Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: Phoenix City Court / Phoenix Municipal Court Victories

(Jul. 31, 2018) NOT GUILTY/COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at JURY TRIAL – DUI & DWI (.142 BAC) – State v. Ms. M (DMC No. 15419) (Phoenix City Court 5260782): At 11:27 at night, two Phoenix Police Officers responded to a radio call of a suspicious vehicle at Happy Valley Road and 43rdAvenue.  When they arrived, they observed Ms. M sitting in her car, with her engine running and her phone charging.  She had a flat tire, and they surmised she had hit a curb. She told them she was waiting for a tow truck to arrive.

The officers then made her do Field Sobriety Tests, even though she was 65 years old.  This violates the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) rules, and the tests were shown to the jury not be valid.  Ultimately she provided a blood test which revealed a .142 BAC.  We argued to the jury that the State could not prove the actual time of driving, nor could they prove she was in “Actual Physical Control” of her vehicle.  We argued that she was merely using it as temporary shelter while waiting for a tow truck to arrive.  The jury acquitted her on all charges.

NOT GUILTY/ COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at Jury Trial/ INDECENT EXPOSURE – State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 14233) Feb. 7, 2017 (Phoenix City Court No. 5066402): Mr. P was shopping in a Hobby Lobby on 46th Street and Cactus Road in Phoenix, Arizona. While he was shopping for some items, he squatted down to pull something off of the shelf. Due to his shorts and loose underwear, his testicle fell out of his shorts. There was a female customer nearby who did not see anything. However, the Assistant Manager saw what occurred from down the aisle way. She then had Security escort Mr. P out of the store and he was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department.

At Jury Trial we presented the video tape inside the store and showed exactly what happened. We were able to prove that this appeared to be an absolutely innocent occurrence, and that he was not attempting to expose himself to anybody. Although one of the Police Officer testified that Mr. P had told him that he intentionally exposed himself because the woman in the aisle had shown her breasts, the woman denied ever showing her breasts or even seeing Mr. P in the aisle way. The Jury deliberated and returned a verdict of Not Guilty!

NOT GUILTY/ COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at JURY TRIAL, DUI and DUI (.082 BAC) – State v. Ms. S (DMC No. 14160) Jan. 10, 2017 (Phoenix City Court No. 5080338): Ms. S was traveling in her car northbound to get on the 51 freeway at Colter Street, when a motorcycle had come through the intersection. She struck the motorcycle and his passenger, and the Police were called. Ms. S indicated that she had the green light, and the motorcyclist stated that he had the green light. The motorcyclist was placed under arrest for DUI, then an investigation was began by Phoenix PD on Ms. S. The only sobriety field test given to Ms. S was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), which showed only 4 of 6 cues. No other tests were given. She was taken to the station which she provided a blood test which revealed a .082 BAC.

At Jury Trial, we were able to show that the accident was not her fault. In addition, we attacked the blood testing device and argued that it was not properly calibrated and was revealing a blood alcohol reading which was too high. The Jury deliberated and returned charged of Not Guilty on all counts!

NOT GUILTY/ COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at BENCH TRIAL| CONTRACTING WITHOUT a LICENSE (with a PRIOR CONVICTION) – State v. Mr. R (DMC No. 8395) (Phoenix City Court No. 3821911): Mr. R had previously been convicted of Contracting Without a License. He began dating a married woman who lent him money to pay off his previous fines and fees for that case. She asked if he would do her a favor and do some handyman work around her house since she had loaned him the money to pay off his previous fines and fees. He agreed to do so, even though he was going to pay back the loan. When the husband found out about the affair, he turned in Mr. R and Mr. R was charged with Contracting Without a License under Arizona Revised Statute ARS 32-1151.

At Bench Trial, we were able to show the Judge that the work he was performing on the house was of a handyman nature. We also showed that he was not paid for that work. Lastly, we showed that the woman’s husband was upset about the affair, and that’s why these claims were made in the first place. The Judge did not believe the State’s evidence, and Mr. R was found Not Guilty of all charges.

FAILURE to OBEY a POLICE OFFICER – State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 9452) (Phoenix City Court No. 4133695): Mr. W (an African American gentleman) was from Tennessee and was traveling with his wife in the vehicle when they were stopped by Police. The Officer asked Mr. W to pull around the corner to the right as to not block traffic. When Mr. W turned around the corner he immediately stopped because the roadway was too dark up ahead. When the Officer asked him why he didn’t pull farther around the corner, Mr. W stated that he had negative experiences with the Police in Tennessee and that his wife was scared.

The Officer became irate and charged Mr. W with failure to obey a Police Officer per Arizona Revised Statute ARS 28-622. We were able to show the Prosecutor that the Officer was abusing his discretion, and they dismissed all charges against Mr. W.

IMPERSONATING a POLICE OFFICER REDUCED to PROBATION with ZERO DAYS in Jail – State v. Mr. P (DMC No. 4509) (Phoenix City Court No. 2998330): Mr. P and his son ran a business as private security guards. They had two vehicles equipped with red and blue lights, yet they were not licensed Police Officers. They arrived at an apartment complex in which undercover Officers were doing surveillance. When one of the undercover Detectives contacted Mr. P, he asked Mr. P if he was a Police Officer. Mr. P said he was a Police Officer and wanted to know why the gentlemen were at the apartment complex. When they identified themselves as actual Police Officers, Mr. P admitted he was not an Officer and he was originally going to be cited with Impersonating a Police Officer pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2411(A). However, the Officer cited him with the misdemeanor offense of Impersonating a Public Officer pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute ARS 13-2406. The case was ultimately resolved as a misdemeanor with probation and zero days in jail. Mr. P was allowed to keep his private security license.

REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR THEN FOUND NOT GUILTY AT BENCH TRIAL – Aggravated Assault Against a Police Officer, State v. Mr. H. (City of Phoenix No. 20029032115CR): Mr. H. was at a party when shots were fired and police were called. When the police arrived, numerous people were throwing beer bottles at them. One officer indicated he saw Mr. H. throw a 12 oz. beer bottle towards the officers. The suspect was seen getting into a vehicle with 2 other people. When Mr. H. was contacted by police, he denied ever throwing a bottle. Although he was originally charged with Aggravated Assault Against a Police Officer, we were able to convince the Felony prosecutor to route the case to the Phoenix City Court for Misdemeanor Charges. While at the City Court, the prosecutor was seeking 30 days in jail. We had numerous witnesses who could attest that Mr. H. did not throw the beer bottle. At a trial to the court on the misdemeanor, he was found Not Guilty, and all charges were dismissed.

NOT GUILTY/ PARTIAL ACQUITTAL at BENCH TRIAL: SUPER EXTREME DUI (.205 BAC) Only- State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 9571) (Phoenix City Court No. 3981751): Mr. B was in Phoenix, Arizona when he was served pulling up to the intersection at 51st Avenue and Bell Road. At the left hand green turn arrow Mr. B’s vehicle did not move, and the Officer then pulled him over. After a DUI investigation, he was taken to a DUI van in which he provided a .205 BAC blood sample. Because he was above a .200, he was charged with Super Extreme DUI along with other charges. At Bench Trial, we were able to argue that the variance of the machine would not allow a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt as to Super Extreme DUI charge. The Judge agreed, and Mr. B was found Not Guilty of the Super Extreme DUI. He was, however guilty of the regular Extreme DUI and was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

COMPLETE ACQUITTAL at BENCH TRIAL | DUI (.081 BAC)  – State v. Mr. W. (DMC No. 6565) (Phoenix City Court 3403327): Mr. W. was observed by a police officer exiting a Taco Bell drive-thru and driving over the curb on the way out to the street.  He was subsequently stopped and processed for a DUI.  He provided a blood test of .081, after he had requested a private call with his lawyer.  Because the police were within 10 feet of Mr. W. during this phone call, we were able to convince the State to dismiss the DWI charge (blood alcohol .081).  At bench trial to the Judge, Mr. W. was found Not Guilty of DUI (driving under the influence).  He has no conviction on his record.

1 2 3 7
Call Now Button