Overview:
My name is William Maze, and my firm is The Maze Legal Group. I am currently the president of Michigan’s statewide criminal defense attorney organization, CDAM – The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan. I am busy trying to fix everything wrong in Michigan as we speak, but I also maintain a busy, aggressive criminal defense practice.
I have a couple of lawyers that I work with at my firm, and I have employed many attorneys over the years handling many types of legal cases. After years of carving out a specialized area of practice in DUI defense, however, I personally handle most of my drunk driving cases. I have found that clients charged with drunk driving offenses require close personal attention and instant answers to legal issues that other attorneys are unprepared to answer on the spot. I have also found that, based upon my trial experience, I can usually achieve my client’s goals.
I am the leading drunk driving defense attorney in the Metro-Detroit area in Wayne County, Michigan. Frankly, I consider myself to be the best DUI defense lawyer in Michigan, but I know that there are several really good drunk driving defense lawyers in the state. Most of my competitors are also my friends in this field, but each of the leading drunk driving defense attorneys in Michigan has a different method of how to approach and handle a case. I believe that my style is the most effective.
I have been in practice since 1996, and I have received some of the most advanced training in drunk driving defense in the nation. I am a graduate of The Citadel, the military college in South Carolina, and Wayne State University Law School in Detroit. I currently serve on the board of directors for CDAM, the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, a long-standing and prestigious criminal defense attorney organization. I am also co-founder of Darrow, a free and privately funded network of criminal defense attorneys that rivals a similar state-sponsored and taxpayer supported organization, that seeks to network, train, and educate defense lawyers. Darrow aims to provide low-cost training to attorneys across the state at minimal or no cost without taxpayer support.
Since law school, my training includes several advanced trial technique courses and many scientific training courses in areas relevant to drinking and driving. I received this training from other lawyers across the nation who have generously contributed their tireless efforts to raising the bar of DUI defense. I have tried to continue this tradition by extending my knowledge to other lawyers here in Michigan. I speak at local conferences, and I frequently offer seminars to Michigan lawyers on drunk driving training. I have also been qualified as an expert witness in drunk driving cases, and I offer these services to other Michigan lawyers at a discounted rate to help assist in clear-cut matters where the parties cannot agree to clearly established standards and procedures.
To effectively challenge evidence in drunk driving cases, a lawyer must be able to competently cross-examine police officers and challenge scientific evidence. Many lawyers became seasoned experts at cross-examination, but this is not necessarily enough in drunk driving cases. In DUI cases, the trial lawyer must also understand field sobriety tests as well as the science of breath testing and blood testing in order to ask relevant questions in order to win more cases.
It is my opinion, however, that some lawyers become too technical and too scientific. Many years ago, Novi Judge Robert Bondy pointed this out to me after a guilty verdict. He told me that I didn’t have to listen to his advice, but he was going to offer it anyway. He said , “You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar,” which my mother had repeatedly told me growing up. Getting too technical is an easy trap that lawyers can fall into in a scientifically-charged field such as drunk driving litigation. Think about the OJ Simpson trial and how the prosecutors lost the case despite DNA evidence. The prosecutors in that case were so concerned about the science that they forgot something so simple as “if [the glove] doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”
But on the other hand, you probably imagine that lawyers regularly get training in field sobriety tests, that they know how a breath testing machine works, and how the Michigan State Police perform blood testing for drugs and alcohol, right? Well, unfortunately, you would be sadly mistaken. This training is expensive, it is usually offered at remote locations around the nation, and it takes a lot of time. Most lawyers do not understand field sobriety tests, breath testing, or blood testing. I have seen innocent people who pleaded guilty even though they were actually innocent because the defense lawyer did not know the science.
My style of practice involves working the case very hard, getting everything that helps the client to prove his or her innocence, and generally being a little bit nit-picky on preliminary matters. I am very technical on legal issues, believing that it is easier to win a DUI case on technical faults than on the actual merits. At motions and evidentiary hearings, I will frequently try to beat the prosecutors on the science by overwhelming them with my technical understandings. But at trial, I have repeatedly tried to trim back on the science and technical arguments in favor of what might appeal to a juror.
I believe that my style is the most effective method for winning DUI cases because jurors have returned not guilty verdicts for me on cases where clients were actually driving their vehicles on video and produced blood alcohol test results as high as .19. I have also won cases where clients blew higher than .30 where an accident occurred when police officers failed to provide consistent testimony.
I have also lost my fair share of cases, however, but I am generally angry about each guilty verdict because I care about each and every one of my clients. After every trial loss, I try to figure out how or why the jury disagreed with me, and sometimes I can improve on my prior performance. I cannot guarantee you a victory in your case, but I always try cases to win.
As a bottom-line evaluation of how I perform, I have many judicial references, more than a few prosecutors respect me, and I get many drunk driving referrals from police officers trying to help friends and family members. I am humbled by the police officers who refer people to me because I’m often times forced to treat these officers poorly on the stand, but they still refer their friends and family members to me. This tells me I am doing things right.