The following are reported cases, all of which were argued successfully by Mr. Lange.

People v. Gonzalez, 677 N.Y.S.2D 565 (1st Div. 1998)

People v. DeJesus, 677 N.Y.S.2D 471 (1st Div. 1998)

People v. McDow, 674 N.Y.S.2D 647 (1st Div. 1998)

People v. Duerr, 674 N.Y.S.2D 340 (1st Div. 1998)

People v. Quinto, 666 N.Y.S.2D 146 (1st Div. 1997)

Mr. Lange was briefed for the defence in the complex murder trial in Australia in the matter of R -v- Gilham. A million dollar inheritance is also involved in the matter.

This was a case where the son of the murder victims had, years before, pleaded guilty to manslaughter of his brother. That plea was accepted on the basis that he had killed his brother, because the brother had been found by the accused in the course of murdering the parents.

A subsequent investigation by the investigative reporters of a TV program ultimately forced a coronial inquiry when it allegedly uncovered new evidence, including a forensic pathologist's opinion. A coroner then recommended murder charges, but the Director of Public Prosecutions did not act.

Then, more than a decade after the manslaughter plea, the accused son was served with an ex officio indictment alleging that, 12 years previously, he had murdered his parents. Mr. Lange is involved in various aspects of this defence, which form current proceedings before the High Court of Australia.

Mr. Lange has been briefed for the defence of one of the defendants in this matter, which will be the largest and longest criminal trial in Australia.

This is a terrorist trial of a high magnitude, with nine separate defendants, who are jointly with conspiring to commit acts in preparation for terrorists acts. The indictment alleges a conspiracy to commit various acts of terrorism in the Sydney area. Part of the prosecution case involves Australia's only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Southern Sydney. Special courtrooms, with extraordinary security controls have been built to house this trial, which is currently scheduled to begin in February, 2008.

Mr. Lange is fully involved in the preparation and presentation of various pre-trial arguments. This will continue into 2008.

Mr. Lange was briefed for the defence in this major terrorist case, the dramatic outcome of which caused headlines all over the world.

Mr. Lange prepared submissions presented to the Supreme Court, in which he argued that virtually all of the prosecution evidence was inadmissible.

Almost all the press reports contained details about the facts of the case, and about the dramatic judgement, in which the trial judge agreed with Mr. Lange's arguments, and excluded, essentially, all the prosecution's evidence.

As a result of that, the prosecution case collapsed completely, and the accused walked free from the Court.

Here you can view one of the many recent articles about this trial **
**(IE users, please enable scripts. Click 'Allow Blocked Content' in the toolbar)**

This was a fraud trial in 2007, in which it was alleged that the defendant had defrauded the Australian and New Zealand Banking Corporation, one of Australia's major banks, of a substantial sum of money. The case involved the falsification of land titles, forged documents, impersonation, and fictitious individuals. Mr. Lange was briefed for the defence. The accused was acquitted.

This is a matter in which Mr. Lange has been briefed for the appellants in an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The appellants were charged with the murder of three persons, and the attempted murder of three others. At their first trial, in the Supreme Court of The Bahamas, the jury acquitted the appellants of the three murder charges, but convicted them of attempted murder in respect of the three other persons. The Chief Justice refused to accept the verdict in all cases on the grounds on inconsistency.

On their second trial, there was a hung jury; and then, on their third trial, a different jury returned the same verdict as upon the first trial. The conviction was appealed to the Bahamas Court of Appeal, again on the grounds of inconsistency. That appeal was dismissed.

Mr. Lange is now briefed to conduct this final appeal before the Privy Council, and, as at the date of preparation of this page, is awaiting a hearing date.