Why would someone plead not-guilty to a DUI. He failed a field sobriety test and blew a 0.143 at the police station. What kind of argument can the defense have in a case like this? Just seems a little wierd.



Story

No PC for the stop.

No PC for the arrest.

Defective or improperly maintained alka-sensor(breathalyzer) machines.

Generally the people responsible enough to own up to their actions aren't driving around while completely wasted.

Vs. a beaurocrat who probably piped off with, you know who I am, hickup?

AKBoater there are many reasons for this. Everything Isaac said and then about 1000 more reasons attorneys make up....grin.

From this stop I am betting they argue there was no impaired driving. Alot of DWI laws have the impaired driving written into them. This is the reason that you can be charged with DWI and blow under %.08.

Our DOR attorneys tell us to no longer stop for tail lights,head lights and license plate lamps being out because if the driver is drunk it will not fly in court.

Dink

???? Why not ????



Mike

Pretextual stop argument and concern!! Although a stretch, it's not worth losing the case. A drunk driver will [bleep] up somehow else along the way, giving a more solid and sustainable basis for the stop.

Simple answer is: You have a right to enter a plea of not guilty and make the state prove ALL the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and you have the right to test the admissibility of the evidence before it's presented to a jury.

Lots of misconeptions floating around about this or that. And may be you have a liberal judge there too, don't know. If it's a good stop, it's a good stop, if it's not, it's not.

if the dude blew a .143 on the machine.....he better hope they don't have video.

I've seen good DUI Defense attorneys beat higher readings in front of a jury. Hard to beat a video though.

actually i have seen one of these machines screw up.....but it was the other way around.....long story but it involves a bored county cop with a sense of humor and a bunch of us sitting on the deck of bar drinking long after everyone else disappeared bored aswell....anyways a buddy who had been drinking for 18 hours straight and was drinking a beer waiting for his turn blew perfectly sober which was funny as hell given he was swaying while being administered the breathalyzer....

as for failing a field sobriety my wifes balance is so [bleep] she cant pass one if she has had nothing to drink for 30 days before the test, she maintains if she ever gets pulled over she is insisting on a blood test...

280Rem its not about being a good stop or not. Its about if the driver was impaired. Try to prove the driver was impaired because he had a license plate lamp out.

Dink

DUI laws are written so that the officer doesn't have to prove he was impaired by witnessing "poor driving". You can offer proof of impairment via officer observation during the stop, FSTs, and BAC. In the case of an equipment violation stop, that's merely the PC for the stop, not proof of DUI. It can still be proved.

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?

In Your neck of the woods that might startle a few stone sober bluehairs just as easily..

Yep, taillight is not proof of impairment but it's still PC for the stop (isaac's comment on pretextual stop notwithstanding). Once the driver is stopped the officer needs to articulate PC to move forward to FST, BAC, etc.

If you plead guilty then there's no reason for the state to cut a deal. They charged him with reckless endangerment here too. Some might see that as a little excessive, even if the underlying DUI charge is rock solid.

T LEE, do you tell the prosecutors and defense attorneys after you use that tactic?

I would doubt it.

My pretextual comment was in response as to why some jurisdictions instruct patrols to seek more when establishing PC for traffic stops. It's certainly a valid basis for a stop in all the jurisdictions I work in.

Just got one tossed recently for beads hanging from rear-view mirror being the admitted PC for this one particular stop.

Awe hell one of the old tricks was for the local LEO's to put a chalk mark on the sidewall of tires on the cars parked at local bars. As you drive by them (LEO's sittin in their car off the side of the road) at night the chalk flashes, they'll find SOME reason to stop you. So to help out a little we'd chalk the tires of cars.... at the 7-11 store down the street.

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 never heard of that. I do remember when the Florida cops got in trouble for using tube wax on the headlights of the vehicles that were at the bars.

Dink

There are no laws that I know of which require or mandate anyone to perform any field tests or field alka-sensors.

It's gonna be different state to state and different locales within a state . In Texas , if there was no accident , and if you have the bucks , you can count on beating the first one , so you want to be sure that you are ALWAYS being charged with the first one . It doesn't look as bad for the prosecuter if he shows leniency on a first-timer .

It actually works to your advantage if the cop charges you with something else - unlawful carrying of a weapon for instance - since it gives your lawyer a bargaining chip .Plead guilty to it and skate on the DUI .

Videos are rough but prescription drugs can explain it to a jury sometimes . The video also means the arresting officer doesn't have to remember a lot of details .

Absent a video , a good lawyer will tell you to write down every small detail such as what color shirt you have on etc. He is banking that the cop will have no memory of small stuff like that two years after the event .When you " remember " all those little details [ how many cars went by while you were stopped ] and he doesn't , you become more believable .

The bucks allow you to get a good DWI atty and allow him to give you his best effort which means dragging it out as long as possible .

I ain't a lawyer or a cop so I'll leave it to you to figure out how I know so much !

Issac if your talking to me about testifying on the fields. Your right there are no laws requiring anyone to take fields.

If the drunk did perform fields though they want that surpressed so you can't testify that the drunk fell over on the one leg stand. If they argue that you should not have given the field sobriety test in the first place and the judge agrees he will not let me testify to it.

Dink

Why do cops and lawyers refuse to take a test when busted for DUI? What is the advantage to refusing?

Nah, they go in with the sundown. Kinda like chickens going to roost.

ALWAYS tell the pros & def that they ran off the road or crossed the center line, that was my PC for the stop!

Because there will be no evidence at all if they don't take the test. If a cop asks you to take the tests, generally he has already made up his mind to arrest you for DWI. He isn't looking to see if you "pass" the tests. He is looking for evidence to convict you of DWI. If you don't do any of the tests, then the only evidence that he has is that he smelled alcohol or something like that as long as you weren't driving eratically.

Now, most states will administratively suspend your license if you refuse the tests, but an administrative suspension beats a DWI for all kinds of reasons.

In my experience the video is key. If a guy looks and acts drunk on the video, he is going down. If he doesn't, then there is a decent chance to beat the DWI no matter what the machine said.

I got one reduced yesterday by the prosecution. Of course, the cop said that the guy failed all the tests and he blew just over the legal limit. The actual video was a joke. He passed all the tests and looked completely fine doing it. So, I watched the video and told the prosecutor he really needed to look at it. After he did, he called me back and dropped the case.

In Florida you are not required to but it is prima facie (SP) evidence in court you were and a guaranteed conviction.

The bottom of our license states: "The operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law."

"required by law" I'd love to see any law which mandated a driver to perform field tests.

There isn't of course. But most states will administratively suspend your license if you don't.

Now if you refuse the breathalyzer we get a search warrant to draw blood.

Dink

For one week here but that's instituted upon arrest.

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 believe that is the case in UT as well, T.

refusing the test is about the same as pleading guilty.

I tell my clients to refuse each and every field test request during the stop and then,after arrest, I don't care if they take the station test or not.

There's no requirement in AL that you perform any FSTs. And you can't have your license suspened for refusing to.

============

You're confusing field tests with the breathalyzer or blood testing after arrest.

I'm, of course, not familiar with every state's DUI laws, but in AL, FSTs aren't required under implied consent, and thus you can refuse them without penalty, including hand-held alco-sensors, and the fact you refused to take them, isn't admissible in court as they're not required in the first place. The breath test (the implied consent test covered by the DUI law) is another story.

Same here, FL supposedly has the toughest DUI laws in the nation. I remember when I first moved it here is WAS NOT against the law to drink & drive, just DUI.

maybe so.


as for the field tests, my third party observation is that the cop has already made the decision to arrest you before the test.**



** there are a number of eateries in the historic 25th st district here with windows facing the street. On a Friday or Saturday night you can be just about guaranteed a front row seat (10-20 ft, max) of a DUI pullover. I've guessed wrong once as to whether the driver was getting arrested.

Plead "not guilty", roll your dice, and have a chance.

Plead "guilty", and hope for the best.

Some folks are gamblers, arrogant, stupid, or advised to plead one way per other reasons.

Every case is different. Regardless of what TRH/Chris guesses....

Well, that's good to know if I ever get drunk in Alabama. In the states where I practice, the administrative suspension is the same as it would be for a conviction of a DWI 1st.

Heck, in Texas the DPS doesn't even care what the court does with the DWI. The court can dismiss the case but you still then have to have an administrative hearing where all they consider is if there was probable cause to make the stop and if "it was more likely than not" that the driver was intoxicated. You rarely win the hearing but occasionaly, you'll get one kicked when there wasn't PC or the cop refuses to show up. But, of course, now the burden is on the DEFENSE to subpoena the cop for those administrative hearings.

Still not illegal to drink and drive (ie consume alcohol and then operate a motor vehicle), though open container within the vehicle usually is. You still have to be impaired, either actually, or by virtue of legal impairment due to your BAC level. The actual practice might be different, but that's the law. I know in a lot of place in AL, if you drink and drive you'll get a DUI, driving and BAC be damned...for the purposes of being arrested. In court, might be a different story though.

All the questions have been about probable cause for a stop.

What if the vehicle was not moving, like sitting on the side of the road broken down and a cop drives up and you are drunk, have been drinking, or drinking at the time, but he didn't actually see you driving?

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

Like your attitude on it. When the defense lawyer is playing the bullschit card, you often have a winner case, and they're just putting on a show for their client, though as you noted, juries are funny animals, and thus the reason for plea bargains...at least both sides know what they're getting. With a jury you never know.

You can possibly be charged with DUI. Is that the answer to your question?

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?

Yes, this [bleep] again.

As attorneys like to say, a simple yes or no will suffice.

If the actual DWI laws had more to do with public safety than molifying an extremely vocal and demanding MADD lobby, I might have a twinge of conscience. The .08 limit adopted by all the states is artifically low. Most people who are .08 are not impaired in any substantial manner. And lots of confirmed alcoholics, can be twice that limit and not really be impaired.

And like someone said, most people are smart enough to learn their lessons with their first brush with the law and having to pay a big fee to an attorney. So, you're not helping someone get away with anything or encouraging that behavior in the future as that for most people, once is enough.

Do you do this with a clear conscience, when you KNOW somebody actually was DUI, and endangering innocent people?
==================

Not only a clear conscience but a extra 3500 beaners in the coffer. Then I sleep like a baby after having beat the bad guy/gal sitting to the right of me at the bad man lawyer table!!

==============

Have you ever paid a lawyer to represent you in a criminal or traffic matter??

I should have said that better, it was legal to drink WHILE driving, no open container law either. This is all long since changed of course.

I haven't! Never needed too either.

Good question.

In most (all?) Jurisdictions, the suspicion of driving the vehicle to that point under the influence is PC for a field sobriety test and/or breath-alizer.

The vehicle didn't get itself there, and if it's yours, and you have the keys and means to operate, or to have operated it there in an intoxicated condition, then PC exists.

Defensible in court, sometimes, but PC enough for the tests and arrest if over the BAC limit.

Here is one that will blow your mind. Lots of people end up convicted of DWI for nothing more than being drunk WHEN TESTED. But it is only against the law to be drunk WHILE DRIVING.

===============

Not you,silly man!! You'd always get the "Oh, it's the Lt....get your ass home"

Never needed to.

By not drinking and driving, I keep my 3500 beans for myself.

As to the representation matter; I've paid, and it was MORE than worth it.

=============

Even I'm blue in the face from that tired dance!!

It works sometimes though. And better yet, it actually has some scientific merit.

Hey, I resemble that remark! But concur.

=============

Aside from the fact you should have never had to, yes...it was worth it!

Not me Sir, I would not play that card if it was available. I simply don't drink & drive, never have, never will. As to other criminal behavior: Cop didn't see it, I didn't do it! Actually I put too many people in the slam to ever do anything to join them.

============

That's wasn't the question and you're being non-responsive.

===============

It would be a hoot defending a tough DWI case against you,Jim. So many times we're stuck with negotiating a plea so, having one to sink our teeth into is always a pleasant surprise.

I don't know why but after 24 years of practice, and having tried some horrendous sex crime jury trials, I still get a little giddy after winning a DWI trial....especially if it goes out on motion.

I have a broader question for ColdBore: "Have you ever been charged with any offense, any at all, traffic included, where you entered a plea of not guilty?

Joe;

Depends upon the jurisdiction.

If you blow .08 or more, you're intoxicated, regardless of whether you're drunk. I know, for a flat fact, that .08 is nowhere near 'drunk' for some folks, but it is over the legal limit of intoxication.

If you were operating a motor vehicle, and blew/tested .08, at the time or reverse calculated to the time of operation, then you are VERY likely to be found guilty.

Pure and simple, and any even half-assed attorney will support that one, because it's simply legal fact.

That you disagree, says much.

DUI is/was my favorite thing to try as a defense attorney. Don't get to try many as a prosecutor. I HATE sex crimes with a passion, and unfortunately I'm swamped with them!

Or, going Joe's route, be prepared to fork out some major bank for a expert because it ain't coming in with lay opinion.

Perhaps you should limit yourself to things of which you have a clue.

The so-called legal limit of .08 does not, in fact, mean that one is intoxicated in any legal sense of the word. It is merely a limit where one is "presumed" to be intoxicated by the court. One may present evidence to rebut that presumption should one wish. In fact, one may also be convicted of driving while intoxicated for a much lower level of alcohol should evidence be presented that one is, in fact, intoxicated despite the low level of alcohol.

And in any case, you completely missed the entire point of the post which was not debate in any manner whatsoever as to what would happen in court. No, on the contrary, it was to state my disagreement with the levels as they are currently promulgated around the country and my displeasure with the fact that they are artificially low so that people who are not actually intoxicated, are often found to be drunk.

So, anyone with a half-assed ability to read the English language should have been able to determine that much from my post. That you disagree, says much.

If the state's keep enlarging the scope and protections under their "rape shield" laws, defense counsel are simply going to be forced to stipulate the woman is on the sainthood waiting list!!

I do not like those rape shield protections in the he said/she saids!!

Have a go at a case where the victim is a child. They might as well make the defendant go into court with a hood and a noose around his neck and the defense attorney with duct tape over his mouth.

My first 9 jury trials were,Joe. Several were when many years had passed and another couple of my trials dealt with the child not being qualified to testify.

Two of my clients went to prison for 43 and 67 years,respectively. I still to this day remember those beatings like my first lay,especially when a bit of humble pie is needed.

I was speaking of the rape shield aspect of it. There basically is no cross examination allowed of a child. Or at least none that would allow one to address some pretty outlandish statements by the child.

Got it. I've cross-examined kids. A egg-shell, fleece socked talking to a baby styled cross.

Well, that goes without saying. But I'm talking about an instance where the child had made outlandish statements regarding other sexual incidents not involving my client. The judge ruled that the child could not be asked about those and it was upheld.

So, do you think a jury might want to know about those things in a case where there was no physical evidence and merely an outcry? Do you think it might be relevant?

Crazy.

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]

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

And we need guys like you rattler!

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".

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 .

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

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

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.

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

" I " win even if " I " lose etc.

Maybe this one ?

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 !

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

Five .

Next question ?

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?

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......

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

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.

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!!

typical [bleep] lawyer...........

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

Worth every Benjamin too!

My favorite saying was uttered by a prosecutor once. It went thusly, "Justice? Justice? Justice is for the appellant courts."

If this is true I have some serious questions I would like to ask you about.

Is that true or you [bleep] with me.

Dink

Yes everything I do is video/audio. Most times if I am behind what I think is a drunk driver I will turn on the video and video there driving.

My camera in my car is set up on a loop so when I turn on my lights the video actually starts 2 minutes prior to the lights being turned on.

Everything at the station is video/audio.

Dink

KRAKMT:

It could be. It depends. But maybe the transcript of the guilty plea hearing indicates trial counsel saying on the record that his client understands counsel hasn't seen the report, but nevertheless the client wants to plead guilty, anyway.

Then the judge says "Mr. Defendant, is that true?"

And the client says yes, your honor, that's true, I understand my attorney hasn't seen the report or any of the evidence and I understand that I could have a trial and all that, like it says here on this plea agreement I signed and put my initials all over, but I just want this to be over, your honor, and I believe it's in my best interest to get this done with right now, today, and I want to plead guilty. Thank you.

When you have a transcript like that, he may have a difficult time proving ineffective assistance of counsel down the road, when he's looking at his third or fourth DUI conviction and his new attorney says, hmmm, maybe we can make one of these early convictions go away.

- Tom

wouldnt be paying 3 of them at various times if they werent....kinda like a surgeon.....you pay extra for someone that knows what the hell they are doing.....going with the lowest bidder could [bleep] yah in the end.....

if i wanted "justice" i would take a baseball bat to my wifes ex.....but i want a judge to rule to [bleep] him over leaving me free to do as i wish....hence the lawyer.....

I'm fond of this one: "Convicting the guilty is easy, it takes talent to convict the innocnent". I don't mean it, of course, but it's funny among my defense lawyer buds.

If the wife's ex keeps getting his ass handed to him in court, you should be receiving a attorney's fee award so you aren't always saddled with it.

Funny how sometimes the after divorce stuff lasts longer than the marriage. Divorce is a weird animal. Frankly, it's not much different than criminal defense, at times.

Frankly, I usually find my criminal defendants to be nicer, easy to work with, and more ethical than a good percentage of my divorce clients.

+1

One in Jack CTY TX -pled guilty we/o lawyer . Fine and probation .

One in Tarrant Cty TX - Lawyer got it thrown out .

One in Young CTY Tx - pled down to unlawful carrying of weapon .

One in Chickasha OK -- Lawyer I paid 1500 bucks [ 1980 dollars ] got drunk and didn't show up . Found guilty by judge who was talking to his girlfriend on the phone while he was holding my "trial " . Paid fine .No probation .

One in Archer Cty Tx . Plea deal worked out by lawyers . Fine and probation .

Never lost my license . Because of shorter " enhancement periods " back then , each one was a first offense .

You spoke some truth earlier :

Fact is that I had no business on the hiway if my BAC was LESS than .010 .No accidents from being drunk . [ that by the grace of God , obviously ]

FWIW THe gov't or nobody [ including me ] spent a dime sobering me up .

And I have a CCL .

End of answers . No more questions . Have a good day .

Uh... Okay. But if you need the lights (your flashers?) right now, you don't have to wait 2 minutes, do you?

As for the video, I've seen some DUI cases succeed or fail based merely on what the suspect is doing during the 2-5 minutes he's waiting for the officer to get ready to administer field tests. Swaying, scratching himself, lighting a cigarette. Or not swaying. Or lighting his cigarette with panache and good coordination. Or losing his balance while trying to stand perfectly still.

Seen a couple of otherwise good defense cases go south when the suspect goes berserk in the back seat of the squad car on the way to jail, too.

Video is strong magic.

- Tom

havent been in front of the judge yet.....2 weeks.....had to wait for the perfect storm

#1 get the original child support ruling to build up to where he couldnt dig himself out

#2 call child and family services to collect the back child support knowing he was going to brush it off......child support enforcement division has decided that since he doesnt want to fill out the paper work and last we knew he told us he was the foreman of a road construction crew they bumped the child support up from $150 a month for both girls to over $1000....

#3 made damn sure it goes back in front of the judge that originally ordered the $150 and is notorious for hating dead beat dads....and will grant whatever the child enforcement division recommends if the father wont even bother to show up in court....

and for the bonus.....dip chit has a warrant out for his arrest for writing bad checks though its only an instate warrant at the moment so the [bleep] really aint all that interested in coming back to Montana

dude this is gonna hurt worse for alot longer than any beating i could ever give him

=================

Until a bailiff steps them back.

No I don't have to wait two minutes to use my lights.

I did not explain that very well. My camera records all the time and when I hit the lights it makes a "file" on a cd. That file will start two minutes prior to me turning on the lights and runs until I turn off my recorder.

Lets say I stop a drunk at 12:00. The file will be from 11:58 until when ever I turned off the recorder.

I can also turn just my video on prior to turning on my lights just to video the way they are driving.

I hope that makes more sense.

Dink

Just don't forget to turn them off when you're about ready to smack some drunken assed punk upside his head!

Amazing things happen in our legal system. Years ago one of my friends who was a highly decorated marine (retired) was driving from Virginia where we all live to his lake house in North Carolina. Big Hugh only stood 6'6 & weighed about 270 pounds & bragged he was the Marine Corp drinking champion. Big Hugh crossed the white line to avoid a bunch of people walking & clipped an on coming car. State troopers administered a breathalyzer & since he had consumed about half a quart of vodka tested positive. Troopers put him into cuffs & wrote him up for DUI & Reckless Driving. I left my lake house looking for him & found him in the troopers car with cuffs on. I let someone drive my vehicle & I proceeded to drive his car to the station. A JP showed up & proceeded to blast him & then asked why he couldn't walk properly. Big Hugh stated it might be due to being blown out of a PT Boat in WWII, or wounded in Korea & Vietnam. JP then started talking about the corp & where he served in various wars. At this point the JP told the jailers to uncuff this damn war hero & bring me his bottle of vodka. The JP & Big Hugh proceeded to have a few serious drinks. The jailers couldn't believe what was happening right in front of them. The JP fixed it with the judge for a couple cases of booze & he pleaded guilty to crossing a white line with no fine just court cost. Unfortunately, Big Hugh breathed to much Agent Orange & died of multiple cancers. It wasn't necessary for him to be embalmed.

I agree but it gets old covering defense attorney's ass sometimes.
The usual colloquy is:
Defendant how do you plead?
Guilty? My attorney told me to say that.
Judge for the record having spoken to Mr. Defense attorney and received a letter stating that the defendant intends to enter a guilty plea contrary to advice of counsel, I request further court discussion.

DUIs are getting tough to beat. Refusal to blow can be used as evidence of guilt. And here, over .08 is per se guilty. You can argue the stop but pretty much been hammered out.
No reason for cops to play bulsheet. Just psss off judges and prosecutors. You will find your cases pled down to disorderly conducts you get a bad rep.







KRAKMT:

It could be. It depends. But maybe the transcript of the guilty plea hearing indicates trial counsel saying on the record that his client understands counsel hasn't seen the report, but nevertheless the client wants to plead guilty, anyway.

Then the judge says "Mr. Defendant, is that true?"

And the client says yes, your honor, that's true, I understand my attorney hasn't seen the report or any of the evidence and I understand that I could have a trial and all that, like it says here on this plea agreement I signed and put my initials all over, but I just want this to be over, your honor, and I believe it's in my best interest to get this done with right now, today, and I want to plead guilty. Thank you.

When you have a transcript like that, he may have a difficult time proving ineffective assistance of counsel down the road, when he's looking at his third or fourth DUI conviction and his new attorney says, hmmm, maybe we can make one of these early convictions go away.

- Tom [/quote]

I agree but it gets old covering defense attorney's ass sometimes.
The usual colloquy is:
Defendant how do you plead?
Guilty? My attorney told me to say that.
Judge for the record having spoken to Mr. Defense attorney and received a letter stating that the defendant intends to enter a guilty plea contrary to advice of counsel, I request further court discussion.
===

What kind of attorney would send his criminal client to a courtroom to plead guilty to a criminal charge without the lawyer being present??

Imaginary ones

prolly one of those low bid ones i mentioned earlier

A [bleep]' stupid one, that's what kind.

BTW - curdog, if you're being honest, then honestly, you're a DSMFer and a disgrace. Folks like you make attorneys a good bit of money, and rightfully so, as you continually violate the "stupidity clause".

Personally, and having defended several like you, the best verdict is a big, steaming cup of STFU and likely jail time before you end up killing someone.

Of course, seeing what a habitual DWI defendant can do to a family when that POS takes a car with a mom and two kids (she was sober, drunk crossed completely into her lane) head-on will occasionally make a difference.

Then again, you're different, right? Just like he was.....

Um happens more than I am comfortable with.
how about during trial defense moves for a mistrial because teenage victim blurts extranious statement. During lunch break prosecution realizes that the confession should have been suppressed by defense counsel and raises the issue to the court. Court grants defendant's motion for mistrial but because defense counsel agreed that they dropped the ball.
Does double jeapardy apply?

How about morning of trial on a homicide judge enters an order barring defendant's self defense witnesses for failing to disclose 30 days prior to trial(defense HAD filed a motion to bar the states rebuttal witnesses for failing to disclose 5 days prior to trial) Counsel admitts they screwed up but argued the State should ask for a continuance- court asked if they were asking to continue- at which point they thought that it was a good idea( then counsel turned to defendant and asked if he agreed).



The original point was wjy plead not guilty when they have you dead to rights.
1. Because you are not dead to rights until a defense attorney says so then whine for a deal
2. Because a jury says so- pucker up the judge is going to give you a little extra
3. Because you have nothing to loose
4. Because you listen to the jail house lawyers(dealing with one that is why the reference).

Last one off the top of my head-
Defense counsel takes the 20 grand, puts the defendant on at trial to admit to the crime and gets double what the prosecution was offereing.

First and only rule of defense attorneys- if someone is going to jail, make sure it is your client.

===

What kind of attorney would send his criminal client to a courtroom to plead guilty to a criminal charge without the lawyer being present?? [/quote]

You're all over the place,dude!!

No, that is the second rule and not the only rule.

The first rule and the only other rules is: "Get paid in full, up front."

Coss is definitely a trial lawyer!!

Posterity sake.

I am but I am trying to respond to a defendant's bs suppression motion at the same time.

K

In what capacity are you responding?

Ahh, we have true believer here.

KRAKPOT is another DSMFer DD/TRH clone with zero experience, is my guess. And, given the evidence at hand, I reckon my position safe.

BTW - who left the "Dumbasses welcome" sign on this time?

Um happens more than I am comfortable with.
how about during trial defense moves for a mistrial because teenage victim blurts extranious statement. During lunch break prosecution realizes that the confession should have been suppressed by defense counsel and raises the issue to the court. Court grants defendant's motion for mistrial but because defense counsel agreed that they dropped the ball.
===============

Yeah,I think so,Sean. He's left out about 4-5 things/facts I can think of right off the top of my head!

10 years currently elected county attorney.
Spew all you want, a crappy defense attorney will get you more time than non at all.
K

I can give you the Supreme Court case ifn you want the 20 page version, I am sure there are more facts that you could find in support of a position.

You're full of schit!!

Only if he is unpopular.

Like maybe killing an innocent family.......

Not a good enough reason to let 'em keep weaving down the road IMO.

some of the most pain in the arse, idiotic lawyers ive ever come across are elected county attorneys....just like some of the most worthless law enforcement officers ive known are elected county sheriffs......

My bad, now where's that damn switch.....

If I ever get back your way we'll talk about it .Personally , I have no use for hypocritical tee- totalers and obviously you've never driven when your BAC was over the limit . That's not a question . I wouldn't expect an honest answer from the likes of you .

I'm content to be judged by folks that know me . The ones who knew me drunk and the ones that have known me sober for over 25 years .

You are real quick on the verbal trigger , BIGMOUTH . Thought they taught better than that in law school, or , are you another TRH ?

I'm going to a meeting and I'm done with you .

Good for you.

In my experience with DWI/DUI's, which is not vast, the only one's that didn't plea were those who felt their chances with a jury were better than the deal offered. A few just couldn't do probation or accept a conviction, but most had lots of priors and were looking at LOTs of time if convicted.

Did I miss something fellas?

Just saw this little jewel .For some reason it conjures up an image of someone who once was "someone " and had some measure of authority over some folks and is now forced to confront his impotence every time he turns around .

Anybody with half a brain would know I don't give a damn who reads anything I post on here or I wouldn't post it so this "posterity sake" comment makes no sense at all .

Here are a few more facts for all you stalwart defenders of truth and justice :

In 1985 - which happens to be the year I had my last drink of alcohol - Ed Shields was starting his second term as Young County Sheriff and the newspaper ran a story that revealed that Young County had three times the DWI conviction total of Wichita County which had ten times the population .That is newsworthy .

All his deputies , the Hiway Patrolmen , County Atty ,County Judge - ALL the courthouse crowd knew Ed was a drunk .Then Ed left a private club in a neighboring town at 2 am one weeknight , crossed over the center line and hit another car head on .Killed Ed , Left one in the other car paralyzed for life and the other occupant was seriously injured .

I've wondered at times if any of that bunch ever felt the slightest twinge of guilt for looking the other way where Ed was concerned . I doubt they ever did .

Anyhow LOUDMOUTH , my post paints a pretty un-flattering picture of who I was 25 years ago ; Yours reveals what you are like today .

You really ought to calm down .

Curdog not that my opinion matters much but I think it takes a back bone to post that in a public forum.

Good for you kicking the habit.

Dink

Agree, Dink and well done and well said, curdog.

But that's what being honest gets you sometimes and certain folks don't seem to handle honesty too well at all. VAnimrod, you can copy this one for posterity, too.

Not taking away from Curdog's spectacular accomplishment but he shouldn't post the facts later and then use it to attack a reply to a post of his which, initially, on it's face, was rather remarkable. The line of replies leading up to it were rather remarkable, as well, and it's easy to grasp the reasons premising the consternation.

If he had posted his replies in reverse order, this issue wouldn't have caused any edgy uneasiness. The miscommunications and misunderstandings weren't unreasonable,considering.

Bob,

Somewhere in this thread (too lazy to reference it) someone asked if defense attorneys could in "good conscience" get their client off on a tecnicality knowing full well that he was guilty.

I know this issue has been beat to death here many times before and I am certainly not an attorney, but I believe that regardless of their client's guilt or innocence, lawyers should do everything they can to ensure that their Constitutionally guaranteed rights are protected and that he/she recieves a fair trial and NOTHING MORE THAN THAT!

The exception of course would be in cases where the charges were either frivolous to begin with or the law was simply an unjust one.

In other words, I don't believe that when a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, he should resort to using technicalities, gimmicks or other types of subterfuge in an effort to gain aquittal.

I use the OJ Simpson case as an example.

Am I missing something here??

Wrong, and your reading comprehension is pathetic.

I've been schit faced, many times over. Driven when I shouldn't have, and lived to tell about it. Thank God so did everyone else out there.

And, yeah, given the chance, I'd say exactly the same thing to your face. If you've been sober for 25 years, then congratulations and thank you. Taking on that demon, and winning, ain't easy. I'll say that your face as well.

That said, if you can't look back on who/what you were then, and find dishonor in that as well as seeing clearly how dangerous those like you were then are to others out there, then you obviously are lacking in many rather significant areas.

Facts, are facts.

A "technicality" is a procedural screw-up by the prosecution. They screw up, and the defendant walks. Pure and simple.

A defense attorney's job, or one of them, is to make sure the prosecution does their job well and properly.

Exactly.

No, your posts in order reveal what you wanted to instigate, and as posted elsewhere, if you'd said you WERE what you started off by painting yourself AS, and that you've moved on, you'd likely have gotten a far different response.

As stated, I'll stand by that.

If you were what you were, and have seen what it can/will do, you know where the reaction to drunk drivers comes from and why getting them the hell off the roads is a task that needs doing; daily.

If you are what you are now, then congratulations and thank you. As stated, that demon is not an easy one to beat; many never do.

So, figure me "loudmouth", or whatever, but perhaps you got exactly what you were looking for, and the reasons behind that are more clear than you think.

A lawyer only "knows" what his client tells him, and what the police say. He isn't a witness to anything, and really doesn't KNOW anything. What you're suggesting is that the lawyer should decide, based on what he sees in the evidence to determine guilt or innocence, then decide whether to represent his client zealously, or merely babysit him while the goverment does what it's going to do. You're saying that as long as the lawyer deems his client guilty, that however the evidence was obtained shouldn't be called in to question even if it's illegal, because the ultimate question has been answered, albeit through illegal means by the government. Surely you can see how a system like that would lead to police doing any and everything to get the "evidence of guilt" because as long as they have the evidence that proves the defendant guilty (and who makes this decision of guilt before all the evidence is heard), then what methods they used couldn't be questioned. Surely you see the potential end result of folks rights being completely trampled. Finally, what constitutes "absolute guilt" to the point that the lawyer would only babysit their client rather than represent them, who would make that decision, and at what point in the process?

Nemi...a criminal defense lawyer's client is guilty when a consent plea, jury,judge or appellate court indicate he is guilty,not before. In the meanwhile, the defendant need not prove a damn thing, the government has that burden. My job is to vigorously compel them to meet that burden and if they can not, he walks!

Exactly. It's the fair trial part that harbors the technicalities.

Procedural safeguards and requirements are there to do as much as possible to insure a fair trial, and if one or more of those is not satisfied, thus the technicality, then the defendant walks.

Those that want a "fair trial" for "the guilty" really mean a mock trial followed by immediate execution. If they'd look up the word "trial", they'd see that even the non-legal definitions mean "to test or evaluate".

Look , I ain't interested in prolonging this little "drama" .

Now you are suggesting that I MAY HAVE - underscore "may" - Have manipulated everybody on this thread into posting their replies and then pulled out a kicker to make some look foolish or to score some sort of " points " or some such .

I think if an appelate court had this thread as a "trial transcript" , THey would find that your conclusion is not supported by the facts .

When I made my original post on this thread I styled myself as knowing something about this DWI/Legal deal .Dink more or less called my hand on that by asking how many etc,etc.

You- being a lawyer - know that the "truth" sorta has a ring to it and Dink's question struck me as being honest and I gave him an honest answer .I had no way of knowing you were gonna jump into the discussion .

You have to admit that you COULD have posted something like this : " You still drinking ?"

Once I posted my answer you would still have the option of calling me names and such if you were so inclined .

In the interest of getting the thread back on track ,I'm willing for this to be my last post on it .I do want to thank those who have made some nice comments to me but I want to make it clear that :

1 . By gettin' sober I didn't accomplish anything a drowning man wouldn't accomplish by grabbing a rope thrown to him . He wouldn't be a "hero" and I ain't either .

2.In my particular case , it was no big deal to post my arrest record [ actually there were six more jailings that I didn't post 'cause Dink only asked about DWI ].For one of you , it would be a big deal and - like a lot of "big deals" would serve no useful purpose .

See ,the first time somebody raised hell with me on this forum years ago , I did a little experiment : I lifted up the moniter and put the bathroom scales under it .

I wrote down the weight of it with his words on the screen and then without his words on the screen and discovered the weight didn't change .

I ain't been very concerned about anything posted by me or anyone else since then .

Fair enough.

Gave you credit, where credit was due.

And, called spades as seen.

Take it, leave, or just don't give a [bleep]. Your call, and I'll live with the ones I made and make.

See ,the first time somebody raised hell with me on this forum years ago , I did a little experiment : I lifted up the moniter and put the bathroom scales under it .
===========

You did that sober?? grin

Bein'sober ain't synonymous with bein' sane !

Ain't that the damned truth.....

On that, we can certainly agree (and share company).

YEP !

when the wife and i started dating i drank quite a bit but as my knees got worse and i got put on meds that raise enough hell with my liver in the 8 and a half years we have been together ive went from a heavy drinker to a 6 pack a month being closer to normal....she swears the more im sober the screwier i get as i am pretty mellow when drinking 99% of the time.....she thinks its something about my family genes need to be pickled to be on an even keel

After arresting hundreds of DUI's, I came to the conclusion it was just a game. I expected a not guilty plea and did my best to get enough evidence to win. I knew my suspects were guilty and even if they won in court, they lost. The prosecutor gets paid, the defense attorney gets paid, I got paid to testify (usually at overtime rates) and the defendant paid. Even if the defendant got off, he didn't get his money back.

I've come to the conclusion that we don't really have a justice system, just an adversarial legal system. Whoever plays the game best, wins.

Someone mentioned that defense attorneys try to get defendants off on technicalities. The 4th, 5th and 6th amendments are not technicalities.

If the cops, the prosecutor AND the defense attorney do their jobs well, the guilty go to jail and the innocent don�t.

On the other line of discussion in this thread- comparing 1980s DUIs to the current state of the law is apples to oranges. Back then DUI ranked about the same as a peeing in public. Hech here they were expunged from your record. Today it is tough to cut much of a break. Good stop, bad driving, BAC or refusal, video of whole thing, guilty. Probably the most litigated area of the law(at least here) with pretty clearly defined edges.

Agreed.

Yep, that about sums it up.

the only DUI i got back in my drinking days was when i was 17. hit three cars and a fence. cost me $250 and six months probation and since i lived 600 miles a way from where it happened, i only had to check in by mail once a month. it was in a dry county to boot

Folks, herein is a prime example of the true value of an excellent defense attorney (seriously).

Notice how quickly VAnimrod rushed in seeking and grasping the prompt succor of the explanation provided by Issac when he couldn't find the words himself and upon "being explained" by Issac, then later followed with copious amounts of the same? VA just needed a little traction.

Well done, Issac and good move, VA.

And now in league w/KRAKMT when formally at somewhat nasty odds with him. I'm feeling a lot of love here betwixt these guys!