Featured Cases

Appellate Argument: Warrantless Speech
June 2015

Case Synopsis

On October 4, 2013, our client William Williams was issued five uniform traffic citations (UTC) including citations for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and for "Refusal to Submit To a Chemical Test." Refusing to submit to a chemical test after previously refusing to submit to such a test is a criminal offense and allows the State to get a "second bite" at the apple when a smart defendant does not cooperate. Here, Mr. Williams, not trusting the breath test machine and acting on the advice of his attorneys, refused to give a breath test when he was pulled over on his way to Wal-Mart. Because of a mail "glitch" with the DMV, Mr. Williams was unaware that his license was suspended at the time he was pulled over. Still, he found himself facing a criminal charge for Driving While License Suspended along with other criminal charges. We immediately determined we held a strong defense to the DUI and Driving While License Suspended (the DMV messed up mail which happens all the time). However, we still have to fight the refusal charge. Our firm had been working on a constitutional challenge to the refusal statute: (you can read the Motion for yourself here).

On August 26, 2014 we took the case before a Jury and ultimately six wise citizens found Mr. Williams not guilty of Count I DWLS and Count II DUI. On September 17, 2014 the County Court considered the severed count of Refusal to Submit. At the hearing on our Motion to Dismiss as Unconstitutional, the State and our Firm stipulated there was sufficient probable cause to ask Mr. Williams to submit to a breath test, that the stop was lawful, that Mr. Williams refused to take a breath test, and that Mr. Williams driving record had an entry indicating a prior refusal to submit to a breath test. The State did not present any evidence that exigent circumstances created an exception to the warrant requirement. The County Court issued an Order denying Mr. Williams' Motion to Dismiss ( which you can read here) but recognized how important this novel legal issue was. The County Court accepted Mr. Williams' plea of no contest with reservation of right to appeal the denial of the Motion to Dismiss and adjudicated him guilty on the charge of refusing to submit and sentenced him to court costs, fines, and time served.

Although our contract did not cover any appeals, the Firm believed this was an issue of great public importance and knew that we had a chance to make a real difference in an emerging area of law. So, at no charge to Mr. Williams, we prepared and filed an appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. You can watch the video of Mr. Eric Latinsky arguing on behalf of our client before the Court here. Ultimately, the Court issued its opinion (which you can read here) which we believe significantly changes Florida DUI law. We are preparing to appeal this issue to the Florida Supreme Court.

Mr. William's case is one of "first impression" meaning we are dealing with aspects of DUI law which have never been heard in Florida before. We are on the cutting edge of this issue and are working to influence new law which we believe will help everyone accused of driving under the influence. Many times, lawyers accept a challenge because it is the right thing to do. This is one of those times.

If you or a loved one has been accused of driving under the influence, please do not hesitate to contact us for assistance.

"Stand Your Ground" Law & Immunity Defense in Homicide
January 2015

Case Synopsis

In 2014, brothers James and Christopher Hoit were charged with manslaughter after a bar fight resulted in the unfortunate death of Ali Malik. Evidence shows that Malik had one of the defendants in a chokehold while the other defendant punched and kicked Malik in order to free his brother. This altercation lasted until Malik fell through a pane window; it was only after the fall that Malik finally released the individual whom he was choking. As the parties fell through the window, a shard of glass pierced Malik's right side and fatally penetrated his liver.

State of Florida vs. Christopher and James Hoit
Complete MOTION

SYG Image 1

Point of Law

We argued that the defendants had immunity based on the "Stand Your Ground" law. Florida statutes provide citizens with a fundamental right to self defense. Commonly known as Stand Your Ground, these statutes assert that a person is justified in using deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another (776.012).

SYG Image 3

SYG Image 5


Attorney Delgado and his legal staff incorporated copious amounts of visual aids in order prove many elements of the case. Mr. Delgado utilized exhibits incorporating testimony of the medical examiner and of law enforcement officers to show expert opinion that a chokehold is deadly force. This was supplemented by newspaper headlines and social media posts to provide actual examples where a chokehold had fatal results. A steep challenge Attorney Delgado faced was inconsistent testimony by witnesses which threw the claim of self-defense into question. Mr. Delgado hired an artist specializing in legal drawing to depict the facts of the case from each witness's view point. He focused on each individual witness testimony to show them unreliable for disproving the Stand Your Ground Motion which he brought forward. These drawings were used to draw attention to inconsistencies among the testimonies and to ultimately prove that a plea of self-defense is valid.

At Damore, Delgado & Romanik we work tirelessly to ensure that no stone is left unturned. Hiring an aggressive, trail-ready attorney can make the all the difference in the outcome of your case. If you have been charged with a crime please call us and allow us the opportunity to tell you what we can do to obtain the best possible outcome.

SYG Image 6

This page will contain a list of links to organize and provide navigation to information on your website.