Felony Drug Crime
Ray Vazquez successfully defended a client charged with possession with intent to deliver, securing a not guilty verdict after exposing an illegal stop.
Overview
When you need a lawyer near you who knows how to challenge illegal traffic stops and fight serious drug charges, this case proves that experience matters. My client was facing a first-degree felony after officers claimed to find 55 grams of crack cocaine in his vehicle. The State charged him with possession with intent to deliver, a charge that carried the possibility of decades in prison.
But from the beginning, it was clear: the traffic stop leading to my client’s arrest simply didn’t hold up under scrutiny.
Defense
Challenging the Legality of the Stop
The officer alleged that he pulled my client over for two reasons:
- A broken license plate light
- Stopping over a white line at an intersection
However, critical evidence was missing. There was no dashcam footage, and the officer’s body-worn camera footage failed to show the exact location of the stop. I personally investigated the scene, secured images of the intersection, and introduced them at trial. Those images revealed the “white line” was so badly faded it was virtually invisible — raising serious doubt about the officer’s stated reason for the stop.
As for the license plate light, the officers only checked it after removing my client from the vehicle. Worse, they tried to block their own headlights with another patrol car to retroactively justify the stop. These flaws were all aggressively exposed during my cross-examination.
If you are searching for an attorney near you who leaves no stone unturned when investigating police stops, this is the level of defense you deserve.
Fighting for the Right Jury Instructions
I filed a motion to suppress in front of the jury, challenging the legality of the stop directly. I also requested a 38.23 jury instruction, which would have allowed jurors to decide whether the stop was lawful and whether the evidence that followed should be thrown out. Although the judge denied that request, I made sure the jury clearly understood the core issue:
If the stop wasn’t valid, nothing that followed could be trusted.
Conclusion
Exposing Weaknesses During Cross-Examination
Cross-examination was the key to victory. I exposed major gaps and inconsistencies in the officer’s testimony. During deliberations, the jury’s very first question was about probable cause — exactly where I wanted their focus. This signaled that the jurors were critically questioning the legitimacy of the entire arrest.
After the verdict, jurors personally shared their thoughts:
- They didn’t believe the officer’s story.
- They weren’t convinced there was enough evidence to prove “intent to deliver.”
- They saw a traffic stop that was shaky at best, and a case that didn’t add up.
An experienced lawyer near you in Houston knows how to keep the real issues front and center even when certain requests are denied.
