Law Offices of Thomas J. Thomas, LLC

04/17/2023

Jury duty

08/28/2020

Even with COVID 19 shutting down courts, the appellate courts of Georgia are still hard at work. Just found out that our case of State v. Behney has been transferred from the Court of Appeals to the Georgia Supreme Court. The case involves the suppression of a breath test by the trial court in a Driving Under the Influence case. The State appealed the trial court's granting of our motion to suppress and since the trial court based its ruling at least partially on Georgia constitutional grounds, the Court of Appeals has sent the case to the Supreme Court which has sole justification of constitutional issues. If granted, it will be the second time that one of our appellate briefs suppressed all breath tests in Georgia (at least until new regulations were promulgated by the Department of Public Safety). The first was State v. Leviner. This will be our third appearance (all so far successful) in front of the Georgia Supreme Court.

09/25/2019

Just had the State agree to return a $30,000 truck that had been "forfeited" under Georgia's draconian forfeiture statute (OCGA 16-13-49). The State eventually conceded that Timbs v. Indiana, decided last year by the US Supreme Court, now prohibits such disproportionate property grabs by the State. We also managed to get the underlying felony drug charge reduced to misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct.

Though it involves a lot of paperwork, it is not imperative to dispute every forfeiture that the State attempts following drug arrests.

06/24/2019

People ask what kind of lawyer/person does it take to be a criminal defense lawyer - well this sums it up pretty well.

As I write this on a Sunday morning, I am in the middle of a complex criminal jury trial that will likely last four weeks. Of course, I cannot write about the substance of the case or the lawyers. …

03/26/2019

Attorney Thomas J. Thomas focuses his practice on representing clients charged with alcohol and drug violations. He graduated cm laude in 1980 from Indiana University’s law school, one of the topped rated law schools in the country.

Since 1993 Mr. Thomas has practiced law in Georgia and is admitted to practice before both the Georgia Court of Appeals and George Supreme Court. He has argued and won several important cases before both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court including: Spencer v. State, 302 Ga. 133 (2017), Keller v. State, 275 Ga. 680 (2002), Fraser v. State, 263 Ga. App. 764 (2003), Colon v. State, 256 Ga. App. 505 (2002), Keller v. State, 247 Ga. App. 599 (2001), Brahm v. State, 230 Ga. App. 407 (1998), and Davis v. State, 236 Ga. App. (1999).

Besides his work as an appellate attorney he has years of experience as a trial lawyer having conducted both bench and jury trials throughout the metro Atlanta area. Because of his skills as a trial lawyer he has been asked to speak at numerous seminars on topics ranging from Opening Trial Statements to Preservation of Error for Appeal. In conjunction with his speaking engagements he has published several papers on these and related topics. In 2015 he was named one of the Top 100 DUI Attorneys in the State of Georgia by The National Advocacy for DUI Defense. In 2017 he was recognized as one of the 10 Best Attorneys for Client Service by the American Institute of DUI/DWI Attorneys.

Thanks to his reputation as a top trial lawyer, he is often able to negotiate the reduction or even dismissal of pending charges. His ability as a top negotiator has also lead to many requests for him as a lecturer. He has published two papers on the subject: Thirty Ideas for Negotiating a Criminal Case and Thirty Ideas for Negotiating a DUI case.

Mr. Thomas has completed the Mastering Scientific Evidence training seminar and the National Highway and Traffic Safety Association’s (NHTSA) Standardized Field Sobriety Training course.

Mr. Thomas was a founding partner of the firm Head, Thomas, Webb & Willis which won Georgia Best Lawyer’s award for DUI defense in 2013. He has a Superb 10 rating from AVVO (an on-line attorney rating service) and an AV Preeminent for 15 Years rating from Martindale-Hubbell.

Qualified, experienced and committed to client service, Mr. Thomas is available for a free consultation to consider and discuss your legal needs.

03/25/2019

A case I argued before the Georgia Supreme Court with some issues similar to those discussed in "8".

May 1, 2017 - Oral arguments before the Georgia Supreme Court. Our firm has recently challenged the scientific validity of the HGN test before the Georgia Su...

03/25/2019

On February 18, 2019 the Georgia Supreme Court published its decision in Elliott v. The State reaffirming that the State cannot compel citizens to incriminate themselves in any manner including being forced to take breath tests in DUI cases. Specifically the court held that the refusal to give evidence against themselves (breath tests in this case) could not be used against them at trial. This ended a long standing exception to the normal rules of evidence in Driving Under the Influence cases where it was routine for prosecutors to suggest that a citizen asserting her rights implied guilt.
The decision was not unexpected as it reaffirmed a long line of cases so holding in Georgia (Federal law by contrast protects only speech not acts so would not have protected the citizen in this case).
The opinion runs to over 90 pages but a three page concurrence at its conclusion may have the most impact in the long run. This concurrence pointed out that the “Implied Consent” card read to all DUI suspects now contained false and misleading information in that it threatened citizens that asserting your right to refuse would be used against you at trial. The natural effect would be to induce citizens to waive their right and give evidence against themselves by taking a breath or blood test.
Anticipating this decision our firm has been raising this issue in every DUI case not just refusal cases. So though Elliott apparently only concerned case involving refusals, it in fact has far reaching consequences on all DUIs cases. But to benefit from these consequences an attorney must raise these matters in pre-trial motions – in other words they must have anticipated the decision in Elliott and its additional effects on other types of DUI cases.
A bill is already moving through the Georgia legislature to correct the “Implied Consent” card read by police officers to citizens suspected of DUI. For reasons unknown the Department of Public Safety, responsible for issuing these cards, had made no effort to fix this problem – even though the Georgia Supreme Court in a footnote to a previous decisions had expressed concern over the card’s language.
Contrary to alarmist reports in the media this decision does not curtail the ability of law enforcement to make DUI cases. An officer need only show a magistrate (available 24 hours in most counties) that she has sufficient probable cause (the normal standard in criminal cases) to obtain a search warrant for the suspect’s blood.
Despite this some law makers are considering a constitutional amendment to the Georgia Constitution to remove this long standing right of Georgia citizens to refuse to do any act that might incriminate them. Depending on the wording of this amendment, this could have far reaching consequences and mean that Federal courts rather than our State courts would have the final word on our rights.

03/25/2019

Went to see Dustin Black's "8" over the weekend. The "8" stands for Proposition 8 (Cal law banning same s*x marriage) and the federal challenge to that law. The author used the actual court transcripts as the "script" with additional material from media interviews and pro/con commercials. As any practicing lawyer can guess that's going to be a real challenge for actors to bring alive for a general audience with no scripted dramatic license to alter the text. Fortunately some of the best local actors I know were in the cast and able to find the humanity of stylized court proceedings. As a veteran cross-examiner it was interesting to watch an actor attempt the rhythms of a cross something, we practicing trial lawyers have internalized and rarely look at with an outside audience perspective.

The actual case revolved around what type of scientific evidence courts could except (yes an actor has to say the "Daulbert standard") since I'd just won a case before the Georgia Supreme Court on a similar issue in a criminal case, I was well attuned to what the lawyers were trying to do but not sure a general audience may appreciate the nuance. As one would expect the case was pretty one sided and so lacked the inherent swings back in forth of a closely matched trial where you really don't know the outcome till the jury foreman speaks (which is what I'm used to in the real world).

Judge Studdard of the Henry County State Court was also in attendance the night I saw the show (his daughter is in the cast).

They still have one performance left and its well worth going both for practicing attorney's who want to get a different perspective and anyone interested in how the media, science and the law interact in trying to resolve a societal issue.

12/26/2018

Changes to DUI Law in Georgia

A wave of potential changes is coming to DUI law in Georgia based on several new Georgia Supreme Court decisions. Because the law is currently unsettled we are strongly advising clients to not plead guilty to any DUI related offense until these issues are resolved. Most judges in Georgia, if requested, are holding off resolving DUI matters until the Georgia Supreme Court decides several DUI related issues currently being considered. Even if judges are not willing to hold off resolving these types of cases, we are making sure that these issues are carefully preserved for appeal so that any current convictions can be overturned latter.

In Olevick v. State, 302 Ga. 228 (2017), the Georgia Supreme Court established that citizens have a constitutional right to refuse breath or blood testing in DUI cases (just as in any other type of case). This then raised two additional issues which the Supreme Court is now considering. In Elliot v. State, the Supreme Court accepted for review the issue of whether a citizen’s silence or refusal to offer evidence against themselves by declining a state administered sobriety test can be used against them. Normally citizens cannot be forced to testify against themselves nor can the refusal to do so be used against them. We expect this constitutional principle to now be applied in DUI cases so that a refusal to take state administered blood or breath tests can no longer be used against citizens at trial.

The second issue being considered by the court in the companion case of Licata v. State is whether a DUI suspect is entitled to Miranda warnings as suspects in any other criminal investigation would be. Here the court must rule on the question of whether a citizen is entitled to Miranda warnings that evidence they give can and will be used against them before taking a state mandated blood or breath test.

The decisions in these cases will drastically change how Georgia’s Implied Consent mechanisms work. (These are the methods by which the state essentially forces drivers to take blood or breath tests or lose their license to drive for a year). Since the warnings now being read to drivers do not contain the correct Miranda information and also actually threaten to use a citizen’s refusal to give evidence against themselves at trial, they may contain incorrect information. Any evidence obtained after giving a driver such incorrect information could be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree”.

Unfortunately in the recent case of State v. Herrera-Bustamante 304 Ga. 259 (2018), the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that unless these issues were correctly preserved before trial, they are waived. It is therefore extremely important that an attorney properly raise these issues now while they are pending lest they be considered waived latter.

Consequently until these cases are resolved by Georgia’s Supreme Court, it is impossible to determine what if any evidence can be used against a citizen in a DUI prosecution. We are therefore strongly advising our clients to not plead guilty to any DUI charge whether based on a refusal to submit to a state administered test or the results of such a test.

If you have additional questions or concerns about handling a DUI case please contact our office.