A man (SC) stole $10,000 from a drug dealer (DD). The drug dealer believed that CS was keeping the money at his house in a safe. One night, DD recruited three guys (G1, G2, G3) to help him retrieve his money.

Armed with baseball bats and masks, DD and the Gs drove to CS' house. They walked around the house, looking for the least conspicuous entrance. CS heard the men outside, so he got his gun. G1 and G2 smashed the rear sliding-glass door, allowing them all to enter the home. Though armed, CS' gun did not contain ammunition. CS ran into his bedroom. G3 and DD followed CS. G3 tackled CS. DD hit CS over the head with a baseball bat. CS was knocked unconscious. The men found the safe and took it. Before leaving, they destroyed the kitchen, living room, and CS' bedroom. CS was also stabbed in the arm by G1.

CS woke up later. He's lucky that he woke up at all. He called 9-1-1. The medics arrived and took CS to the hospital. CS identified one of the attackers - G1. Apparently, CS and G1 attended elementary school together. G1 was interviewed by the police; his story was not believable. Moreover, he had recruited an ex-girlfriend to concoct an alibi. The problem for G1 was that the ex-girlfriend immediately told the police. G1 was charged with home invasion and armed assault in a dwelling house. He refused to give up the names of the other participants...until 3 years later.

Facing trial and a lengthy prison sentence, G1 finally gave the police the names of the DD, G2, and G3. DD had fled the country. G2 and G3 were charged and arrested. Henry Fasoldt was retained to represent G3.

G3 swore that he did not participate in the home invasion. He believed that G1 was trying to get back at him because they had a falling out about drugs, rent, and a girl. Also, G1 had a serious criminal record.

There was no physical evidence connecting G3 to the scene - the fingerprints on the knife matched G1. The shoe prints outside did not match the shoes seized from G3 (the police searched G3's house two days after the incident).

Seeing that the only evidence against G3 was the testimony of G1 (CS could not identify G3), the prosecutor dismissed the case.

Note: DD is the main target. If DD returns to the area, it is likely that G3 will be subpoena'd to testify before a grand jury