William Ryan Moore

William Ryan Moore is a veteran defense attorney with almost 2 decades of experience in litigating criminal cases in both the Florida State & Federal courts. Founder of the firm WR Moore Criminal Defense, William has tried over 200 criminal cases. He is a correspondent to the criminal law radio show on WKLA and avid writer on criminal defense strategy and practice. Mr. Moore has been seen on South Florida news stations, and written about in South Florida newspapers. William R. Moore began his career as an Assistant State Attorney with the Broward County State Attorneys office. His service with that office concluded after the elected Public Defender for Broward County, Alan Schreiber, offered him a position as Assistant Public Defender. At the time, such an offer was unheard of as no prosecuting attorney from the Broward office had been hired by Mr. Schreiber in almost ten (10) years. It is said that this event ended an unwritten agreement between the two elected officials that neither public office would solicit attorneys from the other. During his tenure at the Broward County Public Defenders office, William R. Moore was in the top percentage of attorneys within the office in terms of number of cases tried by a jury. Furthermore, no state attorney who went to trial against William R. Moore ever obtained a felony conviction against his clients. Since leaving the Public Defenders office, William R. Moore has continued to excel in defending the residents of not only Broward County, but Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Monroe, in addition to South, Central and West Florida. While William R. Moores practice focuses primarily on the representation of individuals charged with D.U.I., Mr. Moore also provides representation for individuals facing charges of drug possession, aggravated fleeing and driving while license suspended, in addition to other criminal offenses. In the field, William R. Moore, has achieved great success through motion practice and litigating criminal offenses in open court. He carries with him the vast knowledge of the inner workings of both the prosecutors office and law enforcement, in addition to developing a strong working relationship with expert toxicologists, former breath technicians and rehabilitative psychologists and institutions. As a defense attorney, Mr. Moore has developed an acute skill and methodic defense strategy that has continued to develop over the years bringing him overwhelming results in rehabilitative case negotiation and criminal litigation. In addition to representing the accused, Mr. Moore is available to speak at Florida Law Schools and various Educational Institutions (schedule permitting). Educators wishing to have Mr. Moore lecture on the topic of DUI defense should contact:

Areas of Law
WR Moore Criminal Defense represents clients for their criminal law concerns in the following areas, among others: - Accessory to a Crime An accessory is someone who helps in the commission of a crime. Even though he does not actually participate in the crime. An accessory before the fact is a person who knows about and aids or abets the principal in the commission of the crime. Fort Lauderdale Criminal Defense Attorney, William R. Moore, explains that a person may be tried as an

accessory after the fact (F.S. 910.13) in the county that that person became an accessory as well as in any other county in which the person who committed the crime (the principal) did so. - Aggravated Assault William Moore, explains that if you are charged with aggravated assault, you have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon, such as a gun, knife or other weapon without the intent to kill or with intent to commit a felony. An assault is an intentional and unlawful threat - either by word or by actions - to commit violence against another person. You must have the ability to carry through on your threat and the act must put the person in fear that the violence you threaten is imminent. - Aggravated Battery Fort Lauderdale Criminal Attorney William Moore states that to prove aggravated battery, simple battery must first be proven. According to Florida Statutes 784.03, battery is defined as "actually and intentionally" touching or striking another person against their will and intentionally causing bodily harm to that person. Battery is a misdemeanor in the first degree. Fort Lauderdale Criminal Defense Attorney, William Moore, also explains that Battery is exasperated when the person causes great bodily harm intentionally or with knowledge), permanently disables or disfigures a person, or uses a deadly weapon. - Assault and Battery Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyers explain that Assault and battery are not normally charged to a person for the same action. To understand this, you must understand the differences between an assault charge and a battery charge. An assault is committed when you intentionally and unlawfully threaten another person by word or action to harm or do violence to the other person and it must be "coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear" that the violence in imminent to the other person (F.S. 784.011). - Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer Broward County Criminal Defense Attorneys know that committing battery on law enforcement officers does not include just police officers. It also includes correctional officers, probation officers, anyone in those positions in a part-time position and anyone in those positions as auxiliary positions. This includes employees or agents of the Department of Corrections who supervise or otherwise provide service to inmates, federal law enforcement officers, and law enforcement staff of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, law enforcement staff of the Department of Law Enforcement, or law enforcement staff of the Department of Environmental Protection. - Burglary of a Dwelling or Conveyance or Structure To be charged with burglary, you must enter a dwelling, structure or conveyance intending to commit a crime, unless the premises are open to the public at the time of entry. If the structure is not open to the public at the time you enter it (whether it is a public dwelling that is closed or a private residence) you must remain inside with the intention of committing an offense. If you were asked to leave and you remain inside intent on committing an offense or if you attempt to or commit a forcible felony, you can be charged with burglary. - Child Abuse and Child Neglect Child abuse and neglect can range from leaving a child unattended in a vehicle to severely beating a child. Child abuse and the abuse of a vulnerable adult are treated in much the same way, with both crimes reportable to the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). - Credit Card Fraud Credit card fraud encompasses the many ways and means people (individuals and companies) use to obtain products without paying for them or to take money from someone's account. Credit card fraud is sometimes combined with identity theft.

- Criminal Mischief To commit criminal mischief, a person must purposely and with intent injure someone or damage property. An example of criminal mischief is putting graffiti on someone elses property. - Disorderly Conduct Disorderly conduct is generally charged as a second-degree misdemeanor. It is usually charged a "breach of peace." It can include acts inappropriate in public, acts lacking in public decency, or acts that cause distress to those who witness the acts. It also includes fighting and brawling. If you resist arrest, the charge is usually bumped up to a first-degree misdemeanor. Some forms of disorderly conduct include, but are not limited to public drunkenness, loitering, fighting, disturbing the peace, blocking or otherwise obstructing traffic, using obscene language, unreasonable or loud noise. In some counties, you can get a ticket for disorderly conduct if your muffler is too loud. - Domestic Violence As a criminal defense attorney in South Florida, who has worked on thousands of cases, domestic violence charges always seem to be the most troubling. Even in situations where the family has worked through their differences, the State Attorney's office will certainly still seek a conviction for an alleged offense. This often has the effect of tearing the family apart. Females as well as males can commit domestic violence, though it is less common. Domestic violence includes assault and aggravated assault, battery and aggravated battery, sexual battery, sexual assault Domestic violence also includes stalking and aggravated stalking, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or other criminal offenses that result in physical injury or death of family members or household member by other family or household members. - Driver License Offenses There are many reasons for the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to suspend someone's driver's license. Some of the offenses include, but are not limited to a gas drive-off, non-payment of child support, nonpayment of a traffic ticket and non-payment of vehicle insurance. - Failing to Adhere to Business Terms All too often, in the practice of criminal defense, attorneys will come across organized fraud cases that result from what appear to be legitimate business dealings. William Moore has been defending organized fraud cases in Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach for over a decade. Recently, our criminal defense attorneys were asked if the operation of a business would insulate that business owner from criminal charges where false representations had been made. - False And Fraudulent Motor Vehicle Insurance Application If you make a statement that contains any false, incomplete or misleading information on an application for insurance, and you intend to injure, defraud or deceive the insurer (including any statutorily created underwriting association or pool of motor vehicle insurers), you may be charged with a third-degree felony. - False Imprisonment / Kidnapping False imprisonment and kidnapping are two separate crimes. Kidnapping, a forcible felony, is use of force, or is done in secret, or by use of threat to confine, abduct, or imprison a person against his or her will and with no legal authority to do so, with the intent to commit a felony or facilitate the committing of a felony. False imprisonment, is the use of threat or force or secrecy to confine, abduct, imprison, or restrain an individual without legal authority to do so and against his or her will.

- Personal Property; Removing or Altering Identification Marks In Florida, if you remove, erase, deface or alter in any other way any identification marks made by the true owner of personal property or serial number placed on said property by the manufacturer, you may be found guilty of a first-degree misdemeanor. You must have intended to prevent identification of the personal property by its rightful owner. - Sex Crimes Criminal defense attorneys agree that getting arrested and later convicted for a sex crime can ruin your life. In Fort Lauderdale alone, there are currently nearly 500 registered sex offenders and sexual predators, with many more in surrounding Broward County. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement categorizes convicts as sex offenders or predators based on the severity of the crime. - Stalking The modern movement toward "stalking laws" is another attempt to use statutes to prohibit threatening conduct that may not amount to an assault. Stalking laws and statutes prohibiting threats are thought to be necessary because an assault requires some physical act beyond mere communication of the defendant's hostility toward the victim. Stalking laws vary in their elements, but most prohibit following, harassing, threatening, lying in wait, or conducting surveillance of another person.

William Ryan Moore Cases

Case No.: 06-004815TCA04 - Case Dismissed Defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his automobile parked slanted and occupying two parking spaces in his residential development. State witnesses allege that they had seen the firms client operating the vehicle prior to the Police being called on the scene and was now passed out with the door open and a alcoholic beverage by his side. Upon making contact with the defendant, officers observed him to be incoherent, having a slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and in need of medical treatment. Paramedics were called to the scene. Upon fully investigating the claim and presenting witnesses, the defense established contradictory evidence that challenged the States eye witness testimony as to the events that occurred on the night of the defendants arrest. Result Confronted with contradictory testimony that the defendant had not been operating the vehicle of the night of his arrest, the Assigned Assistant State Attorney agreed to break the DUI charge down to a Reckless Driving charge, and the firms client was not convicted of DUI. Case No.: 06-0048196CF10A - Case Dismissed Co-Defendant charged in Felony Court maintained his innocence to the charges filed by the State Attorneys Office and demanded a speedy trial when it became apparent that State witnesses would be unavailable to testify against him after over one year of litigation. Unable to proceed forward, the State dismissed all counts against the firms client when the Court refused to allow more time for the State to prepare. Result Dismissal of all felony counts. Case No.: 04-022533MM10A - Broken down to Reckless Driving

Defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his pick-up truck at a green light with the doors locked and the engine running. Law enforcement officers surrounded the vehicle and ordered the firms client out of his car and proceeded to conduct a DUI investigation. Defendant admitted to having consumed alcohol prior to driving, had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and a flushed face. Upon being read implied consent, Defendant agreed to submit to a breath test which showed a blood alcohol level above the legal limit of .08. Maintaining his innocence, Defendant demanded a trial on the merits. Maintaining his innocence, a Trial was demanded on his behalf to which the State responded by breaking down the DUI to Reckless Driving, believing that they would not succeed in a conviction. Result Client not convicted of DUI. Case No.: 05-023805MM10B - Dismissed Upon arrest, Defendant was found to have possessed marijuana which was taken into evidence and tested by the BSO Crime Lab. The State Attorneys Office voluntarily agreed to dismiss this Count resulting in a favorable resolution to our client. Case No.: 05-016941CF10A - Case Dismissed Defendant was observed operating a vehicle with one tail light inoperable, to which law enforcement pulled him over and conducted a criminal investigation. Upon researching all of the facts and circumstances, it was determined that the firms client was driving a car that had a standard three tail lamps, of which two were working properly and in compliance with the Statute. As Florida law requires two operable tail lamps, the stop of Defendants vehicle was illegal and all evidence obtained as a result of the illegal stop was suppressed from evidence and unable to be used by the State Attorneys Office. Result With no evidence to proceed forward, the State Attorneys Office voluntarily dismissed the charges against the firms client. Case No.: 06-010823MM10A - Case Dismissed Defendant was charged in Misdemeanor Court, despite the State being unable to prove the crime charged. Result Upon demanding a trial on the merits, the State Attorneys Office was forced to dismiss the pending charges. Client not convicted. Case No.: 06-CT037871AXX - Case Dismissed Defendant was arrested after being found behind the wheel of his automobile and unconscious submitting to a Breathalyzer Test, the firms client blew three times the legal limit and was charged with Aggravated DUI. Upon research of the new Intoxilyzer 8000, certain defects in the software rendered the reading unreliable. Result The State Attorneys Office declined pursuing aggravated DUI above blood alcohol level, above .20. Case No.: 06-004136MM10A Case Dismissed

Defendant was arrested by members of the Broward County Sheriffs Office after making an illegal turn and almost crashing into a Deputys patrol car. The DUI investigation ensued, whereby it was alleged by law enforcement that Mr. Nava had red, watery eyes, a flushed face, and a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from his person. The defendant also admitted to having consumed alcohol, which was evidenced by several alcoholic beverage containers placed throughout his van. The defendant complied with limited roadside sobriety exercises and submitted to giving a breath test, the results of which were a .197 and .200over two times the legal limit. Defense Asserted A Motion to Suppress was filed alleging that the turn conducted by the Defendant was, in fact, legal and the officers explanation that he almost caused an automobile accident was in an effort to bolster justification for the unwarranted traffic stop. Additionally, as our client spoke limited English, a language barrier prevented him from fully understanding instructions given to him regarding roadside sobriety exercises. Finally, as the new Intoxilyzer 8000 Unit was used, the reliability of said tests were put into question, as was the availability of this evidence to the State should they fail to provide statewide and local breath technicians. Following the Honorable Judge Mary Rudd Robinsons review of all testimony at hearing, an Order was entered suppressing all evidence following the illegal stop. Result With no evidence in which to proceed forward, the State dismissed all charges against our firms client. Case No.: 06-007871MM10A - Case Dismissed Defendant lost control of his vehicle, tore through some bushes and into several parked cars. Upon law enforcement officers making contact, they observed signs of impairment leading them to believe that our client was under the influence of controlled substances and alcohol. The arresting officer asked Defendant if he would submit to a blood test, which she agreed. Testing of said sample revealed the presence of high levels of Cocaine, Xanax, Hydrocodone and Oxycodone. The State Attorneys Office filed formal charges against our client seeking a conviction on the evidence obtained on the night of his arrest. The State Attorney assigned to prosecuting the matter offered a conviction for DUI and one year of probation in an effort to resolve this case. Our client refused, and a Motion to Suppress was filed alleging that the blood evidence collected by investigators on the night of the arrest was obtained illegally and in violation of our clients right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. After having a hearing on the Motion before the Honorable Judge Mary Rudd Robinson, the Court reserved ruling for over one month before finding in favor of our client. The inability to use the very damaging blood alcohol evidence against our client rendered the State unable to proceed with DUI charges, which was ultimately formally dismissed. Case No.: 06-004815TCA04 DUI Charge Broken Down To Reckless Driving The State Attorney assigned to this case agreed to break the charge down to Reckless Driving after the defense presented witnesses that were willing to testify that our client was not driving the automobile that he was discovered behind the wheel of while its engine was running.

Case No.: 06-004815TCA04 - Driving While License Suspended Charge Dismissed Prior to having his case resolved, our client was charged with driving an automobile on a dui suspension. The State Prosecutor agreed to dismiss all counts in addition to breaking the initial dui charge down to reckless driving. Case No.: 05-016941CF10A Dismissed States Evidence Suppressed

Presiding Judge Honorable Judge Lebow

During Deposition of the Law Enforcement Officer who initially stopped our clients vehicle, it was learned that the basis for the stop was a burned out tail lamp. Under Florida Law a vehicle must be equipped with at least two (2) operable tail lamps. As the vehicle driven in this matter was equipped with three (3) tail lamps, it was compliance with Florida traffic statues. A Motion to Suppress was filed and heard whereby William Moore argued that since the vehicle in question was in compliance, the Law Enforcement Officer had violated the Defendants Constitutional Rights in pulling him over without a valid reason. The Honorable Judge Lebow after reviewing all evidence presented by the State, Ordered that the Officers stop of the vehicle was without probable cause and in violation of the Defendants Constitutional Rights. Consequently, all evidence was ordered suppressed leaving the State with no evidence to proceed forward. The State subsequently filed a notice of appeal, which was later withdrawn. The State voluntarily dismissed all charges against the defendant. Case No.: 05-015085MM10A Charges Voluntarily Dismissed by the Prosecuting Attorney Unable to produce witnesses necessary to prove their case in chief, the assigned attorney voluntarily dismissed the charges against our client. Case No.: 04-022533MM10A Broken Down to Reckless Driving Our client was discovered asleep behind the wheel of his automobile by law enforcement officers. Upon making contact officers observed bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech. Upon being arrested the Intoxilzer 5000 was administered where our client blew above a .08 (legal limit). After almost two (2) years the assigned Prosecutor agreed to break the charge of DUI down to Reckless Driving upon being unable to produce the breath technician who administered the breath test at an adjudicatory hearing. Case No.: CRC 0432128CFAES Felony Counts Dismissed Firms client standing on his innocence refused to accept the plea offer conveyed by the State and demanded a Trial by Jury. When presented with compelling evidence of the Defendants innocence, the State Attorney voluntary dismissed both Felony counts in exchange for a plea to a single Misdemeanor count. Case No. 04025247mm10a Broken Down to Reckless Driving Client was pulled over after being observed swerving across lanes and driving with his high-beams on. Upon making contact, officers detected an odor of alcohol on the clients breath and described him as having bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech. The patrol car video depicted the client swaying from side to side and falling on to the ground in attempting roadside sobriety exercises. Upon an investigation of the case, William Moore learned that one of the officers participating in the DUI investigation had previously been untruthful in his reporting of an incident involving another officer. Mr. Moore additionally, alleged in a motion to suppress that the stopping officers reason for pulling over his clients car was illegal. Before the conclusion of the motion, the state prosecutor agreed to break the case down from DUI to Reckless Driving. Case No. 04019346mm10a - Dismissed and Notice of Appeal Withdrawn by State Attorneys Office After a thorough investigation all facts and circumstances a motion was filed alleging that the stop and detention of the firms client just prior to his arrest for DUI was without probable cause and otherwise illegal. After the States failure to produce any Law Enforcement Officers involved the arrest for hearing on the motion on three (3) separate occasions the Court granted said motion without hearing any evidence. The State filed a notice of appeal which was later withdrawn. With no evidence whatsoever to seek a conviction the State voluntarily dismissed the charges. Case No. 006504mm10a - Dismissed Despite the firms client having crashed into a guard rail on interstate I595 in front of an off duty police officer at 4:00 a.m. William Moore filed an appropriate Motion to Suppress Any and all evidence alleging that

the eye witness testimony afforded by Law Enforcement was not creditable. After presenting photographic evidence of damage to the vehicle which conflicted with that of the officers testimony the Court suppressed all evidence rendering the State unable to proceed. As a result the State voluntarily dismissed the charges. Case No.05002246mm10a - Reduced to reckless driving Upon learning that the Intoxilyzer 5000 used to test clients blood alcohol was taken out of service shortly after being used on the night of his arrest, in addition to a perceived lack of evidence on the States part, a trial by jury was demanded when the prosecuting attorney refused to make an offer that was acceptable. Just prior to the potential jury being brought in for selection, the State Attorney voluntarily agreed to break the charge down from DUI to reckless driving. Case No. 0406666mm10a - Reduced to reckless driving DUI Check Point Case. Upon the failure of the State to break down the charges filed against the firms client, the offer of the lowest permissible sentence (for the offence of DUI) was rejected and a trial by Jury was demanded. Faced with having to present their case in chief to a Jury, the assigned prosecutor broke down the charge from DUI to reckless driving. Case No. tt04000397lw397 - Reduced to reckless driving Client was stopped by officers after they observed him run a red light in response to a car behind him aggressively motioning for him to advance at a quicker speed. Upon making contact with the individual officers detected an odor of alcohol on the clients breath and described him as having bloodshot eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech An appropriate motion to suppress was filed seeking to exclude any observations of impairment alleged by officers in addition to all statements made. Being unable to defend the motion on the date of the schedule hearing and denied additional time to prepare by the presiding judge, the case was voluntarily broken down from the charge of DUI to reckless driving. Case No. 04-011658mm10a - Reduced to reckless driving Client was found by officers asleep in his vehicle with a bottle of liquor by his side in a mall parking lot. Upon officers making contact with him, the client claimed that he was a law enforcement officer and became argumentative with police. Upon investigating the case, it was determined that a motion to suppress the stop, detention and arrest of the firms client was appropriate and requested that any observations or statements be excluded from States evidence. The prosecuting attorney believing that he would be unsuccessful in eventually obtaining a conviction in the matter, agreed to break down the charge from DUI to reckless driving. Case No. 04-021260mm10a - Reduced to reckless driving After a thorough case review it was determined that the stop of Defendants vehicle was without probable cause and an appropriate motion to Suppress was filed seeking the exclusion of any and all evidence obtained from the illegal police activity. When faced with defending said Motion to Suppress, the assigned State Attorney office broke the charge down from DUI to reckless driving. Case No.04006600mm10a - Reduced to reckless driving Client was unable to accept the States offer of 90 days in Jail when faced with his fourth DUI charge. In an effort to reduce the State Attorneys overwhelming amount of evidence, an appropriate Motion to Suppress (the stop of the vehicle, the roadside sobriety exercises as well as the officers observations following the stop,) was filed. Being caught off guard and unable to defend this motion the State Attorney offered to break the charge down from DUI to reckless driving without any jail time. Case No. 05-013678mm10a- Judgment of Acquittal

Following the States refusal to dismiss the charges against the firms client, a trial by Judge was demanded. After the presentation of the prosecuting attorneys case in chief, appropriate ore tenus motion was submitted, alleging that the state had failed entirely to prove even a prima facia case. The court agreed with said motion and entered a judgment of acquittal in our clients favor. Case No. 05005397cf10a - Dismissed The Prosecuting Attorney failed to break down clients case or convey a reasonable offer. William Moore, subsequently filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence alleging that the stop and detention of the firms client was illegal due to the fact that law enforcement officers, through an overwhelming show of force, stopped and detained him without probable cause. Mr. Moores motion was granted and all evidence obtained from said illegal stop was suppressed. Having no evidence whereby the State could in good faith seek a conviction the prosecuting attorney voluntarily dismissed the case. Case No. 05005396cf10a - Dismissed After the prosecuting attorney failed to break down the charge or offer any acceptable plea to the firms client, William Moore filed a motion to suppress all evidence. The motion alleged that all evidence obtained by law enforcement was the result of an illegal stop and detention to which the court agreed. Having no evidence available to them whereby she could in good faith seek a conviction, the prosecuting attorney voluntarily dismissed the charges. Case No. 02000636cf10a - Not Guilty In response to the prosecuting attorney failing to break down the charge or offer any acceptable plea other than incarceration, William Moore demanded a Trial by Jury on the merits of the case. During the presentation of the prosecutors case, William Moore successfully moved to exclude testimony identifying the defendant, alleging that the prosecutor in the case had acted improperly in preparing his witnesses to testify against his client. With a lack of any credible identification witnesses, after short deliberations, the jury returned a Not Guilty verdict. Case No. 0014908cf10a - Not Guilty William Moore demanded a Jury Trial after the prosecuting attorney refused to break down or dismiss the charges against his client which carried a sentence punishable by life in prison. During the presentation of the prosecutors case in chief, William Moore, successfully objected to damaging facts being brought into evidence. After the presentation of the prosecutors case in chief, William Moore presented evidence in defense of his client and ultimately convinced the jury to hand down a Not Guilty verdict and acquit his client of the crime charged. Case No. 001721cf10a - Not Guilty The firms client, standing on his plea of not guilty, felt it was his best interest to proceed to trial on the merits of his case. At the close of all evidence presented in his defense, by William Moore, the Jury returned with a verdict of Not Guilty. Case No. 009374cf10a - Not Guilty In response to the State Attorneys failure to convey a plea offer that was acceptable to the defendant, William Moore demanded a trial by Jury, excluded evidence presented by the State, and presented evidence in defense of his client. After a short deliberation the Jury returned with Not Guilty verdict on all counts. Case No. J.R. (Juvenile Record Sealed) - Dismissed

Upon failed negations with the State Attorneys Office whereby no break down or plea offer which was acceptable to the firms client was conveyed a request for trial by Judge was entered. Prior to the States proceeding with their case William Moore made several motion alleging that the States proceeding with thee limited evidence in which they had was both unethical and illegal. In response and prior to the Judges ruling the State voluntarily dismissed as charges. Case No. 007392cf10a - Not guilty Client standing on his innocence and unable to accept the offer of incarceration by the State requested that William Moore proceed to trial on the merits of his case. At the close of all evidence presented by William Moore, in his defense, the jury rendered a not guilty verdict on all counts Case No. 00009515cf10a - Not guilty Rejecting the offer from the prosecuting attorney of incarceration, the client, at the advice of William Moore, proceeded to trial on the merits of his case. After the close of all evidence presented by William Moore in his defense the jury returned with a not guilty verdict on all counts. Case No. 00004222cf10a - Not Guilty At the advice of counsel and due to the fact that the client had no prior criminal history, William Moore demanded a trial by jury. After successfully suppressing certain evidence offered by the State Attorney during trial and following the presentation of defense evidence by Mr. Moore, the jury found the defendant not guilty of the crime charged and instead settled on the far less serious lesser included offense. Case No. 00001785cf10a - Not guilty Rejecting the States offer of incarceration and at the advice of counsel the client proceeded to trial by jury on the merits of his case. Upon successfully suppressing certain State evidence introduced at trial and upon conclusion of all defense evidence presented by William Moore the jury returned with a not guilty verdict on all counts. Case No. 00003208cf10a - Not Guilty At the advice of counsel, the client rejected a plea offer of incarceration offered by the prosecuting attorney. William Moore demanded a trial by jury, successfully excluded certain States evidence during trial and presented evidence in defense of his client. After a short deliberation the jury returned with a not guilty verdict. Case No. 05008334mm10a - Judgment of Acquittal Standing on her innocence and at the advice of William Moore, the firms client proceeded to have a trial by Judge. At the conclusion of the States case, William Moore made and appropriate motion alleging that the prosecuting attorney had failed to meet its burden in proving the case, and that the court should, as a matter of law, direct a verdict acquitting the defendant. The Court agreed with defense counsel and entered an appropriate judgment of acquittal. Case No. 03009081cf10a - Dismissed Despite the State Attorney having overwhelming evidence, William Moore, through investigation, determined that the State lacked necessary witnesses in proving its case and filed an appropriate demand for speedy trial. Finding themselves caught off guard, the state prosecutor agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the charges against William Moores client.