Even though it's tremendously easy to add updates to this portion of the website, I almost never take the time. It's terrible of me, but some of my biggest victories never get posted to the website because I don't take the time to commit these cases to writing. Because of this, I'm often times asked how often do I actually go to trial. This answer is a lot!

During the week of October 22-26, 2007, I had three jury trials scheduled plus an evidentiary hearing, plus a couple of pretrials and a sentencing. There was nothing unusual about that particular week, but the three jury trials provide different perspectives of DUI cases. The first case was combined alcohol and marijuana blood draw case. The client was adamant that he was not guilty, and blood testing confirmed that he was only 0.04. Unfortunately, Michigan's new OWPD law prohibits any amount of marijuana. Trace amounts of marijuana metabolite appeared in the client's blood, so the prosecutors assumed the case would be an easy victory for the prosecution. (The fact that no active marijuana was found in the blood showed that the client was not under the influence of marijuana, but these are the draconian laws that have foisted onto Michigan's citizens.) Unfortunately for the prosecution, the state lab analyst failed to appear for trial. As we started to pick a jury, the prosecutor offered to lower the charge to a reckless. The client, to his credit, was as stubborn as I am, and he said absolutely not. He wanted a dismissal and an apology! Well, he didn't get the apology, but the prosecutor threw in the towel and offered a careless driving, which is only a civil infraction similar to a speeding ticket. With an offer that good, we couldn't press on any more, and we called it a day.

On the second jury trial case, we had already been to trial on two or three occasions. The court continued to haul us back into court several times, but we never got to see a jury. We continued to say ready for trial, your honor over and over and over. And we kept getting put off to another date. Eventually, this wore the client down. Although she only an 0.07 with a "failure" of only one of the field sobriety tests (which was absolute nonsense), the client insisted on taking an impaired. It made me sick, but she would not go to trial. I had pulled several "0.08" posters, with slogans such as Lower Limit Tougher Law, and I was prepared to tear the officer up on his stupid field sobriety tests, but, alas, I can't force a client to go to trial.

On the third case, the client's options were very limited. Because she was from another state, she would have lost her license if we entered any type of plea agreement. Regardless, the prosecutor wasn't offering much because the police officer took the case personally (having stopped her for failing to yield for emergency vehicle), and a blood draw supposedly revealed a 0.19 alcohol level. Our own independent lab had reevaluated the blood measuring 0.22 with bacteria present in the sample. Unfortunately, the lab said it was a non-fermenting bacteria, but it's hard to imagine two different labs coming up with such different results. The client decided not to have our own lab people testify at trial. I focused on the lack of bad driving and adequate performance of the field sobriety tests, and I cross-examined the state toxicologist on various conditions that would taint the lab results. The jury deliberated for six hours and returned a stunning two word verdict of not guilty on the drunk driving charge finding her responsible only for the failure to yield charge.

On Friday, August 25th, the case of MZ went to a jury trial.  The prosecuting attorney was Raymond Guzall, and the officer, a Wayne County Sheriff, was R. Close.  The district court judge, David M. Parrot, had denied most of the preliminary motions filed in the case, discouraging Mr. Z.

Mr. Z felt that the case was futile.  He had been stopped for "weaving" (which we disputed), but the driving, stop, and field sobriety tests were not videotaped by the officer.  He had provided a breath sample of .10 on a datamaster following the arrest.  

We knew that the datamaster breath results were not accurate.  Mr. Z suffered from GERD (Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease), and we believed that the breath results were higher than they should have been on the breath test.

We focused on the inadequate investigation by the officer in this case.  The "bad" driving was not recorded, and the field sobriety tests were simply unfair and improperly graded by the officer.  

Mr. Z testified and was absolutely clear that he was not intoxicated.  He was concerned, however, that the judge was allowing evidence into the trial that should not be admitted.  

The judge wanted the case completed in one day, which simply was not possible.  The government had four witnesses, and we had five witnesses.  At 5:00 p.m., an hour after the court had closed, the prosecution finally completed its case.  As a result of the late hour, I moved to adjourn.  We did not have our breath test expert or Mr. Z's medical doctor available after 5:00 p.m.  The court ordered that the case proceed without the expert or the medical doctor.

Although we believe that this would have been reversed on appeal, no appeal was necessary.  The jury returned a not guilty verdict even after 45 minutes of deliberation without the expert and the doctor!

Our client was stopped after leaving a bar called Malarkys in Westland. Video evidence revealed that the officer immediately u-turned to follow our client after watching the vehicle leave the establishment. The officer claimed that the driver failed to come to a complete stop at a blinking red at a left turn intersection. No bad driving was viewed whatsoever, and we initially challenged the stop, which was denied by the judge. We also challenged the arrest because the client passed all field sobriety tests. That was also denied.

While reviewing the case further, it was discovered that the officers used portable radios during breath testing. Radio waves from the portable radios can cause artificially high results, and the administrative rules prohibit using radios in the Datamaster testing area. Yet another motion was filed and denied. But, at this point, the judge observed that all these facts could be brought out at trial and might undermine the prosecutor's case.

With trial fees and expert witness fees, the client did not want to go to trial. Nonetheless, the prosecutor was unaware of this fact and offered a reckless. (Although you may notice that we get a number of cases reduced to reckless, it is not exactly the desired outcome since it carries six points and suspends the license for 90 days. Nonetheless, prosecutors do not frequently offer reckless, a distinct change from ten years ago, and the result defeats the allegation of drunk driving because it is a non-alcohol related offense.)

While it wasn't the result that I wanted, the client was satisfied with the result. �But, I was ready for trial with guns blazing, and I felt deprived of the not guilty verdict that the jury would have returned.  

William Maze

On a case where an OWI was reduced to operating while visibly impaired, Shannon Stevens was successful today in convincing Judge Kimberly F. Small of the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Michigan not to order a period of incarceration. Surprisingly, it's true: occasionally we do accept plea agreements at the Maze Legal Group! (As to the prosecutor's that frequently review our site, please don't get excited. This isn't a trend.)

Judge Small is notorious amongst the criminal defense bar in Oakland County, with a reputation of automatic jail on any drunk driving conviction. Typically, this is ordered to dissuade drivers from future wrongdoing and--quite candidly, in Judge Small's own words--to punish the convicted driver. Avoiding incarceration is the most frequent concern for accused motorists, and this is a very realistic fear before Judge Small. But in rare circumstances, Judge Small can be convinced to forego a jail sentence. And Shannon Stevens succeeded against the odds today!

I apologize that I haven't updated this section in so long. I can't believe it's been so long since I posted a new case! Shannon and I have won several cases that I'll try to give a brief description of during the next few weeks as time permits.

Today's victory, however, was at the DLAD, where I employed a new style of cross-examination that I've been adopting to my cases. At a DLAD hearing for an implied consent violation, the driver is alleged to have refused the police officer's request for a chemical test after a valid arrest. Typically, this means that a driver was arrested for OWI based upon probable cause and refused the breath test.

At a DLAD implied consent hearing, the driver "appeals" the automatic one year suspension for refusing the chemical test. According to the Secretary of State:

MCL 257.625f limits the issues appealable at a hearing ONLY to the following:

1. Whether the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that you committed a crime described in MCL 257.625c(1).

2. Whether you were placed under arrest for a crime described in MCL 257.625c(1).

3. If you refused to submit to a chemical test upon the request of the officer, whether the refusal was reasonable.

4. Whether you were advised of your rights under MCL 257.625a.

An attorney that understands the provisions of MCL 257.625c(1) will challenge all the issues, as was done in today's case. Using the newly developed style of cross-examination that I've been working on during the last couple of months, I asked a long series of short, looped questions designed to culminate in a point that favors the desired outcome. These questions were specifically formulated prior to the hearing. Culminating on the biggest most critical point, it was revealed that the officer had improperly advised the driver on the impact of a breath test refusal.

In closing argument, most of the base questions were waived in favor of the critical points. The focus on the critical points illuminated those points. The focus on the critical points made the issues obvious. And the focus on the critical points translated to a victory.

The critical points were illuminated, obvious and equaled a victory. And that too, is part of the new style of cross-examination that I've been developing to represent clients more effectively at hearings, at motions and at trial.

During the last couple of weeks, we have been able to obtain favorable results for clients on felony drunk driving charges.  In both cases, the clients were charged with third-time drunk driving offenses within 10 years--felonies that typically result in jail terms of no less than 30 days and often times upwards of one year.  

Based upon our arguments, motions, and discovery requests, the prosecutors in each case agreed to dismiss the felony enhancement and agreed to a term of no jail.

Potential clients are forewarned, however:  These results (and the fact that we were able to get them TWICE within a couple of weeks) are NOT typical.  We were recently contacted by a potential client represented by another law firm.  That person was being offered only a one-year cap on the jail term.  

Perhaps more importantly, anyone charged with felony drunk driving needs to understand that it takes a lot of time, effort, and skill to obtain these results.  Because we focus on drunk driving defense, we have the skills, and we're willing to put in the effort, but our time is priced at a premium.  We charge more than attorneys in this field because we have a proven track record of success!

On Thursday, December 29, 2005, we were able to procure a dismissal of drunk driving charges against our client in exchange for a plea to careless driving, a civil infraction carrying a fine of $135.00.

The case was particularly weak for the prosecution with a very low blood alcohol report, but the police officer in charge of the case described very bad driving and poor performance on field sobriety tests.  Rather than taking the case to trial (where an expert witness would have been necessary), the client opted for the careless driving charge.

Three different cases in two different courts resulted in a wonderful holiday season string of victories today.

Case No. 1: In the first case, attorney Shannon Stevens was able to get an OWI case dismissed. In that case, the accused was picking up a passenger at Detroit Metro Airport. Officers approached the vehicle because it was in an area where vehicles were not allowed to wait to pick-up passengers. Officers noticed an open can of beer in the vehicle. After a brief investigation, the driver was arrested. A breath machine established that the BrAC was .17, but our firm challenged the testing procedure.

Ms. Stevens requested access to discovery, including videos and audio tapes. Although the Metro Airport police and the prosecutors cooperated fully with Ms. Stevens, the police agency in charge of the breath machine refused to provide access to many materials, including videos.

After filing motions and providing several additional opportunities for the police to produce the requested materials, the Court granted Ms. Stevens' motion for dismissal. Ms. Stevens and her client were compelled to go to court many times over several months, and patience and perseverance paid off.

Case No. 2: Our client was charged with OWI 2nd and Driving While License Suspended. The BrAC was low, the driving was fine, and the field sobriety tests were performed improperly by the officer. Despite improper performance of the field sobriety tests, our client performed those tasks exceptionally well. The breath results were challenged because the officer failed to properly observe the accused for 15 minutes prior to taking the breath sample. (In this case, videotapes revealed an observation period of less than 11 minutes.)

After reviewing the videotapes and the motions filed by Mr. Maze, the prosecuting attorney offered to dismiss the drunk driving charges as well as the driving while license suspended charge in exchange for a plea to reckless driving. Many years ago, reducing drunk driving charges to reckless driving was common practice. Nowadays, it is virtually nonexistent, and prosecutors routinely reject efforts to resolve drunk driving cases in this manner. Although reckless driving carries significant fines, points, and a mandatory suspension period, the client was very happy with the result and will not face mandatory license revocation for habitual drunk driving..

Case No. 3: The same prosecutor as in Case No. 2 stipulated to suppression of the breath test results as well as suppression of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. (This particular prosecutor, incidentally, is very thorough and meticulous and almost never yields on arguments or permits pleas to non-alcohol related charges.)

Videotapes in this case showed that the officer did not engage in the proper observation of the accused. As to the HGN test, the officer failed to properly perform this eye evaluation, deviating dramatically from the standardized procedure.

Because the driving was not erratic and performance of physical field sobriety tests strongly suggest that the accused was not impaired by alcohol, this case may ultimately result in a dismissal or a not guilty verdict.

Client was charged with OWI following a traffic stop after a Tiger's game.  Client refused to provide Datamaster breath test.  Police did not obtain search warrant to force blood draw.

No videos existed of the driving, the stop, or the field sobriety tests, and no video existed at the police department.  Officers provided client with notice of suspension for refusing Datamaster test.  

We challenged the implied consent suspension at the DLAD.  The officers failed to appear, and we won the implied consent hearing.

In the criminal court, we appeared several times, but the prosecutor only offered a plea to "impaired," despite the lack of evidence.  We set the matter for trial.

On the day of trial, the officers failed to appear again (although they had appeared at prior hearings), and the case was dismissed.

The details are a bit muddled... but...

The case was scheduled for jury trial a few weeks ago.  Police officer erred during testimony, and the jury was dismissed and a mistrial was declared.  Case was reset for December 1, 2005.

On December 1, 2005, a variety of conflicts and unintentional errors resulted in a dismissal of the OWI charges!

On November 22, 2005, we were able to procure a dismissal of an OWI charge for one of our clients.  The police officer and our client crossed paths while making opposing left turns out of parking lots across the street from one another.  As such, the police vehicle was forced to stop in order to avoid a collision, and the police officer effectuated a traffic stop.

Our client had an open beer in the car, but field sobriety tests showed that he was capable and coherent.  Unfortunately, our client blew over the legal limit.

Based upon the questionable nature of the probable cause for the police officer to stop the other vehicle, the prosecutor and our firm were able to negotiate a dismissal of the OWI charge, and the client accepted a plea to the open intoxicant in a motor vehicle, which carries virtually no penalties compared to the more serious drunk driving offense.

We have recently added an e-newsletter as a new feature to our site!  This allows easier communication than the current OWI Defense Law Forum, since we can directly contact interested members directly via email with news, op-ed pieces, updates to our page, and DUI case updates.

Your information will be kept confidential and you will never receive spam from our organization, so subscribe to the new e-newsletter today!  To subscribe, simply submit your email address on any one of our pages and click the icon "subscribe to our e-newsletter."

During the last week, we've had two OWI 3rd cases reduced from felony charges to misdemeanors during the pretrial phase.  In another case, an OWVI 1st charge was reduced to a civil infraction due to a low breath score of 0.06.  

The most impressive cases this week, however, are trial victories.  In two related cases on the date that the jury was being selected, the prosecutor dismissed the matters through an order of nollo prosequi.  The phrase "ready for trial" produces tangible results!

On another front, we are still battling the Holland, Michigan 0.03 case.  Last week, the trial court cancelled motion hearings due to a scheduling error.  The trial is scheduled to begin November 4, 2005.

William Maze