The Truth About DWI díjak

Generally speaking criminal defense lawyers look forward to representing people charged with DWIs. Many clients clients charged with a DWI are reasonable, articulate and, probably most importantly to lawyers, are able to pay a fee. Unless a person is charged with having committed their third DWI, the stakes are not as high as when representing a client charged with a felony crime, and unless there was an accident, the lawyer does not have to confront an injured victim. As a consequence, lawyers aggressively market for the DWI business, and as usual, when aggressive marketing is taking place, the truth is often sacrificed. The following is a little "straight talk" about DWIs.

The many DWI cases that go to trial have similar facts. The defendant was driving between the hours of 11 pm and 5 am and is stopped by a police officer. The officer claims to smell the odor of alcohol and asks the driver if he has had anything to drink. The driver says he had one or two drinks several hours ago. The officer asks the driver to perform field sobriety tests. Usually the first is the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. This is the test where the officer asks the driver to track a pen or flashlight with his eyes. The officer concludes that the eye began to shake or tremble while tracking the light at a certain point and concludes the driver failed this test. The officer then conducts the "walk-in-line" test and the "one-legged stand" test. The officer concludes that the driver has failed these tests and takes the driver to the police station. The police officer then offers the driver the opportunity to have his breath analyzed for the presence of alcohol and hopefully (at least from the perspective of the driver) the driver refused to take the test. The driver bonds out of jail the next morning and begins the process of hiring a criminal defense lawyer.

If, contrary to my hypothetical, the defendant gave a breath specimen and failed, it is more difficult to win the DWI case. DWI defendants are acquitted in "breath cases" but not nearly as often in "refusal" cases. Claims that the machines are rigged, or that a jury is easily persuaded that the machines are invalid, should be taken with a grain of salt. If the test shows that the driver is close to the legal limit, our firm has successfully argued that at the time the driver was stopped his body had not yet absorbed a sufficient amount to have crossed the legal limit. Sometimes when the test shows that the driver is way over the legal limit, but the video nevertheless looks good, one can argue that the test must be inaccurate.

DWI "third" trials are difficult cases. Unfortunately for the defendant, the jury will be informed of the prior DWI convictions, and likely will, in what would otherwise be a close case, see a pattern in the defendant's behavior giving the State an edge.

It should always be borne in mind in a DWI case that a picture (or video) is worth a thousand words. The biggest single factor that will determine the outcome of a DWI case is how the defendant appears on video. DWI's are unique in that the jury does not have to rely on the judgment of a police officer or some other eyewitness, but get to rely on their own judgment in determining whether the defendant is guilty. A bad video, one in which the defendant is clearly swaying or has slurred speech, for example, is difficult to win. Sometimes evidence that the defendant suffers from a medical condition can explain what otherwise would appear to be signs of intoxication.

Even if the defendant looks good on video it the State may be able to secure a conviction if the police officer is able to credibly explain why she concluded the driver was intoxicated. It should be borne in mind that the jury will be instructed that the offense is committed if the driver was influenced by alcohol to the extent that the driver's szellemi vagy fizikai képességeit már nem voltak "normális". "Normál" nem határozza meg a zsűri. A lényeg, hogy emlékszem rá, hogy ez nem egy "ittas vezetéssel szemben" díjat. Azt gondolom, a legtöbb zsűri kap a különbséget, míg ittas vezetés és ittas vezetés közben, de az ügyfél nehezen birkóznak meg ezt a különbséget. Nem ritka, hogy az ügyfelek ragaszkodtak ahhoz, hogy ezeket nem lehet bűnös, mert nem voltak "részeg", annak ellenére, hogy a zsűri is, és gyakran fogja bűnösnek találják őket, még ha azt hiszik az ügyfél nem volt "részeg", hanem pusztán " részeg, "mint a fogalom meghatározása szerint a törvény. Statisztikailag mintegy 50%-a DWI vizsgálatok eredményezhet felmentő ítéletet, és a legtöbb esetben, hogy menjen a tárgyalás jó videók. Amikor a videó jó, változók, mint például a hitelességet a rendőr, a megjelenése az alperes, valamint jó minőségű az ügyvéd minden fontos tényező lesz.

Annak ellenére, hogy a puszta megjelenése az alperes is fontos tényező, vádlottak DWI vizsgálatokban ritkán kell tanúskodni. Általában a tettek felvételi bár kérdéses, hogy lesz az üzemanyag-hatékony határokon vizsgálatot az állam. Például, ha az alperes elismerte, hogy volt egy pár italt, nehéz kivédeni kérdés, hogyan hat az italok volna az alperes részére. Ha a józanság a normális jelenség, nehéz azt állítják, hogy egy normális, miután egy pár italt.

Végül meg kell jegyezni, hogy számos megyében kevés a büntetés első alkalommal DWI vádlottak menni tárgyalásra, eltekintve bármilyen további jogi fess, hogy azok kerül sor. Gyakran a büntetés beadványt bűnösnek a első alkalommal DWI ugyanaz a bíró elő, ha bűnösnek találják tárgyalás után.

A irodáról voltunk már számos sikeres eredményeket a közelmúltban a DWI esetben anélkül, hogy a bíróság elé. Van tárgyalásos jogalapot egy nem DWI közlekedési bűncselekmények, amelyekre ügyfeleink csak kellett fizetnie egy kis gond.