Atty. George A. Limbeck, Attorney

State v. (Name Withheld) Practice Area: Criminal Defense Date: Oct 15, 2014 Outcome: Case Dismissed Description: The charges including Child Traffiking and Benfiting from Child Traffiking. I brought a motion challenging the admission of the state's DNA evidence, which linked my client to the victim, including testimony of the state's DNA expert. The motion was granted and prompted the state to dismiss all charges against my client and the co-defendant. State v. (Name Withheld) Practice Area: Criminal Defense Date: Sep 16, 2014 Outcome: Criminal Charge Dismissed Description: I was able to use the Involuntary Intoxication Defense to convince the prosecuting attorney to recommend, and the trial court judge to accept, an amendment of charge from 3rd offense OWI to Reckless Driving, a non-criminal traffic violation. State v. (Name Withheld) Practice Area: Criminal Defense Date: Aug 20, 2014 Outcome: Case Dismissed Description: The charges included misdemeanor and felony drug charges associated with a "grow room" located in the basement of the client's residence. I filed a motion challenging the police officers' right to conduct a protective sweep of the residence. The trial court agreed, granted my motion to suppress all incriminating evidence found during the protective sweep. This would result in dismissal of all charges as all incriminating evidence was found as a result of the protective sweep. In response, the state filed an appeal. The trial court's ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeals, after extensive briefing on behalf of our client. In response, the state filed a Petition for Review with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has not issued a decision on the Petition for Review. State v. (Name Withheld) Practice Area: Criminal Defense Date: Nov 02, 1994 Outcome: Supreme Court Argument Description: Successfully argued before the Wisconsin Supreme Court to establish rules for appellate defense counsel, prosecutors and circuit court judges when appellate defense counsel believes his client is not competent to participate in the appeal of right under Rule 809.30. State v. (Name Withheld) Practice Area: Criminal Defense Date: Jun 06, 2006 Outcome: Not Guilty Description: Not Guilty verdict in 3-day Jury Trial.