Roseville DUI-DWI Lawyer, Ohio


Zachuary Thorpe Meranda Lawyer

Zachuary Thorpe Meranda

VERIFIED
Criminal, DUI-DWI, Divorce & Family Law, Car Accident, Animal Bite

The Meranda Law Firm LTD was created in 2008 by Zachuary Meranda. In 2009, Zach took on a partner - his wife, Rossia Meranda, who contributed greatly ... (more)

FREE CONSULTATION 

CONTACT

800-707-9261

Robert E. Calesaric

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

Norman John Ogilvie

DUI-DWI, Civil Rights, Banking & Finance, Personal Injury
Status:  In Good Standing           

Lindsey Donehue

Wills & Probate, Divorce, Juvenile Law, DUI-DWI
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 Roseville DUI-DWI Lawyers and Roseville 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

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.

INTENTIONAL TORT

A deliberate act that causes harm to another, for which the victim may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Acts of domestic violence, such as assault and battery, ar... (more...)
A deliberate act that causes harm to another, for which the victim may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Acts of domestic violence, such as assault and battery, are intentional torts (as well as crimes).

IMPRISON

To put a person in prison or jail or otherwise confine him as punishment for committing a crime.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecu... (more...)
One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each element of the crime charged.

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.

ACCOMPLICE

Someone who helps another person (known as the principal) commit a crime. Unlike an accessory, an accomplice is usually present when the crime is committed. An ... (more...)
Someone who helps another person (known as the principal) commit a crime. Unlike an accessory, an accomplice is usually present when the crime is committed. An accomplice is guilty of the same offense and usually receives the same sentence as the principal. For instance, the driver of the getaway car for a burglary is an accomplice and will be guilty of the burglary even though he may not have entered the building.

PUBLIC DEFENDER

A lawyer appointed by the court and paid by the county, state, or federal government to represent clients who are charged with violations of criminal law and ar... (more...)
A lawyer appointed by the court and paid by the county, state, or federal government to represent clients who are charged with violations of criminal law and are unable to pay for their own defense.

BURGLARY

The crime of breaking into and entering a building with the intention to commit a felony. The breaking and entering need not be by force, and the felony need no... (more...)
The crime of breaking into and entering a building with the intention to commit a felony. The breaking and entering need not be by force, and the felony need not be theft. For instance, someone would be guilty of burglary if he entered a house through an unlocked door in order to commit a murder.

SELF-INCRIMINATION

The making of statements that might expose you to criminal prosecution, either now or in the future. The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the go... (more...)
The making of statements that might expose you to criminal prosecution, either now or in the future. The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from forcing you to provide evidence (as in answering questions) that would or might lead to your prosecution for a crime.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

State v. Hoover

... consider the constitutionality of RC 4511.19(A)(2), which requires the imposition of criminal penalties upon certain persons who refuse to consent to chemical testing after being arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse ("DUI"). ...

State v. Bragwell

... {¶2} On May 25, 2006, a Mahoning County grand jury indicted appellant on one count of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), a third-degree felony in violation of RC ... Appellant entered pleas of not guilty to the charge and specifications. This was appellant's thirteenth DUI. ...

State v. DETSKAS

... This question is relevant because Detskas was previously convicted in Michigan, under that state's law, for the offense of driving while impaired (DWI) (a lesser included offense of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol). ...