Appelman Law Firm Recent Successes
The defense lawyers at Appelman Law Firm, LLC are skilled at obtaining favorable results for their clients. Here are just a few of Appelman Law Firm, LLC's recent successes in Minnesota DWI defense.
If you are charged with a Minnesota DWI offense, call our MN drunk driving defense attorneys now: (952)224 2277.
Jury Acquits Appelman Law Firm, LLC client of gross-misdemeanor MN BWI
State vs. J.T.
BWI Offense – Child Endangerment
The art of persuasion was on display in Hennepin County. Avery Appelman represented J.T. who was charged with operating a motor boat while intoxicated with passengers under the age of 16 on board. The case went to jury trial, where Mr. Appelman successfully cross-examined the state's law enforcement witnesses. Mr. Appelman diligently prepared for the case and presented such a persuasive defense that the jury returned a not guilty verdict in 15 minutes.
Judge Agrees: Breath Test is Inaccurate and Unreliable due to Acid Reflux
State vs. D.C.
DWI Offense
An example of cutting edge Minnesota DUI defense. Avery Appelman's client, D.C. was charged with a misdemeanor DWI for having a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit. The client suffers from gastro esophageal reflux (acid reflux) which manifested itself by the perpetual regurgitation of D.C.'s stomach contents into his mouth. Mr. Appelman, employing the use of a forensic toxicologist, successfully argued that the breath test D.C. submitted to was inaccurate and unreliable. The court ordered D.C.'s driver's license reinstated and ultimately the state prosecution was resolved with a plea to a petty misdemeanor (non-criminal) speeding charge.
Avery Appelman Successfully Convinces Court to Reinstate Client's Driver's License
State v. D.D.
DWI Offense
D.D. one of Avery Appelman's clients, was charged with a DWI in Dakota County. Avery challenged the validity of the stop of D.D.'s vehicle. A Dakota County judge agreed that D.D.'s was stopped for no justifiable reason and reinstated D.D.'s driving privileges. The state ultimately dismissed the criminal case against D.D.
Avery Appelman Convinces Judge that Breath Test is Inaccurate!
State vs. R.L.
DWI Offense
Another one of Avery Appelman's successful DWI representations! R.L. was driving a vehicle when he was struck on two sides by vehicles involved in a deadly collision on the opposite side of the road. Although not in anyway involved in the accident, the police forced R.L. to submit to a blood test which revealed the presence of cocaine. Avery Appelman successfully pointed out the lack of probable cause necessary to compel a blood test, and the state was forced to dismiss the DWI charges against R.L.
DWI Dismissed due to Avery Appelman's Persuasive Argument!!
State vs. E.M.
DWI Offense
E.M. was charged with a DWI, and then Avery Appelman began to represent her. Once involved in the case, Mr. Appelman investigated the facts surrounding the E.M. encounter with the police and argued that the police could not prove she was actually driving the vehicle. As a direct result of Avery's arguments, E.M.'s case was dismissed
Another Breath Test Found Inaccurate Due to Arguments Presented by Avery Appelman!
State v. J.S.
DWI Offense
J.S. was a Northwest Airline mechanic who worked with chemicals. These chemicals were absorbed into J.S.'s body and as a result his breath test was contaminated. The Court found J.S.'s breath test to be inaccurate and unreliable and reinstated J.S.'s driver's license; the state dismissed the criminal charges against J.S.
Appelman Client with a BAC > .20 has her Driver's License Reinstated
State v. A.B.
DWI Offense
In the early morning hours of a cold wintry day, A.B. was in her vehicle, engaged in an intimate moment with her significant other. Police approached the vehicle due to a noise complaint. When the officers knocked on the driver's side window, A.B.'s boyfriend rolled over to the passenger seat, leaving A.B. in the driver's seat. Ultimately A.B. was arrested for being in physical control of a motor vehicle with a BAC > .20. Avery Appelman represented A.B. and argued that she never exercised physical control over the motor vehicle. The Judge agreed and reinstated A.B.'s driving privileges. The criminal case was resolved in a manner that left no permanent record of the incident
