How Rossen Law Firm Secured Two Major DUI Trial Wins in Back-to-Back Days
Winning two trials in two days is no small feat. It takes deep legal knowledge, a strong defense strategy, and an unwavering commitment to justice. Attorneys Scott Simmons and Susan Lawson led these victories with precision. Throughout both trials, their meticulous understanding of case law earned them recognition from the judges, who referred to them as “legal gurus” for their ability to cite appellate cases and shape the legal arguments effectively.
"Our clients put their trust in us, and we took that responsibility seriously," said Scott Simmons.
"We worked tirelessly to uncover every weakness in the prosecution’s case, ensuring we built the strongest defense possible. The stakes were high, but we were fully prepared to fight for their futures." Susan echoed this sentiment, adding, "Understanding the law is one thing, but applying it strategically in a high-stakes trial is what wins cases. These back-to-back victories prove how experience, preparation, and a relentless commitment to justice make all the difference."
Knowing the law, spotting weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, and executing a precise defense strategy can mean the difference between conviction and freedom.
Case #1: Wrongly Accused and Fighting for Justice
Our first client, Marcus Benson (name changed for privacy), was an out-of-state driver from Georgia who found himself in an unfair legal battle in Florida. Under normal circumstances, first-time DUI offenders in Florida may qualify for a DUI Diversion Program, which can help them avoid severe penalties. However, Marcus was denied access to this program because he was not a resident.
Despite his lack of prior criminal history and the weak evidence against him, the prosecution refused to reduce the charge to reckless driving. Even multiple state attorneys acknowledged that the case was weak and would likely be lost at trial, but they would not offer a plea deal.
This forced our legal team to take the case to trial and fight for justice.
Marcus was found sleeping in his car on the side of a major road with his foot on the brake, but the car was still in drive. His foot slipped off the brake at some point, causing his vehicle to roll forward and lightly tap a road sign. Two officers who witnessed this assumed he was impaired and immediately categorized him as a "Signal 1"—law enforcement’s term for a suspected DUI.
When officers pulled Marcus from his car, he was disoriented and tired, not intoxicated. Our defense team built a case around the theme "Sleeping, Scared, Shut Down"—explaining that his behavior resulted from being abruptly awakened, nervous about the situation, and shutting down under pressure.
More importantly, Marcus exercised his legal rights by refusing field sobriety exercises and a breath test, which significantly reduced the amount of evidence against him. In the trial, we argued that there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he was under the influence—just speculation from the officers.
The jury returned a Not Guilty verdict. Marcus avoided a wrongful DUI conviction, which would have cost him thousands of dollars in fines, skyrocketing insurance rates, and possibly his career.
Case #2: Exposing a Critical Legal Oversight
Our legal team was back in court for another DUI case the next day, defending Alejandro Rivera (name changed). In this case, the field sobriety test was conducted entirely in Spanish, yet the state failed to provide an independent translation, a crucial legal requirement in Florida. Without a certified translation, statements made during the test could not be legally admitted as evidence. Recognizing this significant oversight, our attorneys filed a motion in limine, a strategic move many defense attorneys might overlook.
The judge ruled in our favor, determining that none of Alejandro’s statements could be used in court. Additionally, while the prosecution was allowed to play the video of the field sobriety exercises, it had to be shown without audio. This meant the jury could see Alejandro moving but had no context for what he was being told to do, making it impossible to determine whether he was impaired or simply confused. The prosecution's case fell apart without key evidence from the arresting officer.
As a result, the jury had no choice but to return another Not Guilty verdict. This case highlights the importance of knowing the law and the value of a defense team that meticulously identifies and challenges legal missteps. By leveraging our deep knowledge of Florida law, Rossen Law Firm secured justice for our client and prevented an unjust conviction.
One of the defining moments during Alejandro Rivera’s trial was when Susan Lawson identified a critical procedural misstep by the state. Despite initial pushback, Susan confidently insisted on a sidebar with the judge, arguing that the prosecution had violated essential legal procedures. Her sharp legal instincts proved correct, ultimately leading to a significant evidentiary exclusion, severely weakening the state's case. Additionally, Susan caught the state's error in calling a mistrial, securing what is known as a "free trial"—meaning if the jury had returned a guilty verdict, the case would have been automatically retried due to prosecutorial error.
These consecutive victories demonstrate the strength of experienced legal defense, strategic preparation, and unwavering commitment to our clients. We fight relentlessly to ensure justice prevails, whether by challenging weak evidence, exposing legal oversights, or standing firm in the courtroom. These cases reinforce our mission—to protect the futures of those who put their trust in us.