The ultimate measure of any legal representation is the result obtained for the client.  By that measure, Kevin Sali has provided outstanding representation to his clients.  The results Mr. Sali has secured include the following (although each case is a matter of public record, names have been withheld out of respect to these clients):   

  • State v. ----- (Klamath County, Oregon).  Mr. Sali's client was charged with aggravated murder in connection with the death of her ex-husband.  In a pretrial motion hearing, Mr. Sali comprehensively demonstrated the weakness of the State's case through a thorough cross-examination of the lead detective and the presentation of evidence discovered through the defense team's investigation.  After this hearing, the client was released from custody and the State moved to dismiss the case.
  • State v. ----- (Douglas County, Oregon).  The defendant in this case was initially convicted of aggravated murder in 2005.  In 2012, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed his conviction and sent the case back for a retrial, with the State announcing its intention to seek the death penalty.  Mr. Sali was asked to serve as co-counsel for this retrial. After several months of intensive motions practice, investigation, and discussions, the State ultimately dismissed all charges.
  • State v. ----- (Marion County, Oregon).  Mr. Sali’s client was charged with first degree rape based on DNA evidence and various other types of evidence.  After a trial involving several categories of complex expert testimony and a defense strategy described as “unconventional” in an Oregonian feature article, Mr. Sali’s client was acquitted of all charges.
  • State v. ----- (Multnomah County, Oregon).  This double attempted murder case arose when six shots were fired at close range through a window into an apartment.  Mr. Sali’s client, an acquaintance of the primary target, was identified by that target as the shooter, and a pistol found in the client’s bedroom immediately after the shooting was forensically matched to the casings at the scene.  The trial ended in a mistrial when the jury deadlocked on all counts.
  • United States v. ----- (United States District Court for the District of Oregon).  This was an environmental felony case involving allegations of a major conspiracy extending for more than seven years.  When Mr. Sali took on this representation, his client had just been indicted after a wide-ranging, multi-agency, four-year governmental investigation.  Mr. Sali undertook a comprehensive factual investigation, including an extensive investigation of key prosecution witnesses and a reconstruction of more than ten years of his client’s business operations, and presented his findings to the prosecutors as the parties were preparing for trial.  After this presentation, the government dismissed all of the charges and agreed to return all of the money it had seized from the business. 
  • State v. ----- (Linn County, Oregon); United States v. ----- (United States District Court for the District of Oregon).  In this case, Mr. Sali represented first a business trust and then its managing trustee in an environmental felony case described by government agents as the “biggest air pollution case in Oregon history.”  Ultimately, the case against the trust was dismissed in its entirety, and the individual case was resolved through a misdemeanor plea with no jail or prison time.
  • State v. ----- (Hood River County, Oregon).  This case began as one of the flagship environmental felony prosecutions in the regime of a newly elected Oregon Attorney General who had made such prosecutions a key emphasis of his campaign.  The case progressed through several rounds of pretrial litigation, including a five-day hearing on the admissibility of the prosecution’s scientific evidence.  The prosecution eventually agreed to drop all 36 felony charges in exchange for a misdemeanor plea with no jail time.
  • United States v. ----- (United States District Court for the District of Oregon).  The United States Department of Justice described this case—involving a multi-state, multi-industry scheme with alleged tax losses of over $200 million—as “by far the largest criminal tax fraud case in the history of Oregon.”  Throughout the proceedings, which resolved through a guilty plea followed by contested sentencing proceedings, the government sought a substantial prison sentence.  To counter this request, Mr. Sali prepared a comprehensive sentencing submission that addressed the numerous factual and legal matters at issue while also highlighting his client’s exemplary life history.  The court sentenced the client to a term of probation with no prison time. 
  • United States v. ----- (United States District Court for the District of Oregon).  This case arose out of allegations that an Iranian citizen living in the United States had illegally sent money to Iran in violation of economic sanctions imposed by the United States government.  The government’s investigation lasted for eight years, and involved extensive, FISA-based wiretapping and covert searches.  The case was eventually resolved through a guilty plea followed by a contested sentencing.  Although the government vigorously argued for a substantial prison term, the client was sentenced to probation.
  • United States v. ----- (United States District Court for the District of Oregon).  In another case involving a contested sentencing after a guilty plea, the government sought an 87-month prison sentence, the term called for by the federal sentencing guidelines, for Mr. Sali’s client.  In one of the most dramatic variances on record in the United States for the type of case at issue, Mr. Sali’s client was given a probationary sentence with no prison time. 
  • United States v. ----- (United States District Court for the District of Oregon).  This was a major narcotics case involving allegations of a large-scale conspiracy spanning several American states and Mexico, with the government's most critical evidence having been obtained through a series of wiretaps.  Mr. Sali developed a legal challenge to Oregon's wiretap statute, resulting in a substantially reduced plea resolution for his client.  The legal theories underlying that challenge were later described in Mr. Sali's March 2015 article for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.