Case Results

Eva’s alcohol concentration was .117 three hours after the 3-car accident she caused. Her speech was rapid, slurred, and hard to follow and she was looking at the accident she caused trying to figure out what happened. Eva failed the eye test. When positioning her for the Walk & Turn test the Trooper gave her the opportunity to remove her shoes. Eva slurred some incoherent words before saying that it didn’t matter. Eva then told the officer she was nervous because “I did have a glass of wine and I feel … like … you know what I mean?” She refused to do any further testing and a Search Warrant was obtained for her blood. On cross examination, the officer admitted to swearing to several statements in his affidavit for the search warrant that was not true. The Judge eventually excused the jury, and outside of their presence, appointed the Trooper a lawyer out of an abundance of caution that the Trooper might be committing perjury. The Jury found Eva Not Guilty.

Michael had an alcohol concentration of .14, was driving 75/60, and did not use his turn signal. He admitted to drinking a couple of mixed drinks starting a couple of hours before the stop and finishing a couple of hours before the stop. He admitted to having a concussion 6 months before the stop, having scoliosis, and broken ribs. He failed the eye test (HGN), and exhibited 4 of 8 clues on the Walk & Turn test and 3 of 4 clues on the One Leg Stand test. He was stopped at 12:55 am and the blood was drawn at 2:30 am. We set the case for trial which eventually resulted in the DA dismissing the entire case.

Eduardo was pulled over for weaving and not using his turn signal changing lanes (that was not on the video). The officer who made the stop contacted Eddy and smelled the odor of alcohol. He was told that Eddy had worked 9 days straight. The officer did not attempt to conduct any sobriety testing or any type of investigation. He detained Eduardo for more than 25 minutes, waiting for a DWI officer to arrive. Eddy was asleep when the DWI officer arrived, and he had to wake him. Eddy had to use the car for balance when exiting and almost fell down. He had a heavy sway while standing and bent over and started to dry heave as if he was going to vomit. We set the case for trial. We had two legal issues with the legality of the stop and with the legality of the length of detention prior to the DWI officer arriving. This is what we based our defense on. In the fourth trial setting, the entire case was dismissed.

Danny had an alcohol concentration of .17, stipulated to his intoxication at trial, and was pulled over for driving with only his fog lamps on. During the officer’s initial contact, Danny was talking slowly and appeared to be drunk. He failed all sobriety tests. On cross-examination of the officer, I admitted 2 photographs made from the video at the jail showing the officer missing heel to toe and stepping off the line during the Walk & Turn test he was demonstrating. The officer scored 2 clues that met the decision point, indicating someone who would be intoxicated. Additionally, Danny testified. He admitted to being intoxicated and accidentally drinking too much, but he absolutely denied that he was driving with only his fog lights on. The jury was given an instruction that if they did not believe that Danny was driving with only his fog lights on, the stop would be illegal, and they should not consider any evidence from that point forward. The Jury found Danny Not Guilty.

Aric was charged with his initial DWI, where he refused a chemical test. We had a jury trial ,and he was found Not Guilty. Three years later, he was arrested again for a DWI, where his alcohol concentration was .172. We had our second jury trial, and again, he was found Not Guilty. Both cases were expunged so he has a clean record!

Jeff was charged with a 2nd DWI with an alcohol concentration of .165. At trial, the officer testified that if he smelled alcohol on his breath, that meant there had to be alcohol in his system. The next day, in the trial, I produced six different beers, two of which were non-alcoholic. I had the officer do a blind smell test of each beer and asked him which ones contained alcohol and which ones did not. He could not tell the difference. The jury found Jeff Not Guilty.

Eric was going through a divorce, and his soon-to-be ex-wife called the police claiming Eric assaulted her. Eric denied the allegations and had pictures of them the morning of the incident that showed no injuries. I obtained a copy of the emergency protective order and immediately had Eric polygraphed, which he passed with flying colors. I also set up an appointment with the detective assigned, and we met him on a Sunday morning for an interview. Based on the information provided, the detective decided to present the case to a grand jury versus just filing it with the DA’s office. Eric was never arrested and never had to post bond. The Grand Jury did not charge Eric with anything, and his case just went away. I called the detective for proof, and he indicated to me it was as if it never happened so there was nothing he could give me to prove that. Eric works for the federal government, and the arrest alone could have cost him his job.

Daniel devised a plan with several friends to rob a drug dealer at his apartment. Daniel goes into the apartment and confirms the complainant is there. He leaves and then drives his friends there. They go into the apartment and pull out a gun demanding money. One of them tried to take the complainant’s necklace and placed the gun between his eyes, demanding the necklace. A struggle ensued and shots were fired. One of the robbers was shot in the face. Daniel was originally offered 8 years in prison when he had a different lawyer. Then, he hired me to represent him. Daniel’s two accomplices were both sentenced to prison. Daniel received deferred probation.

Derrick was on felony probation for Possession of a Controlled Substance (PCS) and was subsequently charged with Delivery of a Controlled Substance, a first-degree felony. He was looking at life in prison. There was an undercover sting operation at his house, and an officer testified that Derrick sold drugs to her, face to face. At trial, the undercover officer tried to downplay the amount of light in the house and the amount of face-to-face time she had with Derrick. It was darker and the meeting was shorter with her sworn testimony than in her police report. Since this was undercover, there was no body cam video. She was adamant that Derrick was the one who sold her the drugs during the trial. She had a probable cause affidavit that described Derrick, as wearing a muscle shirt with no sleeves. One major aspect was missing in her description: all his tattoos. The Officer claimed because of the poor lighting and Derrick being black, it was difficult to see the tattoos. The jury found Derrick Not Guilty.

Ian passed a police officer and was swerving. The officer was running his tag and lost sight of him entering a neighborhood with only one entrance/exit. The officer waited and saw Ian leave the neighborhood without using his turn signal. The officer asked for his license and Ian pulled it out of a cardholder, put it back in the cardholder and searched for it more, and then pulled it out again and handed it to the officer. Ian mumbled as he spoke. He failed the eye test (HGN), and the Walk & Turn test, and showed signs of intoxication on the One Leg Stand test. The officer had to read the instructions for the tests. When the officer was trying to ask him questions, Ian said he was “Too fucking drunk” to answer any. When asked a final time if he was refusing the breath/blood test, he responded “Si Senior.” We set the case for trial which eventually resulted in the DA dismissing the entire case.

Randy was accused of Indecent Exposure when two women alleged he showed them his private parts, as they were passing him on the highway. The police were called, and he eventually was pulled over. He denied the allegations but was arrested. We weighed the pros and cons of trying the case, including how we believed a jury might perceive the women who made the allegations. The charge was changed to a Class C disorderly conduct and he paid a fine only.

Tim solicited a 13-year-old for sex online. They agreed to meet, and he went to the apartment complex. As he was headed across the parking lot towards the apartment building, he was arrested by the undercover cops. They took him into a room, and he gave a 1-hour video confession. The DA offered Tim 8 years in prison. We had a weeklong trial and the jury gave Tim Probation!

M.R. was accused by the Title IX office of a major nursing school of engaging in non-consensual sexual contact with a female student, while they were drinking. Allegedly, the complainant drank to excess and became incapacitated. Once someone becomes incapacitated, they are no longer able to consent to any sexual activity. We were entitled to a hearing, but the hearing had to occur over the internet (this was before COVID), and our hearing officer was located in another State. We requested a live hearing, but that request was denied. We prepared our defense, exhibits, and for R.M to testify. The hearing officer had a private hearing with the complainant and a private hearing with me and R.M. Due to the nature of how Title IX cases are handled, we did not get to face his accuser. After a 2-hour hearing, we had to wait for the decision. The hearing officer ruled in our favor that there was not sufficient evidence to support the allegations. Due to the damage that was done, R.M. had to transfer to another nursing school. The allegations were bogus, but this showed how easy one’s life can be destroyed without proper representation.

Shane pulled out of a bar parking lot at 2:12 A.M., and the officer made a U-turn and began to follow him. He made an illegal wide right turn at the light and was pulled over. He allegedly had bloodshot, dilated, watering, and heavy eyes and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. He failed the eye test (HGN), the Walk & Turn test, and could not say his alphabet correctly. The officer had another individual’s name listed in two separate places in the report. In the trial, she testified that it is not acceptable for an officer to cut and paste in a police report, but that she does do that. On re-direct, the DA showed the officer only the first place where the wrong name was put and asked if that was the only place in the report. She testified it was. I then had to correct that testimony and showed her the second place she did it. The jury was not impressed with her. Additionally, my client testified that he made a legal right-hand turn and that he had more to drink than he thought. The jury was instructed that they had to believe a traffic violation occurred before they could consider any evidence. The jury found him Not Guilty.

Michael was pulled over, as the Trooper claimed his license plate light was out. He was unsteady getting out of his car and leaned on it for balance. He failed all sobriety tests. The Trooper swore on an affidavit that the license plate light was out. He obtained a warrant to draw Mike’s blood. The dash cam video from the police cruiser showed that Mike’s license plate light was on. I took still frame pictures of the video showing the license plate light was on, and I personally inspected Mikes’s car to see how many lights were by the license plate. I hired an expert to review the video, and he also believed the license plate light was on. The officer testified that he looked at the license plate light when he pulled Mike over, and it was out. He did not. My expert testified the light was clearly on. The Judge said, on the video, it was clear that the officer only looked at the left rear taillight (not the license plate light). The Magistrate denied the motion to suppress, claiming he saw other violations on the video. The Magistrate did not follow the law. A police officer cannot arrest someone and then look at a dash cam video to see if there were other reasons to pull someone over. The officer must know of the violation at the time the stop is made. I re-urged my motion to suppress in front of the elected Judge. Once she was able to review all the evidence along with the video, she called me and told me to be present with my client in court the next day. When we arrived, she granted the motion to suppress and the DA dismissed the charges.

James had an alcohol concentration of .24, stipulated to his intoxication at trial, and was pulled over on his moped for driving without his headlight on and charged with his second DWI. The officer testified that an unknown object drove in front of him as he was parked on a side road. He pursued the object and pulled James over. The officer testified he did not have any taillights on and that he could not see the license plate from 50 feet back due to no lighting. On cross examination, the officer agreed that he would see a faint light in the distance and that was the taillight on. Further, he admitted that the license plate light was on. James and I stipulated in writing that he was intoxicated at the time he was driving. James testified that he had his lights on the entire time and that he never drove in front of the officer and that had to be another “object”. The jury was instructed that they had to believe James was driving without his lights on at some point in order for the Jury to consider any evidence. The jury found James Not Guilty.

Derrick was charged with two cases of Compelling Prostitution. Allegedly, he would pick the women up, and drive them to the location, and when the prostitution was conducted at the house, Derrick would stay in the back with his gun in case the “trick” got out of hand. The women would charge $100-$250 for sexual acts and would be stripped and searched when finished to make sure they were not hiding any money. Derrick had a prior felony conviction, had been to prison, and was not eligible for probation. It was win or go to prison. On the morning of the trial, I announced ready and when the Judge asked the State if they were ready, they dismissed both cases.

Sam was originally charged with 2 cases of Negligent Homicide that were both dismissed and refiled as Manslaughter charges. He was driving home Super Bowl Sunday, allegedly racing another car. The car lost control, slid across all lanes of traffic on 635, hit a suburban that then hit and flipped over the center dividing barrier, and the two people ejected from the vehicle died. After a week-long trial, the Jury found Sam Not Guilty in both cases.

Dianne, who had a prior DWI conviction, was driving home and made a left-hand turn onto her street. A police officer was approaching and claimed that she failed to yield right of way to his police car and he pulled her over in her driveway. She had a strong odor of alcohol on her breath, slurred speech, and watery eyes. She refused all sobriety testing and refused to get out of her car. Once out of the car she tried walking away and briefly struggled with the officers when taken into custody. I went to the scene on a Sunday and with help of my paralegal, took measurements to prove the distance between the officer’s car and her car. We had still frame pictures from the police dashcam that enabled us to make accurate measurements. We further did research and found case law that held an officer loses the right to claim someone failed to yield right of way when they are driving above the speed limit. We had a motion to suppress the legality of the stop and the motion was granted and the case dismissed.

Cierra was accused of assaulting Sparkle, a girl who was having an affair with Cierra’s boyfriend and was trying to get her fired from her job. Sparkle drove to her sister’s apartment and claimed she saw a shadow coming up behind her where Cierra grabbed her by her hair and began dragging her down the sidewalk. Some of Sparkle’s braids were ripped out of her hair and she claimed Cierra tried to bash her head on the concrete. Sparkle suffered bruises and had grazes on her knees and elbows. Sparkle claimed that the assault was videoed on a friend’s cell phone and that she watched the video after the incident and that it happened just the way she testified. It was very convenient that no one could produce a copy of that video. Cierra is a nurse and her career was on the line. The Jury found Cierra Not Guilty.

Megan, an attorney, was pulled over. During the stop, there was a confrontation with the officer, and she assaulted him. Even though she was an attorney, she had suffered a severe brain injury, and it affected her conduct in certain situations. Further, she had all sorts of health issues. Through persistent representation, the charges were finally dismissed.

Austin was facing 2-20 years in prison. He was drag racing on a city street, and the other driver lost control of his car, hit a tree, and rolled over onto its hood. The victim was unconscious, seat belted in the back seat, partially ejected out the rear window, with fuel leaking on her. Austin drove away, but he returned 5 minutes later. The felony was dismissed, and he plead to the misdemeanor of reckless driving, where he was sentenced to three days in jail but was given credit for that. Thus, he ended up only paying a $2,000 fine.

Wes and his girlfriend went out on New Year’s Eve. He was involved in a scuffle, and they decided to go home. Once at home, they decided to go back out. Wes has an old truck that routinely breaks down. They had driven ¼ mile from their home when the truck broke down and would not start. The two got into an argument, and she walked home. Wes stayed in the truck. He was behind the wheel, with his foot on the brake when an officer arrived. Wes was arrested for his third DWI. His alcohol concentration was .26. We had a jury trial which resulted in a Hung Jury (11 votes for Not Guilty, 1 vote for Guilty), as the jurors could not all agree on a verdict. Then, we had a trial in front of the Judge, and Wes was found Not Guilty.

Patricia’s husband was arrested for DWI after an accident (I got his case dismissed too), and she became hostile, yelling profanities at the officers. She attempted to kick one officer and then chest butted him. She was placed in handcuffs and put in the police car, where she was able to get out of the handcuffs. They took her out of the car, and she refused to put her hands behind her back so they could re-cuff her. During this time, she attempted to kick the other officer in the groin, but he took evasive action and was only kicked in the thigh. She was lucky not to be charged with Assault on a Public Servant and only be charged with resisting arrest. In the 9th court setting, the case was dismissed!

Ryan was arrested for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Interference with a 911 call for allegedly threatening his wife with a gun. Through negotiations with the DA, the Aggravated Assault with a D/W charge was never filed. Instead, a Terroristic Threat was filed. Ryan was found Not Guilty of the Terroristic Threat and the Interference with a 911 Call, but he did receive 3-month deferred probation for a Class C Disorderly Conduct.

Caitlin was accused of assaulting her husband, who was over the age of 65. He had a habit of verbally abusing her, especially when she drank. He would agitate her and wait for her to lose her cool, and then, when she would hit him, he would call the police. Both cases were dismissed and removed from the Dallas County computer system!