For over 30 years now, Mark D. Richards has focused on providing quality representation as a criminal defense attorney.

Attorney Richards focuses his practice as a homicide attorney, a drug charge lawyer, a sexual assault attorney, a burglary and theft attorney, a domestic violence attorney, and a white-collar crime attorney.

Criminal defense is a specialized area and requires someone with the experience, knowledge, and know-how to provide the best possible representation. When a person’s liberty is at stake, the stakes can be no greater.

That is why the cornerstone of all clients’ representation is a thorough investigation both factually and legally of all defenses so that no potential defenses are left unexplored or unlitigated.

This “leave no stone unturned” type of representation has led to numerous successful outcomes for my clients.

No case is too big or too small. Mark Richards has also tried over 100 jury trials, ranging from simple two-day Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) trials to month-long Homicide or drug conspiracy trials.

If you or someone you know has potential criminal exposure, do not hesitate to call or email for a free consultation. The sooner representation is secured the sooner your rights are protected.

Notable Trial Court Cases

State v. Rittenhouse, Kenosha County Case 2020CF983

Kyle was charged with 5 serious felonies: 1 count of 1st-degree homicide with the use of a dangerous weapon; 1 count of 1st-degree reckless homicide with the use of a dangerous weapon; 1 count of attempted 1st-degree intentional homicide with the use of a dangerous weapon; and 2 counts of 1st degree recklessly endangering safety while armed. All charges stemmed from rioting occurring in the city of Kenosha after August 23, 2020, police shooting of Jacob Blake. Kyle’s case received significant pretrial publicity, and the trial itself lasted for two weeks. Kyle’s defense was based on his right to self-defense, and he was eventually acquitted of all charges after 4 days of jury deliberation.

State v. Rojas, Racine County Case 2005CF471

The defendant was charged with 1st-degree intentional homicide with the use of a dangerous weapon after his wife was shot in the head. Attorney Richards was the defendant’s third attorney. The issue, in this case, was whether the death in question was a homicide or a suicide. After an extensive investigation, the defense investigator and attorney Richards personally located a bullet in the ceiling of the Rojas home which the police had previously overlooked. After DNA and ballistics testing, it was determined that the cause of death was suicide, and the homicide charges brought against Mr. Rojas were dismissed.

State v. King, Racine County Case 1999CF

The defendant, in this case, was charged with 1st-degree intentional homicide after his cellmate at Sturtevant Correctional Institution was found dead in his cell. The issue, in this case, was once again the question of whether the death was a suicide or homicide. After hiring a prominent forensic medical examiner who supported the defense’s theory of suicide, all charges against the defendant were dismissed on the day of the trial.

Notable Appellate Cases

State v.  Tye, 2001 WI 124, 248 Wis. 2d 530, 636 N.W.2d 472

(Originating as Racine County Case 1999CF562)
This case was argued in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and addressed the constitutionality of a search conducted at the defendant’s home that was based upon an unsigned search warrant. The Court held that the signing and swearing requirements associated with search warrants are not a mere technicality, and must be followed in every case. Evidence found during the search of the defendant’s house was suppressed.

State v. Johnson, 2013 WI 59, 348 Wis. 2d 450, 832 N.W.2d 609

(Originating as Racine County Case 2011CF376)
This case was also argued in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and addressed whether the defendant was entitled to the complainant’s psychological records upon a proper in-court showing that they were likely to contain exculpatory evidence. The Court held that the defendant was entitled to an in-camera inspection of the records at issue and that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s request.  The Court further ruled that if psychological records are not provided by the witness or complainant after a proper showing by the defendant, the person’s testimony must be barred from use at trial.

State v. Matalonis, 2016 WI 7, 366 Wis. 2d 443, 875 N.W.2d 567

(Originating as Kenosha County Case 2012CF81)
Again argued in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the issue, in this case, was whether the search of the defendant’s house, conducted without a search warrant, was appropriate. The court held that the warrantless search of the defendant’s home was legal under the community “caretaker exception”. This decision was a 4-3 vote.

Federal Jury Trial Acquittals

U.S. v. Shuford, Eastern District of Wisconsin Case 95-CR-25

The defendant was charged with Possession with intent to sell crack cocaine greater than 50 grams. Attorney Richards utilized a personal-use defense to the crimes charged and the defendant was only found guilty of simple possession of fewer than 5 grams of cocaine. The acquittal on the greater counts saved the client from serving an additional 25 years in prison.

U.S. v. Carter, Eastern District of Wisconsin Case 03-CR-220

The defendant, in this case, was charged with conspiracy to rob a U.S. Postal Office. The client faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 37 years in prison, but he was acquitted of all charges at trial using an identification and fabrication defense.

U.S. v. Ellis, Eastern District of Wisconsin Case 02-CR-126

In this case, the defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute greater than 50 grams of heroin. After a week-long jury trial, the defendant was acquitted of all charges based upon a theory of defense that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant participated in the conspiracy.