Cincinnati, OH
DUI and DWI Lawyer at Cincinnati, OH
Practice Areas: DUI & DWI, Personal Injury, Criminal Defense
OUTCOME: Defendant's win affirmed
Defendant had entered a plea to fleeing and evading. That plea, three years later, resulted in his deportation. Defendant successfully argued to have the plea withdrawn and defended the same in the c ... ourt of appeals resulting in a 9-page published opinion by the court
OUTCOME: Defense win
Appeal of the ALS. Trial court denied appeal because client did not testify. Officer testified that client tried to produce a urine sample but couldn't. Court of appeals reversed trial court.
OUTCOME: Client acquitted
Client charged with high-tier breath test. Multiple issues/errors with machine. Trial court suppressed result, court of appeals revered. Case proceeded to trial. Client acquitted of high-tier breat ... h test charge.
OUTCOME: Trial court suppressed test results
First trial court case in Hamilton County to suppress the results of an Intoxication 8000.
OUTCOME: Not guilty on all DUI charges
Client involved in an auto accident where he left the road and struck a pedestrian. No serious injuries, but client was charged with DUI. The officer contradicted her prior testimony and client had s ... ome medical conditions that him to appear intoxicated.
OUTCOME: Not guilty on all DUI charges
Defendant involved in an auto accident, rolled his vehicle, and was taken to the hospital. He was charged with DUI for being impaired and over the legal limit. The blood test result was suppressed be ... cause the state failed to comply wtih the testing regulations. The case went to trial on the impaired charge and a not guilty verdict was handed down.
OUTCOME: DUI breath test charge dismissed
The defendant was arrested for DUI after crashing his car and failing several field sobriety tests. The defendat was taken back to the police department where he was asked to submit to a breath test. ... He submitted and the result was .134. Defense counsel filed a motion to preserve evidence including video recordings made at the scene and police station. The police department destroyed the tapes as part of their standard recylcing procedures. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges becuase the state failed to preserve evidence. A hearing was conducted and the trial court granted the motion to dismiss. The state appealed. In a unanimous decision, the First District Court of Appeals held, The trial court properly dismissed a charge against the defendant of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited breath-alcohol level: The state had destroyed a videotape that the defendant had specifically moved to preserve, depicting matters disputed at the hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress his intoxilyzer results. The videotape's destruction shifted the burden ordinarily imposed on the defendant, to show that requested evidence was materially exculpatory, to the state, to show that the evidence was only inculpatory. And the state failed to meet its burden. www.suhrelaw.com http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-1568.pdf