Case No.: 06-004815TCA04   - Case Dismissed

Defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his automobile parked slanted and occupying two parking spaces in his residential development.  State witnesses allege that they had seen the firm’s client operating the vehicle prior to the Police being called on the scene and was now passed out with the door open and a alcoholic beverage by his side.  Upon making contact with the defendant, officers observed him to be incoherent, having a slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and in need of medical treatment.  Paramedics were called to the scene.  Upon fully investigating the claim and presenting witnesses, the defense established contradictory evidence that challenged the State’s eye witness testimony as to the events that occurred on the night of the defendant’s arrest. 

Result

Confronted with contradictory testimony that the defendant had not been operating the vehicle of the night of his arrest, the Assigned Assistant State Attorney agreed to break the DUI charge down to a Reckless Driving charge, and the firm’s client was not convicted of DUI.

Case No.: 06-0048196CF10A  - Case Dismissed

Co-Defendant charged in Felony Court maintained his innocence to the charges filed by the State Attorney’s Office and demanded a speedy trial when it became apparent that State witnesses would be unavailable to testify against him after over one year of litigation.  Unable to proceed forward, the State dismissed all counts against the firm’s client when the Court refused to allow more time for the State to prepare.

Result

Dismissal of all felony counts.

Case No.: 04-022533MM10A   - Broken down to Reckless Driving

Defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his pick-up truck at a green light with the doors locked and the engine running.  Law enforcement officers surrounded the vehicle and ordered the firm’s client out of his car and proceeded to conduct a DUI investigation.  Defendant admitted to having consumed alcohol prior to driving, had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face.  Upon being read implied consent, Defendant agreed to submit to a breath test which showed a blood alcohol level above the legal limit of .08. 

Maintaining his innocence, Defendant demanded a trial on the merits.  Maintaining his innocence, a Trial was demanded on his behalf to which the State responded by breaking down the DUI to Reckless Driving, believing that they would not succeed in a conviction. 

Result

Client not convicted of DUI.

Case No.: 05-023805MM10B  - Dismissed

Upon arrest, Defendant was found to have possessed marijuana which was taken into evidence and tested by the BSO Crime Lab.  The State Attorney’s Office voluntarily agreed to dismiss this Count resulting in a favorable resolution to our client.

Case No.: 05-016941CF10A  - Case Dismissed

Defendant was observed operating a vehicle with one tail light inoperable, to which law enforcement pulled him over and conducted a criminal investigation.  Upon researching all of the facts and circumstances, it was determined that the firm’s client was driving a car that had a standard three tail lamps, of which two were working properly and in compliance with the Statute.

As Florida law requires two operable tail lamps, the stop of Defendant’s vehicle was illegal and all evidence obtained as a result of the illegal stop was suppressed from evidence and unable to be used by the State Attorney’s Office.

Result

With no evidence to proceed forward, the State Attorney’s Office voluntarily dismissed the charges against the firm’s client.

Case No.: 06-010823MM10A  - Case Dismissed

Defendant was charged in Misdemeanor Court, despite the State being unable to prove the crime charged.

Result

Upon demanding a trial on the merits, the State Attorney’s Office was forced to dismiss the pending charges.  Client not convicted.

Case No.: 06-CT037871AXX  - Case Dismissed

Defendant was arrested after being found behind the wheel of his automobile and unconscious submitting to a Breathalyzer Test, the firm’s client blew three times the legal limit and was charged with Aggravated DUI.  Upon research of the new Intoxilyzer 8000, certain defects in the software rendered the reading unreliable.

Result

The State Attorney’s Office declined pursuing aggravated DUI above blood alcohol level, above .20.

Case No.: 06-004136MM10A – Case Dismissed

Defendant was arrested by members of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office after making an illegal turn and almost crashing into a Deputy’s patrol car.  The DUI investigation ensued, whereby it was alleged by law enforcement that Mr. Nava had red, watery eyes, a flushed face, and a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from his person.  The defendant also admitted to having consumed alcohol, which was evidenced by several alcoholic beverage containers placed throughout his van.  The defendant complied with limited roadside sobriety exercises and submitted to giving a breath test, the results of which were a .197 and .200—over two times the legal limit. 

Defense Asserted

A Motion to Suppress was filed alleging that the turn conducted by the Defendant was, in fact, legal and the officer’s explanation that he almost caused an automobile accident was in an effort to bolster justification for the unwarranted traffic stop.  Additionally, as our client spoke limited English, a language barrier prevented him from fully understanding instructions given to him regarding roadside sobriety exercises.  Finally, as the new Intoxilyzer 8000 Unit was used, the reliability of said tests were put into question, as was the availability of this evidence to the State should they fail to provide statewide and local breath technicians.  Following the Honorable Judge Mary Rudd Robinson’s review of all testimony at hearing, an Order was entered suppressing all evidence following the illegal stop.

Result

With no evidence in which to proceed forward, the State dismissed all charges against our firm’s client.

Case No.: 06-007871MM10A   - Case Dismissed

Defendant lost control of his vehicle, tore through some bushes and into several parked cars.  Upon law enforcement officers making contact, they observed signs of impairment leading them to believe that our client was under the influence of controlled substances and alcohol.  The arresting officer asked Defendant if he would submit to a blood test, which she agreed.  Testing of said sample revealed the presence of high levels of Cocaine, Xanax, Hydrocodone and Oxycodone. The State Attorney’s Office filed formal charges against our client seeking a conviction on the evidence obtained on the night of his arrest. 

The State Attorney assigned to prosecuting the matter offered a conviction for DUI and one year of probation in an effort to resolve this case.  Our client refused, and a Motion to Suppress was filed alleging that the blood evidence collected by investigators on the night of the arrest was obtained illegally and in violation of our client’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.  After having a hearing on the Motion before the Honorable Judge Mary Rudd Robinson, the Court reserved ruling for over one month before finding in favor of our client.   The inability to use the very damaging blood alcohol evidence against our client rendered the State unable to proceed with DUI charges, which was ultimately formally dismissed.

Case No.: 06-004815TCA04 – DUI Charge Broken Down To Reckless Driving

        The State Attorney assigned to this case agreed to break the charge down to Reckless Driving after the defense presented witnesses that were willing to testify that our client was not driving the automobile that he was discovered behind the wheel of while its engine was running. 

Case No.: 06-004815TCA04 - Driving While License Suspended Charge Dismissed

        Prior to having his case resolved, our client was charged with driving an automobile on a dui suspension. The State Prosecutor agreed to dismiss all counts in addition to breaking the initial dui charge down to reckless driving.

Case No.: 05-016941CF10A – Dismissed State’s Evidence Suppressed

Presiding Judge Honorable Judge Lebow

            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.: 04-022533MM10A – 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.

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. 04025247mm10a  – 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 

            After a thorough investigation all facts and circumstances a motion was filed alleging that the stop and detention of the firm’s client just prior to his arrest for DUI was without probable cause and otherwise illegal. After the State’s failure to produce any Law Enforcement Officers involved the arrest for hearing on the motion on three (3) separate occasions the Court granted said motion without hearing any evidence. The State filed a notice of appeal which was later withdrawn. With no evidence whatsoever to seek a conviction the State voluntarily dismissed the charges.

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 to reckless driving

            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 to reckless driving

            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 to reckless driving

            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 to reckless driving

            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 to reckless driving

            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 to reckless driving

            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. 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 his 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

tate 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