Attorney Donald Gray Drewry's Legal Cases

DUI and DWI

People v Olson

Sep 08, 2009

OUTCOME: Case Dismissed while Picking Jury

Client arrested for DUI. Very large man with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD). Lost the DMV hearing, appealed, and reversed, client kept his license. District Attorney filed charges, we went ... to trial, police officer under subpoena refused to appear, and we moved for dismissal. The Judge Granted the Motion for failure to Prosecute on Speedy Trial, and on the Court's own motion dismiss for failure to prosecute. DA appealed and lost. Client wins his case and is innocent of DUI

DUI and DWI

People v Avila II

Mar 27, 2009

OUTCOME: Not Guilty

Client arrested and charged with DUI. DMV suspended client's license, and the Court reversed the DMV as the client had GERD which interfered with the breath testing machine. The District Attorney ch ... arged the case, and we went to trial. The jury after hearing from a medical doctor and toxicologist found that the breath machine could not detect alcohol coming from the stomach which gave the defendant a higher reading, and found him NOT GUILTY OF DUI.

DUI and DWI

People v Haupt

N/A

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Department of Justice in the State of California said that their breath test machine was working and recorded all tests. However, there were three (3) test cards presented to the jury showing that ... the Defendant had to take the test three (3) times, yet the records of the machine showed only two (2) tests were given to the Defendant. The machine recorded the Defendant had a breath alcohol level of .15/.15. The JURY decided that the machine could not be trusted, and the jury found the Defendant Not Guilty. Cross Examination showed the Government was wrong.

DUI and DWI

People v McGlothlin II

N/A

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The CHP accused the Defendant of failing field sobriety tests. In cross-examination, the Officer was found to administered the field sobriety tests incorrectly. There was no bad driving, and the Gove ... rnment's toxicologist one day stated that the Defendant's alcohol level was rising which would have made the Defendant under the legal limit at the time of driving. On the next day of testimony, she stated that the Defendant was eliminating alcohol, and would have been over the legal limit at the time of driving. She relied on the world's leading toxicologist as her source of opinion on day one (1), but when cross examined the second day, she stated the world's leading toxicologists and their tests were junk science. The Defendant allegedly had a .12/.12 breath result over one (1) hour after driving, and with a prior test twenty (20) minutes before the last test of .10/.10, showing that his true blood alcohol at the time of driving was .06. The JURY found the Defendant NOT GUILTY.

Donald Gray Drewry's Legal Cases (4)

People v Olson

People v Avila II

People v Haupt

People v McGlothlin II