Proven Case Results

  • Murder Reduced to Voluntary Manslaughter
    Premeditated Murder Reduced to Voluntary Manslaughter: Our Client Received Two Years in Prison Rather Than a Life Sentence

    In 1985, in his first case as a criminal defense attorney when he left the United States Attorney’s Office For The Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta, Georgia, Attorney Howard Weintraub was hired to represent a woman charged with murdering her husband by shooting him while he was unarmed. The case was prosecuted by the DeKalb County District Attorney’s Office in Decatur, Georgia. An abusive relationship had existed for some ten years between the husband/victim and the defendant/our client, but in the early morning hours on June 29, 1985, when the killing of the husband/victim had occurred, the husband/victim had not in any way physically assaulted or verbally threatened his wife/our client. A few hours after the shooting of her husband/victim, the defendant-who was without the benefit of being represented by an attorney-gave a confession to the DeKalb County Police Department homicide detective. (Attorney Weintraub was retained days after the defendant had been arrested for the murder and days after she had been interrogated by the police) This confession is set forth in pages 43-46 of the official transcript of the court record of an evidentiary hearing held on December 13, 1985. In this confession, the defendant admitted to the premeditated murder of her husband, wherein she stated in relevant part (to protect the identity of our client, as is done in all of our case summaries, the names of the homicide detective, the husband, the son, the seller of the handgun, and the coworker are deleted from the confession that is set forth below):

    “WITH MY MIRANDA RIGHTS IN MIND, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF MY OWN FREE WILL TO DETECTIVE … THIS STATEMENT IS WITHOUT PROMISE OR FAVOR OF ANY KIND. I HAVE ASKED DETECTIVE... TO WRITE THIS STATEMENT FOR ME.

    “ON JUNE THE 26TH, 1985, I ANSWERED AN AD IN THE ATLANTA PAPER AND PURCHASED A .45 CALIBER HANDGUN FROM A WHITE MALE WHO WAS IDENTIFIED AS… I WENT TO HIS HOUSE SOMEWHERE IN THE… AREA AND PAID $300.00. I BOUGHT THE GUN FOR THE PURPOSE OF KILLING [MY HUSBAND].

    “ON JUNE 28, 1985, I WENT TO BED AT ABOUT 10:00 P.M. WHEN I WENT TO BED, [MY HUSBAND] WAS [p.43] STILL UP, AND -- WAS STILL UP AND DOWNSTAIRS IN THE DEN.

    “AT ABOUT 1:30 A.M. ON JUNE 29, 1985, I WOKE UP. I WENT INTO THE KITCHEN AREA AND GOT A DRINK OF WATER. I NOTICED THE GARBAGE WAS OVERFLOWING AND I STARTED CLEANING IT UP. MY SON… JOINED ME IN THE KITCHEN AND STARTED HELPING ME. [MY HUSBAND] WAS STILL UP AND WAS SMOKING POT AND FREEBASING COCAINE.

    “[MY HUSBAND] YELLED UPSTAIRS AND SAID HE WAS GOING TO THE STORE AND HE WANTED TO KNOW IF I NEEDED ANYTHING. I DIDN’T ANSWER HIM.

    “AT THIS TIME, [MY SON] HAD GONE BACK TO BED. WHEN [MY HUSBAND] LEFT, I WENT DOWNSTAIRS AND GOT THE GUN I HAD PURCHASED AND GOT IT OUT OF THE SUITCASE IN THE HALL CLOSET. WHEN I GOT THE GUN IN MY HAND, I STOOD NEXT TO THE WINDOW WHICH WAS CLOSE TO THE SLIDING GLASS DOOR. I STOOD THERE TO WAIT FOR [MY HUSBAND] TO RETURN.

    “WHEN [MY HUSBAND] RETURNED, I OPENED THE SLIDING GLASS DOOR, STEP[PED] OUTSIDE, AND BY THE TIME HE HAD GOTTEN OUT OF OUR 1977 VEHICLE], I STEPPED JUST OUTSIDE THE DOOR AND HELD THE GUN WITH BOTH HANDS AND COCKED THE GUN AND SHOT [MY HUSBAND]. THE GUN WENT OFF A SECOND TIME. [p.44]

    “WHEN I SHOT [MY HUSBAND], HE WAS WEARING A PAIR OF BURGANDY SHORTS WITH YELLOW STRIP[E], A BEIGE SHIRT AND BLUE AND WHITE HAT.

    “AFTER I SHOT [MY HUSBAND], I WENT BACK UPSTAIRS AND, HELD – HID THE GUN IN THE FLOWER-POT NEXT TO THE WINDOW IN THE LIVING ROOM. I ALSO, HAD, THE BULLETS IN THERE, ALSO -- HID THE BULLETS IN THERE ALSO.

    “WHEN I SHOT [MY HUSBAND], IT WAS ABOUT 2:15 OR CLOSE TO 2:30. I’M NOT REALLY SURE. I WENT TO BED AFTER I SHOT [MY HUSBAND] AND HID THE GUN. I DOZED ON AND OFF TO SLEEP. AND AT ABOUT 7:00 OR 7:09, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM ONE OF [MY HUSBAND’S] COWORKERS... [THE COWORKER] WANTED TO SPEAK TO [MY HUSBAND], AND I TOLD HIM [MY HUSBAND] WASN’T HOME. I GOT UP AND WENT DOWNSTAIRS AND WENT TO THE DEN. AT THIS POINT, I NOTICED THE VCR. [MY HUSBAND] MUST HAVE GOTTEN IT BETWEEN 10:00 P.M. AND 1:30 A.M.

    “I WENT BACK UPSTAIRS AND GOT [MY SON] OUT OF BED. I BROUGHT [MY SON] DOWNSTAIRS AND SHOWED HIM [MY HUSBAND]. AT THIS POINT, I CALLED THE POLICE.”… [p.45]

    “I WAS FAMILIAR WITH [MY HUSBAND’S] PAST DRUG ACTIVITY. I KNEW THAT HE HAD GOTTEN HIMSELF INVOLVED IN SOMETHING.

    “I SHOT [MY HUSBAND] TWICE. THE REASON I SHOT HIM WAS BECAUSE HE WAS, HE HAS TERRORIZED ME FOR TEN YEARS AND [I] PUT THE GUN IN THE FLOWERPOT NEXT TO THE STAIRS.” [p.46]

    Attorney Weintraub raised the defense of the battered woman syndrome in justification of our client killing her husband. Even though the victim was unarmed at the time he was killed by our client; even though our client admitted to buying a gun three days before the shooting of her husband for the express purpose of killing her husband; even though our client admitted to lying in wait in the early morning hours of June 29, 1985, for her unarmed husband to return to the marital home; even though our client admitted to shooting and killing her husband as he returned to the house; and even though our client admitted that after she had killed her husband she hid the gun and bullets in a flower pot, Attorney Weintraub skillfully convinced the prosecutor after extensive negotiations to dismiss the murder charge against our client, and to have our client plead guilty to the reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter. Thereafter, in December 1986, our client was sentenced to two years in prison: escaping a life sentence in prison, which she would have received had she been convicted of the premeditated murder of her husband, to which murder she had confessed.

    Dekalb County Superior Court

  • Case Dismissed
    Shooting of the Maple Street Mansion Restaurant in Carroll County

    Our client and another individual were accused of shooting up the Maple Street Mansion restaurant in Carroll County, Georgia, in October 1999. In the early morning hours of October 9, 1999, our client and his friend/the codefendant were attending a party at the Mansion when a fight broke out and both of them were thrown out of the restaurant by the bouncer. It was alleged that our client and the codefendant then went to their vehicle from where the codefendant retrieved his .45 caliber handgun, and both our client and the codefendant then returned to the Mansion restaurant and sprayed rounds of gunfire towards a crowd of people. The State’s position was that the codefendant then tossed the loaded weapon to our client for him to take a turn shooting. The evidence showed that a total of nine rounds were fired from the gun. Three rounds hit three people, including two students from the State University of West Georgia, with one of the victims incurring some $97,000 in medical bills. Four rounds of bullets hit an occupied vehicle. Throughout his representation of our client, Attorney Howard Weintraub persisted in advocating for the innocence of our client, steadfastly arguing with the Carroll County District Attorney’s Office in an effort to have the case dismissed against our client-that the codefendant was the sole shooter, and that a State’s witness was mistaken in claiming he saw our client also shooting the weapon. Our client and his codefendant were indicted by the Carroll County grand jury on six counts of aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during the commission of those violent crimes, and criminal damage to property in the first degree. Pre-trial arguments in the courtroom by Attorney Weintraub and the codefendant’s attorney centered on mutual motions for a severance of the joint cases, which requests for the severance were premised upon the arguments of antagonistic defenses. Attorney Weintraub had argued to the trial court that there was no evidence to establish that our client did any of the shooting, but the Assistant District Attorney had continued to claim that at least one witness will testify at the forthcoming trial that the witness saw our client firing shots along with the codefendant.

    After months of negotiating with the prosecutor in an effort to have our client’s case dismissed, and with the trial court having reserved its ruling on the pre-trial motions-including the severance motions- the codefendant eventually acknowledged that he did the shooting by himself. On Friday, February 23, 2001, the codefendant pled guilty to all of the charges brought against him and he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Following this plea of guilty by the codefendant, all of the charges against our client were dismissed and the prosecutor then acknowledged that there was too much doubt about our client’s guilt to move forward with a trial (that was scheduled to begin on the following Monday). The Assistant District Attorney further stated that the codefendant’s “attorneys and investigators discussed the evidence they had with us after the [guilty plea] hearing was over, even the [codefendant’s] parents said that all along [the codefendant] said he did it by himself. [The codefendant] also thought the witness [who claimed that our client also had fired the handgun] was mistaken. That presented enough doubt in my mind”. Following the dismissal of all of the charges against our client, an elated and upset Attorney Weintraub told the media that although he was happy for his client he wasn’t grateful for the State’s actions. Attorney Weintraub stated “I am not applauding the prosecutor for what he did. I told him weeks ago that the [codefendant] said he did it. If we had gone to trial and he had been convicted, my guy could have gotten 20 to 30 years, if not more. I’m happy for my client, but this is a sad commentary that something like this can happen. [The codefendant] should be [somewhat] commended for having some backbone [in finally coming forward and admitting what actually had happened]”.

    Carroll County Superior Court

  • Case Dismissed
    Smuggling of One Million Dollars From Atlanta to Europe

    Our client and two other individuals were under investigation by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia for their alleged shipment from Atlanta to a country in middle Europe of approximately 1 million dollars in the United States currency/cash. The government prosecuted the two individuals apart from its prosecution of our client and obtained convictions on both of those defendants. The Atlanta United States Attorney’s Office then focused its efforts in an attempt to obtain a grand jury indictment on our client so that it could move forward with the prosecution of our client. As part of his strategy in representing our client during the critical pre-charging phase of the case, Attorney Howard Weintraub persuaded the United States Department of Justice officials in Washington, D.C. to preclude the Atlanta United States Attorney’s Office from prosecuting our client. This unusual event was accomplished by Attorney Weintraub obtaining an in-person pre-charging review-with the Department of Justice officials in Washington, D.C.-of the intended prosecution of our client by the Atlanta United States Attorney’s Office. This review was attended by the Atlanta Assistant United States Attorney who was heading the prosecution against our client and, after hearing the lengthy presentation from Attorney Weintraub, the Washington, D.C. Department of Justice officials took under consideration the matter of whether they would authorize the Atlanta United States Attorney’s Office to have the prosecution of our client continue by permitting the Atlanta prosecutors to seek a grand jury indictment against our client. Several months later, Attorney Weintraub was advised by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia that our client would not be prosecuted for his alleged participation in this cash smuggling activity. No charges were ever brought by the federal government against our client.

    United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

  • Client Acquitted
    Violating the Arms Export Control Act

    In 1987, in his first federal district court jury trial as a criminal defense attorney since leaving the United States Attorney’s Office in Atlanta, Attorney Howard Weintraub and his co-counsel represented an individual charged with other codefendants with illegally selling two Lockheed L-100-30 airplanes to Libyan leader Moammar Gadafi’s air force. The case was prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia and the jury trial was held in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Our client had worked for the National Oil Company of Libya, and he was alleged to have participated in brokering the sale of the two airplanes. Two Libyan nationals who were living in West Germany and five Americans, including our client, were indicted in July 1986, along with five companies that were allegedly used as conduits for the sale, in violation of the Arms Export Control Act. At the time the indictment was returned by the grand jury in the Northern District of Georgia, the United States Justice Department declared the case as the largest diversion of military equipment to Libya that the government ever uncovered. Our defense of our client was that he believed the two Libyan nationals were anti-Gadhafi expatriates and that our client was duped into the deal. After a five-week-long trial that focused on whether our client and his codefendants knew that the two Lockheed L-100-30 airplanes were destined for use in the Libyan air force, and after seven days of jury deliberation, our client was acquitted of all the charges brought against him.

    United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

  • Charges Dismissed
    Fraud & Conspiracy Indictment

    In March 1988, our client, who is an Atlanta African American businessman, together with two Caucasian owners of construction companies, was indicted by the federal grand jury in the Northern District of Georgia for allegedly defrauding the United States government out of approximately 6.5 million dollars of contracts awarded through a government set-aside program for minority/disadvantaged businesses under the United States Small Business Administration (SBA) Section 8(a) program. Our client, who was the owner of the minority firm, was alleged to have received more than 1.5 million dollars for using his minority status to win three contracts and then allegedly turning them over to the two white-owned firms that were alleged to have controlled and performed the actual work on the projects. Our client and his two codefendants were indicted for conspiracy and mail fraud charges. In essence, the Indictment alleged that our client obtained three high-priced “non-negotiated” construction contracts and then resold the contracts for a substantial profit to the white-owned firms. Under then federal law, the minority firm that qualified for the SBA Section 8(a) program was required to advise the SBA of joint venture or subcontracting agreements, and the minority firm was required to maintain supervisory control over the projects, and the minority firm was required to perform the work called for in the awarded contracts. It was alleged in the Indictment that our client violated all of these requirements by establishing “silent de facto” joint venture arrangements with the two white-owned companies to do the work and that our client also abdicated to the two white-owned companies all management control over the projects.

    On the day the indictment was returned, Attorney Howard Weintraub issued a press release stating that the accusations were “totally unfounded” and that our client “never had the intent to defraud the United States government”. Howard Weintraub vowed to prove such in the courtroom before a jury. That day never had to come as, six months after the Indictment was returned, all criminal charges against our client and the owners of the two white construction firms were dismissed: as the federal prosecutors acknowledged that they did not have enough evidence to go to trial before a jury and to convict our client and his codefendants. In a proceeding in the courtroom when this announcement was made by the government, Attorney Weintraub blasted the government for ruining our client’s reputation and for causing our client to lose business by indicting him. Attorney Weintraub told the United States District Judge presiding over the case that “we’re sending a message that my client is as innocent today as he was the day before the Indictment was returned and he’s not an irresponsible contractor”. The government itself acknowledged that the dismissal of the Indictment against our client certainly was “an uncommon occurrence, but was proper in light of a review of all the evidence”. The United States Attorney further stated that “we don’t indict somebody unless we believe we have a strong case, but we also have an obligation to continue investigating before trial, and if at any time we become convinced we do not have a convincing case, we have an obligation to stop the prosecution.” To close out the case, the company headed by our client and the company headed by one of the white codefendants entered no-contest pleas to conspiracy charges under terms of a negotiated plea agreement with the government, and our client’s company was fined $25,000.00. This plea of nolo contendere (no contest) was not in any way whatsoever an admission of any guilt by our client’s company to the allegations in the Indictment, as our client preferred to have his company tender the plea of nolo contendere and to pay the fine in order to avoid the costs of a lengthy civil trial.

    United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

  • Case Dismissed
    Fulton County Rape Charge/Indictment

    In March 2017, our client was arrested and charged with rape following a January 19, 2017, consensual sexual encounter with his wife’s friend. The victim claimed that she was intoxicated and stated that she did not remember what had happened between her and our client. In October 2017, the Fulton County grand jury returned a one-count rape charge against our client. Following our receipt of the discovery in the case, our careful review of all the evidence showed that the victim did not appear intoxicated when she left the bar with our client and that she had no trouble walking back to her apartment with our client. Our private investigator also interviewed the doorman at the apartment complex who confirmed that the victim did not appear to be forced or coerced into her apartment by our client. Our client and his wife are “swingers” that frequently visited local Atlanta sex clubs with the victim. After many hours of discussions with the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office over a period of two years, and after we had filed a motion in November 2019, with the Court seeking to introduce evidence that the victim and the defendant (our client) had attended sex clubs together-as part of our effort to show that our client reasonably had believed on January 19, 2017, that the victim was fully consenting to the then sexual activity with our client-the District Attorney’s Office in December 2019 orally moved the Court to nolle prosequi (a phrase from the Latin, which is a formal notice of dismissal of a prosecution) the case against our client. On that day, the State finally apparently acknowledged (at least implicitly) that our client did not sexually assault his alleged victim, but rather it was a consensual act of sex between the two parties. The trial judge granted the State’s motion on January 6, 2020, and the charge of rape against our client was dismissed.

    Fulton County Superior Court

  • Client Acquitted
    Illegal Gun Purchases

    In 2002, an Atlanta trial jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, acquitted our client, a convicted felon, of all six counts in an Indictment of allegedly making illegal gun purchases, as Attorney Howard Weintraub convinced the jury that our client did not have the requisite knowledge or belief that he was committing a crime. In a case of first impression, United States District Judge Richard W. Story ruled that Attorney Weintraub could argue to the jury that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) and not our 26-year-old Atlanta resident client should bear the responsibility for our client’s purchasing and pawning of several guns because the GBI had in effect approved of our client’s gun purchases. As written in an Order issued by Judge Story, Attorney Weintraub had “claimed successfully that his [client] was accused of violating federal gun laws because authorities failed to tell [his client] that he could not buy a gun because of a previous felony conviction”. Both the government and Attorney Weintraub had relied, in part, on the federal Brady Law, which requires criminal background checks of all individuals who purchase firearms or redeem them from pawnbrokers. The law also forbids the sale or redemption from pawnshops of handguns to felons. Judge Story observed in his Order that neither federal appellate nor district courts nationwide had addressed the question of whether a potential gun purchaser with a felony conviction can defend himself by claiming that state authorities (in our case-the GBI) had approved a gun purchase after a criminal background check. In this regard, previous case law had established that when the federal government is prosecuting a case, an official who provided erroneous information that a defendant relied on must be a federal employee in order for that defendant to argue a defense known as entrapment by estoppel. Therefore, bad information supplied by the gun dealer would not have been enough to absolve a defendant of criminal liability, according to the then-existing case law.

    In Georgia, criminal background checks of potential gun purchasers are conducted by the GBI, rather than by federal agencies. However, Attorney Weintraub convinced Judge Story that GBI employees “may have at least operated jointly with the federal government” in complying with the Brady Law and that state compliance was subject to federal guidelines. The GBI background check of our client had failed to show a 1996 conviction for theft in Gwinnett County, Georgia when our client was a teenager as Gwinnett County apparently never provided information on the conviction to the GBI. When our client had redeemed a firearm that his girlfriend had pawned, he gave truthful information on the ATF Form 4473 to the pawnbroker, including his correct name, his correct Social Security number, and his correct date of birth. Our client also provided his required fingerprints, and our client declared on the ATF Form 4473 that he was not a convicted felon.

    Attorney Weintraub successfully had argued to the jury that this declaration by our client of not being a convicted felon was truthful in our client’s mind, as our client’s sentence for a 1996 theft conviction ran concurrently with an earlier probated sentence that he had received under Georgia’s first offender statute for another theft conviction. Under that statute, information about a conviction generally is restricted from being disseminated if a defendant completes his sentence without committing any further criminal activity. Attorney Weintraub successfully argued to the jury that our client had thought his first offender status applied to both of his theft convictions and that the GBI’s background check and conclusion of our client not having a felony conviction seemed to have confirmed that belief of our client. After deliberating for just over an hour, the jury acquitted our client of all charges. Attorney Weintraub had argued to the jury during closing argument that “all you have to do is decide if the defendant (our client) reasonably relied on what the GBI had told him, or did the defendant (our client) know that the GBI was making a mistake”. Because of the effective advocacy of Attorney Weintraub, the jury apparently concluded that there was enough evidence to demonstrate that our client genuinely believed that the GBI confirmed his understanding that he was not a convicted felon. The effective advocacy by Attorney Howard Weintraub prevailed and resulted in the not guilty verdict on all six counts for our client.

    United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

  • Internal/Administrative Charges Dropped
    Administrative Charges Against an Atlanta Police Officer Regarding the Julian Bond Investigation are Dismissed

    On March 19, 1987, Alice Bond, who was the estranged wife of civil rights activist and former State legislator Julian Bond, walked into the City of Atlanta Police Bureau’s Narcotics Unit and advised three police officers that her husband was using cocaine on a daily basis. In her interview, Mrs. Bond also alleged that several other prominent Atlanta citizens were using cocaine, and she also named several individuals as being distributors of cocaine. Our client was one of the three police officers who received this information and conducted an interview with Alice Bond. Our client and the other two officers determined not to have the City of Atlanta’s Narcotics Unit investigate the allegations as the three officers concluded that because of the then political environment the investigation may not have been properly handled if it was left with the Atlanta Narcotics Unit. This opinion of our client and his two fellow officers resulted in the three officers bringing the matter to agents of the Atlanta Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which decision to go outside of the police department was contrary to the City of Atlanta’s Police Department’s protocol. Because of the three officers’ decision to have the allegation against Julian Bond to be investigated by the FBI, which is an outside agency, the Public Safety Department’s Office of Policy Standards launched an investigation into the Police Bureau’s handling of the Alice Bond allegations. As a result of the subsequent internal police investigation, eight City of Atlanta police officers were charged with a variety of police department infractions. Our client was charged with an allegation of being untruthful to investigators, an allegation of violating the chain of command, an allegation of improperly sharing the taped interview of Alice Bond with the FBI agents, an allegation of failing to conduct the Alice Bond interview in an “impartial and reasonable manner”, and with an allegation that when preparing the memorandum of his interview of Alice Bond he failed to make the memorandum “as correct and complete as possible”. After receiving notice of these charges, Attorney Howard Weintraub worked diligently and tirelessly with our client over the following nine months and, through the efforts of Attorney Weintraub and the efforts of the attorneys for the other officers, all of the administrative charges were dropped on December 21, 1987, against our client and the other police officers who were cited for their alleged mishandling of the Alice Bond drug allegations.

    City of Atlanta Police Department

  • Charges Dismissed
    Aggravated Battery (Felony), Two Counts of Battery (Misdemeanors), & Two Counts of Simple Battery (Misdemeanors)

    In September 2017, our client was arrested following an altercation at a football game at Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Our client and his family were sitting in the section where the rival team's fans were sitting and they were subjected to spitting and having things thrown at them throughout the football game. At one point, an altercation occurred in the stands and our client and his family decided to leave the stands and move to the inner concourse area. Once in the concourse area, our client and his son were attacked by the rival fans from the stands. Our client’s son was in an altercation with another individual when a female fan jumped on his son’s back and struck him repeatedly with her shoe. Our client, in an attempt to break up the altercation, physically removed the female fan from off of his son and threw her to the ground. On May 4, 2018, our client was indicted by the Fulton County grand jury and charged with one count of aggravated battery, which is a felony; two counts of battery, which are misdemeanors; and two counts of simple battery, which also are misdemeanors. Early on in our investigation, we had subpoenaed Mercedes-Benz Stadium for its surveillance footage related to this incident. We had the video analyzed and enhanced by our video production company and, on July 3, 2019, we presented this video to the Superior Court Judge at a pre-trial hearing held on our Motion For Immunity From Prosecution Due To Self-Defense. After hearing all of the evidence in the case, the judge dismissed the above charges against our client, because the judge found that our client’s actions were justified under the law as our client had acted in self-defense.

    Fulton County Superior Court

  • Client Acquitted
    Alleged Child Molestation & Statutory Rape by High School Guidance Counselor

    In 1999, Attorney Howard Weintraub successfully represented a guidance counselor in a North Fulton High School accused of the child molestation and statutory rape of a 15 year old female student enrolled in the school. The case was prosecuted by the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office before a jury in Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta, Georgia. In a pre-trial conference a few days before the scheduled trial date, which conference was attended by the prosecutor, Attorney Weintraub, and our client, the trial judge discussed whether a plea offer had been offered by the State to our client. The prosecutor and Attorney Weintraub then advised the judge that the State had offered a plea deal to our client to a lesser offense with the State agreeing to recommend to the judge that our client serve a term of 5-10 years of probation. In discussing the plea deal, the trial judge asked our client if he understood the terms of what the State was offering and if our client had adequate time to confer with Attorney Weintraub as to whether he should accept the plea deal rather than going to trial and risking being convicted of child molestation and statutory rape. When our client had responded to the judge that he had diligently worked with Attorney Weintraub for over a year on his defense, the trial judge asked him to then confer with Attorney Weintraub specifically about whether to accept or reject the plea offer. Our client responded that he did not need to further confer with Attorney Weintraub as he was innocent and would never plead to having done anything of a sexual nature with any student. The judge then advised our client that she was not in any way trying to push our client into taking the plea deal, but she said that she felt obligated to advise our client and Attorney Weintraub that if our client went to trial and, if he was found guilty of the charges, she would sentence him to at least 20 years in state prison. Our client responded that he “would rather rot in prison” than plead guilty and get probation for something he did not do. The plea offer was rejected by our client and the case proceeded to a jury trial.

    During the trial, the State’s evidence rested almost entirely upon the credibility of the alleged victim. A vigorous cross-examination of the alleged victim was conducted by Attorney Weintraub. In an effort to build up the credibility of the alleged victim, the State called as a witness another female student enrolled in the same high school as our client and the alleged victim, who claimed that our client also had sexually assaulted her during a school day. In that this student was 17 years old at the time of the alleged sexual assault by our client, the State could not have charged our client with the alleged child molestation and statutory rape of that student, as those statutes require the age of the alleged victim to be under16 years old at the time of the alleged sexual act. The State, however, could have charged our client with allegedly assaulting the student while our client was a guidance counselor in the same school that the student was enrolled, in violation of O.C.G.A. Section 16-5-5.1. Attorney Weintraub realized that his defense of our client “caught a huge break” when the State had decided-either intentionally or mistakenly-not to charge our client with the alleged sexual assault of the 17-year old second student under Section 16-5-5.1.

    The prosecutor, however, convinced the trial judge, over the vehement objection of Attorney Weintraub, to allow the second female student to testify before the jury about the alleged sexual assault by our client. In essence, the State wanted to argue to the jury that, if they believed this second student’s testimony about our client sexually assaulting her, then they could use this testimony to conclude that the alleged 15-year-old victim was truthful in her claims that our client had sexually assaulted her. Attorney Weintraub was of the opinion that the second student’s testimony would be believed by the jury and he concluded that he needed to do everything to try to attack that student’s credibility. The investigation by our investigator, however, did not reveal anything that could be presented by Attorney Weintraub to the jury to undermine the testimony of the second student. However, Attorney Weintraub came up with a strategy that ultimately led the jury not to rely on the second student’s testimony and to ultimately find our client not guilty on all of the charges.

    This is how Attorney Weintraub accomplished that task: Attorney Weintraub was fully aware that the law in Georgia courts allowed the jury to have used the second student’s testimony to show whether our client had the requisite state of mind, e.g., knowledge or intent, in the crimes charged against the alleged 15-year-old victim in the Indictment. However, Attorney Weintraub also was fully aware that federal law in the federal district courts in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida allowed the juries in those courts to be able to use the second student’s testimony only after they found beyond a reasonable doubt from other evidence-independently of the second student’s testimony-that our client had in fact committed the alleged sexual acts upon the alleged 15-year-old victim. Attorney Weintraub employed the sound trial strategy of asking the Fulton County Superior Court judge to use the federal law-not the law of Georgia-regarding how the jury could use the testimony of the second 17-year-old student. Therefore, Attorney Weintraub convinced the trial judge to instruct the jurors that, during their deliberation of the guilt or innocence of our client, they could rely on the testimony of the second student only if they first concluded beyond a reasonable doubt-based entirely on the evidence independently of what the second student had testified about-that our client had sexually assaulted the alleged 15-year-old victim. The trial judge instructed the jurors that, if they had so concluded beyond a reasonable doubt from the independent evidence that our client had sexually assaulted the alleged 15-year-old victim, then-and only then- could the jurors use the testimony of the 17-year-old student to determine the requisite state of mind or knowledge or intent of our client when he sexually assaulted the 15-year-old victim. Armed with this major victory of having the jury so instructed, Attorney Weintraub effectively argued to the jury in his impassioned closing argument that the testimony of the second student was of no value to the jury. That is, Attorney Weintraub argued to the jury that, if the jurors had determined beyond a reasonable doubt that our client had sexually assaulted the alleged 15-year-old victim based on evidence entirely independent of the testimony given by the 17-year-old second student, then our client was guilty as he had the requisite state of mind/knowledge/intent required by the law during the sexual acts. Thus, Attorney Weintraub successfully had argued to the jurors that they could not in any way rely upon and use the testimony of the 17-year-old second student as the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our client had sexually assaulted the alleged 15-year-old victim with evidence independently of the testimony of the 17-year-old second student.

    The jury found our client not guilty of all the charges brought against him. In a post-verdict inquiry of the jurors by the trial judge, the jurors were asked by the judge why they found our client not guilty. The jurors stated that, even though they believed that our client had sexually assaulted the 17-year-old second student, they were obligated to follow the instructions that the trial judge had given them: that they could only use the testimony of the 17-year-old second student if they first found beyond a reasonable doubt from the independent evidence that our client had sexually assaulted the alleged 15-year-old victim: and they could not make that conclusion. The trial strategy of Attorney Weintraub worked to perfection, as his decision to convince the judge to instruct the jury with the federal law-rather than with the standard Georgia law-resulted in the acquittal of our client!

    Fulton County Superior Court

  • Case Dismissed
    Assistant Magistrate Judge Accused of 116 Theft Charges

    In October 2012, our office was hired to represent a Bartow County, Georgia Assistant Magistrate Judge accused of stealing thousands of dollars of county funds from the clerk’s office between January 2003 through August 2005. However, the Bartow County District Attorney’s Office did not have the grand jury return an Indictment against our client within the required statute of limitations period. The District Attorney’s Office tried to claim an exception to the running of the statute of limitations by arguing they were not aware that our client was a suspect in the case until many years after the alleged thefts had taken place. After we received our discovery in the case and after we conducted a thorough review of the District Attorney’s Office’s own files, we were able to demonstrate that this supposed justification for not bringing the charges in a grand jury Indictment within the appropriate time was entirely manufactured through the argument being advanced by the prosecutors. Our client was the primary suspect from the beginning of the State’s investigation into the misappropriation of the money from the clerk’s office and the District Attorney’s Office had waited too long to charge our client. In this regard, we were able to show that the State had waited until August 2012 to seek the Indictment against our client, which was two years after the District Attorney’s Office had received the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s (GBI) financial audit that was intended to trace the missing funds. Further, we showed that the prosecutors’ argument that even though our client was a suspect as far back as 2006, the prosecutors needed the GBI’s audit to establish that the person actually stealing the money was our client was disingenuous. That is, we established that prior to the completion of the GBI’s audit the prosecutors had financial information regarding the thefts similar to the information reflected in the GBI’s audit, which information had been completed by the Bartow County’s auditor and was in the receipt of the District Attorney’s Office before their receipt of the GBI financial audit. After a day of hearing evidence, on April 8, 2014, the Bartow County Superior Court Judge issued an Order in which he ruled that the District Attorney’s Office had acted improperly and dismissed all of the 116 charges against our client. In his Order, the Judge wrote, in relevant part, that it was “uncontroverted that the defendant was indicted after the expiration of the four-year limitation period”.

    Bartow County Superior Court

  • Probation
    Client Accused of Shooting and Killing His Father

    In one of the more tragic cases that our office has handled, in October 2015, we were hired by the mother and sisters of a young man who had accidentally shot and killed his father. Our client had a history of mental and emotional issues and, on the day of the homicide, while our client was then suffering from serious mental health issues, he walked into his parent’s living room and attempted to commit suicide by pointing a gun at his head and claiming that he was going to shoot himself in the head. Our client’s father tried to grab the gun away from his son to save his son’s life but, in the process of doing such, the gun went off and our client’s father suffered a fatal wound. Our client was initially charged with murdering his father. After several months of negotiations with the prosecutors and after having our client undergo several mental health evaluations, we were able to convince the DeKalb County District Attorney’s Office to reduce the charge from murder to involuntary manslaughter and to recommend to the trial judge that our client be given a probationary sentence, with the condition that he continue to receive mental health treatment. However, the trial judge initially was reluctant to give our client probation and we needed to have a hearing wherein we presented testimony from his sisters (unfortunately, at the time of the court proceeding, our client’s mother had passed away from cancer that she had been battling for years) wherein they told the judge that they agreed with the resolution we had reached with the District Attorney’s Office, as well as other mitigating evidence. After considering our impassioned presentation, the trial judge agreed with what we had reached with the prosecutors, accepted our plea of guilty to involuntary manslaughter, and gave our client a first-offender probation sentence.

    Dekalb County Superior Court

  • DUI Acquitted

    Client's vehicle was observed by a Dekalb County, Georgia Police Department officer at approximately 1:50 a.m. to be speeding and failing to maintain its lane of traffic on Peachtree Road north of Phipps Plaza Shopping Center. Although Client was followed by the officer for over two miles with the police vehicle's emergency equipment (flashing blue lights and siren) being activated, Client did not stop driving his vehicle until Client came to the home of his parents. The police vehicle followed Client to the residence of Client's parents. When the officer came to the driver's side window of Client's vehicle, Client had a difficult time locating his driver's license while responding to questions from the officer. Client had a strong odor of alcohol emanating from his breath; had bloodshot and watery eyes and had slurred speech. Client exhibited 6 out of 6 clues on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety evaluation. Client became "paranoid" when the officer asked Client to perform the Walk And Turn field sobriety evaluation. Client's clothing was in a state of disarray and the officer described Client in the officer's Incident Report as being "uncooperative", "argumentative", "defiant" and "arrogant". During his encounter with the police officer, Client had lost his balance and almost fell into the officer's patrol car. Client refused to submit to a chemical analysis of his breath. (In other words, Client refused to take the breath test).

    At the time of this incident, Client was a college student with two previous DUI convictions. Because of this criminal history, the prosecutor was seeking to have Client incarcerated for 120 days, should Client be found guilty of DUI. Client elected to be tried before a jury in Dekalb County State Court. After hearing all of the evidence, the jury found Client not guilty of DUI.

    Case was prosecuted in Dekalb County State Court.

  • DUI Acquitted

    Client's vehicle was pulled over at approximately 2:00 a.m. by a City of Roswell, Georgia Police Department officer for failing to maintain its lane of traffic. Client was administered three Standardized Field Sobriety tests, had bloodshot eyes, had a strong odor of alcohol and had slurred speech. Upon being placed under arrest for DUI, Client struggled with the police officer. Client submitted to the State-administered breath test which produced a blood alcohol concentration level that was .186 grams of alcohol, which is over two times the legal limit of 0.08 grams of alcohol. Client was charged with DUI and other traffic violations. Client's case was tried before a Judge sitting without a jury in Fulton County State Court. After hearing all of the evidence, the Judge found Client was not guilty of DUI.

    Case was prosecuted in Fulton County State Court.

  • DUI Acquitted

    Client's vehicle was pulled over in the early morning hours by a City of Alpharetta, Georgia Police Department officer for making an illegal u-turn by the Sage Restaurant on Haynes Bridge Road. Client was administered three Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, had bloodshot eyes, had a strong odor of alcohol, and had slurred speech. Client also incorrectly recited the alphabet. Client refused to take the State-administered breath test. Client was charged with DUI and other traffic violations. At the time of the incident Client was a single mother of two young children with a corporate job that required her to travel outside of Georgia. A conviction for DUI would have resulted in Client losing her job and Client was frightened that such a conviction could also result in the loss of the custody of her children. All negotiations with the prosecutor did not convince the prosecutor to dismiss the DUI. Client, therefore, elected to have a trial. Client's case was tried before a Judge sitting without a jury in Fulton County State Court. After several hours of hearing the evidence and the artful cross-examination by The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. of the arresting police officer, the Judge stopped the trial – even before the defense presented its case – and found Client not guilty of DUI.

    Case was prosecuted in Fulton County State Court.

  • DUI Acquitted

    Client's vehicle was observed in the early morning hours travelling on Georgia 400 with its trunk hood completely upright. Client was pulled over by a City of Alpharetta, Georgia Police Department officer because of this improper driving. Client was administered three Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, had bloodshot eyes, had an odor of alcohol and had slurred speech. Client refused to take the State-administered breath test. Client was charged with DUI and other traffic violations. Client's case was tried before a jury in Fulton County State Court. After hearing all of the evidence, the jury found Client not guilty of DUI.

    Case was prosecuted in Fulton County State Court.

  • DUI Acquitted

    Client's vehicle was pulled over at 11:00 p.m. by a City of Atlanta, Georgia Police Department officer for making an improper left turn by the Fox Theatre in Atlanta. Client was administered three Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, had bloodshot eyes and had a strong odor of alcohol. Client refused to take the State-administered breath test. Client was charged with DUI and other traffic violations. Even though there were extensive negotiations between The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. and the prosecutor, the Fulton County Solicitor's Office refused to dismiss the DUI case. Client's case was tried before a Judge sitting without a jury in Fulton County State Court. After hearing all of the evidence, the Judge found Client not guilty of DUI.

    Case was prosecuted in Fulton County State Court.

  • DUI Acquitted

    Client was pulled over by a City of Alpharetta, Georgia Police Department officer for making an illegal U-turn while attempting to enter onto Georgia 400. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but had refused a chemical test of her breath. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. retained the services of an expert in Standardized Field Sobriety Testing who reviewed Client's case and determined that the arresting officer did not properly conduct the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. At a trial before a Fulton County State Court Judge, The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. presented this testimony to the Court. After deliberating upon this defense evidence, the Court acquitted Defendant of the DUI charge.

    Case was prosecuted in Fulton County State Court.

  • DUI Acquitted

    Client's vehicle was pulled over in the early morning hours by a Georgia State Patrol trooper for making an improper left turn. Client was administered three Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, had bloodshot eyes, had a strong odor of alcohol, and had slurred speech. Client refused to take the State-administered breath test. Client was charged with DUI and other traffic violations. Client's case was tried before a Judge sitting without a jury in Fulton County State Court. After hearing the evidence presented by the prosecutor and the cross-examination of the arresting trooper by The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C., the Judge halted the trial and found Client not guilty of DUI.

    Case was prosecuted in Fulton County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client was involved in a single car accident in Paulding County, Georgia after running her car into the median. Client's husband, who was with Client in the car during the accident, initially took responsibility for the accident. However, after further investigation, the Paulding County Sheriff's Department determined that Client was in fact driving the vehicle. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but refused a chemical test of her breath. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations. After extensive negotiations with the prosecutor, The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the case and also convinced the prosecutor not to charge Client's husband with making a false statement to a law enforcement officer in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20.

    Case was handled in Paulding County Superior Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over by a City of Avondale Estates, Georgia Police Department officer for failing to maintain its lane of traffic. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and submitted to a chemical test of his blood. Client's blood test result was over the legal limit. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations. Upon receiving the blood test report, The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C., together with the assistance of a chemist, reviewed the report and explained to the prosecutor the flaws with Client's particular blood test result. The prosecutor agreed with this argument and dismissed the case.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Avondale Estates Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle initially was stopped on a Thursday morning at approximately 1:40 a.m. by a Georgia Tech Police Department officer for running a red light on Spring Street in downtown Atlanta. Upon encountering Client, the police officer claimed in his Incident Report that he had "observed a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from [Client's] vehicle." The officer also wrote that he "asked [Client] if she had been drinking", to which inquiry Client "advised she [had] two drinks of vodka." The officer then advised [Client] that he "would like to perform a field sobriety evaluation on [Client] to help establish if she was under the influence [of alcohol]".

    Client then was directed out of her vehicle and was asked by the officer to perform three field sobriety evaluations. The first exercise undertaken by Client was the Walk And Turn evaluation. As to the evaluation, the officer claimed that Client exhibited 2 out of the 8 clues that the officer was trained to look for: that Client lost her balance two times at the commencement of the exercise and that Client "left about six inches between each [of the eighteen] steps", rather than touching heel-to-toe as Client had been instructed to do by the officer. The second field sobriety exercise administered to Client was the One Leg Stand test. The officer wrote in his Incident Report that Client "held her left foot up for about three seconds before losing balance [and] [Client] tried again and did the same". The third field sobriety evaluation administered to Client was the alcosensor preliminary breath test and Client had tested positive for the presence of mouth alcohol.

    Client was arrested for DUI, was thereafter advised of the Georgia Implied Consent Warning, and agreed to take the State administered chemical analysis of her breath on the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath machine located in the police station. Client registered .226 grams of blood alcohol concentration, measuring almost 3 times the legal limit of .080 grams of blood alcohol concentration.

    The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. filed a motion to suppress all the evidence and to dismiss the case against Client because the arresting officer was without any lawful jurisdiction to have stopped Client's vehicle on Spring Street. After conducting a hearing, the Judge reluctantly granted the motion to suppress and dismissed the entire case against Client.

    Case was prosecuted in Fulton County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle initially was stopped at approximately 4:00 a.m. by a City of Atlanta, Georgia Police Department roadblock that was set up at West Paces Ferry Road and Peachtree Street. Upon encountering Client, a police officer claimed that he observed Client to have "a very strong" odor of alcohol on her breath and Client admitted to the officer that she had been drinking. Client also exhibited other physical manifestations that police officers often claim are indicative of someone who supposedly is under the influence of alcohol, that is, the officer claimed Client had difficulty locating her driver's license, had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes and had seemed somewhat confused. After being directed out of the vehicle, Client was asked to undertake field sobriety evaluations. Client, however, refused to submit to any field sobriety tests. Client then was arrested for DUI, was advised of the Georgia Implied Consent Warning, and agreed to take the State administered chemical analysis of her breath on the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath machine located in the City of Atlanta Jail. Client registered .196 grams of blood alcohol concentration, measuring almost 2 1/2 times the legal limit of .080 grams of blood alcohol concentration. Following extensive pretrial negotiations between the prosecutor and The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C., Client's charge of DUI was dismissed.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Atlanta Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over at approximately 3:00 a.m. by a City of Atlanta, Georgia Police Department officer for driving in the wrong direction on Lenox Road in the Atlanta Buckhead community. Client was administered Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, had bloodshot eyes, had a strong odor of alcohol about her person, and had slurred speech. Client fell down when exiting her vehicle. Client submitted to the State-administered breath test, which produced a blood alcohol concentration level that was almost 2.5 times the legal limit of 0.08 grams of alcohol. Client was charged with DUI and other traffic violations. After several meetings had occurred between The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. and the prosecutor, Client's charge of DUI and all of her other charges were completely dismissed, as it was proven to the prosecutor how Client unknowingly had been drugged with Rohypnol (commonly referred to as the "date rape drug"), thereby causing her intoxication to be the result of an unintentional decision on the part of Client.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Atlanta Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle initially was pulled over on a Thursday evening at approximately 11:45 p.m. by a City of Hiawassee, Georgia Police Department officer for speeding and failing to maintain its lane of traffic. The officer claimed that during his encounter with Client he observed Client to have an odor of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Client was asked by the officer to take an alcosensor preliminary breath test and Client registered .197 grams of mouth alcohol. Client was argumentative with the officer as to whether he would submit to any other field sobriety evaluations. Client was arrested for DUI, was advised of the Georgia Implied Consent Warning, and agreed to take the State administered chemical analysis of his breath on the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath machine located in the police station. Client registered .193 grams of blood alcohol concentration, measuring almost 2 ½ times the legal limit of .080 grams of blood alcohol concentration.

    Following extensive pretrial negotiations between the prosecutor and The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C., Client's charge of DUI was dismissed.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Hiawassee Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle initially was stopped on a Wednesday morning at approximately 1:30 a.m. by a City of Doraville, Georgia Police Department officer who had been conducting a traffic stop involving another vehicle on Buford Highway, just past the end of the ramp off I-285-East. According to the police officer's testimony in court on a pre-trial motion to suppress all the evidence gathered by the officer following his stop of Client's vehicle, the officer had observed Client's vehicle in the officer's side mirror coming down the ramp at a supposed high rate of speed. The officer testified that Client's vehicle supposedly began to skid when Client came off of I-285 and the officer further testified that he believed Client's vehicle was "going to collide with my patrol vehicle." According to the officer, Client also violated the traffic laws because Client did not approach the officer's stationary vehicle with due caution and Client had failed to make a lane change into a lane not adjacent to the officer's patrol vehicle so as to avoid a potential collision with the officer's vehicle.

    Upon encountering Client, the police officer testified that he had observed an odor of alcohol coming from Client's breath; that Client had admitted to driving "way too fast"; that Client had bloodshot and watery eyes; that Client had exhibited 6 out of 6 clues on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test; that Client was administered the Walk And Turn field sobriety evaluation and the One Leg Stand field sobriety evaluation on which evaluations Client respectively exhibited 2 out of 8 clues and 1 out of 4 clues; and that Client tested positive for the presence of mouth alcohol on the alcosensor preliminary breath test. Client was arrested for DUI, was advised of the Georgia Implied Consent Warning, and agreed to take the State administered chemical analysis of his breath on the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath machine located in the Doraville police station. Client registered .124 grams of blood alcohol concentration, measuring 1 and ½ times the legal limit of .080 grams of blood alcohol concentration.

    A motion to suppress the observations of Client made by the police officer, the results of the field sobriety evaluations, the admissions supposedly made by Client to the officer, and the breath test result of .124 was filed on behalf of Client. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Court granted the motion to suppress and excluded all of the aforementioned evidence. Thereafter, Client's charge of DUI was dismissed by the DeKalb County Solicitor General's Office.

    Case was prosecuted in Dekalb County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over in the early morning hours by a Georgia State Patrol trooper for speeding. Client was administered three Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (exhibiting 6 out of 6 clues on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and swaying very badly during that test). Client also had watery and bloodshot eyes, had a strong odor of alcohol on her breath, and Client had stumbled when she walked outside of her car. Client also registered a .144 on the portable hand-held alcosensor breathalyzer. Client submitted to the State-administered breath test, which produced a blood alcohol concentration level that was almost 1.25 times the legal level of 0.08 grams of alcohol. Client was charged with DUI and other traffic violations. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. convinced the Judge to dismiss the DUI and Client's entire case, even though Client clearly was guilty of speeding.

    Case was prosecuted in Fulton County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was stopped in the City of Pembroke, Georgia by a City of Pembroke Police Department officer for the traffic violation of speeding. Client was administered three Standardized Field Sobriety tests, had bloodshot eyes and had an odor of alcohol about his person. Client submitted to the State administered breath test, which produced a blood alcohol concentration level of 0.161 grams of alcohol, which was two times the legal limit of 0.08 grams of alcohol. Prior to being stopped by the police officer, Client had eaten very little that day. Further, over the course of several months prior to his DUI arrest, Client had lost over forty pounds. Further, Client previously had suffered several instances of sports related head trauma. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. effectively persuaded the prosecutor that these factors of Ketosis, weight loss, little carbohydrates being eaten on the day of the arrest, and head injuries casted doubt on Client's performances on the field sobriety tests and upon the accuracy of the breath test reading of 0.161 grams of alcohol. The prosecutor agreed and dismissed the DUI.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Pembroke Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over by a Georgia State Patrol trooper for running a stop sign. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and submitted to a chemical test of his breath. Client's breath test result was over twice the legal limit. Client was charged with DUI and other traffic violations. Client had been on the Atkins diet and The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. presented this information to the prosecutor and explained that this likely caused Ketosis in Client's body, leading to an elevated breath test reading. The prosecutor was persuaded by this argument and dismissed Client's case.

    Case was prosecuted in Cobb County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over by a Gwinnett County, Georgia Police Department officer for a traffic violation. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and submitted to a chemical test of her breath. Client's breath test result was over the legal limit. Client was charged with DUI and other traffic violations. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. presented the prosecutor in Gwinnett County State Court with expert testimony explaining a discrepancy with the breath test result. Shortly thereafter, Client's case was dismissed.

    Case was prosecuted in Gwinnett County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was encountered by a City of Atlanta, Georgia Police Department officer after being involved in a traffic accident. Client refused all Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and also refused to submit to a chemical test of his breath. Client was charged with DUI and other traffic violations. Client was a medical doctor and a DUI conviction would have had a significant negative impact on Client's career. After extensive pretrial negotiations with the prosecutor in City of Atlanta Municipal Court, Client's case was dismissed.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Atlanta Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client was travelling home after a party and fell asleep while driving. Client drove his car into a ditch. Client was arrested by a City of Dahlonega, Georgia Police Department officer for DUI and other traffic violations and submitted to a chemical test of his breath. Client's breath test result was over twice the legal limit. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. explained to the prosecutor and the Judge that the reason Client was driving that night was because he was forced to leave a party that he was at and that he had not planned on driving at all that night. The Judge and prosecutor agreed to dismiss Client's case.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Dahlonega Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over by a Henry County, Georgia Police Department officer for a traffic violation. The police officer suspected that Client was impaired by drugs as Client had exhibited physical signs of being so impaired and also was dressed in multiple layers of clothing despite the warm temperature. Client had submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and also submitted to a chemical test of his blood. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations. The arresting officer was scheduled to leave the country for military service in Afghanistan so the Court ordered that a deposition of the officer be conducted to preserve his testimony in advance of trial. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. skillfully cross-examined the arresting officer during this deposition and established the existence of numerous problems with his arrest in this case. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. also attacked the blood test result and showed that Client had valid prescriptions for the medicines in his system and that the amounts of those medicines were within their prescribed levels. After the Court proceeding, the prosecutor dismissed the case.

    Case was prosecuted in Henry County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over by a Georgia State Patrol trooper for a traffic violation after leaving a wedding reception. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and a chemical test of her breath. Client's breath test result was over the legal limit. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub spoke extensively with the Georgia State Patrol trooper who had arrested Client about Client's case. The trooper informed The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. that he never agrees to the dismissal of a DUI case due to his personal history of having his parents killed in a car accident by a driver who then was DUI and had been previously convicted of DUI on eight different occasions! However, after continued discussions with the trooper about Client's case, The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. convinced the trooper to agree to a dismissal of the case. The prosecutor thereafter dismissed Client's case.

    Case was prosecuted in Spalding County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over by a Georgia State Patrol trooper for having an obstructed license plate. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but refused a chemical test of her breath. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. retained the services of an expert in Standardized Field Sobriety Testing who reviewed Client's case and determined that the arresting officer did not properly conduct the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. On the day of Client's scheduled trial, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the case.

    Case was prosecuted in Fulton County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over by a City of Atlanta, Georgia Police Department officer for driving without its headlights on. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but refused a chemical test of his breath. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. spoke extensively with the prosecutor and pointed out discrepancies between the results of Client's Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. The prosecutor agreed to dismiss Client's case.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Atlanta Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over by a City of Roswell, Georgia Police Department officer because the driver had littered from the vehicle and for the driver's failure to maintain his lane of traffic. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but refused to submit to a chemical test of his breath. Client was arrested for possession of alcohol by a minor and other traffic violations and the prosecutor thereafter considered also charging Client with DUI. After extensive negotiations with the prosecutor, The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the entire case.

    Case was prosecuted in Fulton County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was approached by a Cobb County, Georgia Police Department officer after running a red light and striking another vehicle. Client was under 21 at the time and possessed an illegally obtained fictitious driver's license. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but refused a chemical test of his breath. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations.

    Several weeks later, Client was again involved in a car accident and was encountered by the same Cobb County Police Department officer. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but again refused a chemical test of his breath. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. worked with Client to get him involved in treatment and other activities to address his substance abuse issues. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. presented this information to the Solicitor General himself and convinced the Solicitor to dismiss one of the DUI cases against Client.

    Case was prosecuted in Cobb County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over by a Georgia State Patrol trooper for running a stop sign. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and a chemical test of her breath. Client's breath test was over the legal limit. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. spoke extensively with the prosecutor and, after reviewing the video of the DUI arrest with the prosecutor, The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the case.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Atlanta Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was approached by a City of Doraville, Georgia Police Department officer while Client was asleep in his vehicle in the middle of the road. Client had vomited on himself. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but refused a chemical test of his breath. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations. Client had a prior DUI conviction making this his second DUI arrest. Client was a member of the military and, at the time of his arrest, was receiving treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. After explaining Client's military service and his medical issues on the day of his DUI arrest, The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the case.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Doraville Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over by a City of Alpharetta, Georgia Police Department officer for a traffic violation. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and a chemical test of his breath. Client's breath test result was over the legal limit. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. showed the prosecutor flaws in his charging process that convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the case.

    Case was prosecuted in Fulton County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over by a City of Roswell, Georgia Police Department officer for failing to maintain its lane of traffic. Client had submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but had refused to submit to a chemical test of his breath. Client was charged with DUI and other traffic violations. Client had a prior DUI conviction making this his second DUI arrest. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. convinced the prosecutor to dismiss Client's case.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Roswell Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over for a traffic violation by a City of Dunwoody, Georgia Police Department officer. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but refused a chemical test of his breath. Client was arrested for DUI and charged with other traffic violations. Client had a prior DUI conviction making this his second DUI arrest. After explaining to the prosecutor that Client would lose his job if convicted of a second DUI due to the lengthy period of not being able to drive because of the lengthy license suspension associated with a second DUI conviction, The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the case.

    Case was handled in City of Dunwoody Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over by a City of Atlanta, Georgia Police Department officer for committing a traffic violation. Client submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but refused a chemical test of his breath. Client was arrested for DUI and other traffic violations. The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. presented the prosecutor with information regarding the serious negative impact that a DUI conviction would have on Client's career. On the day of Client's trial, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss Client's case.

    Case was prosecuted in Fulton County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client stopped his car on the side of the road to take care of a friend who was sick in his car. Client was approached by a City of Dahlonega, Georgia Police Department officer and thereafter was asked to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. Client also submitted to a chemical test of his breath. Client's breath test result was over the legal limit. Client was arrested and charged with DUI and other traffic violations. After explaining the negative impact that a DUI conviction would have on Client's career, The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the case.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Dahlonega Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over in the early morning hours by a Georgia State Patrol trooper for speeding in the City of Atlanta. Client was administered Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and exhibited manifestations of being impaired by alcohol. Client submitted to the State administered breath test and this breath test result was over the legal limit of 0.08 grams of alcohol. Client was charged with DUI and other traffic violations. Client hired The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. to defend him regarding this DUI prosecution. In less than one year after this incident, Client was arrested by a City of Atlanta Police Department officer for another DUI. Both of these cases were being prosecuted by the City of Atlanta Solicitor's Office. Through a series of calculated Court proceedings and legal decisions, The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. convinced the prosecutor to dismiss both of Client's DUI cases.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Atlanta Municipal Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client hired The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. with two pending DUI arrests. Both of these cases occurred in Cobb County, Georgia. Within a few months of hiring our firm, Client was again arrested for another DUI in Cobb County. Client was in a very difficult situation as convictions for all three of the DUI's would have placed Client in the status of being a habitual violator. As a habitual violator, Client would not be able to drive for a three-year period of time and thereafter Client would be on a limited driving permit for two years. Also, Client would be facing a felony prosecution (exposing her to up to five years in State prison) if she would ever drive during the initial three-year period if she would drive in violation of the limited permit to be given to her during the subsequent two years. Also, Client was facing substantial jail time if she was convicted of all three DUI's.

    Through a series of protracted negotiations with the prosecutors and the implementation of persuasive legal arguments, The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. convinced the prosecutors to drop two of the DUI cases; to permit Client to plead guilty to just one DUI; and to have Client sentenced by the Court to the statutorily required mandatory minimum terms, as if Client had not even been arrested for the two other DUI's: in effect being sentenced as if Client was a lifetime one-time DUI arrest offender.

    Case was prosecuted in Cobb County State Court.

  • DUI Dismissed

    Client's vehicle was pulled over in the early morning hours by a City of Atlanta, Georgia Police Department officer for a traffic violation. Client was administered three Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, had bloodshot eyes and had a strong odor of alcohol coming from his breath. Upon being placed under arrest for DUI Client struggled with the police officer resulting in Client also being charged for obstruction of a police officer. Client submitted to the State-administered breath test which produced a blood alcohol concentration result that was almost twice the legal limit of 0.08 grams of alcohol. In extensive negotiations with the prosecutor, The Law Offices of Howard J. Weintraub, P.C. employed the concept of Ketosis to explain how Client's very high blood-alcohol reading on the breathalyzer was unreliable inasmuch as the Intoxilyzer 5000 machine that Client was tested upon was unable to distinguish between the ethanol alcohol consumed by Client prior to his driving and the isopropyl alcohol being produced by Client's liver who was in the medical state of Ketosis at the time of his DUI arrest. After this presentation, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the DUI.

    Case was prosecuted in City of Atlanta Municipal Court.