Pataskala vs J.H.
Oct 03, 2013OUTCOME: Not Guilty
J.H. stopped for speeding after attending a concert. Arrested and charged for OVI. He refused breath testing.
Robert Edward Calesaric's Legal Cases (12)
Newark, OH
DUI and DWI Lawyer at Newark, OH
Practice Areas: DUI & DWI, Criminal Defense
State v JH
Jan 01, 2013OUTCOME: Not Guilty
Client pulled over for speeding after attending a concert. He refused chemical testing. Jury found him not guilty in less than an hour.
State v. D.C.
Jan 01, 2012OUTCOME: Dimissed
Wreck at high speeds on I70. Delay between crash and OVI investigation. Bad SFST. Refusal. Hung jury on OVI and guilty on failure to control at trial and then OVI subsequently dismissed.
Pataskala v. C.R.
Jan 01, 2012OUTCOME: Not Guilty
Client charged with operating a commercial vehicle in restricted area.
Pataskala v Houck
Dec 01, 2011OUTCOME: Appeal of trial court granting suppression affirmed. Case dismissed.
Def pulled over for marked lanes violation. Court disagreed and appellate court affirmed. Case dismissed.
State v. Blair
Jul 11, 2011OUTCOME: Dismissed prior to trial
OSP made stop. Defendant tested .099. Test thrown out at suppression hearing.
State v. R.O.
Oct 20, 2010OUTCOME: Dismissed prior to trial
Charged with aggravated vehicular assault. Investigated case and put together alibi defense.
State v Whitt
Jan 01, 2010OUTCOME: case dismissed
D charged with ovi after blood test. We filed a motion to suppress which was denied. Appealed the trial court's decision. Appellate court held sample was obtained without voluntary consent. Sample su ... ppressed.
State v. WA
N/AOUTCOME: Case dismissed.
Defendant originally charged with a number of felonies and misdemeanors. After an intensive investigation the felonies were dismissed and the case re-filed only as misdemeanors. We filed a number of ... motions to suppress and dismiss which were overruled. We appealed and won. All charges including the original traffic charges were dismissed.
State v. DS
N/AOUTCOME: Not Guilty
DS was alleged to have attempted to sufficate his wife in front of witnesses. At trial it was proven that the witnesses were bias and could not have observed what they thought they did.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
