
Contact Us | 734-808-4101


Contact US | 734-808-4101
OUR RESULTS
Our clients expect and receive effective, high quality legal services.
Our lawyer’s results speak for themselves.
A few examples are below.
NOT GUILTY
Assault Crimes
Assault with Intent to Do Great Bodily Harm – Detroit, MI: Client accused of shooting at a moving car. R. Burton-Harris led an independent investigation, and presented his evidence to the trial judge. The judge found client NOT GUILTY.
SETTLEMENT
Civil Lawsuit
Negligence: R. Burton-Harris sued on behalf of senior residents. All claims and counterclaims were resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
DIVORCE
Family Law
Divorce, Spousal Support – Ann Arbor, MI: Client’s wife filed for divorce and demanded spousal support. No support was ordered by the court in the final judgement of DIVORCE.
CASE DISMISSED
Assault Crime
Assault with Intent to Do Great Bodily Harm – Romulus, MI: Client accused of punching and threatening his girlfriend with a knife. At the preliminary examination, during vigorous cross examination by R. Burton-Harris, the girlfriend admitted that she started the fight, and the defendant was defending himself. The judge ruled that the evidence was insufficient to continue the case and DISMISSED it
CASE DISMISSED
Constitutional Violation
Carrying Concealed Weapon, Felony Firearm (2nd), Felon in Possession – Detroit, MI: After a traffic stop, police officers found a gun in a compartment near the steering wheel of the client’s car. The search was conducted without a warrant or probable cause. R. Burton-Harris filed a motion to suppress the gun. The judge granted the motion and DISMISSED the case.
CASE DISMISSED
Insufficient Evidence
Concealing a Stolen Vehicle, Unlawful Driving – Romulus, MI: Client accused of stealing their employer’s car. During cross examination, R. Burton-Harris established that there was practically no connection between the theft and the defendant. The prosecutor could not establish probable cause to believe the defendant was guilty. The judge DISMISSED the case.
CASE DISMISSED
Constitutional Violation
Felony Firearm, Carrying Concealed Weapon – Detroit, MI: Client stopped, searched, and arrested for gun possession. After cross examining the officer extensively about the stop and search of the defendant, the judge agreed with R. Burton-Harris that the police violated the constitution. The gun was suppressed: CASE DISMISSED.
NOT GUILTY
Stalking
Stalking (x3) – Detroit, MI: National and international news outlets called it the “Gardening While Black” case. Three women falsely accused defendant of stalking on more than a half-dozen occasions. R. Burton-Harris proved that the women were being dishonest. After the prosecutor rested, the judge directed a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
CASE DISMISSED
Constitutional Violation
Drugs (Possession w/ Intent to Distribute) – Detroit, MI: Defendant was pulled over and arrested while police raided a home connected to the client. The client was charged with serious drug charges and was facing a potential sentence of life imprisonment. R. Burton-Harris filed two motions to suppress based on the traffic stop. The court agreed that a constitutional violation occurred and DISMISSED the case.
NOT GUILTY
Probation Violation
Robbery – Detroit, MI: Client was accused organizing a robbery of the complainant. R. Burton-Harris successfully argued that the district court judge made several critical mistakes at a previous hearing. The prosecutor agreed, and the CASE was DISMISSED.
CASE DISMISSED
Constitutional Violation
Carrying Concealed Weapon – Detroit, MI: Client was a passenger in a car that was stopped by police. A gun was found. R. Burton-Harris filed a motion to suppress the evidence arguing that the police violated the Fourth Amendment during the traffic stop. The judge agreed and DISMISSED the case.
CASE DISMISSED
Constitutional Violation
Resisting and Obstructing Police, Felony Firearm – Detroit, MI: R. Burton-Harris filed several motions demanding that the prosecutor produce the officers’ body worn camera recordings to show that the allegations were false. But officers claimed the recordings were deleted. When the officer in charge refused to appear in court to explain why the recordings were deleted, after oral arguments, the judge DISMISSED the case