Providence DUI-DWI Lawyer, North Carolina


Lawrence Thomas McPhail Lawyer

Lawrence Thomas McPhail

VERIFIED
DUI-DWI, Criminal, Car Accident

Lawrence Thomas McPhail is a retired Troop Commander for the North Carolina State Highway Patrol, having served for twenty-eight years. He also served... (more)

FREE CONSULTATION 

CONTACT

336-860-5800

Kathy Williams Richardson Lawyer

Kathy Williams Richardson

VERIFIED
Criminal, Divorce & Family Law, DUI-DWI

Kathy has been practicing law since 1992, and is the founder of Kathy S. Williams P.L.L.C. Born to a military U.S. family in Okinawa, Japan, she grew ... (more)

FREE CONSULTATION 

CONTACT

800-949-7630

David E. Sherrill

Farms, Child Support, DUI-DWI, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           

FREE CONSULTATION 

CONTACT

Charles L. White

Arbitration, Federal, DUI-DWI, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           

H. Clay Hemric

Criminal, DUI-DWI, Personal Injury, Traffic, Workers' Compensation
Status:  In Good Standing           

Ricky W. Champion

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

Scott Galiger

Social Security -- Disability, Workers' Compensation, DUI-DWI, Medical Malpractice
Status:  In Good Standing           

FREE CONSULTATION 

CONTACT

Ryan Short

Administrative Law, Criminal, DUI-DWI, Litigation
Status:  In Good Standing           

Ryland Lee Farmer

Real Estate, Lawsuit & Dispute, Child Support, Criminal, DUI-DWI
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  51 Years

George B. Daniel

DUI-DWI, Criminal, Car Accident, Accident & Injury
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  48 Years

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 Providence DUI-DWI Lawyers and Providence 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

MISTRIAL

A trial that ends prematurely and without a judgment, due either to a mistake that jeopardizes a party's right to a fair trial or to a jury that can't agree on ... (more...)
A trial that ends prematurely and without a judgment, due either to a mistake that jeopardizes a party's right to a fair trial or to a jury that can't agree on a verdict (a hung jury) If a judge declares a mistrial in a civil case, he or she will direct that the case be set for a new trial at a future date. Mistrials in criminal cases can result in a retrial, a plea bargain or a dismissal of the charges.

HUNG JURY

A jury unable to come to a final decision, resulting in a mistrial. Judges do their best to avoid hung juries, typically sending juries back into deliberations ... (more...)
A jury unable to come to a final decision, resulting in a mistrial. Judges do their best to avoid hung juries, typically sending juries back into deliberations with an assurance (sometimes known as a 'dynamite charge') that they will be able to reach a decision if they try harder. If a mistrial is declared, the case is tried again unless the parties settle the case (in a civil case) or the prosecution dismisses the charges or offers a plea bargain (in a criminal case).

ACQUITTAL

A decision by a judge or jury that a defendant in a criminal case is not guilty of a crime. An acquittal is not a finding of innocence; it is simply a conclusio... (more...)
A decision by a judge or jury that a defendant in a criminal case is not guilty of a crime. An acquittal is not a finding of innocence; it is simply a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

JURY

Criminal Law Traffic TicketshomeGLOSSARY jury A group of people selected to apply the law, as stated by the judge, to the facts of a case and render a decision,... (more...)
Criminal Law Traffic TicketshomeGLOSSARY jury A group of people selected to apply the law, as stated by the judge, to the facts of a case and render a decision, called the verdict. Traditionally, an American jury was made up of 12 people who had to arrive at a unanimous decision. But today, in many states, juries in civil cases may be composed of as few as six members and non-unanimous verdicts may be permitted. (Most states still require 12-person, unanimous verdicts for criminal trials.) Tracing its history back over 1,000 years, the jury system was brought to England by William the Conqueror in 1066. The philosophy behind the jury system is that--especially in a criminal case--an accused's guilt or innocence should be judged by a group of people from her community ('a jury of her peers'). Recently, some courts have been experimenting with increasing the traditionally rather passive role of the jury by encouraging jurors to take notes and ask questions.

ARREST WARRANT

A document issued by a judge or magistrate that authorizes the police to arrest someone. Warrants are issued when law enforcement personnel present evidence to ... (more...)
A document issued by a judge or magistrate that authorizes the police to arrest someone. Warrants are issued when law enforcement personnel present evidence to the judge or magistrate that convinces her that it is reasonably likely that a crime has taken place and that the person to be named in the warrant is criminally responsible for that crime.

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.

INTERROGATION

A term that describes vigorous questioning, usually by the police of a suspect in custody. Other than providing his name and address, the suspect is not obligat... (more...)
A term that describes vigorous questioning, usually by the police of a suspect in custody. Other than providing his name and address, the suspect is not obligated to answer the questions, and the fact that he has remained silent generally cannot be used by the prosecution to help prove that he is guilty of a crime. If the suspect has asked for a lawyer, the police must cease questioning. If they do not, they cannot use the answers against the suspect at trial.

CAPITAL CASE

A prosecution for murder in which the jury is also asked to decide if the defendant is guilty and, if he is, whether he should be put to death. When a prosecuto... (more...)
A prosecution for murder in which the jury is also asked to decide if the defendant is guilty and, if he is, whether he should be put to death. When a prosecutor brings a capital case (also called a death penalty case), she must charge one or more 'special circumstances' that the jury must find to be true in order to sentence the defendant to death. Each state (and the federal government) has its own list of special circumstances, but common ones include multiple murders, use of a bomb or a finding that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.

MCNAGHTEN RULE

The earliest and most common test for criminal insanity, in which a criminal defendant is judged legally insane only if he could not distinguish right from wron... (more...)
The earliest and most common test for criminal insanity, in which a criminal defendant is judged legally insane only if he could not distinguish right from wrong at the time he committed the crime. For example, a delusional psychotic who believed that his assaultive acts were in response to the will of God would not be criminally responsible for his acts.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

State v. Maready

... That record reflected a total of six previous driving while impaired ("DWI") convictions. The Court of Appeals majority held it was not plain error to admit the entire driving record. 149 NCApp. ... Like the Goodman defendant, defendant here had six previous DWI convictions. ...

State v. Peele

... Defendant Lucian Jefferson Peele, Jr. appeals from his conviction for driving while impaired ("DWI"). ... The test recorded an alcohol concentration of.08, and defendant was issued a DWI citation. Defendant was found guilty of DWI in Martin County district court on 2 July 2007. ...

State v. Veazey

... On 1 January 2006, defendant Thomas Marland Veazey was charged with driving without a valid license and driving while impaired ("DWI") after being stopped at a driver's license checkpoint. Defendant was found guilty of DWI in district court and appealed to superior court. ...