|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234 |
Why would someone plead not-guilty to a DUI. AK: To answer the question you actually asked, it looks like the gentleman merely pled "not guilty" at an arraignment, or a first court appearance - whatever Alaska chooses to call it. Doesn't mean he's going to take it to trial. - Tom
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760 |
Just curious. As for the attorneys who are advocating refusing the tests, saying you can get them off on some small technicality, it can be "beat", etc.
Do you do this with a clear conscience, when you KNOW somebody actually was DUI, and endangering innocent people? hope to [bleep] they do cause they will do their job better.....as i said my wife can fail a field sobriety test stone sober and ive personally seen a breathalyzer malfunction....dont give a rip if they believe me or not so long as they have my best interests in mind, thats what i pay them for.... course than again also ive got 2 different lawyers on retainer, my personal/business one and a Freedom of Information Act specialist.....have a third that i pay sometimes for certain things cause she is a real beotch and damn good but unfortunately doesnt practice in some of the areas that i need a lawyer such as family law..... if you dont like lawyers and what they do fine but some of us do need the arrogant [bleep]  And we need guys like you rattler!
War Damn Eagle!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760 |
Why would someone plead not-guilty to a DUI. AK: To answer the question you actually asked, it looks like the gentleman merely pled "not guilty" at an arraignment, or a first court appearance - whatever Alaska chooses to call it. Doesn't mean he's going to take it to trial. - Tom The original question is one that is asked out of ignorance. Not being mean, or schitty, but it's a right to plead not guilty, and it's not the same as saying "I didn't do it". If a defendant goes to an arraignemt, and stands silent when asked how he pleads, the judge will enter a plea of "not guilty".
War Damn Eagle!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239 |
One thing is very clear from these back and forths between lawyers and cops :
Some cops that post here take on the robe of the judge and punish the citizen in the form of legal fees by filing charges they know aren't likely to hold up . SURPRISE SURPRISE !Actually it just proves that cops that post on here are just ordinary cops .
All you "squeaky clean" types who don't have a problem with that because it will never affect you need to consider that in doing that , a line has been crossed . How hard would it be to justify applying a little of that type of " justice " to get even with your sister's ex , or the guy that made a chump out of you in a poker game .
Or the guy with the ear ring .
Or the one in the cowboy hat .
Happens waaaay too often . Don't expect any help from the "Law" when it happens . After all , he IS the law in our system .
Never holler whoa or look back in a tight place
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,471
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,471 |
Some cops that post here take on the robe of the judge and punish the citizen in the form of legal fees by filing charges they know aren't likely to hold up .
Curdog where did any cop say that he files charges that aren't likely to hold up? If your talking about stopping a car with no head light and the driver being drunk. Thats a good stop and a good arrest its up to the drunk to find his way out of the charge. It can be done but its not my decision to make. Dink
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234 |
Didn't think you were being mean or schitty. Oh, wait, to whom?  But AK may not know that even if a defendant has every intention of pleading guilty, his lawyer is probably going to tell him not to do it at arraignment. I've seen people plead out to a first DUI, pro se, at the first opportunity in front of a judge. Well, that's okay with me, if they want to do it. There's members here on the 'Fire who may think that every one who knows, or at least believes, he's guilty should do that very thing, whether it's DUI or something else. I believe people have a right to plead not guilty. I do. I also believe they have a right to fall on their sword, without benefit of counsel, if that's what they wish. AK wants to know why someone would plead not guilty to a DUI, but he tied it to a story about a specific case, so I suspect he really wants to have some insight into the specific case. I have no disagreement with much of the above discussion concerning DUI in general, and would agree with you 100% they're a lot more fun to try than most other crimes. - Tom
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,478
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,478 |
Victims always ask this question and the answer is the same for traffic cases without a victim.
Defense counsel needs time to review the file.
At least here, for a misdemeanor, an officer doesn't even write a report until the defendant pleads not guilty at the arraignment. The report is much shorter if the defendant pleads guilty.
Defense counsel doesn't get a copy for at least a month after the arraignment. I worry that it is per se ineffective assistance of counsel to have a client plead guilty without having seen the report.
Have only had it once for a felony drug case. But he was getting a break.
It doesn't take long to learn the system after spending a day in jail and have every jail house defendant wanna be lawyer tell you how you can win your case or how your lawyer screwed up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,605
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,605 |
Just curious. As for the attorneys who are advocating refusing the tests, saying you can get them off on some small technicality, it can be "beat", etc.
Do you do this with a clear conscience, when you KNOW somebody actually was DUI, and endangering innocent people? hope to [bleep] they do cause they will do their job better.....as i said my wife can fail a field sobriety test stone sober and ive personally seen a breathalyzer malfunction....dont give a rip if they believe me or not so long as they have my best interests in mind, thats what i pay them for.... course than again also ive got 2 different lawyers on retainer, my personal/business one and a Freedom of Information Act specialist.....have a third that i pay sometimes for certain things cause she is a real beotch and damn good but unfortunately doesnt practice in some of the areas that i need a lawyer such as family law..... if you dont like lawyers and what they do fine but some of us do need the arrogant [bleep] And we need guys like you rattler! if i didnt need you guys i wouldnt pay yah simple as that....but im dealing with my wifes idiot ex-husband so i need a family law guy......transferring ownership/buying our partner out so i need a business lawyer....luckily my family law guy can handle this pretty well....as to the FOI stuff have a superintendent trying to run a private empire at one school and a school board at the other that has the combined IQ of less than my bird dog....so he writes me letters on a regular basis to wave in their faces threatening legal action if they dont straighten up.....the third one, the beotch.....well most the other local lawyers are scared of her so i want to be the one paying her
Last edited by rattler; 08/10/10.
A serious student of the "Armchair Safari" always looking for Africa/Asia hunting books
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239 |
The taillight is pc for the stop.
In this state you will not make the DWI case for a tail light out if the drunk gets a attorney.
When the attorney starts to argue that his client slurs his words everyday, his eyes are blood shot because he was tired, and he told you he had two beers and that is the reason you could smell alcohol and blah blah blah. IT just goes on and on...
The attorney will argue that there was no reason to have his client perform field sobriety test because he was stopped for a non-moving violation and showed no impairment while driving.
The St.louis area has some of the best DWI attorneys in the united states and if I stop a vehicle for a tail ligh out I will not make that case.
DWI enforcement is what I do. I have arrested hundreds of DWI's and I know what I can make and what I can't. If I do stop a car with head light out and the drivers drunk sure I am going to try to make it but I am not supriesed when it won't fly.
Dink I hear stuff like this all the time. Usually from cops that don't like their arrest questioned at all. They don't believe they should have to explain themselves. They talk about how the defense attorneys ask this, that, and the other. When you press these officers you find out they rarely lose a case based on that stuff, they just don't like being questioned about it. They made the arrest, it's good, so all these questions are BS, but since the lawyer is asking them, they must be "making hay" with them. Or it could be that your judges are liberal, I don't know. At any rate, a good DUI can be made off a stop that doesn't involve "observed impaired driving". Here the officers all believe that they can't admit to having a belief prior to contact that the driver is drunk, or the attorney will make it out like they decided to make the arrest before they ever performed any FSTs, or even talked to the driver. So they have to develope some benign "non-impaired driving violation" for PC. Once had a DUI I defended...had a suppression hearing...the stop had been made because the driver was "driving suspiciously slow" and "weaving" though the officer admitted she never left her lane of travel. Charge was DUI (combined influence alcohol/drugs with a .04 BAC and no blood test for drugs) and Reckless Driving . At the suppression hearing the officer admitted that he witnessed no citable violations of any kind before the stop, though he later charged her with Reckless Driving. I moved to suppress the stop, and the judge ruled against me stating that "I know that you defense attorneys want to get an officer to admit they thought the driver was drunk before they stopped them, and I'm not going to make this officer say that. I know why he stopped your client." The jury saw it more my way and I got a not guilty on the DUI, but I was forced to it because of one of these pre-conceived notions. Oh, even at trial the officer admitted that he witnessed no traffic violations prior to the stop, but the jury still found her guilty of Reckless Driving even though they found her not guilty of DUI. ROFLMFAO! I don't mind having to explain myself on DWI arrest. I pride myself in testiying and making the case. What I do hate is when I have good case on video and the attorney starts to argue bull chit stuff like my client has allergies. I look at DWI arrest as I win even if I lose. If I lose for what ever reason I will make sure I don't lose again because of that reason if I can help it. Look at the money I cost the drunk. The drunk had to get his car from impound, SR22, pay the reinstatement fee for his license, what ever the pc ticket is for and I helped some attorney fund a hunting trip somewhere..grin. Don't get me started on jury's. I had a teacher on video driving like a drunk person. Took the breathalyzer on video (bac was above %.150.) and the jury found them not gulity....WTF. Dink " I " win even if " I " lose etc.
Never holler whoa or look back in a tight place
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239 |
One trick I used to use at night was to approach from behind headlights off and then flip them on, they usually crossed the center line or dropped a wheel off the pavement. Worked more times than not for me.
Did I mention that I HATE DRUNK DRIVERS? Maybe this one ?
Never holler whoa or look back in a tight place
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239 |
ALWAYS tell the pros & def that they ran off the road or crossed the center line, that was my PC for the stop! I Like T LEE but he's pretty much a poster child for what I'm talking about . I'd bet he would be one who wouldn't go any farther over the line since he's honest enough to admit he hates drunk drivers . I don't expect my friends to be perfect , including you , DINK !
Never holler whoa or look back in a tight place
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,471
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,471 |
Curdog I do win even if I lose. In a perfect world the drunk would not get to be represented by a attorney and he/she would have to represent themselves. The drunk should have to prove they were sober just as I have to prove they were impaired.
When I make arrest they are on video and get to be watched over and over again to see if I made any mistakes when giving instructions on the field sobriety test. Then each test is timed with a stop watch to make sure that my test where not to fast or to slow. Attorneys look for anything they can use to get there client off. Its there job.
Then attorneys can play any bull chit card they wish to and get months or years to come up with that bull chit card.
The real answer is don't drink and drive or do dope and drive (perscription drugs included). If you are impaired and driving you cost yourself the money.
So be honest how many times have you been hooked up for DWI?
Dink
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 24,239 |
Never holler whoa or look back in a tight place
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,760 |
Curdog I do win even if I lose. In a perfect world the drunk would not get to be represented by a attorney and he/she would have to represent themselves. The drunk should have to prove they were sober just as I have to prove they were impaired.
When I make arrest they are on video and get to be watched over and over again to see if I made any mistakes when giving instructions on the field sobriety test. Then each test is timed with a stop watch to make sure that my test where not to fast or to slow. Attorneys look for anything they can use to get there client off. Its there job.
Then attorneys can play any bull chit card they wish to and get months or years to come up with that bull chit card.
The real answer is don't drink and drive or do dope and drive (perscription drugs included). If you are impaired and driving you cost yourself the money.
So be honest how many times have you been hooked up for DWI?
Dink You think in a perfect world the governement should have the overwhelming advantage over the citizen? Government brings all it's resources to bear on a citizen who is already behind the 8 Ball because they're presumed guilty, and no representation either. That's a perfect world to you?
War Damn Eagle!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,202
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,202 |
Victims always ask this question and the answer is the same for traffic cases without a victim.
Defense counsel needs time to review the file.
At least here, for a misdemeanor, an officer doesn't even write a report until the defendant pleads not guilty at the arraignment. The report is much shorter if the defendant pleads guilty.
Defense counsel doesn't get a copy for at least a month after the arraignment. I worry that it is per se ineffective assistance of counsel to have a client plead guilty without having seen the report.
Have only had it once for a felony drug case. But he was getting a break.
It doesn't take long to learn the system after spending a day in jail and have every jail house defendant wanna be lawyer tell you how you can win your case or how your lawyer screwed up.
That answers my question pretty well. The lawyer doesn't have all the facts so they don't want to prematurely enter a guilty or no contest plea. Just in case they could possibly use any of the "trade secrets" that were outlined in the first 4 pages of this thread. Ok back to the irregularly scheduled programming......
Last edited by AKBoater; 08/10/10.
Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234 |
DINK:
Out of professional interest:
Do you have video cameras in all/most of your cars?
Do you video the driving pattern when possible?
Do you turn the camera on the arrestee for the ride to jail/station?
- Tom
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 73,096
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 73,096 |
Nope, I have never lied to a lawyer, judge or jury. If they ask the question I answer with the truth, saves having to remember what you said the first time. I however never "volunteered" what caused the erratic driving. I know it is shading but I never made a questionable arrest, the person WAS impaired if I cuffed & stuffed.
And yes, I once did it to a fellow deputy and it cost him his job, but it might have been my wife he ran off the road so no slack. I pulled too many seriously injured people & bodies out of twisted metal to have any sympathy for impaired drivers.
George Orwell was a Prophet, not a novelist. Read 1984 and then look around you!
Old cat turd!
"Some men just need killing." ~ Clay Allison.
I am too old to fight but I can still pull a trigger. ~ Me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 62,043 |
That answers my question pretty well. The lawyer doesn't have all the facts so they don't want to prematurely enter a guilty or no contest plea. Just in case they could possibly use any of the "trade secrets" that were outlined in the first 4 pages of this thread.
======================
The facts are what I say they are. Everyone else's confusion is not my problem!!
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,605
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,605 |
The facts are what I say they are. Everyone else's confusion is not my problem!!
typical [bleep] lawyer...........
A serious student of the "Armchair Safari" always looking for Africa/Asia hunting books
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,471
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,471 |
Curdog I do win even if I lose. In a perfect world the drunk would not get to be represented by a attorney and he/she would have to represent themselves. The drunk should have to prove they were sober just as I have to prove they were impaired.
When I make arrest they are on video and get to be watched over and over again to see if I made any mistakes when giving instructions on the field sobriety test. Then each test is timed with a stop watch to make sure that my test where not to fast or to slow. Attorneys look for anything they can use to get there client off. Its there job.
Then attorneys can play any bull chit card they wish to and get months or years to come up with that bull chit card.
The real answer is don't drink and drive or do dope and drive (perscription drugs included). If you are impaired and driving you cost yourself the money.
So be honest how many times have you been hooked up for DWI?
Dink You think in a perfect world the governement should have the overwhelming advantage over the citizen? Government brings all it's resources to bear on a citizen who is already behind the 8 Ball because they're presumed guilty, and no representation either. That's a perfect world to you? Spoken like a attorney....grin. You know everone is innocent until proven guility. So you thinks its fair that you get months or years to go over what a officer does on fly? That you get to time the gaze nystagmus test to see if it takes long enough to administer? You get to cook up stories about why this or that happened? The guy you got off on DWI because of the video did you still charge him for that or did you do that out of the goodness of your heart....laffin. When I say "you" I am not talking about you (280Rem) personally but defense attorneys in general. Dink
|
|
|
|
|
587 members (16penny, 160user, 10ring1, 007FJ, 1badf350, 17CalFan, 53 invisible),
2,955
guests, and
1,284
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,489
Posts18,490,354
Members73,972
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
