Case Story: Defending a College Student from a False Sexual Assault Charge

A college student, balancing school, work, and friends, spent a typical night out. After the bar closed, a few friends came back to his apartment, including a young woman from the group. After some TV, everyone turned in for the night. The student and this woman shared the couch, and as sometimes happens in such situations, they began to make out and became intimate.

But alcohol and fatigue took their toll. Things fizzled out, and both fell asleep.

The next morning, the woman spoke with a platonic friend—someone who knew she had a boyfriend. That moment triggered a shift. A call to 911 later, police entered the apartment. They found the student naked on his couch, still under the influence, confused and unaware. They questioned him harshly, without reading his rights, without letting him dress, and without regard for fairness.

The Charge

He was charged with sexual assault. It was a nightmare: the threat of prison, sex offender registration, lost job prospects, and permanent damage to his future. Being falsely accused of a crime this serious is almost as devastating as being the victim of one.

When our firm took the case, things did not add up. The accuser’s story was inconsistent. Her friend seemed intent on painting the worst possible picture. And the police had skipped even the most basic protocols. The student’s statement, which was made half-naked, under pressure, and without clarity, risked being used against him. Even though he never admitted to doing anything wrong.

The suppression

Our first step was clear: get that statement thrown out. We studied the legal standards, prepared to show how the officers violated them, and built a detailed cross-examination.

At the suppression hearing, our founding partner, Bruce Ringstrom Jr., cross-examined the officer for 45 minutes. The prosecutor tried to intervene. We explained the relevance to the judge, who allowed us to continue. The result was a briefing schedule that gave us the chance to make our case in writing. Just like the cross-examination dismantled the testimony in court, our brief would do the same on paper.

One key detail: the accuser was present in court. She saw the cross-examination unfold. And she realized that if she continued with her claim, everything she said would be picked apart—where she was, where he was, and just how close her friend was to what she alleged.

We were not done yet.

We had to depose the friend.

North Dakota law allows many witnesses to be deposed. We called the friend to our office. The prosecutor was allowed to attend but did not ask a single question. We conducted a civil-style deposition, getting out facts that further weakened the state’s case.

Soon after, the prosecutor approached us to talk resolution.

The Dismissal

We made our position clear: no conviction and no registration. While we were fully ready to go to trial, this resolution gave our client everything needed to move forward with life.

And that is exactly what happened. After six months, the case was dismissed entirely.

The Takeaway

Case dismissed. No conviction. No registration.

A future once threatened was restored. And we are proud to have made that happen.