Skip to main content
Norman Scott Stewart

Norman Stewart’s Legal Cases

13 total


  • State v. B.V.S., case number 4Z0130894

    Practice Area:
    DUI and DWI
    Date:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Outcome:
    Jury Verdict, Not Guilty
    Description:
    My client was charged with Driving Under the Influence. The arresting Trooper claimed that a citizen pointed him out driving south on Interstate 5 near Boeing Field. The trooper pulled behind B.V.S. and began videotaping his driving. He alleged weaving, including crossing into other lanes, driving at variable speeds, and being slow to respond to emergency lights. My client's breath test results were .11 and .12 , We filed multiple motions to suppress evidence. The case ultimately went to trial where I pointed out discrepancies between the video and the officer's testimony. The above is not intended as legal advice or as a guarantee of the outcome of any future case. This is because every case has unique facts, and no one can ever guarantee results.
  • State v. H.R.G., case number 4Z087148

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jul 13, 2015
    Outcome:
    Case Dismissed
    Description:
    H.R.G. was alleged to have rear ended another vehicle while driving on the freeway. The prosecution further alleged that she provided false information to the other driver and left. When another driver attempted to prevent her from leaving, the prosecution alleged that H.R.G. ran into the other vehicle as well. The above is not intended as legal advice or as a guarantee of the outcome of any future case. This is because every case has unique facts, and no one can ever guarantee results.
  • City v. A.L., Case No. 10L1519

    Practice Area:
    DUI and DWI
    Date:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Outcome:
    Jury Verdict, Not Guilty
    Description:
    Scott Stewart represented A.L. at a jury trial in municipal court on a charge of Driving Under the influence. The alleged breath test was .267/.266. A.L. had originally been stopped by a law enforcement officer with limited DUI experience.. The officer believed that A.L. might be under the influence and requested assistance from an experienced DUI officer. A second officer arrived at the scene and took over the investigation. This officer was a drug recognition expert. After conducting a horizxontal gaze nystagmus test, the second officer testified that he believed that A.L. was too drunk to perform additional field sobriety tests. He arrested A.L. and took him to the police station. At the station A.L. submitted to the breath test with the above indicated results of .266/.267. Scott was able to get the expert witness called by the city to testify as to a number of additional tests that could have been performed by the officer to confirm the breathtest result. He ultimately argued to the jury that the officer's observations of the defendant were more consistent with the 2 beers that A.L. admitted to having consumed, than the 14 beers indicated by the BAC. During this argument, Scott noted that the jury should not accept the prosecution's position that they should just trust the officer's opinion. He emphasized everything that the defendant had done correctly on the night of the arrest and argued that it raised reasonable doubt. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
  • State v. T.M., case number CR43108KC

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Outcome:
    Dismissed With Prejudice
    Description:
    In September 2010 Scott Stewart represented T.M. on a charge of Driving With License Suspended in the First Degree in District Court. T.M. was facing 10 to 365 days in jail, and a loss of license until 2016. The arresting officer had stopped T.M. after running his license plate and learning that there was a warrant for someone resembling the driver of the vehicle that was attached to the license plate number. Scott brought a motion to dismiss arguing that the evidence was insufficient to provide a legitimate basis for stopping the vehicle. The judge agreed and the charge was dismissed, with prejudice. The above is not intended as legal advice or as a guarantee of the outcome of any future case. This is because every case has unique facts, and no one can ever guarantee results.
  • City v. J.M., case number K00081276

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Outcome:
    Jury Verdict, Not Guilty
    Description:
    In July 2010 Scott Stewart represented J.M. at a jury trial in Municipal Court on charges of Criminal Trespass. J.M. was accused of being intoxicated and returning to a nightclub's property after having been told that he was trespassed from the property by law enforcement officers. Scott argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the officer's had the authority to trespass J.M. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The above is not intended as legal advice or as a guarantee of the outcome of any future case. This is because every case has unique facts, and no one can ever guarantee results.
  • State v. C.F.C., case number CR39824KC

    Practice Area:
    DUI and DWI
    Date:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Outcome:
    Jury Verdict, Not Guilty
    Description:
    Scott Stewart represented C.F.C. at a jury trial in District Court on a charge of Driving Under the Influence arising out of a 2009 arrest. The arresting officer testified that C.F.C. was observed weaving, including crossing over into the oncoming lane, and that he came to an abrupt stop. When the officer approached C.F.C.'s window he was on the phone asking that someone come and "pick up his dog" in apparent anticipation of being arrested. C.F.C. had difficulty getting out of the vehicle, and stumbled as he walked to the front of the vehicle. In the truck the officer located a glass containing a ice and a mixed alcoholic drink. C.F.C. refused to perform the field sobriety tests. The officer testified that C.F.C. was argumentative throughout the contact, accusing the officer of stealing large amounts of money, damaging his truck, and being worth less than C.F.C.'s truck. C.F.C. ultimately refused to submit to a breath test. As he was being transported to the jail he commented that he was 46 years old and kept "fucking up." The defense successfully challenged the refusal to submit to the field sobriety tests and pointed out all behaviors of C.F.C. that were consistent with sobriety. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Sigificantly, when C.F.C. retained Scott he had an open DUI from 2004 in review status, and a pending 2006 DUI in warrant status. Scott was able to convince the court to close the 2004 charge with no additional penalty. He obtained a dismissal of the 2006 charge.
  • State v. D.S., case number 09-1-02490-8

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Outcome:
    Jury verdict, Not Guilty on all counts
    Description:
    Scott represented D.S. at a jury trial in Superior Court on charges of Attempted Rape and Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had attempted to rape his girlfriend and that, when he was prevented from doing so by her mother, he broke a drinking glass, creating a "shank" which he then used to stab her mother. Witnesses for the prosecution included three King County Deputy Sheriffs, an Emergency Medical Technician and the alleged victim. The prosecution also introduced photographs of the crime scene and injuries, as well as the broken glass, a 911 recording and the defendant's torn shirt. The only witness for the defense was the defendant himself. The jury returned verdicts of Not Guilty on both the Attempted Rape and Assault with a Deadly Weapon charges, as well as the lesser included charge of Assault in the Fourth Degree. The above is not intended as legal advice or as a guarantee of the outcome of any future case. This is because every case has unique facts, and no one can ever guarantee results.
  • City v. D.W., case number 9L0000383

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Outcome:
    Directed Verdict of Dismissal
    Description:
    Scott Stewart represented D.W. at a jury trial in Municipal Court on one count of Assault Domestic Violence. The prosecution's witnesses included a law enforcement officer and three civilian witnesses. Scott moved for a directed verdict at the conclusion on the prosecution's evidence and the trial judge dismissed all charges. The above is not intended as legal advice or as a guarantee of the outcome of any future case. This is because every case has unique facts, and no one can ever guarantee results.
  • City v. M.B., case number K69547

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Outcome:
    Jury Verdict, Not Guilty
    Description:
    The witnesses for the city included four civilian witnesses and two police officers. The defendant was alleged to have assaulted his elderly father-in-law during an exchange of his child pursuant to a custody agreement. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The above is not intended as legal advice or as a guarantee of the outcome of any future case. This is because every case has unique facts, and no one can ever guarantee results.
  • City v. T.H., case number CR0018573

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Outcome:
    Jury Verdict, Not Guilty
    Description:
    Scott Stewart represented T.H. at a jury trial on a Reckless Driving charge in Seatac Municipal Court. T.H. was accused of driving his motorcycle at speeds of 100 miles per hour and popping a wheelie, resulting in a major traffic accident. The jury found T.H. Not Guilty. T.H. later retained Scott on a personal injury accident arising out of the same accident. In January 2010, Scott settled the claim on behalf of T.H. for $75,000.00. The above is not intended as legal advice or as a guarantee of the outcome of any future case. This is because every case has unique facts, and no one can ever guarantee results.