Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 1 DUI / Vehicular Crime Jury Trial Complete Acquittals

NOT GUILTY/ COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at JURY TRIAL: DUI and DWI (.112 BAC)-State v. Mr. J (DMC No. 12891) Jun. 4, 2015 (Lake Havasu Consolidated City Court MTR2014-03161): Mr. J was traveling southbound on Acoma approaching Daytona Road in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. A Police Officer claimed that Mr. J did not come to a complete stop at a stop sign. He then pulled him over and processed him for a DUI. He subsequently provided a breath sample which showed a .112 BAC.

At Jury Trial, we argued to the Jury that the stop was questionable (ie. “Pretext” stop). We also pointed out that Mr. J had acid reflex which could cause a mouth alcohol issue and falsely inflate his breath reading. In addition, there was a Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) warning that showed up on the machine 5 minutes prior to Mr. J’s breath test. Lastly, he asked to be released to get an Independent Blood Test, and was instead booked into Jail and only given a phone book. We argued that the Police Officer knew that he must be released to get the test because no hospital nurse will show up to the jail. The Jury deliberated for about 1 hour and found Mr. J Not Guilty of all charges.

NOT GUILTY/ COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at JURY TRIAL: DUI and DWI (.127 BAC) – State v. Mr. S (DMC No. 12842) May 22, 2015 (Highland Justice Court TR2014-142693): Mr. S was stopped by DPS Officer Doucet on the US-60 in Phoenix, Arizona. The Officer claimed that Mr. S performed poorly on Field Sobriety Tests and arrested him for DUI. He was then taken to the Police Station where a blood test revealed at .127 BAC.

At Jury Trial we presented medical evidence showing that Mr. S had a knee injury which caused him serious issues with his balance and affected his Field Sobriety Tests. We also had medical evidence showing he had a natural “nystagmus,” which causes an involuntary jerking or bouncing of his eyes. This is often a sign or symptom of alcohol impairment, (if there is not a medical cause). Lastly, the Jury was presented which evidence regarding possible flaws in the blood collection and analysis. The Jury found Mr. S Not Guilty of all charges.

NOT GUILTY/ COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at JURY TRIAL: SUPER EXTREME DWI (.214 BAC) EXTREME DUI, DUI and DWI – State v. Ms. W (DMC No. 12692) Mar. 17, 2015 (Scottsdale City Court TR2014-015549): Ms. W was a passenger with a friend who was driving on 2nd Street between Goldwater Boulevard and 68th Street in Downtown Scottsdale. A Police Officer was seen up ahead, and the friend pulled the car over “because he was really drunk”, and didn’t want to get in trouble. Ms. W got out the car and walked to the driver’s side and got in while the driver slid over to the passenger seat. While she was sitting in the car, the engine was on and the air conditioner was on (it was the height of summer). She got on her cell phone to call to have a ride come pick them both up.

The Police contacted Ms. W and arrested her for DUI and underage drinking and driving. They claim that she was in “Actual Physical Control” (APC) of the vehicle. At Jury Trial, we presented evidence that Ms. W was merely using the car as “temporary shelter” until her ride would arrive. The Jury agreed that she was not actually operating the car, and she was found Not Guilty of these charges.

NOT GUILTY/COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at JURY TRIAL/DUI and DWI (.133 BAC) – March 21, 2014 – State v. Ms. L. (DMC No. 11882) (Scottsdale City Court TR2013-009192): Ms. L. was traveling on Scottsdale Road when officers noticed that she had an expired license plate. She was subsequently pulled over and a DUI investigation ensued. During the FST’s, it was indicated that she had no problem with the “one leg stand” and only had 4 of 6 cues on “horizontal gaze nystagmus” (HGN). Subsequently, blood was drawn and the officer inadvertently wrote “2:38 a.m.” instead of “12:38 a.m.” on the blood kit. He had to reopen the blood kit (breaking the seal), correct the time and then reseal the kit. During trial, the State’s Criminalist stated the there was no issues or anything unusual with the blood kit that he had tested. Our expert then got on the stand and pointed out that the kit had been opened after the original seal had been put in place. The jury deliberated over night and came back with a verdict of “not guilty” on all charges.

For more information on how our firm handles Scottsdale DUI cases, click the following link to schedule a free consultation.

NOT GUILTY | Complete Acquittal / DUI Arizona – State V. Mr. S. (DMC No. 11597) (Phoenix City Court No. 4639623):

Mr. S. was stopped for a traffic violation in the area of 27th Ave and Thomas in Phoenix, AZ.  Mr. S. submitted to a battery of field sobriety tests and was placed under arrest for suspicion of DUI.  He submitted to a blood draw within two hours of the stop.  The result of the BAC analysis was .093.  The blood result was persuading the jury that the State’s evidence impairment was insufficient to sustain the charge and the client was acquitted of all DUI charges.

Not Guilty / Complete Acquittal Aggravated DUI (.308 BAC) Arizona – State v. Mr. D. (DMC No. 10767) (Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR2011-153504): Mr. D was passed out in the driver’s seat of his car, with the engine running and the driver’s door open in the parking lot of a convenience store. A passerby woke him up and said that he needed to take the keys out of the ignition or he would call police. Mr. D got out of the car, then got back in the car, and started the car twice over the next 20 minutes. When police arrived they noticed watery, bloodshot eyes and a strong odor of alcohol. Mr. D was unable to hand his identification card to the officer and stated that his license was suspended. He refused to do the field sobriety tests and was taken to the DUI van to have his blood drawn. Mr. D’s BAC was a 0.304, nearly 4 times the legal limit.

Mr. D was facing no less than 10 years in prison on this charge. He was also on probation for two other cases. If convicted at trial, his probation would have been revoked and he would have been sentenced to an additional 1 to 7.5 years in prison. At trial we argued that Mr. D sitting in the vehicle did not rise to the level of actual physical control because he posed no danger to himself or others. The jury acquitted Mr. D on all charges.

Not Guilty / Complete Acquittal / DUI & DWI (.107 BAC) – State v. Mr. B. (San Tan Justice Court No. TR-2011-146484):  Mr. B. had been drinking at the Salt River and was stopped by the highway patrol.  The officer noted signs and symptoms of impairment and a DUI investigation ensued.  Mr. B. submitted to a breath test that resulted in alcohol content readings of .107 and .104.  Mr. B. was charged with two counts of DUI.  The State did not offer Mr. B. a significant plea offer.  At trial, after attacking the credibility the breath sample, the jury found Mr. B. not guilty of all the DUI charges.

Mr. S was observed by a homeowner parked in front of his house and throwing what appeared to be garbage outside of the car, onto the homeowners lawn. Because it was 9:00pm at night, the homeowner called the Police. When the Police arrived, they observed Mr. S car with a flat tire and damage to the right side. Mr. S was in the passenger seat and had a cell phone in his hand. The engine was running in order to run the air conditioner (it was still 100 degrees outside), as it was summer time.

Mr. S appeared to be very intoxicated, and Police arrested him for DUI and searched the vehicle and found 1 empty and 1 partially full Vodka bottle. Mr. S. stated that he had blown his tire and had called AAA for assistance earlier in the night. Because Mr. S had a prior misdemeanor DUI convictions and his license was suspended, he was charged with Felony Aggravated DUI under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-1383(A)(2)

At Trial, we presented evidence that he had called AAA a couple of hours prior to the Police arriving. In addition, the Police could not prove whether he drank after driving or before (since the bottles were in his car). Lastly, we argued that he was in the passenger seat, therefore he was not in “actual physical control” of his vehicle. The Jury returned not guilty verdicts on all charges, thus sparring Mr. S. from going to Prison. Because his BAC was so incredibly high (a .461 BAC – *not a typo), we refer to it on our website as “this is not a typo”. The Prosecutor who handled this case has earned the nickname from his coworkers of “typo”.

NOT GUILTY/COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at JURY TRIAL: EXTREME DUI (.157 BAC), DUI, DWI & HIT and RUN – State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 6649) (Phoenix City Court No. 3419699): Mr. C was involved in a Hit and Run accident in Glendale Arizona. After the accident, he was followed to John C Lincoln Hospital in Phoenix. While he was receiving treatment, a Phoenix Police Officer arrived on scene and questioned him. Mr. C stated that he was being chased by a man with a gun, and that is why he left the scene without stopping.

The Officer detected an odor of alcohol and then asked for a Blood Draw to be performed. Subsequently, Mr. C’s BAC was revealed to be a .157 and then he was charged with Extreme DWI, DUI, DWI and Hit and Run. At Jury Trial in the city of Phoenix, the Prosecutor could not prove that Mr. C was actually driving impaired by alcohol while in Phoenix. In addition, the Hit and Run and all observed driving took place in Glendale. Because of this, we made a Motion for a “Directed Verdict” after the State had closed their case with the Jury. That Motion was granted, and all charges were dismissed. Because the Jury had already been impaneled and trial had begun, jeopardy had been attached and all charges had been permanently dismissed.

Mr. D. was found in a Circle K parking lot in Youngtown, Arizona just after midnight. The car was in park, the engine was on in order to run the heater, and the seat was fully reclined with Mr. D. seated fast asleep. When the Youngtown Police Officer’s woke him up, he stated he was sleeping because he did not want to drive.

Once he was removed from the car, a background check was conducted which revealed he had a prior DUI conviction. He was then charged with a 2nd Offense Extreme DUI under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-1382 and arrested. He produced a BAC content of .190 down at the station.

At Trial, we were able to show that Mr. D. was not in “Actual Physical Control” of his vehicle, and did not pose a danger to anyone on the roadway because his car was in park, he was asleep, and he was merely using it as a temporary shelter in order to “sleep it off”. The Jury agreed, and returned verdicts of Not Guilty on all charges against Mr. D. He was originally facing a minimum of 4 months in Jail.

Call Now Button