Eugene, Cottage Grove & Springfield Municipal Court Defense Attorneys - Arnold Law in Eugene, Oregon – Powerful Advocacy. Proven Results.

Eugene, Cottage Grove & Springfield Municipal Court Defense Attorneys

Oregon municipal courts are not courts of records with a few exceptions. Florence Municipal Court is the only municipal court of record outside the Portland metro area. This results in the biggest distinction between city and state courts: in municipal courts you get two bites at the apple. Since there is no court reporter or audio-recording device in muni courts, such as Eugene, Springfield, Roseburg, and Cottage Grove, you can appeal a jury trial loss to Lane County circuit court and have a brand new jury trial. The only difference is the jury pool (city vs. county residents).

If your case is in Springfield, Eugene, or Junction City Municipal Courts, our firm’s case analysis is slightly different than state/circuit court for several reasons that you should discuss with an attorney on the Arnold Law criminal practice team.

Municipal courts typically handle DUIIs, shoplifting, public order offenses (typically involving alcohol), assaults, loud parties, etc. Cottage Grove does handle some domestic violence cases whereas Springfield and Eugene do not.

Eugene Municipal Court handles a lot of cases involving college kids, ranging from loud parties to MIPs. Often in a case like this, the parents of the student are contacting us from out of state or from the Portland area. With the client’s permission, we can keep parents apprised of the case and be included in correspondence (i.e., police reports, offers, etc) that doesn’t involve attorney-client privilege.

Call the attorneys of Arnold Law at 541-338-9111 for more information or live chat about municipal courts 24/7 to the right.

Awards/Recognitions
Interpreters Available
  • Representative Cases

    DUII (Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants)

    DUII - Eugene Railroad Tracks

    Client accused of driving on to railroad tracks when officer finds client exiting from the driver's side of a vehicle stuck on tracks 1/4 mile from the nearest road. Case dismissed after jury trial after discovery that law enforcement failed to investigate homeless witnesses who remember a woman driving a car through their bedroom at 3 a.m.

    DUII - Cottage Grove Railroad Tracks

    Client accused of turning down railroad tracks by mistake. Client claimed that the actual driver ran away from scene after getting stuck. Mistrial granted by judge then case dismissed after negotiations due to prosecutor failing to disclose a material witness who saw someone running from the direction of client's car a few blocks away from tracks..

    DUII - Refusal Due to Fear of Law Enforcement

    Client refused to blow after having one of friend's homebrew after work. Client's refusal of FSTs and intoxilyzer was due to lack of trust of law enforcement. Jury acquitted (found not guilty) after three hours of deliberations.

    DUII - Springfield Tavern Collision

    Client accused of driving his truck into the side of the bar causing damage and then fleeing scene. Law enforcement arrested him later at his home after he had some drinks at home. After a two-day Springfield Municipal Court jury trial, where cross-examination focused on the police officers' flawed investigation (by failing to investigate client's claims of drinking at home AFTER driving), and after less than thirty minutes of deliberation, the jury found him not guilty of DUII. Client did not testify.

    DUII - Car accident after Ducks game ends with dismissal

    Client was seriously injured and required a hip replacement after a driver ran a stop sign and collided with his car. Despite client not being at fault in the accident, a blood draw at the hospital purportedly showed that client had a greater-than .08% BAC and he was cited for DUII. Arnold Law conducted an investigation of the hospital blood draw procedures and obtained the user guide for the hospital's Beckman Coulter Chemistry Analyzer that was used for the blood test. We were prepared at trial to prove that Client's BAC was on its way up, that there was a delay in blood vial being tested that likely resulted in fermentation of the sample, and that the hospital blood test was not as accurate as a crime lab blood test which was not performed in this case. The case was dismissed two days before the jury trial.

    Diversion-eligible DUI dismissed

    Client accused of DUI after being stopped for entering a crosswalk while stopping at a red light. Client’s breathalyzer result was .05%, and he was still accused of DUII. Case dismissed after client rejected diversion and decided to proceed to trial with aggressive defense strategy and several witnesses willing to testify to his lack of intoxication on the night in question. Case resolved with a plea to a traffic violation and a fine.

    DUII/Hit and Run - Diversion on both counts

    Client accused of Driving while Intoxicated, crashing, and fleeing the scene. Case ended with a diversion on both counts, saving client’s employment and allowing client to have clean criminal record.

    DUII - Protecting professional licensing from state licensing board

    Professional client was accused of driving while intoxicated and crashing into a utility pole with .15% blood alcohol content. Client had prior DUII diversion. Case ended with client being able to keep professional license, dismissal of all citations, and minimum sanctions allowed by law.