Driving Offenses
DUI
Ms. Call’s client was charged with DUI after a car burst into flames on Interstate 15. Although he told police he had been driving—hoping to protect others in the vehicle—Ms. Call showed the jury that this was a false confession. Through cross-examination and presentation of key evidence pointing to another driver, Ms. Call dismantled the state’s case. The jury returned a not guilty verdict, rejecting the prosecution’s reliance on a false confession made by the “most sober” person in the group, not the actual driver.

Drug Charges
Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance
Ms. Call’s client was found crying alone in an empty lot by the river after a breakup. A welfare check was called in, and officers responding claimed they saw a used needle about five feet away from her on the ground. Despite her denial and no physical connection to the needle, she was charged with felony possession.

Ms. Call took the extra step to send the needle for independent DNA testing—which came back male. The prosecutor refused to dismiss for months, only backing down just days before trial. Strategic investigation and persistence made the difference, and all charges were dropped.

Harassment & Communications Offenses
Telephone Harassment
Ms. Call’s client was accused of threatening to commit murder via a text message. The case seemed open and shut—until trial.

Ms. Call exposed the alleged victim’s false testimony through cross-examination, unraveling the prosecution’s version of events. Then, in a move that flipped the case entirely, Ms. Call called the Idaho State Police trooper who had originally issued the citation—as her own witness! His testimony directly contradicted the state's case. The prosecution had chosen not to call him, knowing his version of events undermined their theory.

Thinking outside the box, Ms. Call used the state’s own law enforcement officer to help secure a not guilty verdict. Even when the evidence looks clear, strategy and truth still matter.

Juvenile Defense
Grand Theft Auto
Ms. Call represented a juvenile client accused of vehicle theft who was questioned at school by police and school staff. Despite the child clearly invoking her right to remain silent, the officer continued the interrogation until the child made incriminating statements. Ms. Call filed a motion to suppress, arguing that her client's constitutional rights had been violated during the custodial questioning. Before the motion could be heard in court, the prosecutor dismissed the charges.

Theft Offense
Dine-and-Dash
Ms. Call’s client—a father out with his pregnant wife, children, and their friends—was prosecuted for theft after refusing to pay for pizza that had been contaminated by flies. He testified that the restaurant was overrun and that flies had landed on their food before they could eat. When he chose to leave with his family, the state charged him with theft over less than $50 of uneaten pizza.

At trial, Ms. Call got the waitress to admit that flies had, in fact, landed on the food and it was a common occurrence at this particular establishment. Ms. Call sucessfully argued that this was not theft—it was a reasonable decision to leave without paying. The jury agreed and found the client not guilty.

Overzealous prosecutions happen. That is why you need a good lawyer even for seemingly ridiculous charges.

Driving Offense
DUI & Possession of Controlled Substance and Paraphernalia
Ms. Call filed a motion to suppress, arguing that her client was unlawfully detained by police based solely on an unverified 911 call from a family member. The motion challenged the legality of the stop and the resulting search. After a contested hearing, the court agreed with Ms. Call’s argument and ruled that the stop violated her client’s Fourth Amendment rights. As a result, all evidence was suppressed and the case was dismissed.

Stalking & Harassment
Stalking a Government Worker
Ms. Call’s client was charged with stalking his assigned representative at the Social Security Office after repeatedly calling and writing in an effort to recover substantial back pay. At trial, the government agent tearfully described feeling afraid, but under cross-examination, her supervisor admitted the behavior was more annoying than threatening. Ms. Call argued that the prosecution criminalized her client’s constitutionally protected right to petition the government for redress of grievances. She exposed the core issue: a government worker who failed to do her job and then sought to silence accountability through criminal charges. The jury returned a not guilty verdict—protecting her client from jail, exposing an unreasonable government response, and reaffirming a fundamental constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Driving Offense
DUI & Hit and Run
Ms. Call’s client was arrested following a car wreck and charged with DUI and hit and run. Under Miranda, law enforcement must inform individuals in custody of their Fifth Amendment rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. At the time of arrest, Ms. Call’s client was severely confused and repeatedly told officers he didn’t understand his rights or what was happening. Despite this, the Chief of Police still interrogated him and he made incriminating statements. Ms. Call filed a motion to suppress, citing a violation of her client’s constitutional rights. The prosecution dismissed all charges before the court could hear the motion.

Violent Crime
Felony Assault with a Deadly Weapon
Ms. Call’s client was charged with felony assault after pulling a knife during an argument with his brother—a family dispute that law enforcement escalated into a serious criminal case.

At trial, Ms. Call dismantled the prosecution by leaning into the dynamics of brotherly rivalry. Through sharp cross-examination, she got the alleged victim to admit—almost proudly—that he was stronger, never felt threatened, and didn’t back down. His own bravado undercut the state's claim of fear, and the jury saw the truth: this was a personal conflict, not a serious violent felony. The jury returned a justified verdict of Not Guilty.

Drug Charges
Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance
Ms. Call’s client was pulled over on I-15 and asked to step out of the vehicle. The client had a small baggie of methamphetamine in his hand which he tried to discard on the roadway. Despite the circumstances, Ms. Call took the case to trial and showed the jury that her client was unaware the baggie contained Meth.

After hearing the evidence, the jury returned a not guilty verdict.

Read the Idaho State Journal Article here.

Domestic Violence
Stalking, Second Degree
Ms. Call filed a motion to suppress after uncovering that the alleged victim’s statements were not freely given, but the product of police coercion. Officers pressured her to make accusations, berated her during the interview, and effectively dictated the narrative—compromising the integrity of the investigation and violating Ms. Call’s client’s constitutional right to due process.

When police interrogation tactics and lack of training violate even a witness’s rights, it directly impacts the fairness owed to the accused. Police cannot bully victims into exaggerating a story just to justify criminal charges. Before the court could hear the motion, the prosecutor dismissed the case—protecting Ms. Call’s client from a probation violation and potential prison time, and affirming that due process cannot be sidestepped for convenience.

Violent Crime
Battery
In a case the prosecution approached with confidence, Ms. Call’s client stood accused of battery, with the entire incident allegedly captured on a 911 call. The state relied heavily on one eyewitness who took the stand in full support of the alleged victim. But during cross-examination, Ms. Call dismantled their credibility—exposing personal bias, uncovering a hidden relationship with the accuser, and catching the witness in a lie that unraveled the state’s version of events.

More troubling, the prosecution failed to disclose critical Brady material revealing the nature of that relationship—an unconstitutional omission that deprived the defense of the opportunity to fully confront and impeach the witness ahead of trial. Ms. Call’s sharp courtroom advocacy brought that truth to light mid-trial, shifting the tone of the entire proceeding. The jury rejected the prosecution’s narrative and returned a not guilty verdict, preserving her client’s liberty and underscoring the importance of due process and ethical prosecution.

Drug Charge
Trafficking in a Controlled Substance Fentanyl
Ms. Call’s client had faced serious felony trafficking charges and endured over six months in custody without a preliminary hearing—a delay that flagrantly violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial and due process. Once Ms. Call agreed to take the case, she wasted no time in filing a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing that the state’s failure to act had prejudiced the case.

By spotlighting Idaho’s speedy trial statute alongside constitutional rights, Ms. Call made it clear that prolonged detention without timely action was unacceptable. The prosecutor dismissed all charges before the motion hearing, underscoring that the delay itself was indefensible.

This outcome reinforces the principle that government inaction and constitutional violations have real consequences in the justice system.