Not Guilty/Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – Felony Using a Minor in Drug Offense – State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 18380) FEB 29, 2024 – Yavapai County Superior Court (Case No. CR2023-00262) 

Mr. P had a ranch in which he had several tenants living for free in various dwellings.  After he got into an argument with one of his tenants, he evicted her and her daughter.  After that, her daughter claimed that Mr. P provided her some of his prescription drugs.  Specifically, she stated “can I have some of your Tramadol,” and he said “sure.”  He was subsequently charged with one count of a Felony Using a Minor in a Drug Offense.

At Jury Trial, our defenses were that the purpose of the statute was to stop adults from using kids in drug transactions, such as acting as a drug dealer’s mule/runner/seller/etc.  Because of this, we stated that the elements of the offense were not met.  Our second argument was that regarding the possession of the drugs themselves, there was no actual drugs found.  There was no testing of any drugs, no photos of any drugs, or photos of any pill bottles.  All there was, was testimony of “I was given a pill.”

After the State was done presenting their evidence in front of the Jury, we moved for a Rule 20 Directed Verdict Motion to the Judge, and the Judge agreed that the State had not met the burden of proof.  He granted a Directed Verdict of Not Guilty and Dismissed all charges against Mr. P at that time.  Mr. P was potentially looking at being a convicted Felon for the rest of his life, and now he has nothing on his record.

Not Guilty/Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – Super Extreme DUI (.358 BAC) Extreme DWI, DUI, DWI, Resisting Arrest, and Open Container in a Vehicle – State v. Ms. N (DMC No. 18195) NOV 8, 2023 – Agua Fria Justice Court (Case No. TR2022-113429)

DPS Troopers indicated that they were travelling eastbound on the I-10 when they claim to have seen Ms. N’s vehicle drive onto the emergency shoulder with half of her vehicle on three separate times.  When they ultimately pulled her over, they said that she put her vehicle in Reverse instead of Park, and almost backed into their police vehicle.  Once she rolled down the windows, the Officers indicated she appeared to have slurred speech, watery and bloodshot eyes, and a strong odor of alcohol.  Ms. N had indicated she was driving a rental vehicle, and was not familiar with how it regularly drove.

Field Sobriety Tests were begun, but they were terminated quickly, as the Trooper felt it would be unsafe to conduct these on the side of the roadway.  When she was placed under arrest, as she was being handcuffed, the Trooper claimed she tried to pull away, and so he used an “OCCS wrist lock technique.”  Once she was placed under arrest, an open bottle of alcohol was found in her car.  She was then taken down to the Police Station where a breath test was administered, which resulted in .358 BAC (over 4 times the legal limit).

At Jury Trial, we were able to argue that the reading was outside of two hours of driving, and that the breath testing device had various flaws.  In addition, the Resisting Arrest charge was very suspect, and the State could not prove knowledge of the open bottle of alcohol in Ms. N’s car.  Ultimately, the Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on all charges – which is highly unusual for a reading this high.

Not Guilty/Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – DUI (.076 BAC) – State v. Mr. L (DMC No. 18167) NOV 6, 2023 – West Mesa Justice Cour (Case No. TR2022-146990)

Mr. L. was travelling at 92 miles per hour on the eastbound 202, when he was pulled over by a Trooper.  When asked why he was driving so fast, Mr. L. responded, “I feel like everyone wants to race.”  He also admitted to drinking a glass of wine with dinner at Maple & Oak restaurant in Scottsdale.

He was subsequently given Field Sobriety tests, even though he told the Officer that he had recently had foot surgery, eye surgery, and had broken his back in the past.  On the tests involving walking or standing on one leg, he did not perform well.  However, on the finger-to-nose test and the finger count test, he performed perfectly.  He was subsequently taken to the station where a Search Warrant was issued and two vials of his blood were drawn.  His Blood Alcohol Concentration was shown to be a .076.

At Jury Trial, we were able to show that Mr. L was not “drag racing,” or driving in a reckless manner.  In addition, we were able to show that he lacked signs and symptoms of alcohol impairment.  His poor performance on the standing and walking Field Sobriety Tests had to do with his previous surgeries and broken back issue.  Ultimately, the Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on all charges.

Not Guilty/Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – DUI and DWI (.130 BAC) – State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 18084) OCT 19, 2023 – Phoenix City Court (Case No. 5670391)

Mr. M had parked behind a Quik Trip convenience store because he was feeling sick, as he had been working 7 days a week.  Subsequently, a security guard saw him sleeping in his vehicle, and he called the Police.  When the Police arrived, they found that Mr. C was a Spanish speaker, had a strong odor of alcohol, and watery, bloodshot eyes.  They had him conduct Field Sobriety Tests, in which they stated he performed poorly.

He was subsequently transported down to the Police Station, and a Spanish-speaking officer was called in in order to inform him of his duty to provide a blood test.  A blood test was ultimately obtained, and a reading of .130 Blood Alcohol Concentration was found.

At trial, we were ultimately able to show that the Officer had actually cited Mr. C with having a blood alcohol concentration above a .20 (Super Extreme DWI), and above a .150 (Extreme DWI).  This was based on their assumptions and their observations.  However, the actual reading came in much lower, and we were able to show the Jury that the Officer who instructed Mr. C on the Field Sobriety Tests did so in English, and not in Spanish.  Lastly, we showed that Mr. C was not in Actual Physical Control of his vehicle, but was merely using it as a temporary shelter in order to sleep until he felt better.  The Jury ultimately returned a verdict of Not Guilty on all charges.

Not Guilty/Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – DUI and DWI (.120 BAC) – State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 18396) MAY 17, 2023 – Gilbert City Court (Case No. 2021-CT-0010576)

Mr. M had worked out previously in the morning in order to train for the triathlon.  He had conducted a 26-mile run and a 10-mile swim that day.  He then went and met up with his friends at Whiskey Row, and was driving home in his friend’s car with a young lady he had met who was in the passenger seat.  Because he was not familiar with the car, he only had the running lights on, and not the headlights.

He was ultimately pulled over by a Police Officer solely for the reason of not having his headlights illuminated.  He did very well on the Field Sobriety Tests, and when he was asked to provide a breath sample on the Preliminary Breath Test on the roadside, he refused (which was his right).  He was subsequently arrested and taken to the Police Station.

While he was at the station, he was asked to provide a blood sample voluntarily and he refused.  The Officers eventually obtained a Search Warrant and drew his blood.  His blood came back with a .120 Blood Alcohol Concentration, roughly an hour and a half after he had been driving.  During the Jury Trial, evidence was presented of his sobriety during the Field Sobriety Testing, and that he had had drinks just prior to leaving the bar, and before being pulled over by the Officer.  Our Expert was able to show he was below the legal limit at the time he was driving, and he subsequently elevated to a .120 by the time they had drawn his blood.  In addition, the Expert testified that the temperature was not properly maintained on the blood testing device, and the entire reading could be suspect.  The Jury returned a Not Guilty verdict in less than one hour, and Mr. M was not convicted of any criminal offenses.

Not Guilty/Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – (2 Counts) Felony Aggravated DUI (2 Counts) Felony Aggravated DWI (.397 BAC) (with 2 Prior Felony Convictions) –State v. Mr. H (DMC No. 17258) — JUL 29, 2022 – (Pinal County Superior Court No. CR2020-01995):

Mr. H had a troubled past with alcohol, and had been previously convicted of two Felony Aggravated DUIs.  The last time he was convicted he served 6 years in prison.  After being released, he maintained a period of sobriety for quite a while before he had a relapse.  In this particular case, he had consumed alcohol and was found inside of a car parked in a residential driveway, with the engine off, and his hazard lights flashing.  He was asleep at the time.

The Officers woke him up and conducted a DUI investigation.  He was subsequently arrested for this third Felony Aggravated DUI (due to the fact that his license was still suspended), and a provided blood sample which revealed a .397 BAC.  He was ultimately charged with Felony Aggravated DUI, and he faced 6 to 15 years in prison, with a 10-year presumptive sentence.  He then retained our Firm with the help of his elderly mother.

Under the law, there is a defense for Actual Physical Control if a person voluntarily relinquishes control of their vehicle, pulls all the way off the roadway, and merely uses their car as temporary shelter.  The Pinal County Prosecutor was unreasonable in this case, and refused to acknowledge this defense.  At Trial, we were able to show that the first time the vehicle was seen in that particular driveway was 6 hours before the Police made contact.  It was next seen 3 hours later, and ultimately the Police made contact 6 hours after the first sighting of the vehicle.  At trial they were not able to show whether Mr. H had been in the vehicle the entire time, whether he’d left to go drink and came back, or whether the engine was actually on at any period during the 6 hours.  Although the Judge made numerous rulings on Motions in the State’s favor, which made this an extremely difficult case to win, the Jury came back with a unanimous verdict of Not Guilty on all 4 counts.  Had Mr. H been convicted and gone to prison for 10 years, his mother most likely would not have been alive to see him get out.  On a side note, since the date of this incident, Mr. H has maintained his sobriety and is doing very well.

Not Guilty/Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – DUI & DWI (.119 BAC) – State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 17221) – May 17, 2022 – Pioneer Justice Court (Case No. TR2021–000080):

Police received a call claiming there was a motorcycle accident and they responded to location on a busy road which had no shoulder.  When they arrived, they found Mr. S and his wife standing on the roadside, and there was another gentleman who had loaded Mr. S’s motorcycle into his trailer.  The Officers never saw Mr. S driving, however, he indicated in his report Mr. S was driving and had an accident.  He then conducted a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) eye test and found 6 out of 6 cues.  No other tests were done, due to the fact there was no shoulder on the roadway and heavy traffic was driving by.

The Officer then gave Mr. S a hand-held breath test, and then subsequently arrested him for DUI.  The Officer then took Mr. S to the police station and told him that he would need to give a blood test.  He did not read the Administrative Per Se/Implied Consent Affidavit as required by law.  Blood was subsequently obtained from Mr. S which showed a .119 BAC.

At Jury Trial, we were able to get the blood results and DWI charge dismissed by the Judge, due to obtaining Mr. S’s blood without going through the proper procedures.  In other words, the consent was not truly voluntary.  During the Jury Trial, nobody could testify that they actually saw Mr. S driving, or when he drove, and the State’s expert could not tell the Jury what Mr. S’s blood alcohol content was at the time of the accident.  Ultimately, the Jury came back with a verdict of Not Guilty, and
Mr. S has no criminal conviction on his record.

Not Guilty, Complete Acquittal At Jury Trial – DUI and DWI (.109 BAC) – State v. Mr. D (DMC 17110) – Mar 23, 2022 – Phoenix City Court (Case No. 5598306):

Mr. D had pulled up to a friend’s apartment complex, which was at a gated community.  He buzzed his friend, and his friend did not answer.  Mr. D then turned his vehicle around and parked against the curb on the driveway exiting the area of the apartment complex.  Eventually, he was let in through a pedestrian gate and he joined his friend in his apartment.

While in his friend’s apartment, he had some drinks and enjoyed his friend’s company.  At one point, he went outside in order to smoke cigarettes.  As he was going to get another pack of cigarettes, he exited the apartment complex through the pedestrian gate to go to his truck.  Once in his truck, he started the engine in order to keep himself warm (because it was January and it was very cold out), while he smoked his cigarettes.  As he was listening to music, he eventually fell asleep.  His truck had been running for about two hours when another resident of the apartment complex called the Police to report a tuck running without anyone inside.  Once the Police arrived, they saw Mr. D reclined in the seat, sleeping.  They eventually woke him up, had him exit the truck, and performed Field Sobriety Tests.  He was then placed under arrest and taken down to the Police station. Once at the station, he provided a blood sample which revealed a .109 BAC.

Mr. D subsequently contacted our Firm, and while he was in his initial consultation, he indicated he had no intention of driving and was merely using his vehicle as temporary shelter while he smoked his cigarettes.  We then mounted an APC (Actual Physical Control) defense, and presented this to the Prosecutor.  The Prosecutor felt there was not enough evidence of Lack of Actual Physical Control, and the case went to Trial.  During the course of the Trial, Mr. D testified about his situation, and that testimony, combined with the 911 caller indicating that the truck had been there for two full hours, convinced the Jury that he had no intentions of driving the vehicle.  Once they found he was not in Actual Physical Control, they returned a verdict of Not Guilty on all charges.

Not Guilty/Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – (2 counts) Felony Sex Abuse – State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 16993) FEB 1, 2022 – (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2020-148028).

Mr. P was an employee for the Department of Economic Services.  He was shopping at a Wal-Mart while speaking on his phone as he walked.  He walked down an aisle and walked past a 20-year-old female who was shopping.  He next went down a second aisle, and as he was walking and talking on the phone, he bumped into a second 20-year-old female (who was friends with the first girl), and said “excuse me.”  The first girl then ran up to the second girl and said “he was too close to me when he was in the other aisle, and I saw him press his penis into you.”

Wal-Mart Security was notified, and the Police were then called.  When they spoke to Mr. P, he stated he had no idea what the girls were talking about.  He stated he only casually brushed by one as he walked by.  He begged the officers to pull the video surveillance at Wal-Mart so that they could see he was telling the truth.  While he was doing this, one of the other girls began to say “this happened to me before, and the Police didn’t believe me.”  They then began yelling at Mr. P.

When the Police viewed the video surveillance footage, one of the officers said “I can’t see anything” that would fit the description of what the girls described.  Ultimately, Mr. P was arrested and charged with two counts of Class 5 Felony Sexual Abuse.  He hired a different law firm to defend him, and after the case was set to trial, they just told him to take a plea to probation with no jail, because after he was done with probation the case would turn into a misdemeanor.  Mr. P said, “but I’m innocent,” and the other law firm agreed that he was innocent, but just told him that the risk of losing at trial was too severe.  He then came and hired DM Cantor several months prior to trial.

After reviewing all the evidence, we agreed that he was, in fact, innocent and should not take any plea.  We proceeded to trial, and when the two alleged victims came in to testify, their stories were all over the place.  They had prior criminal histories, they dressed inappropriately for court, and they were rude to all involved in the process.  After the Jury deliberated less than an hour, they came back with a verdict of Not Guilty on all charges.  Originally, Mr. P was facing a minimum of eight months in prison, up to a maximum of 4.5 years.  He also would have lost his job had he not have been fully acquitted.

Not Guilty/Complete Acquittal at Jury Trial – First Degree Murder & Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Murder – State v. Mr. M (DMC No. 16919) DEC 13, 2021 – (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2017-001803).

Mr. M was a City of Phoenix employee and military veteran who met Ms. P, and learned that she was in an abusive relationship with her soon-to-be ex-husband.  Mr. M and Ms. P eventually became romantically involved with each other, and Mr. M’s ex-girlfriend became aware of this relationship and became extremely jealous.  What ultimately occurred was that Mr. M had to use deadly force in order to protect himself from the ex-husband, which resulted in Mr. M and Ms. P both being charged with Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Murder and First Degree Murder.  The genesis of the confrontation between the ex-husband and Mr. M occurred because of Mr. M’s ex-girlfriend.

The entire incident actually spanned the course of four days.  On day number one, the ex-girlfriend contacted Ms. P and threatened to reveal the relationship with Mr. M to her ex-husband.  Ms. P and Mr. M both begged the ex-girlfriend not to tell the ex-husband of the affair.  The ex-girlfriend confirmed that she had broken into Mr. M’s house and taken one of his cell phones and that’s how she discovered the affair.  Mr. M then reported the Burglary and Theft to the Phoenix Police Department, yet nothing was done by the police.

On day three, Mr. M and his ex-girlfriend argued about whether their child in common was actually Mr. M’s.  Mr. M wanted the child to have a DNA test performed.  Within minutes of the phone call, the ex-girlfriend began searching online on “how to get revenge on a baby daddy.”

On day four, beginning in the early morning, the ex-girlfriend began calling the ex-husband, and revealed that Ms. P and Mr. M were having an affair.  There were numerous calls and texts between the ex-girlfriend and the ex-husband throughout the day.  The ex-girlfriend also contacted Mr. M and told him what she was doing.  The ex-husband then contacted Ms. P and became very abusive and threatening.  At some point during that day, the ex-girlfriend took a photo of Mr. M’s truck, which included his license plate.  This photo was in front of Mr. M’s house, and she sent all of the truck and location information to the ex-husband.

When Mr. M and Ms. P had heard about everything that was going on that day, they then went to the police station and waited for an hour and a half in order to file an Order of Protection.  The Police had indicated it was too late to get an Order of Protection, and they also stated that since Mr. M filed the previous police report regarding the Burglary and Theft of the cell phone, they had to wait for those original Police Officers to contact him.  Mr. M and Ms. P then made phone calls to the original reporting Detectives while they were in the police station.  Eventually, they were told nothing could be done that night and they were sent home.

Once they arrived at Mr. M’s house, Ms. P was very scared and nervous, so she took Mr. M’s truck and went to a friend’s house about a mile away.  At some point after that, the ex-husband arrived in front of Mr. M’s house, and only saw his ex-wife’s car sitting in the driveway.  He then grabbed a knife and went inside of Mr. M’s house.  When Mr. M discovered him inside of his living room, Mr. M immediately drew his sidearm – which he was wearing for self-protection due to the day’s events – and he fired multiple times, killing the ex-husband.  When the police arrived, they determined that the entire event was self-defense, and Mr. M was not arrested or charged.

The ex-husband’s family ended up hiring a Private Investigator who was a former Phoenix Police Detective, and he floated a theory that Ms. P had actually shot the ex-husband, and that Mr. M had then planted the knife near his body.  The family then secured a Private Attorney who was well connected with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, who then pressed them into securing an Indictment.  Initially, Mr. M was only Indicted with Tampering with Evidence, and the Prosecutor wanted him to plea to Probation with zero days in jail, as long as he would testify against Ms. P.  Our Firm was then retained on the case, and we explained to the Prosecutor that Mr. M was absolutely innocent, and that he had only defended himself.  The Prosecutor then went back and re-indicted Mr. M on Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Murder and First Degree Murder.  They were attempting to pressure Mr. M into testifying against Ms. P.  Due to this outrageous conduct, Defense Attorney Joey Hamby prepared vigorously for Jury Trial, and Mr. M never entertained the idea of pleading to any crime.

At Jury Trial, the Prosecutor attempted to utilize evidence of cell phone towers, claiming that Ms. P was actually at the scene when the shooting had occurred.  The Detective specifically left out evidence of the first and last calls in the cell phone tower records, which clearly showed Ms. P was over a mile away at the time of the shooting.  They also did not realize that their data contained information that the ex-girlfriend had Googled “how to get revenge on your baby daddy” on the morning prior to the shooting.  During Trial, the ex-girlfriend got on the stand and came off as vengeful, dishonest, and spiteful.  After a six-week trial, the Jury deliberated less than three hours, and returned verdicts of Not Guilty against both Mr. M and Ms. P.  After the verdicts were read, many of the jurors remained and stated to the Prosecutor and to Defense Attorney, Joey Hamby, that the ex-girlfriend should have been charged with Burglary, Theft and whatever crime would hold her responsible for the ex-husband’s death.  If Joey Hamby had not secured the Not Guilty verdict at Trial, Mr. M and Ms. P would have spent the rest of their natural lives in prison.  However, once they were found Not Guilty, they were allowed to go on with their lives and raise their five children that they now have as a blended family.