A defense you can depend on
CASE WINS • TESTIMONIALS
Personalized legal solutions
At Gross Law Group, we know the outcome of your legal case can have a significant impact on your life. That’s why we’re committed to providing each of our clients with the best possible representation, and working tirelessly to secure favorable outcomes in every case. At our firm, we believe every client deserves personalized attention and customized legal solutions. We’ll work with you every step of the way to ensure your rights are protected, and that you have the support and guidance you need to navigate the legal process with confidence. With years of experience in the legal field, award-winning attorney David K. Gross has handled thousands of cases and obtained numerous victories for his clients. Explore our results and reviews below.
Results when it counts
Wins – Gross Law Group Case Studies
David K. Gross strives to achieve the most favorable outcomes for his clients. He has a wealth of experience handling numerous cases and securing multiple victories. You can read about some of his accomplishments below.
Case Study – DWI on a 4-wheeler on private property
Client: S.W.
County: Duplin
Charge: DWI – 2
Trial: Bench Trial
Outcome: Voluntary Dismissal
Background:
SW had been at the beach that day and was riding his 4-wheeler in the field across from his grandmother’s house where he kept it. He lived in Raleigh, but his family all lived in Duplin County.
A local police officer spotted SW riding his 4-wheeler from approximately a quarter mile away. By the time he was able to approach SW, SW had pulled the 4-wheeler into the barn where it was kept and was walking toward his grandmother’s house.
The officer approached SW, on private property, and requested he submit to a test of his breath. SW refused, at which time the officer arrested him for suspicion of DWI. SW was transported to the Duplin Sheriff’s office and was charged with DWI.
Result:
SW hired Gross Law Group and Attorney David Gross to represent him, and we prepared for trial. Our defense was based on the fact that SW had been operating his vehicle exclusively on private property. After several years of continuances, eventually the State of NC dismissed all charges against SW.
Case Study – Speeding on a Motorcycle, 5 years for trial
Client: M.H.
County: Onslow
Charge: Speeding 119/45, Careless and Reckless Driving
Trial: Jury Trial
Outcome: Not Guilty Speeding, Not Guilty Careless and Reckless Driving
Background:
Attorney Gross was retained in 2017 by M.H. after he was found guilty at trial in District Court for speeding 119/45 and C&R driving. M.H. had been cited on the bypass in Jacksonville by a North Carolina State Trooper. M.H. was a local business owner who was very involved in community activities in Onslow County.
M.H. represented himself in District Court where he had a trial. M.H. was found guilty of all charges in District Court and appealed his charges to Superior Court for a jury trial. At this point, M.H. was determined to take his case as far as the system would allow as he felt the Trooper was targeting him personally and he was highly upset.
M.H. was originally charged in 2016, and I was hired in 2017. The case was finally tried in 2022, almost five years later. The D.A.’s office in Jacksonville made offer after offer to Attorney Gross to try to convince M.H. to plead to a reduced charge to avoid trial. M.H. was adamant that he wanted a jury trial and as Gross Law Group had been hired for a trial, we refused to take any plea offer. Needless to say, this did not make us very popular with the District Attorney’s office.
Result:
Five years after being charged, we finally picked a jury. The Trooper did not have a clear recollection of the facts of the case and that came out in the trial. The jury found M.H. not guilty of speeding 119/45 and not guilty of Careless and Reckless operation. M.H. had the courage and fortitude to stand behind his beliefs and not give up.
S.W. was also fortunate that Attorney David Gross is one of the few attorney’s who would actually try a five year old speeding ticket.
Case Study – Sexual Assault on School Bus
Client: C.K.
County: Onslow
Charge: Sexual Assault/Indecent Exposure
Trial: Jury Trial
Outcome: Not Guilty
Background:
C.K. rode the bus to school, as he did every day. C.K. sat two seats behind the bus driver with a female student. The bus was equipped with cameras which recorded video and sound. The female passenger reported to the school, that C.K. had sexually assaulted her and exposed his penis to her. C.K. was questioned about the alleged assault and denied any contact with the female passenger.
This case was interesting as anything that occurred on the bus had been recorded. The female had not said anything on the bus ride, nor had she reported anything to the bus driver. Also, the female passenger had made an almost identical accusation against another student.
The trial was straight forward as the video from the bus was admitted in the state’s case. The female “victim” claimed that she had been assaulted in the seat on the bus. The video showed nothing that looked like an assault.
The investigating officer was caught in several lies, including that he had done a follow-up interview with the “victim.” The “victim” testified that she had only spoken to the officer once, contradicting the officer’s testimony. Also, the video of the whole bus ride was convincing.
Result:
C.K. hired Attorney Gross to represent him and was found not guilty of the charges against him. C.K. shared with Attorney Gross that he had fought harder for him than anyone has ever in his life.
Case Study – DWI when not in vehicle
Client: S.W.
County: Duplin
Charge: DWI – 1
Trial: Jury Trial
Outcome: Trial 1)-Mistrial, (Trial 2)-Not Guilty
Background:
SW was driving in Duplin County around Christmas time. He had attended a holiday party with his girlfriend and was heading home around 2:00 AM. SW’s girlfriend was driving SW’s vehicle as SW was drinking that night.
SW and his girlfriend were arguing about her flirting with another guy at the holiday party. SW’s girlfriend pulled the vehicle off the road into a farm field (private property) and stopped the vehicle. She left and began walking down the road, and was picked up shortly by another vehicle.
SW pulled his vehicle closer to the road, at which time he became stuck in the mud. He then got out of his vehicle and began walking down the road. Approximately a mile down the road, he was stopped by a Duplin County Deputy who had been called by a passing driver about the vehicle in the field.
The Deputy was extremely professional and, importantly, he recorded the entire interaction on his body-cam. This is important because the arresting Trooper did not save his dash cam footage as he is required to by NC State Highway Patrol Policy.
The Deputy and SW were on the side of the road for approximately 20 minutes waiting for the Trooper. During the whole interaction, it was quite apparent that SW was intoxicated, but he maintained that his girlfriend had been driving. He told the Deputy the entire story about being left on the road and how his girlfriend was pregnant. Eventually the Trooper showed up to speak to SW.
The Trooper interacted with SW and the Deputy for approximately one and a half minutes before leaving to examine the vehicle in the field. The Trooper returned approximately five or six minutes later. He interacted with SW for less than a minute, before placing SW under arrest for DWI.
Prior to the Trooper arresting SW, no Standardized Field Sobriety Tests were requested or administered. By not requesting SFST’s, the Trooper denied SW due process. When they arrived at the station, SW refused to give a breath or blood sample. The Trooper obtained a search warrant for SW’s blood based on talking to him for a little less than three minutes total. This is much less evidence than is typically required to force a person to let the state take their blood.
SW was charged with DWI and given a District Court Date. SW hired another attorney for his District Court trial, but was found guilty.
Result:
SW appealed his case to Duplin Superior Court. At this point he hired The Gross Law Group and Attorney David Gross to represent him going forward.
Three years later, SW’s case was set for jury trial. The first jury trial lasted two days before the judge declared a mistrial. This meant the trial was over, but without a verdict the State could re-try SW, which they did.
The second jury trial lasted four days. SW was found not guilty by the jury of all the charges against him.
Client Reviews
"Hiring David Gross to represent my son was the best decision I ever made. My son had gotten himself into a good bit of legal trouble and Mr. Gross exceeded my expectations by achieving the best outcome humanly possible. From day one he showed a deep level of concern and involvement, I was kept informed every step of the way and communication was outstanding. Stop calling lawyers and hire David Gross, you can thank me later."
R. W.
"Extremely painless and pleasant experience using Dave Gross’ Law Group. For a very reasonable price he represented me in court for a speeding ticket I received in North Carolina. Being from out of state Illinois, it was comforting having constant updates regarding my case and availability to answer any questions. His previous experience in the field of law enforcement is a huge help as well. Couldn’t have been more satisfied with his services."
G. P