DUI Recent Wins

DUI - Not Guilty after Jury Trial

A cop saw him leave a bar. He picked up a woman who needed a ride. She was not a prostitute. However, he said he wanted a blow job. She needed a ride home. She started to give him a blow job. The cop pulls up beside the car and notices her head going up and down. The officer said he reeked of alcohol, had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and was unsteady on his feet. However, he was polite and cooperative with the officer. The second time was the charm for my client. His DUI was tried by another attorney the first time, which resulted in a hung jury. After I tried the case, a jury found him not guilty after mere minutes of discussion.

 

DUI dropped to Reckless Driving - Motion to Suppress Blood Results GRANTED

The client was driving was driving recklessly and completely totaled his car. He rammed it into a tree. He kept saying "I'm sorry" to the officer at the scene. The officer noted he had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, a bloody chin and red marks on his chest. The red marks, according to the officer, were consistent with an air bag being deployed. The client was taken to the hospital. He was read implied consent. He initially agreed to let the nurse take his blood. However, when they went to take it he said "I know my rights, I want to speak with my lawyer, you're going to have to kill me if you want to take my blood." The nurses and cops held him down and drugged him up. Then they took his blood. The reading came back .156, almost exactly twice the legal limit of .08. I filed a motion to suppress the blood, saying the taking of the blood was not voluntary and the client's injuries did not amount to serious bodily injury. The judge agreed and granted the motion to suppress. Two days later, I negotiated a reckless driving for the client. The terms of the negotiated plea did not include a license suspension, car immobilization or random testing for alcohol or drugs at his expense.

 

DUI - State concedes motion to suppress and drops DUI.

The client was a decorated World War II veteran. It was an absolute honor to represent him, as my grandfather was also a decorated World War II vet. In court, I kid you not, people actually saluted him like he was a hero. He was a hero. He loaded the atomic bombs that went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although those bombs killed many people, they saved countless American lives and brought the war to an end. I filed a motion to suppress the stop and seizure of my client. The motion was so strong that the Prosecutor agreed it was a bad stop. The stop was based on a BOLO (be on the lookout for) a certain vehicle and the description of the individual and direction of travel did not match. There was no mention in the BOLO of whether the client was White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, or a description of his clothing. Also, the direction of travel was not consistent with the BOLO.

 

DUI - All charges dropped.

Although my client had been drinking, the State could not prove that my client was the driver of the car. I also won the department of motor vehicles hearing. My client got his license back.

 

DUI WITH COCAINE - Not Guilty after Jury Trial

The client was rip-roaring drunk and had a trace amount of cocaine in his system. I filed a motion to keep the witnesses from testifying about the cocaine. The judge granted my motion. The state failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that my client was in actual physical control of the vehicle.

 

DUI WITH AN ACCIDENT- Motion to Suppress the Breath Results GRANTED

DUI with an accident. Judge Barry Cohen suppressed the extremely high breath readings of .265 and .253 because the State violated my client's constitutional rights based on Shiver v State, 30 FLW D653 (FL 1st DCA March 8, 2005). Judge Cohen opined that "Because it has been established in Shiver that the breath test affidavit contains testimonial hearsay evidence, the admissibility of the affidavit alone would constitute a violation of the Confrontation Clause."

 

DUI - Not Guilty after Jury Trial

The client was observed striking a median, making an abrupt lane change, making a wide turn and again striking the shoulder of the road. The officer turned on his lights, but the client made no attempt to stop. Eventually, the client stopped. The officer noted he smelled of alcohol, was having a hard time standing, and was leaning against the car for support. The client performed poorly on the roadside exercises, but refused the breath test. He stated "I only had two beers." His speech was slow and slurred. At trial, the jury agreed with me that there was a lack of evidence to convict. The government did not prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

DUI - Sentence reversed and vacated on appeal

At trial, the judge limited cross examination questions. We successfully argued that the state went into new material on their re-direct examination. We were entitled to cross the officer about it. We proffered the questions we would have asked. The appellate court agreed and reversed the client's conviction. When the case came back from the appellate court, the client got a reckless driving offer.

 

DUI - Not Guilty after Jury Trial

The client swerved erratically, jerked the car back into another lane, crossed the dividing line between lanes. He had bloodshot, watery eyes, slow, slurred speech, odor of alcohol on his breath, couldn't find his driver's license, and fumbled through his papers looking for his insurance and registration. He admitted to playing pool and having "a few beers." At trial, we proved to the jury why he had slurred speech. He was born with a speech impediment. It is not against the law to drink and drive so long as you don't blow over a .08 or your normal faculties are not impaired. The jury heard him speak. He always speaks with a lisp. He performed poorly on the roadside exercises.

 

DUI - Not Guilty after Jury Trial.

My client was caught speeding, driving erratically. He performed poorly on the roadside exercises. I filed a motion in limine, which was granted, to keep out statements he made on video that incriminated him in a prior DUI. Not guilty in ten minutes

 

---

DUI Manslaughter

The State must prove the defendant drove or was in actual physical control of a vehicle, and while driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs to the extent that his normal faculties were impaired or the defendant had a blood or breath alcohol level of 0.08 or higher. Last, as a result, the defendant caused or contributed to the cause of the death of the victim.

 

 

Defenses to Murder Charges

Self Defense as a Defense to Murder
Defense of Others as a Defense to Murder
Justifiable Homicide as a Defense to Murder
Excusable Homicide as a Defense to Murder

 

Florida Murder Defense Lawyer

Self Defense as a Defense to Murder

He hit me first! I was just defending myself! Often, the best defense to a murder or homicide charge is self-defense. The essence of self-defense is someone hit you first, pulled a dangerous weapon or a gun on you or you thought they were going to immediately hit or shoot you and you shot or struck them. The whole issue at trial is going to be whether your actions of self-defense were reasonable. For instance, you cant shoot somebody if they are only using their hands to punch you. However, if the other person had a gun, that's a different story. Generally, the defense has no burden of proof. However, with a self-defense claim, we have to prove that you reasonably believed your conduct was necessary to defend yourself against the accusers imminent use of unlawful force. Also, we must prove that the use of unlawful force by the accuser must have appeared to you to be ready to take place.

In Florida, there is no duty to retreat. The legislature, after much lobbying from the National Rifle Association, passed this law. This relatively new "stand your ground" law is an excellent tool for murder or homicide criminal defense lawyers. You now have the right to defend yourself and stand your ground, even using deadly force with a gun, if you are abiding by the law and get attacked. However, you must reasonably believe your actions were necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

The jury must judge you by the circumstances you were surrounded by at the time the force was used. Every case is different. What is reasonable self-defense is defined by the jury that you and your criminal defense lawyer pick.

 

Defense of Others

I was just protecting another person from a maniac! That's essentially the defense of others.

The whole issue at trial is going to be whether your actions in defending another person were reasonable. For instance, for defense of others, you cant shoot somebody if they are only kicking the other person with their feet. Generally, the defense has no burden of proof. However, with a defense of others claim, we have to prove that you reasonably believed your conduct was necessary to defend another person against the accusers imminent use of unlawful force. Also, we must prove that the use of unlawful force by the accuser took place or must have appeared to you to be ready to take place.

The jury must judge you by the circumstances you were surrounded by at the time the force was used. Every case is different. What is reasonable defense of others is defined by the jury that you and your criminal defense lawyer pick.

 

Justifiable Homicide

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing.

 

Excusable Homicide

The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:

1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or

2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or

3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

"Dangerous weapon" is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in which it is used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.