The following are summaries of cases where I obtained a Not Guilty verdict for my clients. These results depend on the specific facts of each case and do not guarantee a similar outcome in future matters.

Jury Rejects Interference Charge After Officer’s Story Falls Apart

What started as a routine DWI investigation turned into an arrest of my Client, who was merely a passenger in the car.

According to the State, she was arrested for interfering with the investigation. In reality, she was arrested for being outspoken, frustrated, and refusing to quietly accept how she was being treated during the stop.

From the beginning, the facts raised problems. The officer interacting with my Client repeatedly made physical contact with her in a way that had nothing to do with any investigation. The interaction escalated, not because my Client obstructed anything, but because she refused to be quiet while being handled in a way she believed was inappropriate. Eventually, the officer decided he had heard enough and placed her under arrest.

On direct examination, the State attempted to clean it up. The officer gave a version of events designed to make the arrest look inevitable, claiming my Client’s conduct disrupted the DWI investigation.

On cross-examination, that story didn’t survive. The same officer was forced to walk back key portions of his testimony. What he told the jury on direct simply did not survive scrutiny. The inconsistencies were not minor, they went to the core justification for the arrest.

Even the DWI investigating officer, who the State relied on to show “interference,” testified that he was able to complete the DWI investigation without interruption and faster than usual. That testimony undercut the entire theory that my Client had obstructed the investigation.

I argued the statutory defense that speech alone, without physical interference or obstruction, does not meet the legal threshold for this charge. 

After seeing the full picture, the jury found my Client Not Guilty.

Charged With Assault for Leaving His Own Home. Jury Said Not Guilty.

What started as a heated argument between my Client and his wife inside their home was turned into a criminal charge after the situation escalated and police were called.

On its face, the State’s allegation was simple: they claimed my Client committed assault when he pushed past his wife in a doorway and left the home while carrying a bag of family documents.

But the reality of what happened was more complicated and far less criminal than the State asked the jury to believe.

During the argument, my Client’s wife picked up his prized guitar and threatened to smash it. In response, my Client picked up a bag containing important family documents and attempted to leave the home to de-escalate the situation. When he reached the doorway, his wife physically positioned herself to block him from leaving and refused to move. Only then did my Client push past her and walk out of the house.

The State framed this as theft and assault. They argued that the bag containing the documents was his wife’s separate property, and that she was justified in physically restraining him to prevent its removal.

At trial, I argued the opposite: this was not a theft case. It was self-defense against the crime of Unlawful Restraint, committed by his wife. My Client had an equal possessory interest in the documents, which belonged to the family as a unit, not one individual. And more importantly, he had a right to disengage from a situation that was escalating inside the home.

The State only called two witnesses: my Client’s wife and their child. They had an officer available in the hallway to testify, but ultimately chose not to call him and sent him home before he ever took the stand.

The jury quickly found my Client Not Guilty.

Not Guilty in The Great Bedsheet Heist

My Client did what most people would consider routine – he gave an acquaintance a ride to Target, waited in the car, and later drove him home.

He had no idea a theft was taking place.

While inside the store, the acquaintance stole two sets of bedsheets. Unmarked undercover officers were staged in the parking lot and began following my Client’s vehicle as it left the area. They lost him on the highway, then went to his home and waited for him to return.

By the time my Client got home, the acquaintance was gone, and so were the stolen items.

When officers confronted my Client, he immediately identified the acquaintance and denied any knowledge of a theft. But instead of investigating that explanation, officers assumed my Client was involved and arrested him. After reviewing security footage and realizing he was not the suspect they were initially tracking, Officers invented a theory to justify the arrest.

At trial, that theory came down to speculation. The State argued my Client must have been a participant because he admitted driving the acquaintance and left the parking lot quickly. Their only attempt to connect him to the theft was that the acquaintance exited the store carrying a red hand basket instead of a white shopping bag.

The State presented two officers and a loss prevention witness, and security footage covering his time on the property.

Throughout the trial, I focused the jury on the missing element the State never proved: there was no evidence my Client had prior knowledge of the theft or any intent to assist it. Suspicion was not proof, and proximity was not participation.

The case was also plagued with repeated issues of missing evidence and late disclosures from the State, highlighting how thin the investigation truly was once the assumptions were stripped away.

The jury found my Client Not Guilty.

Jury Acquits Defendant of DWI After Crash With Police Car

My Client ran a red light and collided with a police car. After the crash, he took a few blocks to pull over.

Before anything was asked of him, he volunteered that he had marijuana in his pocket and smoked daily.

From there, the State built its case around intoxication.

The officer conducted standardized field sobriety tests. The horizontal gaze nystagmus test produced zero clues. On the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand, there were some noted clues, but my Client failed the alphabet and counting backward tests miserably.

My Client consented to a blood draw. The results showed 0.0 BAC and only a small amount of THC. Despite that evidence, the State did not call a lab technician and chose to rely entirely on the officer’s interpretation of field sobriety tests.

On cross-examination, I focused heavily on the weaknesses in that interpretation. The officer acknowledged a prior suspension for altering official documents, and I highlighted the limitations of the tests themselves, especially the fact that the HGN portion showed zero clues. I also walked through alternative explanations for the performance on the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand, including stress, physical fatigue, and the aftermath of a collision.

The evidence also included testimony from my Client’s girlfriend, who was in the passenger seat. She explained that he had last smoked roughly five hours before the crash, works a physically demanding warehouse job, and, by her own description, he is not particularly sharp.

The jury rejected the State’s theory of intoxication. The evidence did not show impairment, only a person under pressure after a crash.

The jury found my Client Not Guilty.

Not Guilty Verdict in Family Assault Case Involving Father and Son Dispute

My Client’s roommate called the police during an argument between my Client and his father. Both men had been drinking, and the situation escalated before officers arrived.

When police got to the scene, my Client was visibly upset, covered in blood, and initially uncooperative – until officers used a Taser to gain control.

What actually happened inside the home was never clear from the start. My Client and his father gave competing versions of the same moment. The father claimed my Client pinned him against a wall, and that he stabbed my Client in the hand in response. My Client, on the other hand, claimed the opposite—he was stabbed in the hand by his father first, and only then did he push him against the wall to stop the attack.

At trial, the State’s case had a critical problem: their key witness did not show up.

The father ignored a subpoena and did not appear for trial. That left the State with only the responding officer, who arrived after the confrontation was already over. The officer had no personal knowledge of what happened inside the home and could only repeat what he had been told.

I made that limitation clear to the jury. The officer was not a witness to the event, only a witness to its aftermath. And without the complaining witness, the State’s version of events was untested, unchallenged, and ultimately unsupported by live testimony.

I also emphasized the significance of the father’s absence. In a case that turned entirely on credibility and conflicting accounts, the State’s primary accuser chose not to appear and face cross-examination.

The jury heard the evidence for what it was: an uncorroborated account, a missing witness, and a responding officer with no firsthand knowledge.

The jury found my Client Not Guilty.

Jury Acquits Defendant in Domestic Assault Case After Evidence Undercuts “Victim” Story

My Client’s dispute with her wife escalated into a physical fight that moved through the home over the course of several minutes. By the time it ended, both parties were covered with scratches and bruises.

At trial, the State presented the case as a one-sided assault. My Client’s wife testified that she was trying to leave the situation, claiming she had backed her car halfway out of the garage when my Client pulled her out of the vehicle and continued the altercation.

That version of events did not hold up under scrutiny.

I walked the jury through the physical evidence at the scene. The wife’s car was still fully parked in the garage. The garage door was closed. And there were overflowing trash cans blocking the door.

The State’s narrative depended entirely on accepting her version of events without question. But when compared to the condition of the scene, the story did not fit.

What the evidence ultimately showed was not a one-sided assault, but a mutual physical altercation between two adults during a domestic dispute. Texas law draws a distinction between one-sided violence and mutual combat, and the facts in this case supported the latter.

After hearing all of the evidence, the jury rejected the State’s attempt to frame the incident as an assault by one party alone.

The jury found my Client Not Guilty.