Both Gig Wyatt and Randall Snow are experienced DUI and criminal defense lawyersand have tried literally hundreds of jury trials. Their practice focuses upon criminal defense and they specializes in DUII defense. Gig Wyatt is a graduate of Willamette University Law School and is a partner in the law firm of Harris, Wyatt and Amala LLC.
Randall Snow graduated from Claremont McKenna College in 2001 with a degree in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, and then earned his Juris Doctor from Willamette University College of Law in 2007, where he served as an Associate Editor of the Willamette Law Review. He is a member of the Oregon State Bar, Marion County Bar Association, American Bar Association, Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and the Willamette Valley Inns of Court.
Information about the " Actual Cases" is provided here only for educational purposes related to real life situations in DUI defense. View our blog for updates and new cases that were won.
Oregon Criminal Defense Blog
This information should not be interpreted as having the same results for your case, legal advice, nor substituted for the specific legal advice of an experienced attorney.
1) When "Natasha" came in, she had received a DUII following an accident in which she was taken to the hospital at the request of the arresting officer. Unfortunately for the State, the officer did not arrest her until after he learned of a blood draw of .20%. This became the contested point in a motion to suppress, in which the court suppressed all evidence as a result of an unlawful police hold.
While this case was pending, she received another DUII in a separate jurisdiction. She had been in an physical altercation with a boyfriend and fled the scene to avoid further assault. She called police who unsympathetically arrested her for DUII. The case was dismissed when we raised the defense of "choice of evils" where the defendant had no other choice but to flee. We did not set precedent in this case, as our research found that the defense had successfully been raised before.
Less than a year prior to both of these incidents, she had entered the diversion program in yet a 3rd jurisdiction. The State moved to terminate her diversion based on the above. After several compelling arguments the court decided not to violate her on the diversion. She completed the program. No convictions.
2) "Stu" was observed weaving and driving over the fog and center line. He was given the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, but was unable to do other test due to injury, according to the client. He was arrested and blew .14%. The jury found him "Not Guilty" in 20 minutes. If I've learned anything, it is that a jury does not like it when they cannot trust the officer or officers. Different stories by 2 officers testifying about the same event leads to doubt. The same can be said of the Intoxilyzer 8000. When the card printed out "Purge Fail," jurors wanted an explanation they could understand, but the officer attempted to accuse the defendant of doing something to cause the problem. Their own expert disagreed with their officer, creating enough doubt to acquit.
3) I read in the local paper (coastal jurisdiction) that the Trooper in my case had just been given an award for DUII arrests. I brought it up to him outside the jury, just in conversation. He downplayed the award, stating that he had changed shifts and his DUII cases increased. He shouldn't have been given any award for report writing, at least not from the State's perspective.
His testimony contradicted the video tape as well. He performed the standard FST's, HGN, Walk & Turn and One Leg Stand as well as the infamous "touch the nose" while in a modified Romberg position (feet together, arms at your side, head back, eyes closed.) "Lonnie" was acquitted of DUII. The State incorrectly charged his Driving While Suspended case, a defect which was pointed out to the judge resulting in a dismissal of that charge as well.
Video tape DUII cases are often good cases. A jury expects that the person looks drunk or impaired on the tape since the officer has testified accordingly. Often times the video does not reveal the person to look as poorly as the exaggerated testimony suggests.