Gregory A. Hicks has obtained dismissals on the last 2 DUI cases in Cherokee County and Cobb County without trial or motions hearings.

In the State Court of Cherokee County, Mr. Hicks’ client was charged with DUI less safe after he refused the breath test. After Mr. Hicks investigated the case and brought it to the attention of the prosecutor that the officer improperly administered field sobriety tests on the side of the road (including making his client engage in made up tests), attorneys for the state chose not to reduce the DUI charge, but to completely dismiss the charge. Thanks to Mr. Hicks’ experience and advocacy, his client now maintains a clean driving record.

A similar situation occurred in Cobb County, Georgia. Mr. Hicks’ client was a young girl, 19 years old. She was stopped for speeding after an officer “paced” or followed her car. After mistaking tobacco in the car for marijuana, the officer immediately pulled her out of the car and started  a DUI investigation. Again, as often happens, the officer did not administer the field sobriety tests properly. When Mr. Hicks brought this to the attention of the prosecutor, the state offered to reduce the DUI charge to reckless driving. The client, however, would have still lost her license if she pled to reckless driving because she was under the age of 21 (in addition to the numerous other consequences of a reckless driving conviction, including increased insurance premiums, higher fines and probation). Mr. Hicks was unwilling to accept this result so he went up the chain of command in the prosecutor’s office until he secured a complete dismissal of the DUI charge.

Both cases are a testament to how an attorney experienced in DUI law and trained in how officers should properly conduct DUI investigations can be crucial to your case.

Gregory A. Hicks represented a client in a 3-week criminal trial in Cobb County, Georgia. In this “street gang” murder trial, Gregory Hicks appeared on WSB-TV in his opening statement exposing how desperate the prosecution must be that one defendant receives a lesser sentence for his testimony in the case.

Gregory Hicks was often quoted for his statement to the jury that “Muhammed Abdus-Salaam will be auditioning for his future.”

Gregory Hicks was also critical of the negligent investigation of the case and failure to determine the one and only shooter.

A partial transcript of Gregory Hicks’ opening statement follows:

In this case there will be no evidence that [my client] shot anybody. There will be no evidence that [my client] shot at anybody. There will be no evidence that [my client] was even inside the apartment complex. There will be no evidence that [my client] assaulted anybody. There will be no evidence that [my client] even knew anybody that was involved in the case. There is no evidence that [my client] made any plan with anybody to kill anybody or assault anybody.

But what evidence there will be is that this case is going to be personal to Muhammed Abdus-Salaam,[ the government snitch]. Personal to him factually and legally.

Factually, he is the one person — the evidence will show that the government snitch is the instigator of all of this that lead to this innocent young man’s death. He is the one that got disrespected by drug dealer, got disrespected when he tried to do a deal with the drug dealer with his brother. The drug dealer wound up not doing the deal, went away cussing and disrespecting Muhammad Abdus-Salaam. Shamed him in front of his own brother. He’s the only one. This is personal to him. That’s why he went over there. It was his idea to do it.

But yet the instigator is not on trial here today. Instead, what the government snitch gets to do is audition for his freedom. He gets to get on the stand and minimize his conduct with all the pressure on him of his future freedom. His choices are life in prison or freedom. Think about that as he testifies.

You’re able, as Judge Ingram told you, you’re the judge of his credibility. He’s the — Muhammad Adbus-Salaam is the only one that wanted revenge, but yet the State is not electing to prosecute him. Instead, he gets to show them what he can do for them. He’s up here. His job is going to be, the evidence will show you, to convict all these people here. And after he does that, make no mistake about it, he will get his reward.

Remember this about his statements. The District Attorney told you when he’s first confronted about this, when his name instantly popped up in the case and when he is confronted about it, he denies the whole thing. Okay. The detectives leave him alone.

They go back to him later and try to get another statement from him. Early on in that interview, the detectives tell him that we can help you when you help us. It becomes a different story after that. He goes and names all these other people. But he doesn’t even get arrested then.

But what the situation with Muhammad Abdus-Sallam is, his reward is going to be hidden from you until after the trial. He doesn’t have to sit here, be on trial, and come up and testify to the truth when it’s his turn. He does not have to face you. He gets to sit up here and talk this way.

Why the District Attorney chose him to reward, I don’t know. Especially when all — every miniscule piece of evidence is going to say that he’s the instigator. Without him and his desire to either rob or get revenge on Dylan Wattecamps, another drug dealer — actually, they are both drug dealers, Muhammad, Abdus-Salaam and Dylan Wattecamps. Without that, young [name withheld], J.B., would still be here among us. But yet, he gets his reward hidden.

And I also expect the evidence to show you that he’s already received his instructions from the District Attorney about what he is supposed to do. The District Attorney has told him not to testify truthfully but to testify against. It’s a matter of record that it’s been stated to Muhammad Abdus-Salaam you are going to get up there and testify against. So he knows what his job is if he wants to earn his freedom. And you have to take that into consideration in everything you’re supposed to do.

Now, I expect that the judge will tell you that the words of somebody else that is involved in the case is not sufficient. That’s not enough. Especially when you consider everything that he has to gain. He’s trying to salvage his life. He’s not up here for money. There is no evidence that somebody has offered him a thousand dollars to do it. He’s up here for his life.

He will have a choice. It is about choices. It is about Muhammad Abdus-Salaam’s choices. His choice is his freedom or get up there and make sure he says what he’s supposed to say against, as the District Attorney told him, all of these people.

Thank you, folks.