2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 207A, Frisco, TX 75034

Free Consultations




Case Results

DWI, Drunk Driving and Drugged Driving

These are a sampling of some of our successful case results. These are not a guarantee or indication of future case results. Every case and circumstance are different.

DWI 2nd - .21 Blood - NOT GUILTY

"Mike" was celebrating with friends at a local bar. By the end of the evening he knew he had too much to drive. It was winter so he went and sat in his car outside with the heater on with the thought of waiting until he was safe or calling an Uber. He fell asleep and woke to the police knocking on his window.

The police gave him field sobriety tests and he failed miserably. He gave a blood test showing almost 3 times the legal limit.

The District Attorney complained when we set the case for trial. They told us it was a "slam dunk" and we were wasting their time. (Their exact words).

At trial, our lawyers argued that Mike wasn't actually "operating" his vehicle. In Texas, there's no definition to operating, and the District Attorney didn't know that. We successfully convinced the jury he wasn't operating the car for the purposes of "Driving While Intoxicated." The jury came back in 7 minutes and found Mike NOT GUILTY. They told us that our arguments were spot on, and that someone purposefully NOT putting the public at risk didn't deserve a DWI conviction.

After the trial (and lots of hugs), Mike was able to get his license back and return to his job that he was going to lose.

DWI With Child / Felony - .22 Blood - Lowered to Misdemeanor

"Stacy" was pulled over for speeding with her two children in the car after leaving dinner with the kids. After being given field sobriety tests she was arrested and submitted to a blood test showing a .22 BAC.

Stacy knew she had to fight the case, because a felony conviction was going to be devastating to her life. She had no prior criminal history. Her #1 Goal was not having a felony on her record.

Even though the odds were against us, we set her case for trial. Luckily for us we had an ace in the hole. We found discrepancies with the blood test. Normally we wouldn't show the DA these discrepancies before trial, but we decided to let them in on the problem, with the hopes of using it to further our negotiations.... and it worked.

After reviewing the case, the District Attorney agreed to drop the case to a Misdemeanor. Stacy took the plea happily.

We were happy to get her such a great deal. Stacy was able to continue on with her life, and able to continue volunteering which she wouldn't have been able to do with a felony conviction.

DWI Not Guilty

"Angel" originally hired another attorney to represent her. She had been pulled over for having her headlights off at night. (She had valet parked her car earlier and they turned off the "auto - on" feature). After smelling alcohol on her breath and "failing" the field sobriety tests, Angel was arrested for DWI. She was asked to take a blood test and voluntarily submitted to one.

Despite the blood test coming back at .025, she was charged with DWI anyway. In Texas, you can be charged with DWI even if you are below the legal limit!

Her prior attorney worked out a plea bargain and encouraged her to take the deal which would have included a conviction for life. Smelling something wrong, she fired that attorney and hired Biederman & Burleson.

We advised heavily against taking a plea, and set the case for trial. Because of the court we were in (knowing the Judge's prior rulings is key) we opted for a trial in front of the judge instead of a jury. Angel was quickly found Not Guilty after a short trial and was able to get her records Expunged.

DWI - Acquitted (Motion For Speedy Trial Granted)

"Andy" was pulled over for speeding and subsequently arrested for DWI. Despite nothing unusual about the case, the State failed to file the case for over a year and a half.

Technically, the State has up to two years to file a DWI case. However all citizens have the right to a speedy trial. We filed a Motion for Speedy Trial for unreasonable delay. This is a fairly complex motion that has several elements that must be proved.

After a hearing with the Judge, the court granted our motion and the case was DISMISSED. This, in turn, gave Andy the right to an expunction.

DWI - Prescription Drugs (No Alcohol) NOT GUILTY

Joe was in a rollover accident at about 9 AM. When the police arrived, they noticed that Joe wasn't acting quite right. Although they didn't smell alcohol on him, the police decided to test him for intoxication. They constantly pulled him away from the paramedics on the scene to further their investigation. The officer even rode with him in the ambulance to the hospital where he continued to question him.

Joe admitted to taking his prescription medications as prescribed, but nothing else. After his "investigation" the officer arrested Joe after being released from the hospital on suspicion of DWI.

The blood test came back, and as expected, only had his prescription drugs in his system. Like always, the District Attorney charged him anyway. The state refused to acquiesce so we went for a trial by jury. During the trial, we convinced the jury the state could not prove that he lost the normal use of his mental or physical faculties due to drugs or alcohol. They quickly found our client NOT GUILTY allowing us to get a full expunction.

DWI - Breath Test .092

"Vanessa" was stopped for speeding 64 in a 45. After smelling alcohol on her breath, the officer pulled her from the car and administered Standardized Field Sobriety tests on her. After he formed the opinion she was intoxicated he arrested her and took her to jail.

At the jail, Vanessa submitted to a breath test showing a BAC of .091, just above the legal limit.

Despite getting extremely favorable plea bargain offers, Vanessa opted for a trial. At trial, the attorneys at Biederman & Burleson were able to show that Vanessa could have been under .08 at the time of driving. In Texas, your breath or blood alcohol concentration only matters at the time of driving. It’s Driving While Intoxicated, not being intoxicated at the jail an hour later.

We successfully showed the jury that she could have been under .08 at the time of driving. Because the state couldn't prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" the jury found Vanessa NOT GUILTY, allowing her to get her records expunged.

DWI .134 Breath Test - NOT GUILTY

"Richard" was pulled over by the police following calls about a reckless driver. After stopping him, the police smelled alcohol on his breath and administered Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. The police arrested him and offered him a breath test which he submitted to. He blew a .134.

At trial we were able to show that the field sobriety tests were improperly administered, thus not showing accurate results. Along with that, we were able to show multiple problems with the breath testing machine used, the "Intoxilyzer 5000." After a lengthy deliberation, the jury found Richard NOT GUILTY because the state was unable to meet their burden of proving his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."

DWI Blood Test .234 NOT GUILTY

"Kimberly" was stopped by the police for failure to stop at a designated point at a stop sign. She was pulled over and the officer claimed to smell alcohol on her breath and she had red, bloodshot watery eyes.

The officer administered standardized field sobriety tests and claimed she failed miserably. In addition, she was given a blood test that eventually came back at a .234.

The state offered a plea "bargain" (not much of a bargain) of 2 years probation along with an ignition interlock device. This would have caused her to lose her job.

While most lawyers would assume the person is cooked, we dug deeper. What many officers (and lawyers even) don’t know is that the statute of Failure to Stop is a bit odd. What the statute says (for a stop sign) is that you are required to stop before a crosswalk. If there's no crosswalk, then at a stop line.

In this case, Kimberly stopped after the stop line, but before the crosswalk -- a perfectly legal situation. Because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop her, the rest of the case is "thrown out" which effectively means there is no evidence to use against her. Therefore, the jury was instructed to find Kimberly NOT GUILTY allowing her a full expunction of her records.

DWI, Leaving the Scene of an Accident, Public Intoxication - DISMISSED

"Tim's" Luxury Exotic Sportscar was found crashed into a light pole by police. No drivers or passengers were found on the scene. After a quick registration check, the police determined the car was Tim's, they drove to his house to see if he was there. On the way there, they found Tim on a motors cooter visibly intoxicated. They found the car key in his pocket and arrested him for Public Intoxication and Leaving the Scene of an Accident.

Luckily for Tim, he hired Biederman & Burleson's lawyers quickly. They immediately got in contact with the police before the cases could be filed. They worked out a deal to pay for the damage and got all charges dismissed. The Public Intoxication case was eventually dismissed as well, allowing Tim to return to his high profile job.

This was a good example of the importance of hiring not just the right lawyers with the connections to the police and prosecuting office, but the importance of hiring the lawyers quickly. Had Tim waited to hire an attorney, these results could not have been achieved.

DWI .16 Breath Test - NOT GUILTY

“Billy” was pulled over by local police after an evening out with his wife. The officer stopped him for not stopping before the stop line at a red light.

The officer smelled alcohol on his breath and said he had red bloodshot watery eyes. He was given standardized field sobriety test which the officer claimed he failed miserably. After being arrested he was offered a breath test and happily submitted thinking it would exonerate him. He was wrong when the machine popped out a .16, twice the legal limit.

Billy never believed the test and always felt the machine had to be wrong. We set the case for trial and prepared like usual. We found some issues with the field sobriety tests being wrongly administered along with problems with the breath test machine.

Most attorneys would have focused there but not the attorneys at Biederman & Burleson. We know there is always more than one way to skin a cat and sometimes it’s easier to go after the low handing fruit.

We noticed that the video started with Billy already being over the stop line. The officer never saw Billy initially stop. The law says you must stop before the stop line but there’s is nothing preventing you from creeping forward after to, say, look for oncoming traffic before turning right. And that is exactly what Billy did.

We filed a motion to suppress and showed that Billy had not committed any traffic infraction rendering all evidence against him inadmissible. The judge quickly found him Not Guilty and he was immediately eligible for an expunction.

This case is a good example that fighting like crazy in the obvious places isn’t always the best strategy. The entire case must always be looked at for the best strategy to win.

DWI - Only FSTs (No Breath/Blood)

"Billy" was stopped for speeding late one night. The officer claimed to smell alcohol on his breath and he had red bloodshot watery eyes. After asking Billy to exit the car, the officer had him perform standardized field sobriety tests. Billy took the "Horizontal Nystagmus Test," the "Walk and Turn" test and the "One Leg Stand" test. According to the officer he failed and Billy was arrested for DWI.

At the police station, Billy was offered a breath and/or blood test and refused. The officer attempted to get a warrant for Billys blood but was unable to reach a judge at that late hour.

When Billy came to our office, he was quite despondent because he figured he was cooked. After careful review of the case, we told Billy that he had virtually nothing to lose if heh fought his case and he agreed.

Billy agreed and we went to trial. At the trial, the officer claimed that the field sobriety tests were scientifically valid. Under cross examination he was unable to verify any scientific test showing these were valid. In fact they were only used by law enforcement and couldn't show that they accurately showed whether or not someone was intoxicated. The jury agreed and found Billy NOT GUILTY setting him up for a full expunction of his record.

DWI Breath Test .14

"Robert" was stopped for failure to signal a lane change. The officer said he smelled alcohol on him and ordered him out of the car. He submitted to field sobriety tests, and according to the officer he failed them.

After being taken the the police station, he was offered a breath test. He asked for a blood test and that request was denied so he submitted to a breath test. After being told his breath test score (which he couldn't believe), he asked if he could have a blood test and the officer said "no." He even offered to call or pay for one to get done and they basically told him to shut up.

At trial, the officer and "breath test technical supervisor" were cross examined vigorously. During cross examination, the attorney pointed out all of the deficiencies in the breath testing machine. Simply put the jury didn't believe the results beyond a reasonable doubt. They were particularly miffed that the officer didnt allow a blood test when it is the person's right to get one. A quick NOT GUILTY was obtained, and we promptly expunged Robert's record.

DWI - Blood Test .11 NOT GUILTY

"Eric" was stopped for reckless driving after a citizen called in his car and said it was weaving. He admitted to having a few drinks and was ordered out of the car. The officer performed field sobriety tests on Eric and claimed he failed. After arresting Eric and bringing him to the police station, he offered Eric a blood test which he refused.

The officer then sought a search warrant fo Eric's blood and found a judge to sign off. The blood eventually came back at a .11.

At trial the DPS analyst was unable to prove the science behind the blood test. In fact, she was unable to prove just about anything. She didn't have any adequate knowledge of the scientific theories behind blood testing. She tried to use a scientific formula to prove that Eric had 5-8 drinks. But she couldn't name the formula, write out the formula, or explain it in any way. The judge sustained our objection of keeping Eric's blood out of evidence. With only a video of him not looking bad on the field sobriety tests, the jury quickly found him NOT GUILTY, allowing for a quick expunction of his records.

DWI .091 Blood Test

"John" was stopped for speeding by DPS. John admitted having some drinks with friends and was ordered out of the car. He was given field sobriety tests by the Trooper and subsequently arrested. At the police station he submitted to a blood test which eventually showed a .091 BAC>

At trial the State produced evidence that John's blood/alcohol concentration was .091 which was over the legal limit of .08. During cross examination, we established that his last drink was 30 minutes before the stop. Further, we elicited testimony from the State’s forensic scientist that it takes 30 minutes to 90 minutes for an alcoholic beverage to be absorbed in a persons system. As a result, the forensic scientist testified that John's blood/alcohol concentration was possibly under the legal limit at the time of the traffic stop. Because the state couldn't prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" he was over .08 at the time of driving, the jury found John NOT GUILTY.

DWI .19 Blood Test - Not Guilty

"Dana" was pulled over for making a wide right turn. After admitting to having drinks with friends, the officer ordered her out of the car. While 4 officers watched, Dana was put through a battery of Field Sobriety Tests. Scared out of her mind the entire time. According to the officers, she failed the tests.

After bringing her back to the police station she was given a blood test that eventually came back at a .19.

At trial, under cross examination the state's expert was unable to prove up the scientific theory to support the blood test. Therefore the Judge did not allow the blood test into evidence and the jury did not get to hear the results. That coupled with the cross examination of the police officer showing the bias in field sobriety tests, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

Interference with Public Duties - NOT GUILTY

"Jane" was the passenger in the car with her husband. He was pulled over, and subsequently arrested for DWI. After his arrest, Jane refused to answer any questions or cooperate with the police. She believed her husband had been wrongfully arrested.

As a result of her refusal to cooperate, Jane was arrested for interference with public duties.

Feeling that she was wronged, we set her case for trial. During the trial, we successfully cross examined the officers and proved to the jury that Jane could not have and did not interfere with officer's duties due to the fact that her husband was already arrested prior to the officers attempting to ask Jane any questions. As a result, the jury found Jane NOT GUILTY.


"Jamie" was pulled over one evening and subsequently arrested for DWI. After a blood test showed a .12, he was charged with DWI.

At trial, during direct examination, the State asked the officer if he believed our Jamie had lost the normal use of his mental and/or physical faculties. The officer testified that Jamey had lost both. However, the State failed to asked the officer if the loss of those faculties were caused by alcohol.

In order to prove someone is guilty of DWI, they must prove that the person lost the normal use of their mental or physical faculties due to alcohol, drugs, or any other substance.

Our attorney noticed the error immediately. As such, he didn't ask the officer any questions, keeping the State from a chance to correct the error. As a result, the Judge granted our motion for a directed verdict of not guilty, because the State failed to prove all the elements of a DWI Case. NOT GUILTY.

DWI - State Cannot Prove Client Was Driving - NOT GUILTY

"Tim" was involved in a crash with another vehicle. When the officer’s arrived Jim was standing outside of his vehicle. The officer asked Jim if he had driven the vehicle involved in the crash. Jim said he was the driver.

Jim was arrested charged with DWI and accused of having a blood/alcohol concentration over the legal limit. At trial, we were able to establish that Texas law requires more than an admission of driving before a client can be convicted of DWI. Under cross examination, the officer admitted that she did not see Jim driving his vehicle or have any other evidence to support our client’s admission of driving.

In addition, the State did not produce any other witness or evidence to support Jim’s admission to driving. As a result, the State could not legally prove client Jim was actually operating his vehicle at the time of the accident and he was found not guilty.

As a note, we have obtained numerous not guilty verdicts for clients with similar fact patterns. A person may admit to driving a vehicle that was involved in a crash for a variety of reasons; i.e., to protect a friend or family member who was driving, for insurance purposes, the fact that it was a company car and someone else was driving, etc. The law does not allow for a conviction of DWI for a mere admission of driving. Therefore, accident cases are often times very difficult for the State to prove unless there is an actual witness who saw a person driving.

DWI & gt;.15 (.29 Blood Test) - NOT GUILTY

"Melissa" was arrested and charged with DWI. After the blood test came back, it was alleged that her BAC was .29, three and a half times the legal limit.

Melissa never believed that blood test for a second, and neither did we. We set her case for trial.

At trial, we successfully cross examined the State’s expert concerning the high blood/alcohol concentration. Specifically, we were able to show that it would be impossible for Melissa, who was a small female, to have such a high blood/alcohol concentration and be able to physically function the way she did on the video. We cross-examined the State’s expert on the expected physical symptoms that a person would demonstrate with that high of a blood/alcohol concentration. We then demonstrated to the jury that the video did not show our client had any of the expected physical symptoms.

In addition, we explained the blood testing procedure to the jury. We explained how the State does not test blood the same way a hospital tests blood, the numerous human errors that can occur during the State’s blood testing procedure and the variety of ways a State’s lab analyst can cross contaminate the blood to give a false, high result. The jury did not believe the State’s blood test either, and Melissa was found NOT GUILTY.

This is an example of a defense we call the 'disconnect" defense. That would be where there is a breath/blood score that is much higher than what we can visually observe in a DWI roadside video. It is an extremely effective way to show that a blood or breath test couldn't have yielded a correct result.

top 100 avvo best business top 40 fox usa cnn wfaa elite lawyer
Back to Top