Hi, I’m Dante Wright. Thank you for giving The Phoenix Trial Firm the opportunity to work with you. If you’d like to share your experience, we welcome an honest Google review. It’s entirely your choice, and your perspective is valuable whatever it may be. Google reviews are public, so please leave out private details about your matter. Thank you again.
Share your experience
If you’d like to, you can leave an honest Google review. We welcome your perspective whatever it may be.
A review is entirely optional. Google reviews are public, so please leave out private details about your matter. You do not need to leave a review to receive help from our firm.
Need to speak with your team? Visit Client Resources or reply to your existing conversation with our office.
An inquiry does not create an attorney-client relationship; representation requires our agreement. Please wait for instructions before sending confidential or time-sensitive material.
We use essential cookies to operate this site. With your permission, we also use analytics and marketing technologies to understand site use and measure outreach. Choose Accept All, Reject, or Preferences. You can change your choice at any time.
Choose which non-essential technologies may run. Essential cookies remain active because they support core site functions. You can change your choice at any time.
Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.
Name
Description
Duration
Cookie Preferences
This cookie is used to store the user's cookie consent preferences.
30 days
Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us understand how visitors use our website.
Google Analytics is a powerful tool that tracks and analyzes website traffic for informed marketing decisions.
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
Marketing cookies are used to follow visitors to websites. The intention is to show ads that are relevant and engaging to the individual user.
CallRail is a call tracking and analytics service. Its script swaps the phone numbers shown on a page and stores the visitor's referrer, landing page and session ID, so phone calls and form submissions can be attributed to the marketing source that brought the visitor to the site.
Welcome to The Phoenix Trial Firm. We help people across Hampton Roads with personal injury, criminal defense, DUI, and serious traffic matters. Tell us what brought you here, and our team will help you understand your next steps.
Tell us the charge, the locality or court, and any upcoming court date. Include your contact information so our team can review your inquiry.
The charge description and available court paperwork
The court, locality, and next scheduled date
Your questions about the process and representation
02Discuss the next step.+
Have your charging papers and questions ready for the conversation. We can discuss whether Phoenix is available to review your matter and what a consultation would cover.
03Clarify representation.+
If we agree to represent you, we explain the scope of the work and the fee arrangement. Preparation then begins around your particular facts and circumstances.
The details on the summons help us understand the matter you want to discuss.
Good to knowFor DUI or DWI inquiries, choose Criminal defense & DUI above. This overview does not determine whether you must appear in court. That question requires a review of your specific matter.
Tell us the charge description, locality or court, and date shown on your summons or later court notice. For speed-related matters, note the alleged speed and posted limit.
Your complete summons and any later court notice
The alleged speed and posted limit, if relevant
Questions about driving, employment, and representation
02Bring your questions.+
Our team reviews your inquiry so we can discuss the circumstances and possible next steps. Mention any work-related driving or license concerns you want considered.
03Agree on the scope.+
If we agree to represent you, we explain the work covered and the fee arrangement. Your case is prepared around its specific charge, evidence, and circumstances.
A general introduction to our intake process. Every matter is different. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney–client relationship. Please avoid confidential details in your initial message.
Our clients. Our work.
Selected case results.
We represent people facing injury, criminal charges, and serious traffic matters. Here are seven outcomes from our work.
7 case outcomes
Personal injury
$730,000
Passenger injury recovery
We recovered $730,000 for a passenger injured when a vehicle turned into oncoming traffic.
Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
$730,000
Passenger injury recovery
The situation
Our client was a passenger in a vehicle when the driver turned into oncoming traffic. A severe arm injury required emergency surgery.
The work
The vehicle’s policy provided $250,000 in coverage. Phoenix pursued an underinsured motorist claim and stacked multiple policies for an additional $480,000 in coverage.
Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Not guilty of DUI
Second-offense DUI and a separate refusal charge
The situation
A stop for failing to obey a highway lane marking led to charges of second-offense DUI and refusal of an official breath test.
The work
The officer reported a slight odor of alcohol and slightly slurred speech. There were no field-sobriety or chemical test results. Phoenix challenged whether the evidence proved DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.
The result
The court found the client not guilty of second-offense DUI because the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The client was convicted of the separate refusal charge.
Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Strangulation charge dismissed
Chesapeake Circuit Court
The situation
Our client faced strangulation and domestic assault and battery charges in Chesapeake Circuit Court following a physical altercation with a partner.
The work
Dante Wright cross-examined the complainant about the reported effects of the altercation. The testimony included no loss of consciousness, no neck marks or bruising, and no hospital treatment or documented neck injury. The defense challenged whether the evidence established the bodily injury required for the strangulation charge and moved to strike.
The result
The court granted the motion to strike and dismissed the strangulation charge. On the separate domestic assault and battery charge, the court found sufficient evidence but granted a first-offender deferred disposition. That charge was not dismissed at this stage.
Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Nolle prosequi
Felony eluding
The situation
A vehicle registered to our client was clocked at more than 100 mph and crashed near a wooded area after police gave chase. It was empty when the officer arrived. Our client was charged with felony eluding.
The work
The vehicle’s registration and personal items linked it to our client, but the officer had no description identifying him as the driver. Phoenix challenged whether the evidence established who was driving. Our client reported the vehicle stolen that night and said he was elsewhere with a sibling.
The result
The Commonwealth chose not to proceed with the felony-eluding charge, which was resolved by nolle prosequi in circuit court.
Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Domestic assault and battery dismissed
Navy servicemember · Newport News
The situation
Our client, a Navy servicemember, faced a domestic assault and battery charge involving her child’s father.
The work
Dante Wright called our client to testify about the incident, introduced photographs showing bruising and redness on her neck and injuries to her face, and cross-examined the complainant.
The result
The Newport News Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court dismissed the charge. Considering our client’s injuries and the absence of evidence of significant injuries to the complainant, the judge could not determine who was the aggressor.
Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Firearm charges dismissed at preliminary hearing
Norfolk General District Court
The situation
Our client faced charges of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and second-offense carrying a concealed weapon at a preliminary hearing in Norfolk General District Court.
The work
Dante Wright cross-examined the officers about the evidence linking our client to the firearm. Officers found an object resembling a gun holster on our client, but no firearm. The gun was recovered elsewhere outside an apartment complex, away from our client. No link to the client or the holster was established; fingerprint testing was inconclusive, and no DNA evidence connected him to the firearm.
The result
Both charges were dismissed at the preliminary hearing and were not certified to circuit court.
Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome. Every matter depends on its own facts and circumstances.
Reckless driving dismissed
A challenge to the radar evidence
The situation
Our client faced a reckless-driving charge involving a radar speed measurement.
The work
At trial, the officer could not confirm that the radar had been checked before and after the shift and found accurate. No calibration certificate was presented. Dante Wright moved to strike the evidence.
The result
The court granted the motion to strike and dismissed the reckless-driving charge.
