William C. Head's Legal Cases (79)

Criminal defense

Vehicular Homicide Case Totally Won by Use of Speedy Trial Demand & Estoppel Motion

Mar 15, 2006

OUTCOME: Won appeal on all but 1 count, later won all

Mr. S came to Mr. Head in January of 2004 for representation after he was accused of DUI, hit & run, and FELONY vehicular homicide of a pedestrian. Mr. S also had a prior DUI conviction that had occur ... red within the last 5 years. The accident occurred during a fierce rain storm, in mid-block of a Buckhead (a well-known bar area in north Atlanta area) street at about 1 A.M. Blood had been drawn and the reults from the blood test were 0.14%. The case was intitially filed in the former City Court of Atlanta (abolished by the City of Atlanta at the end of December, 2004). That Court previously had jury trial jurisdiction over traffic misdemeanor charges, and each of Mr. S's original charges were misdemeanor-level traffic tickets, until the pedestrian died the next day from the injuries he received when struck by Mr. S's vehicle. Mr. S hired Mr. Head immediately and the next morning, a statutory speedy trial demand was filed by Mr. Head on behalf of Mr. S. At the Superior Court of Fulton County, Mr. Head asserted a "Motion for Discharge & Acquittal" based on that Prosecutor's failure to accommodate a statutory speedy trial demand. The judge who heard the motion, William Ison (Senior Judge, hearing the case by assignment) denied the motion. Mr. Head sought an immediate, direct appeal, which is permitted pre-trial because a reversal of the trial judge's decision would eliminate the entire case based on "former jeopardy". After the Georgia Court of Appeals eliminated all but one charge against Mr. Head's client were totally eliminated for lack of a speedy trial. {Case is reported at 245 Ga.App. 750, 538 S.E.2d 847(2005)} After the appeal was handed down, Mr. Head filed a new motion at the trial court [based on collateral estoppel] for the one remaining felony charge This was filed with the newly-appointed Fulton County Superior Court Judge, Tom Campbell. Mr. Head pointed out that the underpinnings of the dual serious driving offenses supporting the one open charge (DUI and hit & run) had been eliminated by a discharge and acquittal order, thereby stopping further prosecution. Judge Campbell agreed, and the State did not seek further appeal of his ruling. Therefore, Mr. S walked away from this serious felony case (maximum punishment of 15 years in state prison) without ever going to trial, and never going to jail, except after his DUI arrest (until he could bail out).

DUI and DWI

City of Atlanta v. W.K.

Jun 30, 2005

OUTCOME: Mr. Head Sits in Silence & Wins DUI Case

The City of Atlanta underwent an efficiency ananlysis in 2002 and 2003. As a result of the study, a recommendation was put forward to shut down their special constitutional "state" court, which was ca ... lled The City Court of Atlanta. This court was given special constitutional authority to conduct misdemeanor JURY trials on any traffic law cases that arose in the City of Atlanta. The legislation was sponsored by the Mayor and Council and was passed in the 2004 Legislature. The wording of the statute was ambiguous, but Mr. Head came to the conclusion that the City Court of Atlanta ceased to exist December 31, 2004. Nevertheless, the prosecutor of the court kept sending out court notices for jury trials, and W.K. (one of Mr. Head's clients) was notified to be ready for trial in January of 2005. This client was the first to approve of Mr. Head sitting silent through trial, and this trial was followed a week later by the trial on M.I., which is reported just before this case. Mr. Head filed numerous challenges to the legality of this Court continuing to try jury trials, and requested that the case be bound over to the State Court of Fulton County, GA. The motion was denied. Mr. Head sought an emergency discretionary appeal to the Court of Appeals, which was first granted his request to hear the appeal, but later was withdrawn. Mr. Head was then confronted with either going to trial and LATER appealing the decision if his client was convicted, or pleading guilty to DUI. The problem with fighting the DUI at trial for W.K. is that if Mr. Head risked exposing his defenses, and WON, the Prosecutor had the ability to argue that the City Court of Atlanta lacked "subject matter" jurisdiction, and START OVER in the State Court of Fulton County. Mr. Head decided that only one path would work: do nothing at trial, and guarantee (that if the appeal did not work) W.K. would be granted a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The local legal newspaper made the case front page news, because Mr. Head was considered to be a tenacious litigator. Here, Mr. Head did absolutley nothing to defend W.K., all with W.K.'s prior approval. Naturally, W.K. was convicted. Mr, Head immediately appealed the loss, which was a matter of right, not discretion. Mr. Head then hired former Georgia Attorney General Mike Bowers and his Partner Josh Archer (both of the firm Balch & Bingham) to sue the City of Atlanta on behalf of W.K. and about a dozen other clients of Mr. Head's. On June 30, 2005, Judge Stephanie Manis ruled that Mr. Head and W.K. were correct, and that the City Court of Atlanta ceased to exist December 31, 2004. W.K.'s conviction was vacated (overturned) and he walked away with no DUI conviction. Mr. Head's strategy was successful, although the local legal rag, The Fulton County Daily Report seemd to revel in the fact that the DUI specialist did nothing to defend his client. When Judge Manis made her ruling, Mr. Head took a certified copy to the Fulton County Daily Report, to ask them to repot the conclusion of that case. They refused to publish even ONE LINE of newsprint to show that the City was found to be in the wrong, and Mr. Head was correct. Since that time, Mr. Head has refused to subscribe to, read or give interviews with the Fulton County Daily Report. All of Mr. Head's clients won all of their cases, due to the Prosecutor of the City Court of Atlanta's intractable and arrogant attitude about "their interpretation" of the 2004 Legislation.

DUI and DWI

City of Atlanta v. M.I.

Jun 30, 2005

OUTCOME: Court Lacked Jurisdiction for Jury Trials

The City of Atlanta underwent an efficiency ananlysis in 2002 and 2003. As a result of the study, a recommendation was put forward to shut down their special constitutional "state" court, which was ca ... lled The City Court of Atlanta. This court was given special constitutional authority to conduct misdemeanor JURY trials on any traffic law cases that arose in the City of Atlanta. The legislation was sponsored by the Mayor and Council and was passed in the 2004 Legislature. The wording of the statute was horrific, but Mr. Head came to the conclusion that the City Court of Atlanta ceased to exist December 31, 2004. Nevertheless, the prosecutor of the court kept sending out court notices for jury trials, and M.I. (one of Mr. Head's clients) was notified to be ready for trial in January of 2005. Mr. Head filed numerous challenges to the legality of this Court continuing to try jury trials, and requested that the case be bound over to the State Court of Fulton County, GA. The motion was denied. Mr. Head sought an emergency discretionary appeal to the Court of Appeals, which was first granted his request to hear the appeal, but later was withdrawn. Mr. Head was then confronted with either going to trial and LATER appealing the decision if his client was convicted, or pleading guilty to DUI. The problem with fighting the DUI at trial for M.I. is that if Mr. Head risked exposing his defenses, and WON, the Prosecutor had the ability to argue that the City Court of Atlanta lacked "subject matter" jurisdiction, and START OVER in the State Court of Fulton County. Mr. Head decided that only one path would work: do nothing at trial, and guarantee (that if the appeal did not work) M.I. would be granted a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The local legal newspaper made the case front page news, because Mr. Head was considered to be a tenacious litigator. Here, Mr. Head did absolutley nothing to defend M.I., all with M.I.'s prior approval. Naturally, M.I. was convicted. Mr, Head immediately appealed the loss, which was a matter of right, not discretion. Mr. Head then hired former Georgia Attorney General Mike Bowers and his Partner Josh Archer (both of the firm Balch & Bingham) to sue the City of Atlanta on behalf of M.I. and about a dozen other clients of Mr. Head's. On June 30, 2005, Judge Stephanie Manis ruled that Mr. Head was correct, and that the City Court of Atlanta ceased to exist December 31, 2004. M.I.'s conviction was vacated (overturned) and he walked away with no DUI conviction. Mr. Head's strategy was successful, although the local legal rag, The Fulton County Daily Report seemd to revel in the fact that the DUI specialist did nothing to defend his client. When Judge Manis made her ruling, Mr. Head took a certified copy to the Fulton County Daily Report, to ask them to repot the conclusion of that case. They refused to publish even ONE LINE of print to show that the City was wrong, and Mr. Head was correct. Since that time, Mr. Head has refused to subscribe to, read or give interviews with the Fulton County Daily Report. All of Mr. Head's clients won all of their cases, due to the Prosecutor of the City Court of Atlanta's intractable and arrogant attitude about "their interpretation" of the 2004 Legislation.

DUI and DWI

Wreck into Retaining Wall and 0.23 Blood Test - Acquitted of DUI at Trial

Nov 16, 2004

OUTCOME: Not Guilty - Wreck and 0.23 Blood Test

On April 4, 2003, V.D.K. was driving along a rainy Sandy Plains Road in Cobb County, GA on her way home from having after-dinner drinks with a fellow employee when she lost control of her 2001 Toyota i ... n the rain. When another car veered into her lane, her car careened off the guardrail to the right, hydroplaned to the left across the grass median and the oncoming traffic lanes and ended up with the front end against a concrete retaining wall. It was about 7:30 PM when the police were called to the scene of the accident. By the time police arrived, V.D.K. had flagged down a passing motorist for help. This woman took her home, a distance of a couple of miles. The arresting officer came to the accident location and found that the driver had departed. He gave police dispatch the tag number of the wrecked vehicle, and the police dispatched a second officer to her home. There, the second officer found V.D.K. walking around from the back yard of her home to the front door of her home. He asked her if she had been involved in a wreck. She said she had. He then told her she needed to come back to the scene with him. She went back to the scene, at his insistence. At the roadway again, the first officer attempted to get her to perform some field sobriety tests, which she declined, based on advice she had received from her attorney for her last DUI arrest. The officer arrested her despite the fact that she did not attempt to perform field evaluations. The officer then read her the Georgia implied consent advisements. She stated that she wanted a blood test. The officer asked for blood and urine, which she agreed to take. She was then taken to Cobb County jail, where she was later able to post bond and be released. The blood test came back from the GBI several months later as a 0.23 BAC. The legal standard was 0.08 at the time of her arrest. V.D.K.'s two prior DUI offenses within 5 years meant that a guilty plea or a trial loss would take away her driver's license for 5 years. Mr. Head advised her to elect a bench trial. At this bench trial, V.D.K. did not testify. On September 18th, 2003, she was found not guilty by the trial judge when Mr. Head was able to block the blood test results from being admitted due to a flaw in the chain of custody. V.D,K. was found guilty of leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage and fined by the judge and placed on probation. She served no additional jail time at all, despite an original recommendation by the prosecutor (if she would plead GUILTY) of jail time for 12 months, based on her horrible prior driving history. The judge assigned to this court was out, and pro hac vice judge Melinda Taylor was sitting as judge, by designation.

DUI and DWI

Rear End Collision Injures Elderly Couple; Blood Test Results for Driver are 0.096 - Trial Required when No Reduction Possible

Sep 21, 2004

OUTCOME: Not Guilty of Both Counts of DUI; Jury Excused

A highly-paid Sales Executive [M.H.] from Hall County was returning home from a dinner with his wife, who had met him after work at a Gwinnett County sushi restaurant. She was in her own vehicle, and ... M.H. was behind her as they started home at about 8:45 PM going northbound on I-985. They were both traveling at about 65 m.p.h. M.H. decided to call his daughter, who was away at College. As he tried to scroll through the numbers on his new Treo phone, he did not notice that his wife made a quick lane change ahead of him. He glanced up to see why she made that lane change and was looking at the rear of a very slow-moving pick-up truck, loaded down with furniture as it proceeded at a crawl along the interstate highway. He barely was able to reach the brake pedal when he slammed into the rear of the pick-up truck. Both his vehicle and the old pick-up were totalled. The two people in the pick-up were over 70 years of age, and both were injured sufficiently to require a trip to the hospital that evening. The prosecutor in the case was not at all interested in any type of negotiated plea that did not include a DUI conviction. So, Mr. Head filed 13 separate motions for pre-trial discovery, for production (by the GBI) of all blood testing records and chain-of-custody information generated from this blood testing, and for suppression of certain items of evidence. Mr. Head hired an investigator to look into the details of the crash, a medical doctor to review the videotape of M.H.'s symptoms and behavior at the accident scene and an expert forensic witness to review the blood test evidence. Prior to trial, pre-trial motions were conducted & several attempts (on various legal theories) were made to exclude the blood test results & also some of the field sobriety evidence. None of these motions were successful. The trial was on. When Judge Roberts asked if both sides were "ready" for trial, Mr. Head conditioned his answer by saying, "Assuming that the State has provided all the requested discovery, we are ready." The assistant solicitor stated to the Court that the State had complied. So, the trial started. In the afternoon of the second full day of trial, things were not too favorable for the defense. The elderly "victims" had provided compelling testimony about their lack of fault when driving, and the difficulty of them dealing with their injuries. From the look on the jurors' faces, the outcome was not looking positive. Then, as the Prosecutor started laying its foundation for the introduction of the blood results, the female GBI laboratory person utilized some papers as she testified about the methods or analysis, collection of the blood, etc. Mr. Head interrupted her, and asked Judge Roberts to allow him to see the notes that she was using. The judge granted the request, and Mr. Head immediately saw that this was UNDISCLOSED information that had been kept from him prior to trial. Mr. Head immediately asked for a hearing outside the presence of the jury. Judge Roberts excused the jurors for a break, and took up the objection and motion of Mr. Head to exclude the blood results, due to a violation of the discovery rules. A key Georgia Supreme Court case, Price v. State (1998) covered the point precisely. Plus, Mr. Head had made sure that he had developed good records of TRYING to obtain this data, to avoid a subsequent appellate ruling (Birdsall v. State) that limited the "reach" of the Price case. Judge Roberts kept the jury out for over 2 hours, as the parties argued various legal and factual points. Finally, Judge Roberts excluded the blood results, despite the objections of the Solicitor and 4 assistant solicitors. That ruling ended the DUI-per se case. Next, Mr. Head asked Judge Roberts to excuse the jurors because the assistant prosecutor had tainted their decision-making by disclosing the blood results in opening. He did so. Judge Roberts heard the remainder of the trial and acquitted M.H. of DUI.

Criminal defense

Vehicular Homicide [Felony] of a Pedestrian, 0.22 Blood Alcohol Test; Client Walks Away from All Charges

Jul 12, 2004

OUTCOME: Ex-College Student Watches GA-FLA Game & Drives

A former UGA student watched the 2003 Georgia-Florida game on television with friends, and then drove intoxicated. He was supposed to stay the night at the friend's home. The police found the vehicle ... (with the Client driving it) more than 2 miles away, and not traveling in the direction that would have been AWAY from the scene. The "911" calls had the driver's description and race wrong, as well as the type and color of the SUV wrong. More importantly, no one who was at the scene got a tag number to give to police. At pre-trial motions, the late Judge Rowland Barnes ruled that the traffic stop of Mr. Head's client was illegally made, because the police would have stopped any SUV. The entire case was dismissed.

Appeals

Trial Judge Illegally Restricts Defense Witness's Testimony; Mr. Head Gets DUI Reversed on Appeal

Jan 31, 2004

OUTCOME: DUI Dropped After Judge's Trial Errors Cited

A pro hac vice (temporary) judge had blocked a key defense witness from testifying at K.J.'s trial. Mr. Head perfected the court record and immediately appealed. The DUI conviction was set aside. K. ... J. later had the DUI charge dropped entirely and entered a plea on a lesser offense, thereby saving his license and his job. The full citation of the case is: 260 Ga.App. 536, 580 S.E.2d 334, 03 FCDR 1206 [March 26, 2003 (No. A02A1662)].

DUI and DWI

0.211 Breath Test and Video of Driver Begging to Be Let Go, Yet Acquitted at Trial

Nov 24, 2003

OUTCOME: Not Guilty Despite 0.211 Breath Test & Speeding

In May of 2003, a petite 33-year old corporate executive was on her way home after 1:00 AM along Highway 92 in the City of Woodstock (Cherokee County) after an company party. She was speeding when the ... officer clocked her on radar. Her traffic stop was recorded on video tape by the sergeant handling the case. Initially, the officer was only going to issue a warning ticket for speeding, but noticed that the tag had just expired. In asking her about this, he noticed the smell of alcohol on her breath. He next asked her to get out of the car so he could â€œevaluateâ€ her. The first roadside screening test he offered was the Alco-Sensor, a hand-held detector breath alcohol device. He held up the digital read-out, showing her the 0.25 reading on the screen. Next, he began the instruction phase for the walk and turn field test. After she started to perform this evaluation prematurely, he had her go back and wait until he finished his instructions. As he tried to give her the instructions, she stepped out of the â€œstanceâ€ he had her standing in, and told him, â€œI canâ€™t do these tests.â€ He offered other tests, such as the alphabet test, and she said, â€œI canâ€™t do any tests. I shouldnâ€™t be driving, but I could not find a ride home.â€ She asked him to help her get home. The officer then arrested her, commenting to his back-up officer, â€œIt doesnâ€™t get any better than that!â€ Her Intoxilyzer 5000 tests showed a reading of 0.211 (the lower of two sample exhalations) from tests taken approximately 40 minutes after the traffic stop. A bench trial was selected, based on the fact that the Uniform Traffic Citation was drawn to only accuse the per se DUI offense (for driving while having an unlawful blood alcohol level above 0.08 grams). We did not challenge the tag expiration nor the speeding. Due to erroneous and misleading statements made by the officer --- shown on video --- after giving the â€œimplied consentâ€ to Client on the video tape, Mr. Head was able to get the Stateâ€™s entire breath test result excluded by the trial judge in the middle of trial. Because the per se DUI case depended entirely upon the test result being admitted into evidence, the trial judge had no choice but to find her â€œnot guiltyâ€ of DUI. She was fined $62.50 for speeding, and the fine was waived for the tag problem, since she paid the renewal prior to coming to court.

DUI and DWI

0.199 Breath Test Overturned on Appeal - Reason for Stop: Weaving along I-20 Eastbound

Feb 27, 2003

OUTCOME: Conviction Overturned - 0.199 Test thrown OUT

Mr. Head defended a female Client from Alabama who was on her way to Georgia to visit her fiance when she was stopped in Douglas County, Georgia along I-20. She was stopped for weaving. The officer sme ... lled alcohol, so he administered some field evaluations and then placed her under arrest. A breath test at the police station revealed two breath readings, the lower of which was 0.199. Mr. Head filed pre-trials motions and asked for a bench (non-jury) trial. The case had started in the Probate Court of Douglas County (prior to the creation of the Douglas County State Court). Mr. Head moved it to a jury trial court in Superior Court, where the bench trial was later requested. At trial, despite Mr. Head's motions to exclude the breath test results, the trial judge allowed the test results to be included in the evidence, over the defense objection. Mr. Head's Client, naturally, was convicted. Mr. Head immediately appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals saw the clear errors made by the Superior Court judge, David Emerson. The case is reported at 258 Ga.App. 411, 574 S.E.2d 451 (2002). The arresting officer had made three errors in giving the Client her advisements. First, he erroneously that her that if she refused to take the test, and â€œ[i]f the results indicate ten or more,â€ her license may be suspended. The actual number was 0.10 grams, not 10. After this explanation, Mr. Head's Client again told Officer Holcomb she was not sure if she understood â€œexactly what you said,â€ and subsequently indicated, â€œyou have very much confused me.â€ Officer Holcomb informed her that she had two choices, to take the test or not take the test, in which case â€œyou're automatically charged with DUI and your license [is] going to be suspended.â€ Also, the officer was told by Mr. Head's Client that she was confused (and understandably so), yet he never corrected his misstatements. An officer is required to make corrections in any misstatements. Mr Head argued on appeal that it was reversible error to include the results of the state-administered test because the implied consent warning was misleading, inaccurate, and coercive. The videotape of the stop and arrest showed that when Officer Holcomb read the implied consent warning, he overstated the legal limit indicating that it was 10 grams instead of 0.10 grams of alcohol concentration. The record further showed that after [Client] indicated she did not understand the implied consent, Officer Holcomb again incorrectly advised [Client] that the legal limit was 10 grams instead of 0.10 grams. Moreover, Officer Holcomb also gave [Client] incorrect information concerning the consequences if she refused to take the test. The transcript shows that Officer Holcomb initially correctly informed [Client], who held an Alabama driver's license, that her Georgia driver's license or privilege to drive on the highways of this state would be suspended for one year if she did not submit to the state's test, but during his subsequent explanation of her rights stated, â€œ[s]o your second choice is to ... not ... take that test. And once you do that, you're automatically charged with a DUI and your license [is] going to be suspended.â€ [Client] then agreed to take the test. This was also error. After all was said and done, all DUI charges were dropped, and Mr. Head's Client avoided getting convicted of DUI despite what seemed to be an insurmountable case.

DUI and DWI

SB v. State - After 5 Separate Appeals and 6 Years, Mr. Head Gets the DUI Case Dismissed, and Alabama Client Returns Home

Feb 25, 2003

OUTCOME: Tenacious Defense Efforts Ultimately Win DUI Case

SB was a Client from Alabama who simply could not have a DUI on his record and maintain his job and professional status. His breath tests were both above a 0.120 reading, and the Prosecutor would not ... offer any reduced charge. Mr. Head retained top expert witnesses for the case and conducted numerous hearings at which a variety of motions seeking to either end the case or eliminate the State's evidence. The appeals pertained to direct appeals that attacked the length of time the case took to get to trial, and (after a trial loss) appealed the Prosecutor's misconduct during closing arguments (which the Trial Judge failed to correct with the jury) and had the Supreme Court overturn the conviction. All in all, the Client had FIVE appeals of one type or another pursued at the appellate level by Mr. Head for SB. The case started March 14, 1997 and ended nearly 6 full years later with the DUI charge being dropped and a lesser plea entered on February 25, 2003. The appeals are noted at length in 257 Ga.App. 474, 571 S.E.2d 393 (2002). The earlier appellate records are at 237 Ga.App. 195, 514 S.E.2d 32 (1999); 242 Ga.App.552, 530 S.E.2d 254 (2000); 249 Ga.App XXVI (2001) [An unreported appeal]; and 271 Ga. 1, 525 S.E.2d 690 (2000) [This is the Georgia Supreme Court's reversal of SB's conviction]. Because Mr. Head's fees are charged as FLAT FEES, SB did not have to pay for 5 different appeals. He paid one fee for the trial of his case and one fee for appeals. SB also had to to pay for transcripts and costs, but Mr. Head pursued this case relentlessly until the Prosecution finally gave up.

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

The Avvo Rating explained