The following is a list of a few of the many cases defended by Attorney William Moore. For additional information regarding any of the following matters, please contact The Law Offices Of William Moore. Please note that in order to preserve the privacy of our clients, the actual names of all individuals have been omitted..

FOR THE MOST RECENT LIST OF CASE VICTORIES, PLEASE CALL 954-523-5333

Case No.: 06-010823MM10A –Case Dismissed
A trial by jury was demanded upon learning that the State Attorney was not prepared to proceed forward. The court refused to afford the assigned prosecutor any additional time in which to prepare and produce necessary witnesses. After declining any further offers by the State in exchange for a plea, the prosecutor dismissed the case entirely rather than proceeding forward.

Case No.: 06-004815TCA04 –Charge Broken Down To Lesser Offense
        The State Attorney assigned to this case agreed to break the charge down after speaking with defense witnesses. 

Case No.: 06-004815TCA04 - Charge Dismissed
        Prosecutor voluntarily dismissed charges.

Case No.: 05-016941CF10A – Dismissed                      State’s Evidence Suppressed
            During Deposition of the Law Enforcement Officer who initially stopped our client’s vehicle, it was learned that the basis for the stop was a burned out tail lamp. Under Florida Law a vehicle must be equipped with at least two (2) operable tail lamps. As the vehicle driven in this matter was equipped with three (3) tail lamps, it was compliance with Florida traffic statues. A Motion to Suppress was filed and heard whereby William Moore argued that since the vehicle in question was in compliance, the Law Enforcement Officer had violated the Defendant’s Constitutional Rights in pulling him over without a valid reason. The Honorable Judge Lebow after reviewing all evidence presented by the State, Ordered that the Officer’s stop of the vehicle was without probable cause and in violation of the Defendant’s Constitutional Rights. Consequently, all evidence was ordered suppressed leaving the State with no evidence to proceed forward.
The State subsequently filed a notice of appeal, which was later withdrawn.
The State voluntarily dismissed all charges against the defendant.

Case No.: 05-015085MM10A – Charges Voluntarily Dismissed by the Prosecuting Attorney
Unable to produce witnesses necessary to prove their case in chief, the assigned attorney voluntarily dismissed the charges against our client.

Case No.: CRC 0432128CFAES – Felony Counts Dismissed        
            Firm’s client standing on his innocence refused to accept the plea offer conveyed by the State and demanded a Trial by Jury. When presented with compelling evidence of the Defendant’s innocence, the State Attorney voluntary dismissed both Felony counts in exchange for a plea to a single Misdemeanor count.

Case No. 05-013678mm10a- Judgment of Acquittal
            Following the State’s refusal to dismiss the charges against the firm’s client, a trial by Judge was demanded. After the presentation of the prosecuting attorney’s case in chief, appropriate ore tenus motion was submitted, alleging that the state had failed entirely to prove even a prima facia case. The court agreed with said motion and entered a judgment of acquittal in our client’s favor.

Case No. 05005397cf10a - Dismissed
            The Prosecuting Attorney failed to break down client’s case or convey a reasonable offer. William Moore, subsequently filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence alleging that the stop and detention of the firm’s client was illegal due to the fact that law enforcement officers, through an overwhelming show of force, stopped and detained him without probable cause.
Mr. Moore’s motion was granted and all evidence obtained from said illegal stop was suppressed. Having no evidence whereby the State could in good faith seek a conviction the prosecuting attorney voluntarily dismissed the case.

Case No. 05005396cf10a - Dismissed
            After the prosecuting attorney failed to break down the charge or offer any acceptable plea to the firm’s client, William Moore filed a motion to suppress all evidence. The motion alleged that all evidence obtained by law enforcement was the result of an illegal stop and detention to which the court agreed. Having no evidence available to them whereby she could in good faith seek a conviction, the prosecuting attorney voluntarily dismissed the charges.

Case No. 02000636cf10a - Not Guilty
            In response to the prosecuting attorney failing to break down the charge or offer any acceptable plea other than incarceration, William Moore demanded a Trial by Jury on the merits of the case.
During the presentation of the prosecutor’s case, William Moore successfully moved to exclude testimony identifying the defendant, alleging that the prosecutor in the case had acted improperly in preparing his witnesses to testify against his client. With a lack of any credible identification witnesses, after short deliberations, the jury returned a “Not Guilty” verdict. 

Case No. 0014908cf10a - Not Guilty
            William Moore demanded a Jury Trial after the prosecuting attorney refused to break down or dismiss the charges against his client which carried a sentence punishable by “life in prison”. During the presentation of the prosecutors case in chief, William Moore, successfully objected to damaging facts being brought into evidence.
            After the presentation of the prosecutors case in chief, William Moore presented evidence in defense of his client and ultimately convinced the jury to hand down a “Not Guilty” verdict and acquit his client of the crime charged.

Case No. 001721cf10a  - Not Guilty
            The firm’s client, standing on his plea of not guilty, felt it was his best interest to proceed to trial on the merits of his case. At the close of all evidence presented in his defense, by William Moore, the Jury returned with a verdict of “Not Guilty”.

Case No. 009374cf10a  - Not Guilty
            In response to the State Attorney’s failure to convey a plea offer that was acceptable to the defendant, William Moore demanded a trial by Jury, excluded evidence presented by the State, and presented evidence in defense of his client. After a short deliberation the Jury returned with “Not Guilty” verdict on all counts.

Case No. J.R. (Juvenile Record Sealed) - Dismissed
            Upon failed negations with the State Attorney’s Office whereby no break down or plea offer which was acceptable to the firms client was conveyed a request for trial by Judge was entered.  Prior to the State’s proceeding with their case William Moore made several motion alleging that the State’s proceeding with thee limited evidence in which they had was both unethical and illegal. In response and prior to the Judge’s ruling the State voluntarily dismissed as charges.

Case No. 007392cf10a - Not guilty
            Client standing on his innocence and unable to accept the offer of incarceration by the State requested that William Moore proceed to trial on the merits of his case. At the close of all evidence presented by William Moore, in his defense, the jury rendered a not guilty verdict on all counts.

Case No. 00009515cf10a - Not guilty
            Rejecting the offer from the prosecuting attorney of incarceration, the client, at the advice of William Moore, proceeded to trial on the merits of his case. After the close of all evidence presented by William Moore in defense the jury returned with a not guilty verdict on all counts.

Case No. 00004222cf10a - Not Guilty
            At the advice of counsel and due to the fact that the client had no prior criminal history, William Moore demanded a trial by jury. After successfully suppressing certain evidence offered by the State Attorney during trial and following the presentation of defense evidence by Mr. Moore, the jury found the defendant not guilty of the crime charged and instead settled on the far less serious “lesser included” offense.

Case No. 00001785cf10a - Not guilty
            Rejecting the State’s offer of incarceration and at the advice of counsel the client proceeded to trial by jury on the merits of his case. Upon successfully suppressing certain State evidence introduced at trial and upon conclusion of all defense evidence presented by William Moore the jury returned with a not guilty verdict on all counts.

Case No. 00003208cf10a - Not Guilty
            At the advice of counsel, the client rejected a plea offer of incarceration offered by the prosecuting attorney. William Moore demanded a trial by jury, successfully excluded certain State’s evidence during trial and presented evidence in defense of his client. After a short deliberation the jury returned with a not guilty verdict.

Case No. 05008334mm10a - Judgment of Acquittal
            Standing on her innocence and at the advice of William Moore, the firm’s client proceeded to have a trial by Judge. At the conclusion of the State’s case, William Moore made and appropriate motion alleging that the prosecuting attorney had failed to meet its burden in proving the case, and that the court should, as a matter of law, direct a verdict acquitting the defendant. The Court agreed with defense counsel and entered an appropriate judgment of acquittal.

Case No. 03009081cf10a - Dismissed
            Despite the State Attorney having overwhelming evidence, William Moore, through investigation, determined that the State lacked necessary witnesses in proving its case and filed an appropriate demand for speedy trial.  Finding themselves caught off guard, the state prosecutor agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the charges against William Moore’s client.

State v. File No. 0413359mm10a - Voluntary dismissal by the Prosecuting Attorney

State v. File No. 05003216cf10a - Voluntary dismissal by the Prosecuting Attorney

State v. File No.03000676cf10a - Voluntary dismissal by the Prosecuting Attorney

State v. File No. M.E.WPB 01 - Voluntary dismissal by the Prosecuting Attorney

State v. File No. 04019629mm10a - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

State v. File No. - 04019441mm10a - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

State v. File No. - 0320025cf10a - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

State v. File No.  - 01004448cf10a - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

RECENT DUI CASES

Case No. 04025247mm10a  – DUI Broken Down to Reckless Driving
            Client was pulled over after being observed swerving across lanes and driving with his high-beams on. Upon making contact, officers detected an odor of alcohol on the client’s breath and described him as having bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech. The patrol car video depicted the client swaying from side to side and falling on to the ground in attempting roadside sobriety exercises. 
            Upon an investigation of the case, William Moore learned that one of the officers participating in the DUI investigation had previously been untruthful in his reporting of an incident involving another officer. Mr. Moore additionally, alleged in a motion to suppress that the stopping officer’s reason for “pulling over” his client’s car was illegal.
            Before the conclusion of the motion, the state prosecutor agreed to break the case down from DUI to Reckless Driving. 

Case No. 04019346mm10a - Dismissed and Notice of Appeal Withdrawn by State Attorney’s Office 
            Judge found that police officers were not credible and granted a motion to suppress all evidence.

Case No. 006504mm10a - Dismissed
            Despite the firm’s client having crashed into a guard rail on interstate I595 in front of an off duty police officer at 4:00 a.m. William Moore filed an appropriate Motion to Suppress Any and all evidence alleging that the eye witness testimony afforded by Law Enforcement was not creditable. After presenting photographic evidence of damage to the vehicle which conflicted with that of the officer’s testimony the Court suppressed all evidence rendering the State unable to proceed. As a result the State voluntarily dismissed the charges.

Case No.05002246mm10a - Reduced
            Upon learning that the Intoxilyzer 5000 used to test client’s blood alcohol was taken out of service shortly after being used on the night of his arrest, in addition to a perceived lack of evidence on the State’s part, a trial by jury was demanded when the prosecuting attorney refused to make an offer that was acceptable. Just prior to the potential jury being brought in for selection, the State Attorney voluntarily agreed to break the charge down from DUI to reckless driving.

Case No. 0406666mm10a – Reduced
            DUI Check Point Case. Upon the failure of the State to break down the charges filed against the firm’s client, the offer of the lowest permissible sentence (for the offence of DUI) was rejected and a trial by Jury was demanded. Faced with having to present their case in chief to a Jury, the assigned prosecutor broke down the charge from DUI to reckless driving.

Case No. tt04000397lw397 – Reduced
            Client was stopped by officers after they observed him run a red light in response to a car behind him aggressively motioning for him to advance at a quicker speed. Upon making contact with the individual officers detected an odor of alcohol on the client’s breath and described him as having bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech
An appropriate motion to suppress was filed seeking to exclude any observations of impairment alleged by officers in addition to all statements made. Being unable to defend the motion on the date of the schedule hearing and denied additional time to prepare by the presiding judge, the case was voluntarily broken down from the charge of DUI to reckless driving.

Case No. 04-011658mm10a – Reduced
            Client was found by officers asleep in his vehicle with a bottle of liquor by his side in a mall parking lot. Upon officers making contact with him, the client claimed that he was a law enforcement officer and became argumentative with police.
Upon investigating the case, it was determined that a motion to suppress the stop, detention and arrest of the firm’s client was appropriate and requested that any observations or statements be excluded from State’s evidence. The prosecuting attorney believing that he would be unsuccessful in eventually obtaining a conviction in the matter, agreed to break down the charge from DUI to reckless driving.

Case No. 04-021260mm10a  - Reduced
            After a thorough case review it was determined that the stop of Defendant’s vehicle was without probable cause and an appropriate motion to Suppress was filed seeking the exclusion of any and all evidence obtained from the illegal police activity. When faced with defending said Motion to Suppress, the assigned State Attorney office broke the charge down from DUI to reckless driving.

Case No.04006600mm10a - Reduced
            Client was unable to accept the State’s offer of 90 days in Jail when faced with his fourth DUI charge. In an effort to reduce the State Attorney’s overwhelming amount of evidence, an appropriate Motion to Suppress (the stop of the vehicle, the roadside sobriety exercises as well as the officer’s observations following the stop,) was filed. Being caught off guard and unable to defend this motion the State Attorney offered to break the charge down from DUI to reckless driving without any jail time.

Case No.: 04-022533MM10A – DUI Broken Down to Reckless Driving
        Our client was discovered asleep behind the wheel of his automobile by law enforcement officers. Upon making contact officers observed bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech. Upon being arrested the Intoxilzer 5000 was administered where our client blew above a .08 (legal limit).

        After almost two (2) years the assigned Prosecutor agreed to break the charge of DUI down to Reckless Driving upon being unable to produce the breath technician who administered the breath test at an adjudicatory hearing.