Client was arrested on suspicion of DUI by a member of the SPD DUI Squad following a collision in downtown Seattle, and hit and run was initially suspected. Breath test was .15 and angry witnesses test...ified at trial. The defense argued that the breath test was not trustworthy especially since it was beyond two hours from time of driving. Client did not testify, but a tape recording of the client calling 911 was played to the jury in summation as a demonstration of client's voice and mental acuity. Trial lasted two days.
DUI and DWI
State v. Anonymous
Apr 23, 2015
OUTCOME: Found Not Guilty after trial
At 2:20 a.m., a Washington State Trooper stopped Mr. A's vehicle for speeding (92 mph on a highway). Field sobriety tests were given and later, a breath test was administered with readings of .118 and ....135. The case went to a jury trial and maintenance records showed that the breath test machine was over ten years old and had a lot of repairs over the years. The court sustained the defense objection to testimony about the speed of the vehicle (lack of foundation). The jury found Mr. A Not Guilty. Please note: Just because this case had a Not Guilty finding does not mean that the same result will happen in a different case. It does show, however, that I will fight for you.
DUI and DWI
City v. H. Anonymous
Jan 29, 2010
OUTCOME: Found not guilty after jury trial
Please note: Although this was a not guilty verdict and we always strive for victory, every case is diferent and different outcomes occur in different cases.
That being said, this was a hard fought,... three day jury trial. The driver, a hard working, salt of the earth individual, was accused of DUI after being stopped by a city police officer for speeding and weaving. The driver and a friend had been at a local casino. The friend was highly intoxicated but the driver testified to having consumed only one drink throughout the evening. According to the officer, the driver had all the signs of intoxication. The driver refused to take a breath test, requesting a blood test instead, but a blood test was not offered. The officer denied that a blood test had ever been requested and emphasized the driver's "mood swings" and the "overwhelming odor of intoxicants" emanating from the driver at all times. The case came down to credibility of witnesses.
At trial, on cross examination, the officer's credibility was brought into question through inconsistent prior testimony and irregularities in his police procedure, including a page that was missing from the police report. A defense investigator, two defense witnesses, and the driver/defendant all testified. The jury deliberated for almost two hours and returned a verdict of acquittal.
DUI and DWI
State v. Anonymous
Oct 29, 2009
OUTCOME: Case dismissed.
Mr. A. was arrested in 2003 for DUI and the court set and arraignment in a timely fashion. Despite the court and prosecution having knowledge of Mr. A's correct address, however, notice of the court he...aring was sent to an incorrect address. A bench warrant issued and the case remained in warrant status until, in 2009, Mr. A. was arrested pursuant to the warrant by U.S. customs at an international airport when returning from an international business trip. A motion to dismiss was researched, drafted, and served upon the prosecution. At issue was whether the constitutional and statutory speedy trial rules were violated by the failure to use reasonable efforts to locate the accused prior to issuance of a warrant. The brief was unique in that scanned images of the pertinent court documents and warrants were included in the body of the brief. Had an evidentiary hearing occurred, these would have been the exhibits admitted into evidence. After service of the brief on the prosecution, at a pretrial conference, the case was dismissed.
DUI and DWI
City v. Jones
N/A
OUTCOME: Court Declares Traffic Stop Illegal
The police report stated that the defendant was stopped for driving without headlights on a May evening when it was dark and rainy. Our research showed that the time of the stop was within 1/2 hour of ...the published sunset time and thus, headlights were not legally required. However, at the evidentiary hearing the officer opined that headlights were definitely necessary due to the heavy clouds, the time of day, the rain, and the visibility. Legal research prior to the evidentiary hearing revealed that headlights are required when,"due to insufficient light or unfavorable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of one thousand feet ahead." We argued that the prosecution had not established the necessary fact of lack of visibility at a distance of one thousand feet.
Result: Since the burden of establishing the legality of a detention is always on the prosecution, the stop of the vehicle was ruled to be unjustified.
Moral of the story: Attention to detail in a DUI defense can be the difference between winning or losing.
DUI and DWI
State v. Anonymous
N/A
OUTCOME: Amended to Infraction
Client was stopped for speeding by an officer specially trained in drug recognition. Officer thought client was "acting strangely" and had client perform roadside sobriety tests. He was then arrested o...n suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs. Breath test was .000 and at the station the officer administered a "12 step drug recognition protocol" which, he opined, revealed client to be under the influence of central nervous stimulants. Blood test revealed presence of amphetamines. Client took Adderall and Depakote as prescribed by his physician. Defense investigation revealed that this incident was only the second "drug DUI" that this officer had handled on his own, and that there were procedural errors in the administration of the drug recognition protocol. Defense motions to suppress evidence and the officer's opinion were filed and scheduled. Case was resolved on the day of the motions hearing by an agreement that results in the criminal charge of DUI being amended to the non-criminal infraction of Negligent Driviing, Second Degree.