OCIS Cases

Here are some of the cases that we have worked

State of Texas vs. T. A.

State of Texas vs. T. A.

The defendant is a single parent who went home after working several hours at their job. The defendant and a child went to sleep in the one-bedroom apartment. As the defendant slept, the child woke up and unlocked three locks on three different doors. The young child went outside, and the neighbors called the police after seeing the young child outside by herself.
Investigation: On Call Investigative Solutions, LLC was hired about a year after the offense had occurred. The investigators located witnesses in the case and uncovered issues with the arresting officer. During the investigation, it was learned that the young child had unlocked doors in front of Child Protective Services (CPS) and daycare employees. The CPS worker was spoken to by the investigators, who could not believe that they would have arrested the defendant for this. The investigation proved that the defendant was not guilty of the charge, but instead, this was an accident that could happen to any parent.
Outcome: The Defense Attorney and the investigator provided all the information we had to the Assistant District Attorney. After nearly two years and a new Assistant District Attorney, the case was DISMISSED!!

State of Texas vs. L.V.

State of Texas vs. L.V.

The defendant in this case was a law enforcement officer with a young family. His wife had disappeared with their young child and he was desperate to find them to make sure that they were safe. He used a 3rd party app to find an address and the law enforcement agency charged him because they claim that it was for law enforcement only which it clearly was not. We came in and prove that there was a lot of back door dealings in this case and that he did no wrong. The case was DISMISSED!!!

State of TX vs. P.P.

State of TX vs. P.P.

Defendant was accused of Deadly conduct and Aggravated Assault with Deadly Weapon after the defendant was accused of shooting a weapon to destroy property. After the investigation was concluded, it was determined that the defendant did not commit the offenses as alleged. Case DISMISSED!

State of TX vs. M.A

State of TX vs. M.A

Defendant was charged with criminal mischief after breaking out a window at a residence. The investigator was able to work with all involved and had a successful resolution.

State of TX vs. R.N

State of TX vs. R.N

Defendant was charged with Criminal Negligent Homicide after she was accused of killing her child. During the investigation it was determined that the defendant was in a very abusive relationship and the police arrested the wrong person. Case DISMISSED!

State of TX vs. E.G.

State of TX vs. E.G.

Defendant was charged with Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The defendant was asleep in his bed when someone through an object through the window. The defendant gets up and is attacked. The defendant protected himself with a baseball bat. During the investigation, multiple people were interviewed and it was determined that the defendant was protecting himself. Case DISMISSED!

State of TX vs. J.F.

State of TX vs. J.F.

Defendant was charged with reckless manslaughter after a child drowned in the bathtub at his residence. During the investigation, it was determined that the person that left the water in the bathtub was another child. It was proven that this was an accident and not a criminal offense. Case DISMISSED!

State of Texas vs. E. G.

State of Texas vs. E. G.

The defendant was lying in his bed sound asleep when his window shatters in his bedroom suddenly. The defendant wakes up suddenly and goes to investigate the cause of the window being broken. The defendant carried a baseball bat with him for his protection as he searched the residence. His ex-girlfriend and her male friends suddenly attack the defendant. The defendant fights the subjects off and takes off running to prevent them from being further attacked. The ex-girlfriend calls the police, and the police arrest the defendant because of his criminal history and the allegations that the others had put on him. The defendant sat in jail and refused any plea-offer that the District Attorney offered.
Investigation: There were several people interviewed in this case to include neighbors, witnesses, the ex-girlfriend, and her friends. It was uncovered that the defendant was only trying to protect himself.
Outcome: The attorney was super aggressive with the evidence uncovered, and it was presented to the Assistant District Attorney. After reviewing the evidence that the Criminal Defense Investigator uncovered, the case was DISMISSED!!!

State of Texas vs. J. F.

State of Texas vs. J. F.

The defendant had everything going for him. He was a hard worker, had a beautiful home, nice vehicles, and a loving family. He had all of this until one night, he was taking care of his grandchildren, and a tragedy happened. As he was preparing dinner for the children, one of the grandchildren drowned in a bathtub. When the defendant found the child, he immediately summons for medical assistance. The police, fire, and medical personnel arrived. The medical personnel took the child to the hospital, and the police took the defendant to the police department to be interviewed. After the police completed their investigation, they requested a warrant to be issued for the defendant. The defendant was later released and jailed on a manslaughter charge.
Investigation: The investigator assigned to the case interviewed several people involved to include people that the police failed to interview. The investigator walked through the crime scene and took several photographs that would of be used in the trial to show the jury the truth. As a result of a thorough investigation, another young child had left the water in the bathtub, and this was an accident, not Manslaughter.
Outcome: The investigator provided all the information to the District Attorney, and the District Attorney decided to DISMISS the case.

State of Texas vs. H. G.

State of Texas vs. H. G.

The defendant, in this case, was a hardworking person who had fallen on some bad luck. His wife had recently left, and he had wrecked his only vehicle. The defendant knew a local man in town was selling a vehicle nearly identical to the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant bought the man's vehicle for $500.00, and the man provided the defendant with a bill of sale. The man that had the vehicle delivered the vehicle to the defendant’s house since it had to be towed. A few months later, the police came and arrested the defendant for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle because it had been stolen out of Austin, TX, a few months before. The defendant tried to explain to the police, but the police did not want to listen.
Investigation: As soon as the case was assigned to the investigator, the investigator immediately went to the local man that sold the defendant the vehicle. The local man stated that he did sell the vehicle to the defendant, and the vehicle was not stolen. The local man provided the investigator with the name of the person that he purchased the vehicle from. The investigator took this information and found out who the actual person was that stole the vehicle out of Austin, TX.
Outcome: The investigation work, in this case, was provided to the District Attorney to include the real thief information. As a result of a quick response from the defense, the case was DISMISSED!!!