Our case studies provide a closer look at how we’ve helped clients navigate challenging DUI charges and achieve favorable outcomes. While every case is different, these examples highlight our strategic approach, dedication, and commitment to protecting our clients’ rights and futures.
The Defendant was charged with DUI after a traffic crash. He performed fairly on FSE’s considering the crash. His urine showed the presence of pain medication and antianxiety medication. At trial, our office argued that there was a lack of evidence of impairment by controlled substances. The jury agreed with our position and returned a verdict of not guilty. This was our client’s second DUI arrest, so he avoided 6-12 months of no driving at all.
The Defendant was stopped for traveling 85 in a 55 zone. Law enforcement detected signs of impairment. The defendant provided a breath result of .159. Our office submitted mitigation and the prosecutor agreed to amend the charge from DUI to Reckless Driving.
The Defendant was the subject of a traffic stop for speeding. Law enforcement detected indicators of impairment and arrested the defendant for DUI. Our client refused breath testing. Our office submitted mitigation to the State, and the Court ultimately agreed to amend the charge to Reckless Driving.
The Defendant was stopped by law enforcement, arrested for DUI, and purportedly refused a breath test. Our office submitted scientific evidence demonstrating that our client was not impaired. The prosecutor reviewed our evidence and agreed to amend the charge from DUi to a non-criminal charge of Careless Driving.
The Defendant was investigated for DUI following a single vehicle crash. Our client performed fairly on FSE’s, but provided breath results of .146. Our office submitted mitigation to the State and the prosecutor agreed to amend the charge from DUI to Reckless Driving.
The Defendant was stopped for running a stop sign. Law enforcement detected clues of impairment. The Defendant provided a breath result of .145. Our office submitted mitigation to the State, and the prosecutor agreed to amend the charge to Reckless Driving.
The Defendant was the subject of a traffic stop for reckless driving and speeding. Law enforcement detected multiple indicators of imapirment. The Defendant refused field sobriety tests and breath tests. Our office presented mitigation to the prosecutor and the State agreed to amend the charge to Reckless Driving.
The Defendant was stopped for speeding. Subsequent to the stop, the defendant performed poorly on FSE’s, and provided a breath result of .118. Our office submitted mitigation to the State, and the State agreed to amend the charge from DUI to Reckless Driving.
The Defendant was stopped for no headlights. Subsequent to the stop, law enforcement detected numerous indicators of impairment. The defendant provided a breath alcohol level of .153. Our office submitted mitigation and the State agreed to amend the charge from DUI to Recklerss Driving.
Our client was involved in a traffic crash, and when law enforcement responded, they observed indicators of impairment and suspected the defendant was under the influence of drugs. The client provided a breath result of 0.000 and submitted to urine testing. Mr. Sullivan submitted correspondence to the State outlining factual issues with the DUI charge. The State agreed to reduce the charge to careless driving with a withhold of adjudication.
The defendant was stopped by law enforcement for driving too fast around a turn, screeching tires, and operating the vehicle without headlights. The defendant performed poorly on field sobriety exercises and admitted to consuming wine prior to driving. The defendant provided a breath result of 0.149. Mr. Sullivan submitted correspondence to the State outlining mitigating factors and issues with the breath-testing machine, and the State Attorney’s Office agreed to amend the charge from DUI to reckless driving.
The defendant was stopped for driving without headlights. Following the stop, law enforcement alleged signs of intoxication, including bloodshot, watery, glassy eyes, droopy eyelids, and the odor of alcohol. The defendant performed poorly on field sobriety exercises and provided breath results of 0.12 and 0.12 after the arrest. Mr. Sullivan submitted persuasive correspondence to the State, and the State agreed to amend the charge from DUI to reckless driving.
