Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court

Do I Need a Criminal Attorney at Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court?

Whenever you go before a judge at Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, you will be expected to follow their rules and meet the court’s procedural expectations. If you do not, you could inadvertently delay or complicate your case. Some judges may even see you less favorably if you do not seem prepared to go before them and plead your case.

For this reason and many more, it is always recommended that you hire a criminal attorney from Patituce & Associates before going to Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. We can fully prepare you for courtroom procedures and represent you before the court in any case type. 

How Can Patituce & Associates Help Your Criminal Case at Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court?

Attorney Joseph Patituce and Attorney Megan Patituce are former Cuyahoga County Prosecutors who served in the early 2000s. They both handled their first homicide trials in their early 20s, and they are now both in their 40s, which means they have decades of practice experience that specifically involves handling trials at Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court or in Cuyahoga County. Overall, our law firm has handled thousands of cases and a high number of trials in this jurisdiction, including many cases that have had national media attention. If you want help with a case at Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, you should feel immediately relieved by the extensive experience our legal team has had in this court throughout the years.

A few of the most prominent and newsworthy cases we have tried in this court are:

• State v. Tevin Biles-Thomas: Mr. Thomas was accused of triple murder with one of the victims being his cousin. The State offered Mr. Thomas a plea deal that would have put him in prison for more than 40 years, but Attorneys Joseph Patituce, Megan Patituce, and Catherine Meehan guided him through the trial. The first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury received material it should not have. The second trial ended in the exceedingly rare dismissal from the bench because the State had utterly failed to even put a gun in Mr. Biles-Thomas's hand.
• State v. Susan Smith: Ms. Smith was accused of both a hit skip and aggravated vehicular assault charge stemming from a motor vehicle accident that occurred when a motorcycle crossed into her lane of travel and caused the motorcyclist serious injury. Attorney Joseph Patituce tried this case, and through the use of his expert witness, demonstrated that, while Ms. Smith did drive around the corner from the accident location, she was in no way at fault for the accident. The jury agreed and found Ms. Smith not guilty of aggravated vehicular assault.
• State v. Thomas Caldwell: Mr. Caldwell was accused of rape and kidnapping. The State offered Mr. Caldwell the choice to plead guilty to one count of rape if he wished to resolve it before trial. This offer would have placed Mr. Caldwell in prison for up to 11 years and would have made him a lifetime offender. On the other hand, if he lost at trial he could face 33 years in prison and still be labeled a sexual predator for the rest of his life. Mr. Caldwell elected to go to trial. Attorneys Joseph Patituce and Catherine Meehan tried the case. The jury agreed that Mr. Caldwell did not rape the victim, nor kidnap her.
• State v. Anthony Bates: Mr. Bates was accused of the felonious assault of his then fiancé. The State accused Mr. Bates of violently pushing his fiancé to the ground where she purportedly hit her head. What the State left out of its presentation to the jury is that at the time she tripped, she had a blood alcohol level of over 0.23 g/dl, which is almost three times the legal limit. The State also left out that for months following the incident, she indicated she fell. At trial, the State's expert agreed with Attorney Joseph Patituce that the injuries were more consistent with tripping on her own than a push from another person. In addition, the EMS workers who arrived at Mr. Bates's call indicated that his behavior was normal and appropriate and that she was highly intoxicated. In the end, the jury did not have to decide this case because the judge, at Attorney Patituce's request, threw the case out once the State rested its case.
• State v. Brandon Harper: Mr. Harper was traveling eastbound in the Rocky River area when his vehicle struck another vehicle that was being driven by a woman with several occupants. The occupants of the other car all suffered serious injuries. The hospital reported that Mr. Harper's blood alcohol level was over 0.20 at the time he was transported. We were the second set of attorneys on this matter as the first told Mr. Harper he had no chance. In litigating this case, it was discovered that there were serious issues with the blood test, and at the evidentiary hearing on the matter, the judge agreed and threw out the blood tests; the State's expert agreed with Attorney Patituce that the original expert had no way of saying if the results were valid.