Legal Cases
Proven results in criminal defense. Each case reflects a commitment to thorough preparation, strategic advocacy, and the protection of our clients’ rights.
Cases Won
Charges Defeated
Trial Rate
Not Guilty
Practice area: Offenses Against Persons › Sexual Offenses
Comal County, TX
Not Guilty – Continuous Sexual Assault & Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child
- 1 Count – Continuous Sexual Assault of a Child
- 6 Counts – Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child
- 3 Counts – Indecency with a Child
The jury returned Not Guilty on:
- Continuous Sexual Assault of a Child
- All 6 Counts of Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child
- 3 Counts – Indecency with a Child
The defendant was charged with Continuous Sexual Assault of a Child — one of the most serious felony offenses under Texas law. If convicted, the charge carried a mandatory sentencing range of 25 years to life in prison, with day-for-day punishment and limited parole eligibility.
Additionally, the allegations carried severe collateral consequences, including mandatory lifetime registration as a sex offender under Title 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, along with long-term reputational and personal consequences.
At trial, Attorney Lambert carefully examined inconsistencies in the allegations and challenged the credibility of the complaining witness. Through strategic cross-examination and a focused defense presentation, the firm demonstrated that the majority of the alleged incidents were either fabricated or significantly exaggerated.
After reviewing the evidence and hearing testimony, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on the most serious charges, preventing the life-altering penalties the defendant was facing.
This case underscores the importance of a thorough, strategic defense when facing allegations that carry mandatory minimum sentences and lifetime consequences.
Although the jury ultimately returned guilty verdicts on two counts of indecency with a child, the defense successfully prevented convictions on the more serious charges that carried significantly harsher mandatory sentencing ranges. The outcome reflects the impact of challenging overextended allegations and focusing the jury’s attention on the evidence presented at trial.
Not Guilty
Practice area: Offenses Against Persons > Assaultive Offenses
Comal County, TX
Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon Not Guilty Verdict
- 2 Counts – Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on all charges, fully acquitting the defendant.
The defendant was charged with two counts of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon after an altercation involving her intoxicated husband. According to the initial allegations, the complaining witness and multiple individuals present claimed that she struck him with a chair and assaulted him with a metal object found in the yard.
The accusations were supported by visible bruising on the complaining witness and corroborated by several witnesses who were present at the scene.
At trial, Attorney Lambert conducted a thorough cross-examination of the witnesses and carefully analyzed the physical evidence. The defense presented evidence showing that the defendant had sustained defensive injuries, including a broken leg, consistent with having been physically assaulted. The medical and physical evidence demonstrated that the positioning and nature of the injuries were consistent with defensive actions rather than aggression.
Through strategic trial advocacy and a detailed presentation of the facts, the defense was able to challenge the credibility of the allegations and demonstrate that the defendant had acted while protecting herself during a violent encounter.
After hearing all of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on both counts, resulting in a full acquittal. Following the criminal proceedings, the defendant was granted full custody of her children. With the assistance of Attorney Lambert, she also obtained a full expunction of her criminal record, ensuring that the arrest would not negatively impact her future employment opportunities.
This case highlights the importance of a comprehensive defense when allegations are supported by multiple witnesses but contradicted by objective evidence.
Not Guilty
Practice area: Offense Against Property > Theft
Comal County, TX
Theft of Property $2,500–$30,000 Not Guilty Verdict
- Theft of Property ($2,500–$30,000)
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, fully acquitting the defendant.
The defendant was charged with Theft of Property between $2,500 and $30,000 after being accused of unlawfully taking a 1995 Winnebago from a hospice patient under her care. Surviving family members alleged that she had taken the vehicle and other personal property without authorization following the patient’s death.
After reviewing the State’s discovery materials, Attorney Lambert conducted an independent investigation into the facts surrounding the case. Evidence revealed that the deceased had been a long-time friend of the defendant. In the absence of involvement from his family during his final years, the defendant had agreed to provide hospice care.
As compensation for her services, the patient had agreed to transfer ownership of the Winnebago and other personal property to the defendant. Multiple witnesses confirmed that this agreement was discussed openly at a gathering prior to the patient’s death. Although no written contract existed, testimony supported the existence of a verbal agreement between the parties.
At trial, the defense presented evidence establishing the legitimacy of the arrangement and the absence of criminal intent. After considering the testimony and evidence, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, acquitting the defendant of all charges.
This case demonstrates the importance of a thorough defense when allegations arise from disputed personal arrangements rather than criminal conduct.
Not Guilty
Practice area: Criminal Homicide Defense
Bexar County, TX
Murder Charge Not Guilty Verdict
- 1 Count – Murder
Not Guilty Verdict
The defendant was accused of killing his mother’s boyfriend during a violent confrontation. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on testimony from the defendant’s own mother, as well as a recorded confession obtained during the investigation.
During the trial, Attorney Argüelles presented evidence and testimony demonstrating that the defendant’s actions were taken in defense of others. Through careful cross-examination and a clear presentation of the facts, the defense established that the defendant acted in response to an immediate threat, seeking to protect those present from harm.
After considering all of the evidence, the jury agreed with the defense’s theory of the case and returned a verdict of Not Guilty in under one hour.
Not Guilty
Practice area: Criminal Homicide Defense
Bexar County, TX
Murder Charge Not Guilty Verdict
- 1 Count – Murder
Not Guilty – Jury Verdict
The defendant was accused of fatally shooting his brother during an altercation at a family gathering. From the outset, he maintained that the incident occurred amid confusion and heightened emotions, and that the circumstances surrounding the confrontation were far from clear.
At trial, defense counsel conducted a rigorous cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses. Under questioning, each witness acknowledged that they could not recall who initially brought the weapon into the argument or how it became involved in the confrontation. Their testimony revealed significant inconsistencies and uncertainty about the critical moments leading up to the shooting.
By highlighting these gaps in the prosecution’s case and emphasizing the lack of reliable evidence establishing how the weapon was introduced, the defense raised substantial reasonable doubt. After deliberation, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Charges Dismissed
Practice area: Assault & Violent Crimes Defense
Wilson County, TX
Deadly Conduct Charge Dismissed During Trial
- 1 Count – Deadly Conduct
Charges Dismissed During Trial
The defendant, an elderly woman, was accused of firing a weapon in the direction of her son as he attempted to enter her home.
At trial, the defense presented video evidence showing that her son was attempting to forcibly break into the residence. Attorney Argüelles argued that the defendant was acting in self-defense to protect herself and her property.
After the court admitted the video evidence for the jury’s consideration, the prosecution dismissed the charges during trial.
Not Guilty
Practice area: Sex Crimes Defense
Comal County, TX
Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child Not Guilty Verdict
- 1 Count – Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child under the Age of 14
Not Guilty – Jury Verdict
The defendant was accused of sexually assaulting his girlfriend’s daughter over a period of more than 30 days. He consistently maintained his innocence throughout the two years leading up to trial.
At trial, Attorney Argüelles challenged the credibility of the testimony presented and introduced evidence demonstrating that the alleged incidents could not have occurred as described.
After hearing all of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Not Guilty
Practice area: Criminal Defense – Evading Arrest / Vehicle Offenses
Kendall County, TX
Evading Arrest with a Motor Vehicle Not Guilty Verdict
- 1 Count – Evading Arrest or Detention with a Motor Vehicle
Not Guilty – Jury Verdict
The defendant, a retired Army veteran, was riding his motorcycle in the opposite direction of a police officer when the officer made a U-turn and initiated a traffic stop for alleged speeding.
At trial, Attorney Argüelles argued that due to the distance between the officer and the defendant at the time, it would have been impossible for the defendant to see the officer’s emergency lights or hear the sirens.
After considering the evidence presented at trial, the jury agreed with the defense and returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Hung Jury
Practice area: Sex Crimes Defense
Bexar County, TX
Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child Case Results in Hung Jury
- Count 1 – Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child under the Age of 14
- Count 2 – Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child
- Count 3 – Indecency with a Child
Hung Jury – No Unanimous Verdict
The defendant, the step-grandfather of the alleged victims, was accused of committing sexual acts against his granddaughters. He consistently denied the allegations and maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings.
At trial, defense counsel conducted a thorough cross-examination of the complainants. During questioning, the defense highlighted significant inconsistencies in their accounts, including discrepancies in timelines, circumstances, and key details of the alleged incidents.
The defense further demonstrated that important aspects of the allegations did not align with other evidence and prior statements, raising serious questions about the reliability of the testimony presented.
After hearing all of the evidence and arguments, the jury deliberated for approximately 18 hours but was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. As a result, the Court declared a Hung Jury.
Not Guilty
Practice area: Drug Crimes Defense
Kendall County, TX
Manufacture and Delivery of a Controlled Substance Not Guilty Verdict
- Manufacture and Delivery of a Controlled Substance (4–200g)
Not Guilty – Jury Verdict
The defendant was arrested in Kendall County by an interdiction officer while traveling between San Antonio and Midland. During a search of the vehicle, officers discovered approximately 38 grams of methamphetamine, and the defendant was charged with possession with intent to deliver.
After the case was reviewed by the District Attorney’s Office, it was determined that due to the defendant’s prior criminal history, the charge could potentially be enhanced to a habitual offense. This enhancement would have increased the punishment range to 25 years to life in prison.
The defense strategy focused on challenging the State’s allegation that the defendant intended to manufacture or deliver the controlled substance. The defendant maintained that the drugs were purchased solely for personal use, explaining that he worked on oil rigs and often bought larger quantities for personal consumption during extended periods away from home.
At trial, Attorneys Argüelles and Lambert challenged the State’s enhancement theory and emphasized that there was no evidence establishing intent to distribute. The defendant testified that his prior cases involved possession only and that he had never engaged in drug distribution.
Given the potential sentencing exposure, the defense made the strategic decision to challenge the delivery allegation outright rather than seek a lesser included offense that could still have triggered the habitual enhancement.
After hearing all of the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, acquitting the defendant of the charge of manufacture and delivery of a controlled substance.
Charges Dismissed
Practice area: DWI Defense
Comal County, TX
DWI Charge Dismissed After Jury Selection
- Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)
Charges Dismissed After Jury Selection
The defendant was stopped by law enforcement for allegedly driving erratically on a rural road. The officer claimed the defendant was intoxicated due to marijuana ingestion and stated that the defendant’s behavior during the roadside interview indicated a loss of the normal ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.
After reviewing the case, defense counsel identified several significant issues with the State’s allegations. The officer failed to note that the road where the stop occurred was a poorly maintained dirt road with potholes and loose rocks, which could reasonably explain the driving behavior. Additionally, the officer was not a certified Drug Recognition Expert capable of determining impairment due to drug use.
The toxicology report further showed only marijuana metabolites in the defendant’s system, indicating prior use but no active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) present at the time. The defense also noted that the defendant had a medical condition known as cleft foot, which caused him to walk with a noticeable shuffle that may have been misinterpreted as signs of impairment.
Although the defense presented these issues to the State prior to trial, the case proceeded forward. After a jury was selected and the trial was scheduled to begin the following day, the County Attorney reviewed the evidence and information provided by the defense. A Non-Prosecution Affidavit was subsequently filed, and the charges were dismissed.
