JURY TRIAL: This is chess. Not checkers. Bwhahaha! OWI 2nd to Reckless

My client was charged up north with a high BAC. There was practically no useful discovery, but the cop was prepared to testify that my client was driving on the wrong side of the road. (He was, but only to avoid the officer, who was blocking the roadway.)
My client supposedly failed all of the field sobriety tests, and scored high on the breath machine. He had been referred to me by an Oakland County Sheriff, and he had a lot to lose. I really wanted to win this case so that word would make its way back to the Oakland County Sheriff that I'm as good as I claim. 
The prosecutor was a seasoned attorney. He had been a defense attorney for years, and he had transferred to the prosecutor's office a few years before this trial. Given his experience and reputation, there was no way I could pull this one off. The judge entered an order regarding discovery and witnesses, even though the defense is never required to supply a witness list or discovery in misdemeanor cases. I could have objected, but I didn't file a motion or an appeal. 
Two days before trial, I hired an expert witness in field sobriety tests. The expert was going to destroy all of the tests that the officer was prepared to testify to during trial. I provided notice to the prosecutor and gave him a copy of the expert's curriculum vitae. 
The late disclosure of the expert totally violated the judge's order, and the prosecutor went ballistic.  The judge went off on me for 30 minutes, debating whether or not he should permit my expert to testify. Ultimately, he ruled against my arguments, and I argued this point hard. It was a constitutional violation to deprive my client of the ability to present witnesses, the court rules did not support his initial ruling at all, and the order was illegal. The judge ruled that my late disclosure was prejudicial, it violated his order, and he would not tolerate it.
We picked the jury and I had each juror agree that they would find it hard, if not impossible, to convict without a breath test. The prosecutor repeatedly promised that a chemical test would be introduced. We swore in the jury and proceeded to hear all the terrible facts about my client's driving and field sobriety tests. I crossed the officer and put in a few good points, but...
Then the prosecutor tried to introduce his breath test. The breath test required officers from a different department to lay the appropriate foundation. The officers from the other department were not listed and not disclosed in the judge's order.  I proceeded to object to any late endorsed witnesses.
I swear that the judge looked like he had swallowed a bug, but he followed his prior ruling and precluded the prosecutor from adding new witnesses. The prosecutor and I agreed to "talk." He turned to me, laughed, and said, "you got me!" 
We worked it out to a reckless, which saved the client's license. And kudos to the prosecutor who had a good sense of humor.