Our attorneys represented Client – a taxi driver – accused of a hit-and-run while driving his cab. Being a cutthroat profession dependent upon a valid license, any blemishes to his driving record would jeopardize his career. Negotiations with the prosecuting attorney were fruitless, however, because the state refused to agree to anything that would allow Client to keep his license, forcing the matter to a jury trial. Prosecution had four witnesses and all Client had was his own testimony.
The evidence and witness statements were split fairly evenly on the issue of whether it really was a hit-and-run situation. Client, however, was always consistent in his telling of the situation over the several months he and our attorneys worked on the case. Up until trial, prosecution witnesses had also been consistent, though some questions had not yet been answered.
At trial, Client told his story as he always had. The prosecution witnesses’ stories unraveled; they developed serious inconsistencies as to important facts such as the speed of Client’s cab, placement of the alleged victim’s body, injuries to the alleged victim, and how the Client could have sped away from the scene on a rainy day at the mall in the middle of a holiday shopping rush.
After thirty minutes of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
Leaving the courthouse, one of our attorneys was approached by a juror as he unlocked his car. The juror told him he had done a good job for Client and volunteered that the jury had voted not guilty immediately but took thirty minutes just to go through all of the jury instructions provided by the court.
Client got to keep his license without a hit-and-run on his record that would have ruined his career and likely forced him and his family into bankruptcy.