The following is a synopsis of Attorney McClenahen's trials from 2001 through 2004, with the most recent cases being listed first. For results of Attorney McClenahen's trials from 2005 and 2006, click here. Although all of this information is public record, the clients' names are not included in order to protect their privacy. McClenahen's current record in jury trials is 26-12-1. In non-felony drug cases, his record is 20-7-1. In felony drug cases, he is 6-5.
Unlike some law firms which only include their successes on their website, Attorney McClenahen has included both his wins and losses at trial. Even attorneys of marginal ability will have some successes if they handle enough cases and even the best attorneys will lose some trials if they handle enough cases. It is difficult to measure the skill level of an attorney if you do not know the ratio of wins to losses or the underlying facts of each case.
Charge: Aggravated Assault (F2 Status)
Trial Date: October 26, 2004
Offers: 1-2 years state prison.
Result: Not Guilty
Client had argument with landlord over rent. She began to hyperventilate and collapsed onto ground. Landlord called 911. When ambulance and EMTs arrived, Client launched into an uncontrollable rage and punched the female EMT square in the face. Normally, this would have been a simple assault, but was an aggravated assault based upon the status of Victim as EMT.
McClenahen successfully argued that this was not an aggravated assault because the EMT had no bodily injury, substantial pain or protracted loss. She had no marks or bruises and was able to finish her shift. She was more emotionally upset than anything, because someone she was trying to help punched her for no reason.
Charges: Burglary, Conspiracy to Commit Burglary, DUI
Trial Date: August 30, 2004
Result: Guilty of Burglary and C/C Burglary, DUI Withdrawn
Offer: 3-23 months
Sentence: 9-23 months
Client and Co-Defendants allegedly drove to York from Baltimore and broke into a storage trailer to steal shoes. Client was apprehended with burglary tools in his hands, was drunk, gave a partial confession and foot prints matching his shoe style and size were found in the trailer. The Co-Defendants were caught with the shoes in their SUV and footprints matching their shoes were also found in the trailer. All Co-Defendants lived on the same street in Baltimore.
The DUI was withdrawn because the officer who arrested Defendant for DUI did not appear at trial.
Charges: Incident 1: Theft of Motor Vehicle
Incident 2: Burglary, Robbery
Incident 3: Attempted Homicide, Aggravated Assault, REAP
Offer: 9-18 years
Trial Date: August 2-4, 2004
Result: Guilty of Theft of Motor Vehicle
Guilty of Robbery and Burglary
Not Guilty of Attempted Murder and Aggravated Assault
Guilty of Recklessly Endangering Another Person
Sentence: 80-160 months, concurrent with 5-10 year robbery sentence in MD
This case had the distinction of being the first trial to take place in the newly built York County Judicial Center.
Client drove from Colorado to Pennsylvania in order to try to get back together with his estranged wife. When she rejected him, he embarked on a harassment campaign against her, which landed him in York County Prison. Client received a time served sentence for harassment, and the day he got out of jail, he allegedly stole an unlocked car with the key in the ignition, drove to the home of his elderly, former landlords, forced his way into their house and threatened them with a realistic-looking toy pistol in order to steal their real guns. Client then allegedly took the real guns to the home of his wife's boyfriend and tried to kill his wife by shooting at her.
There was no viable defense to the charges in the first two incidents, so the defense focused on attempted murder and aggravated assault.
The Commonwealth alleged that Client saw his wife in a lit window on a dark, stormy night and shot at her. However, he actually shot out another window, not the one where Wife said she was standing. Client testified that his plan was to go to the house and fire shots in the air to scare and intimidate his wife and her boyfriend. He believed that if he caused enough problems, the boyfriend would break up with Wife, and she would return to Client. When Client arrived, it looked like no one was home, because their vehicles were gone. Client then decided to shoot out a window so that they would know that he had been there.
McClenahen's core argument was that if Client wanted to kill his wife and saw her, he would have fired at her, not away from her. However, he did not see her and didn't want to kill her. He also could have broken into the house to make sure he had killed her, but he never attempted to break in. Jury acquitted Client of the only two defensible charges.
Charges: Aggravated Assault (F1 Attempts Serious Bodily Injury) and Simple Assault
Offer: 3-6 years in State Prison
Trial Date: July 15, 2004
Result: Not Guilty of Aggravated Assault, Guilty of Simple Assault
Sentence: Time Served to 23 months
Client and Victim were staying with Victim's Friend in York County while they were looking for a house. Victim is mother of Client's child. Client, Victim and Victim's Friend were all drinking. After Friend went to bed, Client and Victim got into a heated argument, resulting in Client beating up Victim. Friend called the police. Trial testimony of Client and Victim and medical evidence suggested a simple assault and nothing more. Friend's Testimony suggested an aggravated assault, but her testimony was inconsistent with the physical evidence, and her testimony at trial differed from both her written statement and preliminary hearing testimony.
Client was extremely uncooperative with the arresting-officer. McClenahen argued that Client was charged with aggravated assault instead of simple assault, in large part, because he gave Cop a hard time.
Charges: PWID Crack Cocaine, C/C PWID Crack Cocaine
Offer: 5-10 years
Trial Date: March 8-10, 2004
Result: Guilty on both counts
Sentence: 6-12 years
This case involved 4 co-defendants living in the same house. The co-defendants included Client's 70 year old mother, who was allegedly running the drug dealing operation, Client's sister and his sister's boyfriend. The evidence was overwhelming that people were selling cocaine out of the house, with the question at trial being who was doing the selling. Each co-defendant tried to point the finger at the other co-defendants, while claiming no knowledge of what was going on. Client had scales with cocaine-residue and packaging material in his room, while most of the crack was located in another room.
All 4 were convicted, including the 70 year old matriarch, who broke her leg trying to run away from the police while the house was being raided, with bags of crack in her hand. She was actually out on bail after pleading guilty to a previous crack delivery at the time of the raid. This case garnered more publicity than a normal York County drug case because it involved a 70 year old grandma running a crack vending operation.
Charge: PWID 2.9 g. crack
Offer: 2-4 state prison
Trial Date: March 3, 2004
Sentence: 2 years intermediate punishment, with first 6 months at the Day Reporting Center (Defendant is not in jail, but must see a probation officer every day for drug testing).
Client allegedly sold crack to Confidential Informant (CI) and admitted to police that he sold to crack-addicted prostitutes in order to finance his own addiction. The police opted not to charge Client with the delivery to the CI, so that the CI's identity would not be revealed, thus allowing him to work for the police. Instead, Police obtained a search warrant and raided the furniture store where Client worked and found 2.9 grams of crack in his possession broken up into 10 individual bags. He had additional packaging material matching the material used to package the 10 bags in his possession. At trial, Client asserted that he did not confess to selling crack and that he possessed the crack for personal use.
After Client's conviction, McClenahen asked for a psychiatric evaluation to aid in sentencing. The psychiatric evaluation paid off, as it revealed that Client had a long history of mental illness and drug abuse, but had managed to stay clean and hold down a full time job for over 10 years. When he moved to York for a job promotion, he lost his support system, and relapsed.
The judge felt sorry for Client and suggested that Prosecutor not to seek a mandatory minimum sentence. This is a rare case where a defendant received a more favorable sentence following a conviction at trial than he would have received pursuant to a plea agreement. This is still considered a loss for win-loss record purposes, based on the jury verdict.
Trial Date: March 2, 2004
Result: Not Guilty
Client went to a used car lot/ junkyard the day before the incident and discussed purchasing a cheap, used car. The next morning, Client returned, but the guy he spoke to was not at work yet. Client decided to mill around the junkyard as he waited. Another worker suspected that Client was trying to steal things from the junkyard and charged after him with a metal pipe.
Client ran to his car, jumped in and Complainant started banging the pipe on his car, including near the passenger's side where Client's wife was sitting. Complainant came around to Client's side, and as he lifted the club over his head and was about to club Client, Defendant pulled out a knife, stabbed Complainant and drove away.
Jury believed the self-defense argument and Client was acquitted. Also, there were some contradictions in the testimony of various Commonwealth witnesses and the detective admitted that he did not even go to the crime scene in order to gather physical evidence such as blood droppings, in an effort to see if the physical evidence corroborated the witness' stories.
Charges: Simple Assault, Recklessly Endangering Another Person,
Offer: county prison sentence
Trial Date: January 6-8, 2004
Result: Judge dismissed REAP following Commonwealth's case
Guilty of Simple Assault.
Sentence: 1-2 years, parole violation case closed out.
Client suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and was obsessed with space exploration. He was living with his girlfriend and they had borrowed her son's computer. Client filled hard drive with outer-space photos and articles, tied up phone line all day on the Internet, and caused computer to crash. Girlfriend's son came to take the computer back and erase the hard drive, sending Client into rage. Client allegedly started swinging a bayonet and club in his girlfriend's face while her adult daughter watched. To make matters worse, Defendant was on house-arrest at the time, for a simple assault case in which the same woman was the victim.
Girlfriend wanted charges dropped, but Prosecutor refused to do so. Although Girlfriend testified that she was not afraid of Defendant, Prosecutor successfully argued that it was not the Victim's feelings that counted, but rather, Defendant's intent to cause fear, as a subsection of the simple assault statute makes it a crime for a defendant to attempt to place someone else in fear of bodily injury, even if the victim is not afraid.
Charges: Terroristic Threats, Harassment by Communication
Offer: Final offer was 12 months probation, but would have resulted in jail time for a Parole Violation
Trial Date: November 6, 2003
Result: Not Guilty on each count
This was a sad case, which Prosecutor never should have pushed to trial. Complainant was Client's Mother, who was raising Client's child, because both Client and his wife were unable to care for the child. Client and Client's Mother had a heated argument about child custody on phone. At one point, Client brought up fact that Mother had placed him in a facility for children with behavioral problems, and he had been molested by older emotionally-disturbed boys. Client allegedly said to Mother that he wanted to kill her for putting him in that situation when he was a child. Mother called police to get Client psychiatric help, but instead they charged him criminally.
Mother wanted charges dropped, but Prosecutor refused, despite Mother's repeated requests. At one point during Mother's testimony, she lashed out at Prosecutor and said "you are destroying my family!" At that point, Judge stopped the trial and questioned Prosecutor's motives for pushing this type of case for trial. Prosecutor would not back down and trial continued.
Client did not testify. McClenahen argued that this was not a terroristic threat, but a spur of the moment statement in the course of a heated argument. Jury returned a not guilty verdict in less than an hour.
Charges: Rape, Sexual Assault, Aggravated Indecent Assault
Offer: 7-14 years
Trial Date: September 2-3, 2003
Result: Not Guilty of Rape, Guilty of Sexual Assault, AIA dismissed at PH.
Sentence: 5-10 years
This was a rather strange case in which Client was accused of raping the mother of his two children. He was acquitted of rape and convicted of sexual assault. The difference between rape and sexual assault is that rape involves forcing a victim to have sex, while sexual assault is having sex with a victim without her consent, but without using force.
Complainant's testimony changed each time she told her story. Her written statement, preliminary hearing testimony and trial testimony had glaring inconsistencies. The other odd thing about this case is that Complainant fell asleep in the apartment, with Client present, after he allegedly raped her at knife point. She also had unprotected sex with him on numerous occasions in the past, but this night, Client wore a condom because she told him to. She also gave Client a ride home in the morning.
Although the defense was consent, Client did not testify because he had many prior offenses, which the jury could have considered to judge his credibility, including a bank robbery.
This is considered a win because Client's sentence was 5-10 years, when the offer was 7-14 years and had Defendant been convicted of rape, the judge could have given him the statutory maximum of 10-20 years, given Client's prior record.
Charge: Unauthorized use of motor vehicle (M2)
Offer: Original Offer was jail time, but final offer was for probation when Complainant could not be found
Trial Date: July 10, 2003
Result: Plea to Public Drunkenness during trial, no fine.
This case involved a self-described alcoholic Client living with a crack-addicted woman with bi-polar disorder. This was a "warts and all case," and I mentioned the fact that both parties were hard-core substance abusers during my opening. A "warts and all" case is a case in which the jury is presented with the truth "warts and all" and the defense attorney does not keep out evidence which he could lawfully exclude.
Client allegedly took Complainant's jeep and left the residence when he was upset that she was smoking crack with another man, after Client returned from the bars.
Complainant failed to appear for trial, but Prosecutor tried to go forward with case anyway, by trying to have cop testify to Complainant's hearsay statements. Judge sustained all of McClenahen's objections, and allowed a lengthy recess for Prosecutor to find his Victim.
During this recess, Client indicated he would settle this case for a summary public drunkenness, with no fine. Prosecutor had already greatly angered the judge by wasting her time with this type of case and agreed.
Charge: Possession of Crack Cocaine
Offer: 12 months probation
Trial Date: May 20, 2003
Result: Not Guilty
State Cop testified that Client and 2 other guys were inside a car wash at 1:40 a.m., after business hours. There had previously been problems with teenagers vandalizing businesses in this area, so cop stopped to investigate. He shined light into vehicle and saw crack cocaine on floor in plain view. Cop testified that Client displayed signs of crack cocaine intoxication, including red, glassy eyes. Cop testified that Defendant was cooperative and apologetic, saying "this is the first time I ever used this stuff."
Client testified that he was in car when driver was buying crack from the front-seat passenger, but he was not going to buy any or smoke any himself. Client denied making statement "this was my first time using this stuff." Instead, he testified that he told the cop "this is my first time ever being in trouble." Client explained that his eyes were blood-shot due to a medical condition. This assertion was bolstered by fact that Client's eyes were blood-shot throughout the trial, while he was clearly sober.
The crack dealer in front-seat was charged with Possession with Intent to Deliver and Delivery of Cocaine and Prosecutor actually had him testify against the alleged crack-users in this case, which was rather strange. Dealer had many inconsistencies in his brief testimony. Dealer testified that Client and Driver were smoking crack in his presence, but no pipes or other use-paraphernalia were found. Dealer came off as smug, obnoxious and not credible.
McClenahen successfully argued that this was a case of guilt by association and that Dealer could not be believed.
Offer: 30 days to 12 months
Trial Date: May 6, 2003
Result: Not Guilty
This was a rather bizarre DUI case, as it involved Client allegedly driving drunk to the State Police station to report being assaulted. Client arrived at the Police Station covered in blood and reported that his brother-in-law, with whom he had been residing, punched him in the face. The Commonwealth's version of events was as follows. Cop noticed that Client was drunk, asked him how he got there and Client said that he drove, but was not drunk. Client failed a field sobriety test and his BAC was .190.
Client testified that after his brother-in-law beat him up, Client called his friend to pick him up and take him to the police station. Friend drove Client in Client's car while Friend's girlfriend drove behind them in her car. Client did not want to leave his car at Brother-in-law's house and could not drive himself because he was drunk and covered in blood. Friend and girlfriend dropped off Defendant at the station, but left because Friend had a warrant. Friend and Friend's Girlfriend also did not testify at trial.
Prior to trial, Judge warned Defendant on the record that if he did not take the plea agreement for the mandatory minimum sentence, there was a strong possibility that he would receive a much harsher sentence if convicted. Client went to trial anyway.
Cop made 2 crucial mistakes, which McClenahen seized upon. First of all, Client's alleged admission to driving was nowhere in the police report. McClenahen argued that the admission was the key to the Commonwealth's case, so the cop would have included it in his report if Client had made such a confession. Secondly, there was no dispute that Client was covered in blood. Had he driven his car, there would have been blood on the driver's side. If he were the passenger, there would have been blood on the passenger's side. The cop conceded that he did not even look inside Client's car.
Charge: Simple Assault (M2)
Offer: 6-18 months
Trial Date: March 20, 2003
Result: Not Guilty of Simple Assault M2,
Guilty of Simple Assault by Mutual Affray M3
Sentence: 3 months house arrest, followed by 9 months probation.
Client confronted Complainant, a poly-substance abusing thief, about a stereo system which Client believed that Complainant had stolen from his car. Complainant had admitted to another person that he had taken the stereo. This person to whom Complainant admitted the theft was truly caught in the middle, as she has a child to both Client and Complainant.
Both Client and Complainant testified that the other guy threw the first punch. What was not in dispute is that Client won the fight and when Complainant was treated at the hospital, he had a .18 BAC at 4:00 p.m. on a weekday.
A professor from York College watched the fight, but didn't see the beginning of it. He testified that Client was stomping on Complainant's head and neck after he was helpless and on the ground. McClenahen argued that the professor was not deliberately lying, but his memory was inaccurate. Had Client stomped on Complainant's head, Complainant would have been much more seriously injured.
While discussing charges for the jury during a recess, Judge opined that this case was undercharged and should have been an aggravated assault. McClenahen requested an instruction on simple assault by mutual affray, and that is what the jury's verdict was. Simple Assault by Mutual Affray means both parties wanted to fight, and there was no clear instigator. Client was ecstatic about the result and felt vindicated.
Charge: Theft of Cable Services
Trial Date: March 12, 2003
Result: Hung Jury. 11-1 in favor of acquittal. Ultimately, Defendant paid $40 in restitution to the cable company, with court costs placed on the county and the charge was withdrawn.
Cable Company was notified of a cable outage in Client's building. The cause was that someone had spliced the line, so that Client's apartment would receive free cable. Cable guy called the police and Defendant allowed him into her apartment. The cable was not hooked up to Defendant's TV, but the TV was on USA network, instead of Channel 3, which is where it normally would have been if she were only using her TV to watch VCR tapes.
McClenahen presented numerous witnesses who had been to Client's apartment many times and never watched cable TV. They also testified that it was well known that she didn't have cable and would go to other people's homes to watch certain shows.
McClenahen argued that the line was probably spliced by the previous tenant, as Client would not have even known how to do it.
For some reason, one juror wanted to convict and would not give in to the other 11 jurors. At first, the York County District Attorney's Office wanted to re-try this case, but ultimately agreed to withdraw the charge upon payment of $40.
For win-loss purposes, this is counted as a tie based upon the jury's verdict, even though it was 11-1 in favor of acquittal and the charge was ultimately withdrawn.
Charge: Aggravated Assault w/ Deadly Weapon (Vehicle), Simple Assault, Recklessly Endangering Another Person.
Offer: 4-8 years
Trial Date: January 9, 2003
Result: After opening statements, plea to Simple Assault, which could be withdrawn after one year, and charge would be withdrawn as long as Defendant did not commit any new criminal offenses.
Client was accused of trying to run over her estranged husband with her car. During McClenahen's opening, he covered all the background information surrounding this case. Husband was an abusive alcoholic who did not work while he and Client were together, relying on her to support him. He would drink from the time he awoke at noon until he would pass out at 4 a.m. Client called the police numerous times when he was abusive, but he would flee before they would arrive. The police never would charge him, instead telling her she should get a PFA.
Client and Husband separated, but tried to reconcile. They were both living with their parents, and would meet up about once a week and get a hotel room. Client and Husband both arrived at hotel parking lot drunk. Client fell asleep in her car while waiting for Husband to arrive. She was awoken by him pounding on her windshield. Husband had the same crazed, drunken look in his eyes that he had all the times when he would beat her. She panicked and tried to drive away. Husband jumped on the hood of her car and started pounding on her windshield, breaking it.
Client then got out of her car and called the police. She grabbed Husband's truck keys and threw them in a field, so he couldn't flee before Police arrived. She thought this time the police would finally do something, but instead of charging him, they charged her with aggravated assault.
After opening statements, Judge called a recess and in chambers strongly suggested to Prosecutor that he had a weak case and that this case should be settled. Prosecutor withdrew the aggravated assault. Client pled guilty to simple assault, with Judge imposing a sentence of 12 months non-reporting probation. If Client did not receive any new charges within the year, she would be allowed to withdrawal her plea and the charge would be dismissed. Client didn't get into any trouble and the charge was dismissed a year later.
Charges: Robbery, Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, Burglary, C/C Burglary
Offer: 5-10 years concurrent, non-mandatory for all charges
Trial Date: January 8, 2003
Result: Not Guilty
Client was a Haitian immigrant who worked odd jobs and as a "party promoter." Client and his Co-Defendant "Biscuit" allegedly broke into Complainant's apartment, robbed him and his girlfriend at gun-point, tied them up with rope and fled the scene. Although Complainant denied it, it was apparent that he was a drug dealer and that is why he was targeted.
Client testified that he was acquaintance of Complainant and saw Complainant right after robbery, but denied being involved.
Charge: PWID 7.2 g crack.
Offer: 3-6 years
Trial Date: January 6-7, 2003
The facts of this case were not favorable to Client, but he insisted on going to trial against advice of counsel. The facts were as follows: Client was pulled over by Cop who knew him and knew he had an outstanding warrant. Cop found 7.2 grams of crack on the ground where Client was standing after he exited his vehicle. Client had a loaded magazine clip in his back pocket. Client had a cell phone in his back pocket and at the police station, the cell phone received a text message from someone wanting to buy crack. Client was unemployed but had $781 in his pocket.
Client testified that all of the foregoing facts were mere coincidence, which the jury did not believe, and returned a quick guilty verdict.
Charge: Loitering and Prowling at Night.
Offer: 12 months probation. However, pleading guilty would have violated Client's ARD supervision in a drug case.
Trial Date: September 12, 2002
Result: Not guilty
19 year old male Client was living with parents in housing development, and he had a habit of visiting his 16 year old female neighbor in the middle of the night on weekends and over the summer. He would knock on her window and she would come out and hang out with him on her back porch.
The girl's parents did not approve of Client because he was often in trouble, and they really hated him because when he was 16, he drove recklessly with their other daughter in his car, resulting in an accident which killed her.
On the night in question, the girl's father saw Client knocking on his daughter's window, chased him away and called the police. At trial, the girl testified that she and Client are friends and that he always would visit her at night. It was clear that this charge came about because the girl's parents hated Client and were mad that their daughter was friends with him against their wishes.
Client had no criminal intent by visiting his neighbor and was found not guilty.
Charge: Theft of Leased Property
Offer: 24 months probation and pay restitution for full value of property
Trial Date: September 4, 2002
Sentence: 9 months non-reporting probation with no restitution.
This case involved the common scenario in which poor people with a horrible credit history enter into disadvantageous rent-to-own contracts. Client and her husband acquired several thousand dollars worth of furniture and other items and dutifully made their payments for several years until Client's husband lost his job. They became semi-homeless and placed all of their belongings in storage. By the time that Client and her husband stopped making payments, they had already paid the face value of the merchandise, but still owed money on the contract due to the high interest rates.
Client failed to notify the store where she was keeping the property and did not make arrangements to return it. Her contention was that she should not have to return it, because she already had paid more than face value.
Although the jury found Client guilty, after the jury left, Judge proclaimed in open Court, "here's my verdict!" as she held up a hand written sign with the words "Not Guilty." Judge then chastised the District Attorney's Office for wasting time during the criminal trial term with a civil case and suggested that defense counsel should not always assume that it is better to have a jury trial with her than a judge trial.
Attorney McClenahen counts this case as a loss because there was a single count and the jury found Client guilty, even though the Defendant actually came out with a better result following trial than the result had she pled guilty.
Offer: 45 days to 23 months
Trial Date: July 12, 2002
This case presented bad facts for the Defense, but Client insisted upon a trial against advice of Counsel. Client allegedly wrecked his car in a corn-field and broke his leg, but managed to free himself from the vehicle. When police arrived, Client stated that another guy was driving his car, but fled the scene. Client had long, scraggly salt-and-pepper colored beard, and hairs matching his beard were found along with blood on driver's side of car. Client's BAC was over .20. A few weeks after accident, Client allegedly admitted to State Cop during telephone call that he was driver.
Client chose not to testify, so the State Cop's testimony was uncontradicted, and Client was convicted.
Charges: Robbery (F3), simple assault, retail theft.
Offer: State Prison
Trial Date: November 7, 2001
Result: Robbery dismissed by Judge during trial. Client pled to Simple Assault and Retail Theft.
This was Attorney McClenahen's first trial.
Client was charged with robbery, based upon struggle with Wal-Mart loss prevention officer, as LPO tried to apprehend Defendant in parking lot for shoplifting. Client had abandoned the property before he fought with the LPO. After the Prosecution's case in chief, McClenahen argued at sidebar that the Commonwealth failed to establish each element for a robbery, because the connection between the theft and assault was broken when Client abandoned the property. Judge agreed with McClenahen's argument, dismissing the robbery. Client then pled guilty to retail theft and simple assault and received a time served sentence.
Each synopsis contains the charges, the plea offer and the trial result. The reason that the plea offer is included is to measure the client's success at trial. A result at trial more favorable than the plea offer is considered a win. For example, if the client was convicted of minor offenses, but acquitted of the more serious offenses, then he likely made out better at trial than under the terms of the plea offer. If, however, the client has only one charge and is convicted, Attorney McClenahen still considers it a loss for win-loss record purposes even if the sentence turned out to be more favorable than the plea offer.
It is important to note that the facts and witnesses of every case are unique, every jury is composed of a different group of people, every judge has a different style and the experience and skill levels of prosecutors vary tremendously. Attorney McClenahen's prior success in trials is no more of a guarantee that he will win any given future trial than a sports team's prior record is indicative that it will win future games. As in sports, there are no guaranteed wins in trials, no matter how impressive a team's or attorney's previous record is.