Criminal Defense Attorney

Client Info SheetClient Info Sheet

Free Case Evaluation

Protect your rights, Explore your options. Fill in the form for a free consultation!

Kyle Lowe, Criminal Defense Attorney

Kyle Lowe Criminal Defense/DWI Attorney

Licensed to practice law since 1993 in New Mexico, and since 1997 in Texas, Kyle Lowe has been trying cases for 16 years. His only focus is Criminal Law. Beginning his career as an Assistant District Attorney in New Mexico, Kyle quickly worked his way up to Deputy District Attorney and became the designated DWI Prosecutor for the office.


In his 5 years as a prosecutor Kyle tried more than 60 cases to juries to include the first State prosecuted wiretap conspiracy case in New Mexico history...



Posts Tagged ‘DWI acquittal’

And yet another DWI Acquittal for Austin DWI Attorney, Kyle Lowe

January 5th, 2011 by Kyle Lowe

Austin DWI Attorney, Kyle Lowe continued his streak of DWI acquittals on November 17th when a Williamson County jury acquitted his client of  DWI 2nd Offense.  A jury was impaneled on November 15th, 2010 in Williamson County Court of Law #2, Honorable Tim Wright presiding.  The case was prosecuted by the Chief of that court.

The facts of the case are as follows:  Client was stopped for speeding on RM 1431 near IH35 by a DPS Trooper.  The Trooper testified that said client was exceeding the speed limit by 15 mph at approximately 1:30 am.  The Trooper continued by stating the client believed she was traveling at 55 mph and when asked, she honestly did not know the exact time of day without looking at her watch.  The Trooper then stated that the client admitted having 2 beers within several hours, had slurred speech, exhibited ‘marked’ sway, unsteady gait and, after a HGN test (eye exam), showed intoxication.  The Trooper concluded his testimony by stating that the client constructively refused any other field sobriety and breath tests.  Upon cross examination by Kyle Lowe, the Trooper softened his statements regarding the client’s intoxication by stating that her speech was ‘only slightly slurred’ and that her ‘sway was not visible on the video’ due to the distance from the camera to the parties.  Further cross examination of the Trooper revealed that his HGN exam of her eyes was not in compliance with the standards set forth by the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and that much of the evidence he used was not visible on camera.  The Trooper also revealed that the client’s ‘excited and emotional responses’ in the vehicle during transport to the county jail were ‘not unusual’ for DWI defendants who begin to realize that detention/incarceration is imminent.

The jury did not believe there was sufficient evidence to convict and unanimously acquitted the client of DWI, 2nd Offense.