Matney Law - DUI Case Results
We are providing some sample cases for your review. You may read all of the case results for 2015 through 2018 in the tabs on this website. Mark Matney has defended hundreds of people in traffic court. If you are looking for a experienced DUI defense team, then call Matney Law. We focus on the cities and counties between Virginia Beach and New Kent.
Call Matney Law at 757-784-3507 or
1. Herb Lux v. Virginia State Board of Elections, USDC – Richmond, 3:10-cv-482, 2010 to 2012
Local counsel for The Bopp Law Firm. Challenged Virginia election law on behalf of Tea Party candidate for congress. The Virginia Code was amended as a result of this case.
2. Christian Rights Ministries v. City of Chesapeake, USDC – Norfolk, 2:08-cv-154
Local counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom. A ministry was asked to remove their cross from their booth at the end of a parade. The City defended by claiming that there was a safety issue. The case settled.
3. U.S. v. William Danielczyk, USDC – Alexandria, 1:11-cr-85 (JCC)
Local counsel for The Bopp Law Firm. Assisted with filing amicus curiae brief on behalf of The James Madison Center for Free Speech re: campaign contributions by corporations as free speech.
(7) Case Results: Change “Below are links to Case Studies by Years.”
To: You may review the firm’s case results through the following links:
Replace “Case Studies” with “Case Results” for each tab.
(8) Click on the 2017 Case Results Tab.
Use this language for all 3 of the tabs: 2015, 2016, 2017, but use the pictures / format for the 2015 case results.
DUI Not Guilty and DUI Dismissed
During the past month, I achieved dismissals for two of my DUI clients. During this time I also helped other clients by negotiating the amendment of a DUI to reckless driving, the dismissal of other charges, the avoidance or reduction of jail, and other positive sentencing outcomes.
The dismissal by nolle pros was exciting for my client, but it was not extraordinary. By showing up ready for trial, I was able to take advantage of a difficulty with the prosecution’s evidence. This resulted in the prosecutor asking the judge to dismiss the case with the hope that he can possibly obtain the necessary evidence in the future.
The not guilty decision was exhilarating. DUI trials are hard fought, with most of my clients presumed to be under the influence as soon as we walk into the courtroom. In this case, I argued a legal issue to challenge the admissibility of the breath certificate and the judge agreed to exclude the breath certificate with my client’s blood alcohol level. This decision removed the presumption that my client was under the influence and left both sides to argue about the field sobriety tests. After the officer described what he remembered happening, I asked him clarifying questions and gave him the opportunity to explain how poorly he thought my client performed on the tests. The problem for the prosecution was that I then played the officer’s video of my client’s field sobriety tests and the judge was able to see that my client did not make the errors that the officer described. With the breath certificate excluded and the video demonstrating that my client did well on the field tests, the judge disregarded the officer’s testimony and found my client not guilty of driving under the influence (DUI).