Results

Below is a small sample of cases that Phoenix Criminal Defense Lawyer David Kephart successfully resolved over the last few years. Unlike other defense attorney websites, all of Mr. Kephart’s NOT GUILTY’s or DISMISSAL’s are a direct result of his work. One local Phoenix attorney claims to have thousand’s of wins and dismissals but most of that success is attributable to attorneys that no longer work at his firm.

It is important to remember, that every case is factually unique and past results are not indicative of the result you should expect in your case.  If an attorney or lawyer “guarantees” that he or she can win your case, then ask that attorney or lawyer to put it in writing.  The only guarantee an attorney can make is that he or she will work as hard as possible on your case to see that justice prevails.  This is the guarantee that attorney David Kephart make to each and every one of his clients and here is a small sample of the results of that hard work and dedication:

NOT GUILTY

Jury Acquitted client of Conspiracy to Commit Manslaughter

State of Arizona v. Lawrence Egbert (the former Medical Director of The Final Exit Network, a national “right-to-die” organization)

Charged with:

  • Conspiracy to Commit Manslaughter, a Class 2 Felony

Manslaughter attorney David Kephart acted as local counsel for Dr. Egbert in the first prosecution of its kind in Arizona.  The case was unique because never before had someone been prosecuted under Arizona’s “aiding” suicide statute. After a year and a half of preparation and a month long trial, Dr. Egbert was rightfully acquitted of Conspiracy to Commit Manslaughter.  The trial was filmed by PBS’s documentary series, “Frontline,” and was covered by various local and national media outlets.

NOT GUILTY

Jury Acquitted client of Aggravated Assault
State of Arizona v. Michael Carbajal (5 time world-champion boxer and Olympic silver medalist)
Charged with:

  • Aggravated Assault, a Class 4 Felony

The client was facing up to 3 years on probation or a prison sentence between 1 year up to 3 years and 9 months.
In what is now considered one of the fastest jury verdict in Maricopa County history, Aggravated Assault attorney David Kephart had a jury deliberate less than 8 minutes before finding his client NOT GUILTY of aggravated assault.
The client was accused of savagely attacking and beating an acquaintance after the acquaintance allegedly ruined a video cassette belonging to the client.   We showed the jury that the attack as described by the alleged victim simply did not occur because the injuries were not consistent with an attack by the client and there was not any physical evidence of an attack aside from the victim’s broken nose.  We also showed the jury that the victim was seeking money from our client both before and after the alleged incident.

NOT GUILTY

Jury found client Not Guilty of Super Extreme DUI, Extreme DUI, DUI, and DUI Impaired to the Slightest Degree.  Judge found client Not Guilty of Assault and Criminal Damage.
State of Arizona v. S.G.
Charged with:

  • Super Extreme DUI, a Class 1 Misdemeanor
  • Extreme DUI, a Class 1 Misdemeanor
  • DUI above .08, a Class 1 Misdemeanor
  • DUI Impaired to the Slightest Degree, a Class 1 Misdemeanor
  • Assault, a Class 1 Misdemeanor
  • Criminal Damage, a Class 1 Misdemeanor

Super Extreme DUI Lawyer David Kephart’s client was facing a no less than 45 days in jail up to 6 months in jail.
After two days in trial, DUI Attorney David Kephart’s client was found NOT GUILTY of all counts.

The client was accused of driving her car while having a blood alcohol level above .20, running into the back of a car, getting out of the car, assaulting the driver’s girlfriend, and punching a dent in the side of the girlfriend’s car.  The State’s case fell apart at trial as the three civilian witnesses statements were completely different than what they told the officer the night of this incident.  During skillful cross-examination of the DUI Lawyer David Kephart showed brought out all of these inconsistencies and in closing arguments he proved that the civilian witnesses weren’t just mistaken, they were lying.

NOT GUILTY

Jury Acquitted client of Misconduct Involving Weapons
State of Arizona v. M.M.
Charged with:

  • Misconduct Involving Weapons (Prohibited Possessor), a Class 4 Felony

Misconduct Involving Weapons Attorney David Kephart’s client was facing a prison sentence between 2.25 years up to 7.5 years.
After two trials, one ending in a mistrial, Prohibit Possessor attorney David Kephart’s client was found NOT GUILTYof Misconduct Involving Weapons.
The client was accused of selling a shotgun to two undercover Phoenix Police Detectives.  The transaction was recorded on a hidden camera, but at the moment in time the client supposedly handled the gun, he was out of the cameras view.   During cross-examination of the two detectives, attorney David Kephart showed the jury how many inconsistencies there were between their two stories.  When a third detective testified, it was clear that the officers were being less than candid about what really happened during the undercover transaction.  Added to this, was the fact that the gun was never fingerprinted to show attorney David Kephart’s client actually handled the weapon, which his client vigorously disputed.

NOT GUILTY

Jury Acquitted client of Super Extreme DUI with a Prior Conviction
State of Arizona v. H.F.
Charged with:

  • Super Extreme DUI, a Class 1 Misdemeanor,
  • Extreme DUI, Class 1 Misdemeanor,
  • DUI w/ BAC above .08, a Class 1 Misdemeanor,
  • DUI Impaired to the Slightest Degree, a Class 1 Misdemeanor.

DUI attorney David Kephart’s client was facing a minimum mandatory sentence of 6 months in jail plus up to 5 years probation because his client had a prior DUI offense within the past 7 years.
Client found NOT GUILTY of all counts.
Super Extreme DUI attorney David Kephart’s client was accused of wrecking his car at the top of a freeway exit.  Phoenix Police responded to the scene and found attorney David Kephart’s client slumped over the wheel of the vehicle and asleep.  At trial, attorney David Kephart demonstrated to the jury that no one actually saw his client wreck his car, in fact, there was no damage to the car whatsoever.  This left the prosecution with a big problem, they could not prove that the client was the driver, they could not prove the client drove within 2 hours of his blood sample being taken, and they could not prove that the car was “operable” as required for a conviction of being in “actual physical control.”  After an hour of deliberation, the jury acquitted DUI attorney David Kephart’s client of all charges.

NOT GUILTY

Jury Acquitted client of DUI, Prescription Drugs
State of Arizona v. M.L.
Charged with:

  • DUI, Impaired by Prescription Drugs, a Class 1 Misdemeanor.

My client was facing up to 6 months in jail plus up to 5 years probation.
Client found NOT GUILTY.
My client was accused of wrecking his car into a guardrail in Phoenix.  Phoenix Police responded to the scene and found my client slumped over the wheel of the vehicle.  At trial, I proved to the jury that my client was recently prescribed the wrong medications by a hospital and it was the wrong prescriptions that caused my client to go into diabetic shock and crash his car.  After less than 30 minutes of deliberation, the jury acquitted my client of all charges.

NOT GUILTY

Client acquitted of Aggravated Assault on a Police Officer
State of Arizona v. C.G.
Charged with:

  • Aggravated Assault on a Police Officer, a Class 6 Felony,
  • Possession of Marijuana, a Class 6 Felony.

My client was facing a prison sentence between 9 months up to 2 years and 9 months
Client found NOT GUILTY of Aggravated Assault, guilty of Possession of Marijuana.
My client was arrested for possession of marijuana, and at the police station, he allegedly assaulted two police officers during a struggle in the holding cell.  The prosecution had 6 police officers testify that my client assaulted the officers, but after careful-yet aggressive cross-examination of each officer by his defense attorney, the jury found that my client did not assault they officers and their injuries were instead caused by the actions of the other officers.

NOT GUILTY

Client acquitted of Resisting Arrest.
State of Arizona v. J.H.
Charged with:

  • Resisting Arrest, a Class 6 Felony

My client was facing a prison sentence between 9 months up to 2 years and 9 months if convicted.
After less than 30 minutes of testimony, my client was found NOT GUILTY of resisting arrest.
my client was accused of resisting arrest by pulling away from an officer after an officer chased him on foot.  The incident occurred at night in a bad neighborhood, the officer never announced that he was an officer, and he never stated he was arresting the client.  Once my client realized that it was an officer chasing him, he stopped.  Unfortunately for the client, the officer then tackled him and repeatedly slammed the client’s face against the ground.  The officer later testified that the injuries were self-inflicted by the client hitting his head against the police car.  As we have seen before, the client was charged with Resisting Arrest to cover-up for potential police brutality and abuse.

NOT GUILTY

Jury acquitted client of Aggravated Assault on a Police Officer.
State of Arizona v. S.L.
Charged with:

  • Aggravated Assault on a Police Officer, a Class 6 Felony
  • Resisting Arrest, a Class 6 Felony

My client was facing a prison sentence between 9 months up to 2 years and 9 months if convicted.
The jury found my client NOT GUILTY of assaulting a police officer but guilty of Resisting Arrest.
The client, who was temporarily homeless because he lost his house in a divorce, was charged with attacking a police officer after the officer admittedly cursed at him and kicked his backpack full of belongings all over a parking lot.  The jurors were shocked and appalled by the police officer’s conduct and rightfully found the client NOT GUILTY, yet somehow the jury found my client guilty of Resisting Arrest. This certainly doesn’t make much sense because the police had no reason to arrest my client if he didn’t commit an Aggravated Assault.  Juries do very odd things sometimes.

NOT GUILTY

Jury acquitted client of Theft of Means of Transportation (Auto/Car Theft) and Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation (Keeping an auto/car too long).
State of Arizona v. M.G.
Charged with:

  • Theft of Means of Transportation, a Class 3 Felony
  • Unlawful Use of Means of Transportation, a Class 5 Felony

My client was facing up to 5 years on probation or a prison sentence between 2 years up to 8 years and 9 months if convicted.
The jury found my client NOT GUILTY of stealing his employers truck and NOT GUILTY of keeping his employer’s truck without permission.
My client was wrongfully accused of stealing his employer’s work truck.  After aggressive cross-examination of the alleged victim and testimony from a police officer (the officer actually testified on behalf of the Defense, not the State), the jury found my client not guilty of all charges.  I was able to show the jury that the boss agreed to give the client a work truck in exchange for working without pay.   Unfortunately, my client was forced to serve several months in jail before he could be exonerated by a jury of his peers.

NOT GUILTY

Client acquitted of Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Possession of Methamphetamine) and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
State of Arizona v. O.B.
Charged with:

  • Possession of Dangerous Drugs, a Class 4 Felony
  • Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a Class 6 Felony

My client was facing a prison sentence between 6 years up to 15 years if convicted.
Moments after the jury was sworn in, which is the point prejudice attaches for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, we argued to the judge that the State’s witnesses should be precluded from testifying that our client possessed methamphetamine because no one witnessed our client possessing drugs or drug paraphernalia.  The judge, after taking a recess to research the issue, reconvened and agreed with us that the State’s witnesses were to be precluded from testifying that our client possessed drugs or drug paraphernalia.  The State, in sheer frustration and exasperation, told the judge that they could not proceed with the case.  The judge then entered a
Judgment of Acquittal on our client’s behalf.

DISMISSED

Entire case dismissed the day before trial
Arizona v. J.T.S.
Charged with:

  • Super Extreme DUI, a Class 1 Misdemeanor
  • Extreme DUI, a Class 1 Misdemeanor
  • DUI above .08, a Class 1 Misdemeanor
  • DUI Impaired to the Slightest Degree, a Class 1 Misdemeanor

Super Extreme DUI Lawyer David Kephart’s client was facing a minimum of 180 days (6 months) including substantial fines, because his client had a prior DUI conviction.

Mr. Kephart’s client was involved in a minor traffic accident and ran from the scene prior to police arriving.  The officers were able to draw a sample of the client’s blood, but the blood draw occurred 3 hours and 46 minutes after the client drove the car.  Based on expert legal analysis and argument, DUI Lawyer David Kephart filed a motion to suppress the blood draw.  The day before the trial, the State moved to dismiss the charges.

DISMISSED

Arizona v. S.D.
Charged with:

  • DUI, Impaired by Prescription Drugs, a Class 1 Misdemeanor

My client was facing up to 6 months in jail and up to 5 years on probation, including substantial fines.
My client was involved in a minor traffic accident and police arrived at the scene.  Police suspected her to be under the influence so they detained her and took her to the police station.  The police, however, were unable to get a blood sample, so they released her.  When my client’s husband arrived to pick her up, the police encouraged him to take her to the hospital to have her checked out.  The police then secretly followed my client and her husband to the hospital and secretly convinced Banner Hospital staff to release her medical records.  This was not only a clear violation of my clients rights under HIPAA, but it was a violation of her civil rights.  Once I was retained, I prepared to sue the police officers, the police department, and the hospital.  It wasn’t long before all charges were dismissed against my client.

DISMISSED

Arizona v. S.S.
Charged with:

  • Super Extreme DUI, Extreme DUI, DUI, all as Class 1 Misdemeanors

My client was facing a mandatory sentence of 45 days in jail and up to 5 years on probation, including substantial fines.
My client was found passed out in his vehicle.  Unfortunately for the prosecution, the vehicle was in a private parking lot and I was able to provide phone records that proved my client had called his wife to come pick him up from the bar he was drinking at.  In Arizona, it is a defense to a DUI charge if you are using your car for shelter AND you do not intend to drive.  After carefully looking at the evidence I presented, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the charge.

DISMISSED

Arizona v. W.S.
Charged with:

  • Super Extreme DUI, Extreme DUI, DUI, all as Class 1 Misdemeanors

My client was facing a mandatory sentence of 45 days in jail and up to 5 years on probation, including substantial fines.
My client was found drunk as a skunk in the driver’s seat of his vehicle with the radio blasting.  Unfortunately for the prosecution, the vehicle was in his driveway,up on a floor jack, and missing a transmission.   Unfortunately for my client, the police officers were not candid in their police report, and failed to mention any of this.  Because of this, I was put in the position of proving that the car was “inoperable.”  I was able to provide photographs of my client’s car that showed it was lacking a transmission and that it was being worked on.  I was also able to gather receipts to show that a new transmission had been purchased the day before the police arrested my client.  In Arizona, it is a defense to a DUI charge if the car is “inoperable” because the person behind the wheel poses no harm or danger to others.

DISMISSED

Arizona v. W.B.
Charged with:

  • Attempted Theft of Means of Transportation (Auto/Car Theft), a Class 4 Felony
  • Burglary in the Third Degree (Enter a non-residential structure to commit a theft, a Class 4 Felony

My client was facing a prison sentence between 6 years up to 30 years if convicted.
The judge dismissed the case after we filed a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the property in questions was legally considered abandoned property and the client’s conduct was not illegal. Client was accused of entering a vehicle to steal items out of it and he was also charged with trying to steal the entire vehicle.  As we see in many cases, the client had to serve several months in jail before he was released.

DISMISSED

Arizona v. C.S.
Charged with:

  • Possession of Marijuana, a Class 6 Felony

My client was facing a prison sentence between 5 years and 9 months up to 7 years and 9 months.
All the evidence in the case was suppressed after we proved that the search of our client violated his constitutional rights.

DISMISSED

Arizona v. S.R.
Charged with:

  • Resisting Arrest, a Class 6 Felony

My client was facing up to 3 years on probation or a prison sentence between 4 months and 2 years if convicted.
The court dismissed the case after I argued that the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence (pictures of our client after police officers beat and assaulted her).  Here, as we see time and time again, the police will charge clients with either Resisting Arrest of Aggravated Assault to cover up potential police brutality or misconduct.  Unfortunately, this happens almost everyday in Maricopa County.

DISMISSED

Arizona v. M.L
Charged with:

  • Aggravated Assault, a Class 6 Felony and a Domestic Violence Offense
  • Interfering with Judicial Proceedings (violating an Order of Protection), a Class 1 Misdemeanor

My client was facing a prison sentence between 2 years and 9 months up to 5 years and 9 months if convicted.
The prosecution agreed to dismiss the case after I demonstrated that the assault did not occur.  We were also able to show that the client was lured into coming to his ex-wife’s house so that she could report a violation of an Order of Protection.  Although being lured to her house is not an actual defense to violating the Order of Protection, the prosecution agreed that my client’s ex-wife’s conduct was improper.
*Past results are not indicative of future success or what you can expect as the outcome in your particular case.Every case is factually unique and past results are not indicative of the result you should expect in your case.  If an attorney “guarantees” that he or she can win your case, get it in writing.  The only guarantee an attorney can make is that he or she will work as hard as possible on your case to see that justice prevails.

Ratings and Reviews

A+ Rated

Law Office of David Jameson Kephart, PLLC BBB Business Review