behavior did not actually violate the HRO, and that the Order itself did not give the client guidance on how she should act with the father of her children. The arresting officer tried to convince the jury that if he understood the vague, poorly-written HRO, the client should have as well. The jury did not have it: Not guilty on all counts. 

State v. A.C.:

Client was charged with felony Third-Degree Sexual Assault, and we went to jury trial. On cross-examination, we probed into the claims of a non-consensual encounter, showing that the story involved movements that were physically impossible. The jury saw through the stories, and delivered not-guilty verdicts on all counts. 

State v. __:

Client was charged with DWI after being pulled over by a police officer who saw one of her license plate bulbs was burnt out. We challenged the stop, claiming that the law only required the license plate be lit so well as to make it visible, not that every license plate bulb be functioning correctly. We got the stop suppressed and the charges dropped, and also changed police procedure to make sure no one would henceforth get pulled over for one faulty bulb.

State v. __:

Client was pulled over for a traffic offense. The police officer decided to cite the client for not having insurance, impound the vehicle, and do an inventory search, which revealed drugs. We challenged the search, claiming that the client had not been arrested and there is nothing illegal with leaving a car parked on the side of the road. The court agreed, and the evidence of the drugs was suppressed. This ensured that police officers would not abuse the powers of inventory search. 

State v. __:

Client was charged with burglary for going into a relative's house and retrieving two rifles he had left for his son in trust. Ultimately the question came down to who had possession of the rifle, the client (who had legal ownership) or the relative (who had physical ownership). A look at case law showed that the client had possession, and because the client couldn't be charged with stealing his own rifles, the court dismissed all charges. 

State v. __:

Client was charged with a Failure to Register. However, as is often the case, the Government did not follow all the requirements of Minn. Stat. 243.166, namely it failed to establish that the client had a permanent address, a prerequisite for charging someone under the part of the statute that presumes one has a fixed address! The court dismissed all charges. 

State v. __:

Client was looking at a DWI charge after an officer pulled him over having seen him driving through a deserted thoroughfare around 2 AM. The Government argued that driving around an industrial area that early in the morning gave the police reason to stop anyone passing through, on the assumption that anyone there at that time had to be doing something illegal. We tore apart the police's justification for the stop, showing through testimony and case law that the Government's claims were spurious. The court agreed, and the charge was dismissed. 

bottom of page