New Hampshire Case Victories

The prosecutor may not vouch for police officer’s credibility by arguing that if police officers lied, they would lose their jobs. News of this decision was published in the Criminal Law Reporter. State v. William Mussey, 153 N.H. 272, 893 A.2d 701 (2006).Prosecutor may not cross-examine the accused in an unfair and misleading manner by asking if prosecution witnesses lied to the jury. State v. Lopez, 156 N.H. 416, 937 A.2d 905 (2007). Read More

The prosecutor wanted to use the trial court’s Contempt power to put probationer in jail even after he finished the maximum sentence under law.The Court said no. State v. Hancock, 156 N.H. 301, 934 A.2d 551 (2007). Read More

The Court held a local police chief broke the law when he stopped a driver who drove through deep water in the road during a flood.Right Vindicated: To be Free of Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.Read Ted’s Brief on Appeal.Read the Court’s Decision Overturning the Conviction. State v. Craveiro, 155 N.H.423, 924 A.2d 361 (2007). Read More

Right Vindicated: Writing Check on Empty Bank Account is Not Necessarily a Crime.Read Ted’s Brief on AppealRead the Court’s Decision Overturning the Conviction. State v. John Reed Stewart,154 N.H. 678, 921 A.2d 933 (2007). Read More

Conviction: Felony Fraud committed against a nursing home.Read the Court’s Decision Overturning the Conviction. State v. Huffman, 154 N.H. 678, 918 A.2d 1279 (2007). Read More

The Court agreed with Ted Lothstein that it would be unfair and prejudicial to combine into one jury trial, 15 separate instances of alleged fraud perpetrated by a substance abuse center.Ted’s victory on appeal made the national White Collar Crime Reporter and cemented his reputation as a major influencer among appeal attorneys in New Hampshire.Read the Court’s Decision: Petition of the State of N.H. (Joseph San Giovanni),154 N.H. 671, 919 A.2d 762 (2007). Read More

In State v. Morrill, 154 N.H. 547, 914 A.2d 1206 (2006), the Court reformed the “opening-the-door” doctrine, which had been much abused by trial courts. The purpose of this doctrine is to ensure that both sides get a fair trial and neither exploits the rules to mislead the jury. However, in this case as in many others, the trial judge used the doctrine to inject prejudice into the trial rather than alleviating prejudice. Based on Ted Lothstein’s arguments on appeal, the Court took what had little more than a label or mantra — “opening the door” — and transformed it into a carefully defined and limited doctrine. As a result, the Court reversed Mr. Morrill’s conviction for aggravated felonious sexual assault, and granted him a new trial. Read More

Aggravated felonious sexual assault (alleged sexual assault of a child) convictions reversed.Right Vindicated: Court reverses convictions based on Attorney Lothstein’s argument that erroneous decision to admit prejudicial prosecution evidence deprived accused of a fair trial.Read Ted’s Brief on AppealRead the Court’s Decision Overturning the Conviction. State v. Donald Morrill,154 N.H. 547, 914 A.2d 1206 (2006). Read More