As a DUI attorney you get to hear a lot of stories from people about how they got into trouble. Some are more interesting than others. Some are stranger than fiction. Some are just outright unlucky. But, no matter how the story begins or ends, you driving the car must be involved somewhere. If it isn't there can't be any DUI charge.
But that doesn't stop the prosecutor from trying to put you in jail.
Let's take an example I recently heard from someone. There was this guy, he was celebrating a very special occasion. And he was getting tanked. At some point during the night, he realized he didn't need to be driving home and gave his keys to someone to hold. And then he continued to party.
The next thing he clearly remembers is waking up on the side of the road with his car in the ditch. He is in the passenger side. And the passenger side of the car is wrecked. He isn't 100% sure of who was driving, but he knows it was a girl, and he knows she is running away from the accident.
Cops show up, he says he wasn't driving, and they arrest him for DUI. Now he's looking for a DUI lawyer to help him out (he had a public defender but wasn't too pleased with her).
The difficult part of this case is going to be getting the prosecutor and/or jury to believe that someone else was driving the vehicle. The good news is there is an independent witness that saw someone running from the scene of the accident.
If you find yourself in trouble like this, don't wait to talk to a DUI defense lawyer. Demand to talk to someone right away. It can make a huge difference in your case.
5.19.2010
5.09.2010
DUI Attorney | Voir Dire Techniques
If you ever need a DUI attorney, you need to find one with some trial experience. And the reason is simple - there is the possibility that your case could go to trial. Sometimes the state just won't give you an acceptable offer, and the only choice you have is to go to trial.
Ask any DUI attorney, and they'll tell you the most important aspect of trial is usually the voir dire. It is important for two critical reasons: first, you are picking the people that will decide your fate; and second, you have the opportunity, if you are smart, to get the jurors to provide information that will be critical to winning your case. What do I mean by that? Keep on reading.
The voir dire technique that I use isn't like your typical jury questioning. My goal, as a DUI lawyer, is to get the jury talking. Talking about their past experiences, talking about their biases, and talking about the things that are important to them. See, I'm not going to be able to change their beliefs in 20 minutes. They've been formed over the course of many years. So, I might as well find out what their beliefs are and get rid of the bad ones.
What I do to get people talking is ask them questions about their life experiences. Things like: have you ever seen someone drink alcohol and drive safely?; tell me about your experiences with DUI; and tell me about and time in your life you've been wrongly accused of something. These elicit stories from people that expose their true feelings about my case. And give me the information I need to keep bad people off of my jury.
But, you may be thinking, if a juror tells a horrific experience about a DUI crash? That's okay. It will probably allow me to get them off of the jury, and it's not going to affect the other jurors as much as you might think. Remember, we can't change their mind, and neither can any of the other jurors. They'll feel sympathy for the juror, and that's it.
Talk to your DUI attorney and find out what they do to make sure they get the best jurors possible for your case. It can mean the difference between a one word verdict and a two word verdict.
Ask any DUI attorney, and they'll tell you the most important aspect of trial is usually the voir dire. It is important for two critical reasons: first, you are picking the people that will decide your fate; and second, you have the opportunity, if you are smart, to get the jurors to provide information that will be critical to winning your case. What do I mean by that? Keep on reading.
The voir dire technique that I use isn't like your typical jury questioning. My goal, as a DUI lawyer, is to get the jury talking. Talking about their past experiences, talking about their biases, and talking about the things that are important to them. See, I'm not going to be able to change their beliefs in 20 minutes. They've been formed over the course of many years. So, I might as well find out what their beliefs are and get rid of the bad ones.
What I do to get people talking is ask them questions about their life experiences. Things like: have you ever seen someone drink alcohol and drive safely?; tell me about your experiences with DUI; and tell me about and time in your life you've been wrongly accused of something. These elicit stories from people that expose their true feelings about my case. And give me the information I need to keep bad people off of my jury.
But, you may be thinking, if a juror tells a horrific experience about a DUI crash? That's okay. It will probably allow me to get them off of the jury, and it's not going to affect the other jurors as much as you might think. Remember, we can't change their mind, and neither can any of the other jurors. They'll feel sympathy for the juror, and that's it.
Talk to your DUI attorney and find out what they do to make sure they get the best jurors possible for your case. It can mean the difference between a one word verdict and a two word verdict.
3.22.2010
DUI Lawyer | Bench Trial or Jury Trial?
So you've been accused of a transgression. Perhaps a DUI, maybe an stabbing, maybe a larceny. And the prosecutor isn't offering you anything you feel comfortable taking as a plea bargain. Your Seattle DUI lawyer tells you the single alternative, if you don't like the deal, is a trial.
You're okay with that, but are a bit tentative concerning the minutiae. In particular, you are not definite whether you ought to request a jury trial or demand a bench trial. Your DUI attorney is promoting a jury trial, but you just do not know if you can rely on a group of individuals you don't know to make the appropriate choice.
Picking between a jury trial or a bench trial (where the judge makes the choice of your guilt or innocence) can at times be challenging. Let's look at a duo of scenarios that might require you to go one way or another (your DUI lawyer should think about this at least).
First, the jury trial. You like jury trials because jurors frequently aren't as jaded as judges (they've heard lots of excuses over the years and start to stop trying to uncover the distinction). They try hard to do the fair thing and will habitually grant you at least a fighting opportunity. Nevertheless they can be unpredictable in addition.
You regularly desire a jury trial when the state of affairs is pretty unsound, when you have various inconsistencies in the facts that just don't make sense, and when you want the fact finder to give you the benefit of the doubt. Juries are capable of doing this. With judges it's a little more difficult.
Next, the bench trial. You typically like to have these when you have a exceedingly technical defense, the particulars of the case are truly atrocious (the jury will practically be guaranteed to be critical of you from the beginning - trust me, I'm a criminal attorney I know these things), or you are going to establish your argument on a legal topic that you sense the judge will appreciate better than a jury. This also is a crap shoot, as judges, although not unpredictable, have a propensity to slant in the direction of the prosecution.
In the end, the conclusion to go jury trial or bench trial should perhaps be completed by your Seattle DUI attorney. They possess the practice to identify which one to employ, and they understand the intricacy of the conclusion. No matter which you pick, though, it's in all probability going to be an uphill struggle. Good luck!
You're okay with that, but are a bit tentative concerning the minutiae. In particular, you are not definite whether you ought to request a jury trial or demand a bench trial. Your DUI attorney is promoting a jury trial, but you just do not know if you can rely on a group of individuals you don't know to make the appropriate choice.
Picking between a jury trial or a bench trial (where the judge makes the choice of your guilt or innocence) can at times be challenging. Let's look at a duo of scenarios that might require you to go one way or another (your DUI lawyer should think about this at least).
First, the jury trial. You like jury trials because jurors frequently aren't as jaded as judges (they've heard lots of excuses over the years and start to stop trying to uncover the distinction). They try hard to do the fair thing and will habitually grant you at least a fighting opportunity. Nevertheless they can be unpredictable in addition.
You regularly desire a jury trial when the state of affairs is pretty unsound, when you have various inconsistencies in the facts that just don't make sense, and when you want the fact finder to give you the benefit of the doubt. Juries are capable of doing this. With judges it's a little more difficult.
Next, the bench trial. You typically like to have these when you have a exceedingly technical defense, the particulars of the case are truly atrocious (the jury will practically be guaranteed to be critical of you from the beginning - trust me, I'm a criminal attorney I know these things), or you are going to establish your argument on a legal topic that you sense the judge will appreciate better than a jury. This also is a crap shoot, as judges, although not unpredictable, have a propensity to slant in the direction of the prosecution.
In the end, the conclusion to go jury trial or bench trial should perhaps be completed by your Seattle DUI attorney. They possess the practice to identify which one to employ, and they understand the intricacy of the conclusion. No matter which you pick, though, it's in all probability going to be an uphill struggle. Good luck!
1.06.2010
Seattle DUI Attorney | Should You Take the Breath Test?
Whether you were a Seattle DUI attorney or not, deciding whether or not to take on a breath test if you were detained for DUI used to be a considerable determination. If you were asked to take on a blood alcohol examination and said no, you were subjecting yourself to higher costs for saying no, but had the advantage going onward of not having to fight blood alcohol test results.
Well, at the present it seems more and more possible that the state of affairs may take place where you could decline a blood alcohol analysis, cope with the harsher penalties for the denial, and nevertheless be subject to giving blood alcohol results.
Most, if not all states, have fashioned DUI laws that involve implied consent laws (any Seattle DUI attorney will tell you they violate the Constitution, but I digress). In brief, these laws state that if you drive on the boulevard in the state where an implied consent law exists, you are impliedly consenting to a breath examination if the police possess probable cause to believe you are DUI.
Built into these implied consent laws, however, is the capability to decline the blood alcohol test if you so decide. The downside to refusal, though, is the imposition of worse consequences if found guilty of DUI (and a longer license suspension - for case, in Seattle, WA a denial subjects you to a year license suspension as opposed to 90 days).
But, things have changed a bit lately. The police have started going to judges and asking for search warrants when individuals refuse blood alcohol tests. And quite a few courts have upheld this habit (the way the judges perceive it, the refusal has to do with the implied consent laws, not necessarily your right to be free from searches - that is covered by the fourth amendment, which can be overcome by demonstrating probable cause to a judge and getting a search warrant.
One thing is certain. If you have the ability to speak with Seattle DUI attorneys prior to determining whether or not to take on a blood alcohol test, you must do so. The issues revolving around breath analysis refusal are getting more and more complex each day, and the only way you can be sure you are doing what is most excellent for you is by speaking with an qualified DUI attorney and learning all of your options.
Related Posts:
Well, at the present it seems more and more possible that the state of affairs may take place where you could decline a blood alcohol analysis, cope with the harsher penalties for the denial, and nevertheless be subject to giving blood alcohol results.
Most, if not all states, have fashioned DUI laws that involve implied consent laws (any Seattle DUI attorney will tell you they violate the Constitution, but I digress). In brief, these laws state that if you drive on the boulevard in the state where an implied consent law exists, you are impliedly consenting to a breath examination if the police possess probable cause to believe you are DUI.
Built into these implied consent laws, however, is the capability to decline the blood alcohol test if you so decide. The downside to refusal, though, is the imposition of worse consequences if found guilty of DUI (and a longer license suspension - for case, in Seattle, WA a denial subjects you to a year license suspension as opposed to 90 days).
But, things have changed a bit lately. The police have started going to judges and asking for search warrants when individuals refuse blood alcohol tests. And quite a few courts have upheld this habit (the way the judges perceive it, the refusal has to do with the implied consent laws, not necessarily your right to be free from searches - that is covered by the fourth amendment, which can be overcome by demonstrating probable cause to a judge and getting a search warrant.
One thing is certain. If you have the ability to speak with Seattle DUI attorneys prior to determining whether or not to take on a blood alcohol test, you must do so. The issues revolving around breath analysis refusal are getting more and more complex each day, and the only way you can be sure you are doing what is most excellent for you is by speaking with an qualified DUI attorney and learning all of your options.
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | 911 Calls
Seattle DUI Attorney | Vehicle Searches
12.30.2009
Seattle DUI Attorney | Corpus Delicti
No one desires to know or talk to a criminal attorney until they are in danger. There is a certain plague or hex that clients seem to think follow those seeking out criminal defense assistance before they require it. Nevertheless, as soon as you are charged with a misdemeanor, you speedily grasp how important a first-rate Seattle DUI attorney is.
And some of the requirement for a criminal attorney is the requirement to interpret all of the legal nonsense that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys. Here are just a couple of words you might hear during your criminal process, some you possibly will be on familiar terms with, some you may not: hearsay, nunc pro tunc; arraignment; omnibus; voir dire; res ipsa loquitor; and on and on.
Well, I'm here, at the DUI Attorney Seattle Blog, to help you know what one of persons legal terms means - corpus delicti. This is a word you possibly will not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an imperative term for your defense attorney to be on familiar terms with, specifically if you have confessed to a felony and he or she wants to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better appreciate the word, I've broken it down for you below.
As I stated above, corpus delicti comes up most frequently in the circumstance of confessions, and particularly in the situation of confessions where not a lot of supplementary evidence exists against the defendant. spot, judges and courts, though more than eager to let in a confession if one is provided, don't necessarily like confessions, particularly if they are the only thing the proseuctor has on a defendant. The reason is, we be on familiar terms with false confessions are given from time to time. And we be acquainted with that juries place in exceptionally high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are tentative to allow confessions in unless there is some extra independent proof of the criminal act.
And that additional impartial evidence of a criminal act is what corpus delicti connotes. If there is no corpus delicti, or other independent support of a felony, the court will not allow in a confession since there is the probability (whether logical or otherwise) that the confession was erroneously provided. Still a little bit puzzled as to what it means? How about an example.
Let's say there is a gentleman. He is standing out in a parking lot with some other people around some automobiles. Let's say the citizens in the van and the people out of the auto get into a yelling match, for whatever rationale. In the end, the chaps in the car decide to depart. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a noise on his vehicle and turns around. He doesn't notice anyone touching his sedan or necessarily by his auto, but there is lone one person in the area. The chap in the sedan doesn't check his automobile out until later on, when he spots a dent in the side of his car. He surmises it was the male he saw around his automobile before.
The cops go and pick up the chap they suspect of harming the car and take him down to the cops station. After some talking and interrogating, they get the chap to let in to kicking the van. He is seized and charged with malicious mischief.
In this case, do you believe the rule of corpus delicti exists here? Devoid of the declaration of guilt, all the police have for proof is the male hearing something happen to his automobile, turn around, and witness the man near the car. What is absent is any evidence that the man hit the car, and that he did it with an intent to damage the car. It is feasible (in theory, if no confession had been provided) that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when the male turned around. For a situation like that a corpus delicti argument might be a way to get the confession suppressed.
Corpus delicti, like most other Latin legal terms, are not tough to comprehend once they are clarified. But getting that explanation can be a very difficult process at times. So why chance misunderstanding a question or a direction because you don't have the legal education of the prosecutors? The second you are placed under arrest or think like you can't leave is the instant you should demand to have a word with a Seattle criminal attorney. A criminal defense lawyer can not solitarily help you through the network of legal gibberish, but help you to keep your jaws shut and the cops off your back.
Related Posts:
And some of the requirement for a criminal attorney is the requirement to interpret all of the legal nonsense that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys. Here are just a couple of words you might hear during your criminal process, some you possibly will be on familiar terms with, some you may not: hearsay, nunc pro tunc; arraignment; omnibus; voir dire; res ipsa loquitor; and on and on.
Well, I'm here, at the DUI Attorney Seattle Blog, to help you know what one of persons legal terms means - corpus delicti. This is a word you possibly will not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an imperative term for your defense attorney to be on familiar terms with, specifically if you have confessed to a felony and he or she wants to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better appreciate the word, I've broken it down for you below.
As I stated above, corpus delicti comes up most frequently in the circumstance of confessions, and particularly in the situation of confessions where not a lot of supplementary evidence exists against the defendant. spot, judges and courts, though more than eager to let in a confession if one is provided, don't necessarily like confessions, particularly if they are the only thing the proseuctor has on a defendant. The reason is, we be on familiar terms with false confessions are given from time to time. And we be acquainted with that juries place in exceptionally high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are tentative to allow confessions in unless there is some extra independent proof of the criminal act.
And that additional impartial evidence of a criminal act is what corpus delicti connotes. If there is no corpus delicti, or other independent support of a felony, the court will not allow in a confession since there is the probability (whether logical or otherwise) that the confession was erroneously provided. Still a little bit puzzled as to what it means? How about an example.
Let's say there is a gentleman. He is standing out in a parking lot with some other people around some automobiles. Let's say the citizens in the van and the people out of the auto get into a yelling match, for whatever rationale. In the end, the chaps in the car decide to depart. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a noise on his vehicle and turns around. He doesn't notice anyone touching his sedan or necessarily by his auto, but there is lone one person in the area. The chap in the sedan doesn't check his automobile out until later on, when he spots a dent in the side of his car. He surmises it was the male he saw around his automobile before.
The cops go and pick up the chap they suspect of harming the car and take him down to the cops station. After some talking and interrogating, they get the chap to let in to kicking the van. He is seized and charged with malicious mischief.
In this case, do you believe the rule of corpus delicti exists here? Devoid of the declaration of guilt, all the police have for proof is the male hearing something happen to his automobile, turn around, and witness the man near the car. What is absent is any evidence that the man hit the car, and that he did it with an intent to damage the car. It is feasible (in theory, if no confession had been provided) that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when the male turned around. For a situation like that a corpus delicti argument might be a way to get the confession suppressed.
Corpus delicti, like most other Latin legal terms, are not tough to comprehend once they are clarified. But getting that explanation can be a very difficult process at times. So why chance misunderstanding a question or a direction because you don't have the legal education of the prosecutors? The second you are placed under arrest or think like you can't leave is the instant you should demand to have a word with a Seattle criminal attorney. A criminal defense lawyer can not solitarily help you through the network of legal gibberish, but help you to keep your jaws shut and the cops off your back.
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | 911 Calls
Seattle DUI Attorney | Boating Under the Influence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
