Success Stories

To read more about our past client reviews, please see our AVVO site, located here: AVVO.com REVIEWS - CARL D. CEDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW

Client Reviews: Page 1  |   Page 2

State vs. MR

Client worked all day in his music studio, while periodically drinking an alcoholic beverage. Client then went to a friend’s house and drank beers while practicing his guitar playing. He then went next door to serenade an old friend with his guitar skills. The friend called the police because she was alarmed, and he was pulled over as he was driving away. Client failed all sobriety tests, and an empty Tuaca bottle was found in the cab of his pick-up. Client received a “NOT GUILTY” verdict in less than an hour.

Client Response:

Carl and Jamie got me a “Not Guilty” in Williamson County for my DWI. They were the best attorneys I've seen and I have told everyone who is in trouble about them because I honestly believe they are the best in the business. They were both very, very good. I so appreciated what they did for me and my family. I was so scared throughout the process. I literally cried as the verdict was read. The acquittal literally changed my life.

State vs. DG

Client went to a dance hall with his wife to listen to a famous band play music. He spent around 3-4 hours consuming beer while listening to the band. Client left with wife and was pulled over for swerving. Client performed bad on the standardized field sobriety tests, and failed a portable breath test. As well, he gave a .14 breath specimen at the station. Client received a “NOT GUILTY” verdict in less than 30 minutes.

Client Response:

Carl came to an out of town county to try a breath test DWI case for me...a .14 is what the result was that was in dispute. I was SO nervous throughout the entire process, but Carl assured me from the beginning that everything would be okay. We tried the case and the jury came back in less than 15 minutes with a verdict. I thought for sure it wasn't going to be good. But, against all odds...the jury said NOT GUILTY! I was definitely happy for sure! I was so relieved...he got me out of a very bad predicament. He did an amazing job and made sure we were well prepared...he was so thorough...he was very meticulous in his witness preparation for when my wife testified. I was very impressed by everything, he left no stone unturned. He worked MANY hours on my case...and the end result was as good as it can get....an acquittal! If you hire anyone else, you are making a bad mistake.

State vs. DB

Client had been drinking beer at his ranch for an entire Sunday. He left his ranch to go home. On the way, another driver on the road called 911 as a result of his erratic driving. He was pulled over by an officer, who had previously arrested him for DWI. This was the client’s 3rd DWI arrest. The jury returned a “NOT GUILTY” verdict in less than an hour.

Client Response:

I was very impressed by the job done. I got the most “bang for my buck” that I could imagine. I had been arrested before, but my other attorneys never even mentioned the concept of a trial. When Carl suggested it, I agreed…but I had no idea what would go into it. The manpower and hours devoted to it was quite impressive. I would have been satisfied either way…but I was so relieved when the jury came back with an acquittal. Carl talked a lot about the “system” when he spoke to me and my mom. I remember telling him that the “system finally worked” after the jury came back “Not Guilty.”

State vs. KR

Client was a nightclub manager at a well-known bar. While working one night, he had (and told the officer) several shots because it was his birthday. Client failed all sobriety tests and was subsequently placed under arrest. Client was an Army Officer who held a CDL to operate trucks. If convicted, he would have lost all CDL privileges. He had fired another attorney before placing his trust into Carl. The case was tried, and the state offered to reduce the charge after cross-examination of the arresting officer. Client was given the choice of proceeding or taking the offer, and he decided on the latter.

Client Response:

I knew we would have won had we proceeded, but I just had too much riding on the line. I stood to lose everything. I only wanted the DWI dismissed and that is what I got. The job done by Carl in cross-examining my arresting officer was superb. He is first-rate. By the time he was through…I looked at the jury and could tell they were wondering why we were even at trial. Carl made the arresting officer look like a rookie. She had no understanding of what goes into making a DWI arrest, and he made it known. I could tell Carl wanted to proceed with the trial to hear a verdict…because we were both pretty sure of what it would have been. But it was just too much to risk. At any rate, I was VERY pleased. He saved my occupation, my job, and my life.

State vs. HR

Client was 20 years old and had been drinking at a party. After the party, he went with a friend to the country to shoot a shotgun at some roadsigns. A local sheriff heard the shooting, and initiated a traffic stop. While the jury was deliberating, the state offered to reduce to a Class C misdemeanor. Client weighed the option of hearing a verdict against taking the offer, and chose to proceed with his constitutional right to have a jury decide the outcome of the charge. The jury came back with a “NOT GUILTY” verdict in less than an hour.

Client Response:

I trusted Carl from day 1 throughout the entire ordeal. When preparing for trial, he had my number and he was constantly calling me to try and prepare. In the actual trial…CARL HAD TOTAL CONTROL of the courtroom. It was very impressive. We had the option of taking a dismissal of the DWI and just receiving a Class C misdemeanor, and not risk losing the trial. But, we were so confident of his abilities we decided to let the jury decide. We knew we had the best lawyer in the courtroom. And I was fortunate enough to have received a favorable verdict. I will be forever pleased that he kept my record clean.

State vs. OA

Client was 18 years old and was arrested for DUI. To be arrested for DUI in Texas, the state need only prove that there is a “detectable amount of alcohol in the system.” Client had a friend in the car who had previously thrown up in the vehicle due to being intoxicated. Client was later arrested for “Public Intoxication” after getting released from jail. A “NOT GUILTY” verdict was returned in less than 20 minutes.

Client Response (from mother):

Carl was a true professional throughout this ordeal. We were worried about our daughter and wanted to hire the best for her. We are confident that we did. We thought taking it to a jury trial might be a waste of time. Carl watched her video, and gave us an objective and realistic expectation of what we could expect. I remember after closing arguments it was almost laughable how much better he was than the prosecutor. It almost looked like the prosecutor had never tried a case before. We were very pleased. I took about a hundred of Carl’s business cards should we need them in the future.

State vs. TS

Client Narrative:

Client was pulled over for not having a front license plate. She has her son with her, who happens to be 14 years of age and two months shy of his 15th birthday. Client is charged with DWI with a child passenger under 15 years of age, a state jail felony. Client and another adult passenger both have open containers in the vehicle, and also an 18-pack of Budweiser beer on ice in a cooler. Client fails all of the standardized field sobriety tests (SFST's), and also fails a portable breath test (PBT) before being arrested. She refuses a breath test at the police station. Client is only offered a felony conviction before trial. Carl proceeded to submit her case to a jury. During voir dire, 160 people are listed on the venire, and approximately 100 show up for jury duty. The case is a cluster from the get-go, as the formation of how the jury is seated and paneled is not very organized or uniform in anyway whatsoever (which only serves to make the defense of the accused more difficult). A jury is eventually picked and seated, and the trial then proceeds.

The arresting officer is someone many people in the community know well, but do not hold in a very good light. At trial, it is discovered that the offense report for the arrest was made almost a month after the arrest. Prior to pointing this fact out to the jury, the arresting officer made clear how he knew from the beginning he would be charging the accused with a felony, which would have lasting repercussions for life. However, despite this, on cross-examination the arresting officer had to admit that he failed to investigate the arrest and charge fully, despite the gravity of the offense.

In closing argument, the prosecutor for the state used a "Not Guilty" display to help prove their case. He had index cards made for all the reasons supporting the theory of the state's case, and plastered them all over the "Not" section of the display so it only revealed the word "Guilty." The index cards, for instance, included the "odor" of alcohol beverage detected by arresting officer from the vehicle, and how there was an "open container" of Budweiser found in the console. Carl then, in closing, argued to envision each index card as a balloon. And then made arguments defeating each of the state's points, and made the analogy that each point asserted was like a dart being thrown at the balloon. For example, a dart was thrown at the "odor" of alcohol claim and the "open container" violation, in that jury was not gathered to base guilt on an "open container" violation, and that any odor detected was as a result of this "open container." In doing so, Carl then made a sweeping motion washing away the entire state's case, revealing only the "Not Guilty" portion of the sign, and submitting that this was the only verdict that could be rendered. It was brilliant − and the jury was obviously quite impresses by his skill and demeanor.

When deliberating, the prosecutor for the state was very upset at the mistreatment of his own exhibit which was ultimately used against him, and quite honestly, acted in a very juvenile manner. After verbalizing this fact, Carl simply remarked and pointed out that it was his "utmost duty to represent his client with FULL vigor and zealous advocacy, and would never apologize to ANYONE for doing so." Carl did apologize to the Judge later if he took offense to how he conducted his closing, but to our surprise, he instead gave him great praise and confidence for skillfully countering the argument and exhibit used.

The jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty" almost exactly two hours later.

When being polled, the two DPS troopers who made the arrest blocked the doorway of the jury room in an attempt to block the members of the jury from leaving. They were clear they were attempting to intimidate and/or harass the jury, and many of them were scared. This was a very small county, and the county seat was a very small town. This mild threat by the DPS troppers was very short-lived, as Carl and other members of the DWI DUDE team entered the room and assisted the jury members with their exit. The DPS troopers were then admonished by the Judge for their conduct.

It was a great victory that was an uphill battle from the very beginning. The state officials helping secure the conviction, from the court reporter to the prosecuting attorneys, all held a certain resentment for the client, as well as towards Carl. The judge, however, was very fair, and seemed to admire Carl, and the team, for their work ethic. However, it was a small county, and some of the staff members did not appreciate "outside" attorneys actually doing their job: zealously representing a client. To be clear, this sentiment only rested with the those trying to gain a conviction in the case, namely the DPS troopers and the District Attorney's trying the case. However, this resentment can be directly attributed to the fact that Carl will always do whatever is in his power to represent clients with his utmost. The jury, it seemed, very much bonded with Carl throughout the duration of the trial, as well as did the Judge.  Simply put, if a potential client is looking for an attorney who simply lay down when threatened or intimidated by the state, when the odds are stacked against you in a somewhat hostile courtroom setting, you should look elsewhere for representation. This case is indicative that Carl will always be fully committed to the full representation of his clients, even at the expense of possibly offending those helping to secure the conviction.

Client Response:

My nightmare began in June 2008. I was arrested by DPS for DWI. I hired and trusted Carl Ceder to represent me. Their staff was so wonderful and supportive. Carl came to my jury trial and performed wonderfully. From picking the jury through the trial he was exceptional and unrelenting in picking the prosecutors theories apart. I have never seen such a great lawyer, or had the pleasure to be in the presence of such wonderful professional legal help. Because of him, I now have a 2nd chance. I was so happy after the verdict was read. The judge and the prosecutor both made jokes about how I had hired the “dream team.” They were saying this because Carl was just that good and it was true. I was a facing a felony conviction and he got me off. What more can I say? I have the greatest respect for Carl and so should you. Thank you for everything. God bless him and everyone that helped him.‎

State vs. MD

Client had been arrested three previous times for DWI. She did four years in the Texas Department of Corrections for her 3rd arrest and was facing another felony charge for DWI. She was pulled over after attending a wedding and have several glasses of wine. She was pulled over for doing 90mph in a 65mph zone. She was confrontational with the arresting officer after being arrested. Prosecuting attorney called and communicated on the Friday before the trial that Carl would be picking a jury Monday at 1pm and to "be ready." Client and Carl spent the entire weekend in preparation for the trial. Carl showed up Monday morning to announce “ready” and was more than fully prepared to try the case. Instead of proceeding with trial, the state THEN decided to reduce to a misdemeanor. As always, the choice was given to the client whether to proceed or take the state’s offer. Because she would have assuredly gone back to prison if convicted, she decided to take the offer. She received two years probation.

Client Response:

Carl did a fantastic job. I was INCREDIBLY relieved. When we went to court that morning, I KNEW the state was afraid. I REALLY believed in Carl and his team. I was pleasantly surprised at the outcome and was so happy to not have to go back to jail. Carl was so helpful every step of the way.

State vs. MB

Client was pulled over after moving her son’s car. Her son was too intoxicated to drive, and called his mother to help him move it. The client told the arresting officer she had over a bottle of wine to drink. Client was arrested with her son, who was also arrested and given a “Public Intoxication” charge. Her son called her because he was too intoxicated to drive. She came to where he was, and slightly moved the car from the shoulder of the highway to a parking lot. Unfortunately, an officer happened to observe her as she was doing this. She was arrested and charged with a DWI. She voluntarily submitted to a breath test and failed with a result of .16. The client was frantic throughout the process, and was fearful throughout the entirety of the case. An excerpt she sent to Carl is written and included below:

Hi Carl,

My next court is Oct 13. As I have stated many times, I was never read my rights and a DWI conviction will no doubt eliminate my ability to ever teach again in public schools or on the university level (i.e., ruin my professional career). I honestly would not put up such a fight if I felt I had actually broken the law and driven drunk. Two years is a long time to have this hanging over my head. A criminal record plus two more years probation is overly extreme for something that took place in a parking lot with a responsible citizen. I know that for those not involved, this is probably not a big deal, but I am heart sick about this and have been for nearly two very long years.

Thank you,

MB

Client received a dismissal of her DWI, and also received a promise from the judge that she would terminate her case early if she completed the required DWI classes. Client was ecstatic that she would not receive a DWI conviction, and was even more happy that her case was disposed of without going to trial.

State v. TT

Client arrested for a DWI as a result of a "No Refusal" weekend and forced to give a blood specimen. Client's blood result was tested with a result of .14. A pre-trial motion to suppress hearing was held where the judge ruled the stop by the police officer was not valid. All of the evidence subsequent to the stop was ruled inadmissable.  The DWI charge was dismissed.

Client Response:

I hired Carl at first because I knew I could trust him. Honestly, I wasn't expecting much because the officers drew my blood and the result came back way over the limit. I just was hoping that Carl could help me out as best he could. I was shocked at the outcome. Somehow get got my entire case dismissed. COMPLETELY. I was ecstatic. This would have been my 2nd DWI and I was worried I would carry that stigma around the rest of my life. Thankfully, now I won't have to. Carl is the man.

State v. JP

Client was arrested for shoplifting. Client had a prior arrest for shoplifting, as well as numerous other charges.

Client Response:

Carl was very nice and courteous throughout the process. He talked to my mother constantly throughout the process and it was helpful. He was very supportive, understanding, and he showed a a lot of patience. He was able to get the charge completely dismissed, which is what I wanted because I want to be able to look for jobs in the future without being worried or embarrassed.

State v. JS

Client was arrested for swerving between multiple lanes and ultimately refused all field sobriety tests. Client's speech was confused and disoriented. Client's DWI charge was dismissed on the first court setting.  Additionally, the ALR hearing was won on the merits resulting in no driver's license suspension.

Client Response:

I hired Carl out of a recommendation from someone I knew that worked with him. A DWI conviction would have been devastating for me, because my livelihood depends on my ability to drive. The bottom line was my main concern was avoiding the impact that a DWI conviction would have on my life. Carl was able to get my DWI charge dismissed in a very minimal amount of time. I was very impressed it came with such relative ease. He also talked me through everything and made the entire process as painless as possible.  And of course, my license was not suspended because he fought my case every step of the way.