Skip to main content
Charles T. Magarahan

Charles Magarahan’s Legal Cases

10 total

  • State v. Dyer

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Jun 07, 2008
    Outcome:
    Ga. Court of Appeals
    Description:
    Decided that all defendants with BAC over .08 must actually serve 24 hours in custody.
  • State v. Underwood

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Outcome:
    Court of Appeals upheld our position
    Description:
    We argued that iimplied consent does not arise until the driver is arrested. We were upheld. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed six months later.
  • State v. Palmaka

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Outcome:
    I won first, State won second
    Description:
    I argued that the operator of an intoxilizer machine should be obligaterd to follow his training in performing the test, or the results should not be admissible. The Court of Appeals said the procedures for testing were not a part of the "methods for testing" which the operator is ordered by statute to follow.
  • State v. Palmaka

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Outcome:
    I won at the trial level, the state appealed
    Description:
    I argued that although the procedures for testing on an intoxilizer were not part of the "methods for testing" the operator should at least be required to follow his training in performing the test before the results should be admissible as evidence. Gwinnett State Court agreed with me. The Court of Apeals said not so fast.
  • State v. Naik

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Outcome:
    I won at Gwinnett State Court
    Description:
    State appealed ruling that said that the methods for testing on an intoxilizer should be followed or the test results are not valid. The Court of Appeals said not necessary.
  • State v. Kruzel

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Outcome:
    Again, I won at the state court, State appealed
    Description:
    I argued that the requirement that the two tests which make up a set of tests on the intoxilizer have to be within 0.02 of one another, was for admissibility purposes only. That means that since the lower of the two is the one defendants are prosecuted with, the higher one should be irrelevent after the pre trial hearing on the admissibllity of the tests and should not be presented at trial. The lower court agreed with me. The Court of Appeals said no.
  • Bagwell v. State

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Outcome:
    We lost a week long jury trial
    Description:
    We tried the Bobby Bagwell case before a judge that fought us all through the trial. We appealed teh use of similar transactions and other issues. The court of appeals said he got a fair trial. We didn't think so
  • McCafferty v. State

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Outcome:
    Recission of refusal to test, we lost
    Description:
    Mr. McCafferty rescinded his refusal to take the intoxilizer test. The Court of Apeals decided he waited too long.
  • Darby v. State

    Practice Area:
    Criminal Defense
    Outcome:
    Mr. Darby was found to have contraband in his car
    Description:
    Police stopped Mr. Darby's car on what we said was a pretext. Neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals bought what I was selling.
  • State v. Hulsey

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Outcome:
    Double jeopardy
    Description:
    We worked out a plea in the State Court which resulted in the elimination of some Superior Court only charges. The Court of Appeals said the state court did not have the authority to so away with the remaining charges and that the Superior Court could still hear the remaining chrges.