Skip to main content
Jason M. Glass
Avvo
Pro

Jason Glass’s Legal Cases

5 total

  • State v. Rasmussen

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty Jury Trial in 2009 (Lewis County)
    Description:
    Jury trial in 2009 before Magistrate Dan Moody of the Lewis County Magistrate Court. Ms. Rasmussen was charged with a 2nd Offense DUI after blowing .091. Ms. Rasmussen suffered from several medical issues including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). After a one day trial using Dr. Joe Citron as a defense expert, Ms. Rasmussen was found Not Guilty after 20 minutes of jury deliberations.
  • State v. Doig

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Outcome:
    Case Dismissed
    Description:
    A 2008 case in Upshur County Magistrate Court before Magistrate Mike Coffman. Ms. Doig was pulled over for not having her headlights on. After being pulled over by Officer Loudin of the Buckhannon City Police Department, she was put through a series of field sobriety tests (FST's) and a portable breath test (PBT). Officer Loudin claimed that Ms. Doig failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (HGN) and the PBT while she passed the walk and turn (WAT) and one leg stand (OLS). Dr. Joseph Citron, was retained by my office to review the case and write an expert opinion letter. According to his review of the discovery materials, Dr. Citron was of the opinion that the only test that Ms. Doig was alleged to have failed, the HGN, was not properly scored and administered by Officer Loudin. Dr. Citron's opinion on the HGN coupled with the fact that the PBT was not properly administered, helped defeat both of the FST's that Officer Loudin claimed Ms. Doig failed. A motion to dismiss was filed contending that Officer Loudin did not have probable cause to arrest Ms. Doig. Upon reviewing the defense motion and Dr. Citron's opinion letter, the prosecuting attorney conceded that there was not enough evidence left to amount to probable cause and agreed to dismiss the case.
  • State v. C. Lamp

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Date:
    Jul 09, 2012
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty - Jury Trial Verdict
    Description:
    Mr. Lamp was accused of having sexual intercourse with a 14 year old girl on two separate occasions. The grand jury returned an indictment for two counts of Sexual Assault, 3rd Degree. During trial, Mr. Glass was able to cast doubt on the alleged victim's version of events. During cross-examination, the alleged victim contradicted her story on many occasions. Ultimately, the jury did not believe the alleged victim's story, as it only took them 45 minutes to find Mr. Lamp not guilty.
  • Mark Thompson v. WV Division of Motor Vehicles

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Outcome:
    West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Affirms Circuit Court Decision
    Description:
    Mr. Thompson was charged with a 2nd offense DUI, and entered a no contest plea in magistrate court. The DMV revoked his license, without a hearing, based upon the no contest plea. Thompson appealed the suspension to Kanawha County Circuit Court and prevailed. DMV then appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court. On appeal the Supreme Court sided with Thompson and ruled that the DMV cannot revoke a license, without a hearing, based upon a no contest plea.
  • State ex rel. Pamela Games-Neely v. Joann Overington, Magistrate

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Outcome:
    Lower court's ruling affirmed.
    Description:
    The defendant in the case below, Seidell, moved the magistrate court for expanded breath test discovery on the Intoximeter EC/IR II. Defendant requested, among other things, to be provided with all of the downloaded data from the machine, all maintenance records, and all operating manuals for the machine. The magistrate granted this motion and the State filed a writ of prohibition in the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, which was denied. The State then appealed that decision to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court ruled that in cases where the state seeks to introduce evidence of the results of a breath test, that the defendant is entitled to challenge those results and the test's foundational requirements. In doing so, the defendant is entitled to be provided the download data from the machine, maintenance records, and operators manuals.