Oak Park DUI-DWI Lawyer, Minnesota


Robert Victor Jones Lawyer

Robert Victor Jones

VERIFIED
Criminal, DUI-DWI, Felony, Misdemeanor

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer, Robert V. Jones has more than 22 years of experience. He has been extremely successful in trying numerous cases in ... (more)

FREE CONSULTATION 

CONTACT

763-682-2220

Michael G. Martin Lawyer

Michael G. Martin

VERIFIED
Criminal, Felony, Misdemeanor, Divorce, DUI-DWI

Managing risk in today’s world can be difficult. MGM Law Office is prepared to assist clients in making these risks more manageable. MGM Law Offic... (more)

FREE CONSULTATION 

CONTACT

800-739-4850

John C. Provinzino

Criminal, DUI-DWI, Disability, Litigation
Status:  In Good Standing           

Andrew R. Pearson

DUI-DWI, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           

Todd Alan Kelm

Traffic, Family Law, DUI-DWI, Business Organization
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  35 Years

Sam Young

DUI-DWI, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           

Sean Christopher Dillon

Criminal, DUI-DWI, Felony, Misdemeanor
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  21 Years

David M. Cox

Landlord-Tenant, Wills & Probate, Divorce, DUI-DWI, Corporate
Status:  In Good Standing           

Theodore William Buselmeier

Family Law, DUI-DWI, Criminal, Personal Injury
Status:  In Good Standing           

Derek Anthony Patrin

Military & Veterans Appeals, Traffic, DUI-DWI, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-620-0900

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Messages from all messaging and voice technologies including Email, Text, Phone, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.


Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-943-8690

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Messages from all messaging and voice technologies including Email, Text, Phone, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.

TIPS

Easily find Oak Park DUI-DWI Lawyers and Oak Park DUI-DWI Law Firms. For more attorneys, search all Criminal areas including Expungement, Felony, Misdemeanor, RICO Act, White Collar Crime, Traffic and Juvenile Law attorneys.

LEGAL TERMS

BAILOR

Someone who delivers an item of personal property to another person for a specific purpose. For example, a person who leaves a broken VCR with a repairman in or... (more...)
Someone who delivers an item of personal property to another person for a specific purpose. For example, a person who leaves a broken VCR with a repairman in order to get it fixed would be a bailor.

PLEA

The defendant's formal answer to criminal charges. Typically defendants enter one of the following pleas: guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere. A plea is usual... (more...)
The defendant's formal answer to criminal charges. Typically defendants enter one of the following pleas: guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere. A plea is usually entered when charges are formally brought (at arraignment).

NOLLE PROSEQUI

Latin for 'we shall no longer prosecute.' At trial, this is an entry made on the record by a prosecutor in a criminal case stating that he will no longer pursue... (more...)
Latin for 'we shall no longer prosecute.' At trial, this is an entry made on the record by a prosecutor in a criminal case stating that he will no longer pursue the matter. An entry of nolle prosequi may be made at any time after charges are brought and before a verdict is returned or a plea entered. Essentially, it is an admission on the part of the prosecution that some aspect of its case against the defendant has fallen apart. Most of the time, prosecutors need a judge's A1:C576 to 'nol-pros' a case. (See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48a.) Abbreviated 'nol. pros.' or 'nol-pros.'

INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

Testimony or other evidence that fails to meet state or federal court rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented to a judge or jury. The main r... (more...)
Testimony or other evidence that fails to meet state or federal court rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented to a judge or jury. The main reason why evidence is ruled inadmissible is because it falls into a category deemed so unreliable that a court should not consider it as part of a deciding a case --for example, hearsay evidence, or an expert's opinion that is not based on facts generally accepted in the field. Evidence will also be declared inadmissible if it suffers from some other defect--for example, as compared to its value, it will take too long to present or risks enflaming the jury, as might be the case with graphic pictures of a homicide victim. In addition, in criminal cases, evidence that is gathered using illegal methods is commonly ruled inadmissible. Because the rules of evidence are so complicated (and because contesting lawyers waste so much time arguing over them) there is a strong trend towards using mediation or arbitration to resolve civil disputes. In mediation and arbitration, virtually all evidence can be considered. See evidence, admissible evidence.

BAIL BOND

The money posted by a 'bondsman' for a defendant who cannot afford his bail. The defendant pays a certain portion, usually 10%. If the defendant fails to appear... (more...)
The money posted by a 'bondsman' for a defendant who cannot afford his bail. The defendant pays a certain portion, usually 10%. If the defendant fails to appear for a court hearing, the judge can issue a warrant for his arrest and threaten to 'forfeit,' or keep, the money if the defendant doesn't appear soon. Usually, the bondsman will look for the defendant and bring him back, forcefully if necessary, in order to avoid losing the bail money.

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

The burden of proof that the prosecution must carry in a criminal trial to obtain a guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is sometimes explained as being convinced '... (more...)
The burden of proof that the prosecution must carry in a criminal trial to obtain a guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is sometimes explained as being convinced 'to a moral certainty.' The jury must be convinced that the defendant committed each element of the crime before returning a guilty verdict.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Circumstances that increase the seriousness or outrageousness of a given crime, and that in turn increase the wrongdoer's penalty or punishment. For example, th... (more...)
Circumstances that increase the seriousness or outrageousness of a given crime, and that in turn increase the wrongdoer's penalty or punishment. For example, the crime of aggravated assault is a physical attack made worse because it is committed with a dangerous weapon, results in severe bodily injury or is made in conjunction with another serious crime. Aggravated assault is usually considered a felony, punishable by a prison sentence.

PROSECUTE

When a local District Attorney, state Attorney General or federal United States Attorney brings a criminal case against a defendant.

WARRANT

See search warrant or arrest warrant.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

State v. Underdahl

... OPINION. MEYER, Justice. Dale Lee Underdahl and Timothy Arlen Brunner (appellants) each sought discovery of the complete computer source code for the Minnesota model of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN in their separate driving while intoxicated (DWI) criminal prosecutions. ...

Reeves v. Commissioner of Public Safety

... [*]. Appellant Daniel Joseph Reeves challenges the district court order sustaining the revocation of his driving privileges, arguing that (1) since he did not fail the preliminary breath test (PBT), there was no probable cause for his arrest for driving while impaired (DWI) and (2 ...

State v. Eller

... On appeal from his conviction for gross-misdemeanor driving while impaired (DWI)—refusal to submit to a chemical test and gross-misdemeanor assault following a stipulated-facts trial, appellant argues (1) the evidence was insufficient to find that appellant had a prior DWI ...