Skip to main content
John M. Gioffredi

John Gioffredi’s Legal Cases

16 total


  • State v JW (confidential)

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Outcome:
    18 minute not guilty verdict
    Description:
    Pulled over in Richardson for speeding 80 mph in a 60 mph zone, and crossing a double white line to pass two slower moving vehicles. The officer testified that he failed all of the sobriety tests given, and refused to provide a breath test. A video was made at the scene, and played in court for the jury.
  • State v K.P.

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Outcome:
    DWI case dismissed December 17, 2008
    Description:
    K.P. was stopped by Garland police for having an obscured license plate. After two and a half years and 11 Trial settings the judge finally granted the defense motion to suppress, resulting in the case being dismissed.
  • State v Mark C.

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Oct 06, 2008
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty Jury Verdict
    Description:
    Defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his vehicle at 3:05 am on a side street off of the Dallas North Tollway in Plano, Texas. The engine was running, his window was down, and there was puke everywhere. He refused to take a breath test. Jury found him not guilty after 45 minutes of deliberations. CCAL 4, Collin county, Judge Ray Wheless.
  • State v Roger H.

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    Defendant was stopped for speeding on N. Central Expressway in Collin county. While he was perfroming sobriety tests, his female passenger opened the door and puked onto the shoulder of the road. The defendant looked very unsteady during the sobriety tests, but he did not take a breath test.
  • State v Blake T.

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Outcome:
    One Guilty Verdict, One Not Guilty Verdict
    Description:
    I don't win all of my trials, and neither does anybody else. This case is an example of getting the best possible result, even though you don't get a not guilty verdict. The Defendant in this DWI case was 19 years old, so he was not of legal drinking age. He was traveling northbound on Cole avenue in Dallas at 2:20 am. Cole avenue is a one way street - southbound only - at that location. The defendant collided head on with another vehicle, causing minor injuries to both front seat occupants. The Defendant fled the location, still going north on the south only one way street. The police found him four blocks north of the accident site, passed at at the wheel with puke on the ground outside the driver's side window, and puke running down the door of the car. The 19 year old defendant was found with a fake ID in his wallet, and a plastic "age 21" club bracelet on his wrist. There was marijuana on the back seat floor board, and a marijuana pipe underneath the driver's seat. The defendant provided a 0.19 breath test specimen - almost 2 and a half times the legal limit - even though he had already puked much of the alcohol out of his system. The jury found him not guilty of the marijuana case, and guilty of the DWI. On the DWI, the jury sentenced him to back time and a fine of $2,000. So the Defendant spent no time in jail, and had no probation to deal with after the trial was over. The actual sentence was 10 days, but he had back time of 15 days.
  • State v. Felix N.

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Jan 07, 2009
    Outcome:
    $100 fine, no probation
    Description:
    This was an example of making the best out of a bad situation. The Defendant was video taped driving erratically and making at least one illegal right turn, cutting across three lanes of traffic from a left hand turn only lane. On a video taken at the scene, he appeared to be very confused and disoriented, and looked bad on the sobriety tests. The videos were admitted as evidence and played in court, as is usual in these cases. He was arrested and provided two breath test samples, one at 0.157, another at 0.154. Both were nearly two times the legal limit. So he had bad driving facts, a bad performance on the sobriety tests, and a bad score on the intoxilyzer. All of which which captured on video tape. Strike one! Strike two! Strike three! You're out! The jury took only 19 minutes to convict. We chose to have the jury sentence him, as is allowed under Texas law. The jury came back in ten minutes with a fine of $100, no probation, and no jail time. Since the minimum legal sentence on a Texas DWI is 72 hours in jail, the judge reformed the verdict, with permission of the defense, to 3 days in jail, and credited the defendant with time served. So even though this was basically an unwinnable DWI, by using the right strategy and going to the jury for punishment, the defendant avoided probation and jail time, which, if you are going to be convicted, is as good an outcome as you can get on any Texas DWI case.
  • State v. EB (Name Confidential)

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty by Jury Determination of Illegal Stop
    Description:
    Client was stopped at 8:47 pm for allegedly running a stop sign at the intersection of Armstrong Blvd. and Douglas Ave. in Highland Park, Texas. The officer testified that the defendant failed to stop before reaching a clearly marked stop line on the street, and more specifically, that the defendant failed to stop until his vehicle was 1/4 of the way into the intersection, nearly colliding with the officer's squad car. When the officer asked the defendant to estimate what time it was without looking at his watch, the defendant responded "About 1 to 1:30 in the morning?" It was actually 8:47 pm. The defendant admitted on videotape to drinking 9 to 10 beers, and to only having one bagel to eat all day - for breakfast. Those statements were kept out of court by motion to suppress. Defendant also stated "What do you make, $40,000 a year? I piss on that kind of money." That statement WAS allowed into evidence. The defendant did poorly on the sobriety tests which were given to him at the scene of the arrest. The entire stop was recorded on video, including the police stop of the defendant's vehicle, the questionable running of the stop sign, the statements by the defendant, and all sobriety tests taken. All six jurors believed that the defendant was clearly intoxicated. They only found him not guilty because we were able to create a reasonable doubt as to whether or not he failed to stop his vehicle at the stop sign, as required by Texas law.
  • State v. RO (Confidential)

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Outcome:
    0.20 breath test DWI with accident - Dismissed
    Description:
    At 11:45 pm on September 6th, 2008, Defendant was involved in a collision at the intersection of Preston Road and Spring Valley Road in Dallas, Texas. Dallas police officers arrived and administered field sobriety tests. The arresting officer reported smelling a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from the Defendant's breath, and stated that Defendant was having difficulties answering questions about the accident. The arresting officer reported that the Defendant was swaying and "could not keep his body staight up" during the HGN eye test. The officer reported that the Defendant "could not walk the line during the entire Walk and Turn [Walk the Line] heel to toe test, took the incorrect number of steps, did not make the turn corrrectly, could not maintain his balance on the line and walked off the line approximately four times." The Defendant's breath test scores over an hour and a half after the arrest were 0.205 and 0.201. This Defendant viewed his video tape, which was very bad, and simply wanted to enter a negotiated plea of guilty. I talked the Defendant into scheduling the case for a jury trial. Case was dismissed "In the Interests of Justice" because of a big credibilty problem with the arresting officer.
  • State v SB

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Outcome:
    6 1/2 hour Not Guilty on 0.20 breath test DWI
    Description:
    On June 12th, 2007, at 12:10 am, Defendant was stopped by Dallas DWI squad officer Ron Cathcart for going 75 / 60 mph zone and an unsafe lane change on northbound Central Expressway. The stop was captured on the officer's dashboard mounted DVD recorder. The Defendant was videotaped doing the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) in a business parking lot next to Central Expressway. The 20 year experienced officer testified that the Defendant failed all three SFSTs, scoring all six clues in the HGN (eye) test, showing 3 out of 8 clues on the "Walk and Turn" test, and 3 out of 4 clues on the One Leg Stand. Slightly over an hour later, the Defendant provided a breath test with results of 0.197 and 0.202. I argued that a 21 year old, 147 pound female would look absolutely trashed at an alcohol level of 0.20, and could never look as good as the Defendant did on the two police DVDs. It took the jury 6 and 1/2 hours, but eventually they agreed and returned a Not Guilty verdict.
  • State v JM

    Practice Area:
    DUI & DWI
    Date:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Outcome:
    guilty verdict, good sentence
    Description:
    This 23 year old DWI first offender male had been in an accident, and was driving at 3 am on a flat tire, dragging his rear bumper on the ground behind him. When asked by the officer about the back bumper, the defendant apparently did not realize that his back bumper was dragging on the ground. The defendant took all of the field sobriety tests offered by the arresting officer, and it was all captured on video and played for the jury. The defendant looked awful on every one of the sobriety tests. He later took an intoxilyzer test at the jail and blew a 0.19 BAC. We felt going into the trial that the case would be extremely difficult to win, and we were right. The jury took just 9 minutes to convict him. We had decided to go to trial primarily to avoid the defendant being placed on probation. We elected to go to the jury for punishment, and I had the defendant testify at the punishment stage. The defendant testified that "I have actually learned a lot from this DWI experience. Now I don't drive very often, and I never do after using recreational substances." Recreational substances! Yikes! The jury gave him a sentence of 4 days and a $1,000 fine. He got credit for time served and just had to pay the fine. All things considered, I thought that was an excellent result.