The Case
This case involves a client charged with driving under the influence (DUI) following a motorcycle crash in Vancouver, Washington, with Tom Carley serving as the criminal defense attorney. The charges stemmed from the incident that raised questions about the validity of the evidence collected by law enforcement.
At a Glance
Case Type
A DUI Charge
Location
Vancouver, WA
Case Date
August 2024
Result
Not Guilty Verdict
Case Details
- Type of Case: DUI
- Length of Trial: 6 months
- The Final Verdict: Not guilty
- Strategies Used: Tom Carley thoroughly cross-examined the arresting officer and highlighted the deviations from proper field sobriety test protocols. Additionally, he presented evidence that demonstrated the client’s lack of impairment effectively established reasonable doubt in the jury’s mind.
The Overview
The client’s breath alcohol content did not reach the legal threshold of .08. The prosecution’s evidence was inadequate to demonstrate that the client was impaired. Notably, the arresting officer failed to properly administer the field sobriety tests, leading to questions about their reliability.
Research
Through a thorough investigation, Tom Carley revealed that the officer deviated from established protocols in conducting the field sobriety tests. This improper administration was critical to the jury’s understanding of the case. Carley highlighted these procedural discrepancies during trial, emphasizing the significance of adhering to testing standards.
About the Case
The officer’s assessment was deemed unfair due to the flawed implementation of field sobriety tests. On cross-examination, the officer acknowledged his failure to follow proper procedures. The client exhibited no substantial signs of intoxication—his speech was clear, his facial appearance normal, and his coordination intact.
The successful outcome of this case highlights the critical role of a robust legal defense and strict adherence to due process. Thanks to Tom Carley’s diligent efforts in questioning the officer’s investigative methods, the client avoided facing any severe consequences.
We overcome substantial challenges to deliver a favorable outcome.
The Outcome
The jury reached a verdict of “Not Guilty.” They concluded that the officer’s mistakes in assessment created reasonable doubt regarding the client’s impairment. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of proper procedure in DUI investigations and the potential for justice when law enforcement fails to adhere to their training.
