I'm sure I've written a post about this before here, but it bears repeating. Don't talk to cops. Nothing good comes of it. And keep your mouth shut can really really help you out. Ask any DUI attorney and they'll be able to give you a couple of examples of this. Don't think so? Here are a couple of my own.
The first example is a hit and run case. Guy crashes his car and can't drive it away. He's scared so he runs off. Car gets towed and he wants to go pick it up, but he's afraid the cops are going to nab him. So he calls a criminal lawyer and says "what should I do?" I told him to go get his car but not answer any questions. He did just that. He got his car and, at least to date, no charges have been filed (no way to prove who was driving the vehicle).
Next is a DUI example. A girl is out in a field doing a bunch of donuts in her car. While she's doing this some people see it and call the cops (they don't want anyone driving around in their field). Before the cops get there the car drives off. They track down the car, go inside, and arrest who they think is driving. But she doesn't talk, and more importantly, she doesn't admit to driving the vehicle. They charge her with DUI but can't prove it. Charge significantly reduced.
It's amazing how good the advice of a DUI lawyer can be when it is actually followed. So, the next time you find yourself in trouble, don't try to talk your way out of it. Don't try to explain what happened. Don't try to give a bunch of excuses. Zip your lips and call your DUI attorney.
5/17/2010
5/03/2010
DUI Attorney and Field Sobriety Tests
This week I became certified to administer the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. These tests include the walk and turn, the one leg stand, and the horizontal gaze nystagmus. I also had the opportunity to learn what a pile of junk they are. And I am now prepared to go in and crush a cop's soul with the information I have.
As a DUI attorney, or any criminal lawyer, for that matter, you quickly learn two things. First, you learn that winning any case is an uphill battle. And second, you learn that the more information you have the more likely it is that you are going to have something in your arsenal that is going to greatly help your clients in the future.
Certification in the FSTs did that for me. The class was amazing because it showed me exactly what the cops see when they are learning how to do this stuff, and I learned all of the junk science that is actually behind the tests. And trust me, it is all junk (the one fact that should, in a perfect world, discredit all FSTs is there has been no peer review and publishing of the science behind it).
If you've read any of my DUI lawyer posts in the past, you know that the key to beating the FSTs is not taking them at all. In Washington State they are completely voluntary, and not taking them puts you much better off than taking them. And, as always, if in doubt, ask to talk to a DUI lawyer.
As a DUI attorney, or any criminal lawyer, for that matter, you quickly learn two things. First, you learn that winning any case is an uphill battle. And second, you learn that the more information you have the more likely it is that you are going to have something in your arsenal that is going to greatly help your clients in the future.
Certification in the FSTs did that for me. The class was amazing because it showed me exactly what the cops see when they are learning how to do this stuff, and I learned all of the junk science that is actually behind the tests. And trust me, it is all junk (the one fact that should, in a perfect world, discredit all FSTs is there has been no peer review and publishing of the science behind it).
If you've read any of my DUI lawyer posts in the past, you know that the key to beating the FSTs is not taking them at all. In Washington State they are completely voluntary, and not taking them puts you much better off than taking them. And, as always, if in doubt, ask to talk to a DUI lawyer.
3/15/2010
Seattle Criminal Attorney | Bench Trial or Jury Trial?
So you have been charged with a wrong. Maybe a DUI, maybe an attack, perhaps a burglary. And the prosecutor isn't giving you anything you feel at ease taking as a plea bargain. Your Seattle DUI attorney informs you the only option, if you do not care for the offer, is a trial.
You're all right with that, but are a bit cautious on the subject of the minutiae. In particular, you are not confident if you should demand a jury trial or demand a bench trial. Your DUI attorney is pushing for a jury trial, however you simply do not know if you can have faith in a group of individuals you do not know to make the upright judgment.
Choosing between a jury trial or a bench trial (where the judge makes the decision of your guilt or innocence) can at times be tricky. Let's look at a duo of scenarios that might want you to go one way or another.
First, the jury trial. You like jury trials for the reason that jurors frequently aren't as cynical as judges (they've heard a lot of excuses over the years and start to stop attempting to deduce the difference). They struggle vigorously to do the just thing and will frequently present you at least a fighting chance. On the contrary they can be unpredictable too.
You usually desire a jury trial when the circumstances is pretty unsound, when you get several inconsistencies in the evidence that just do not add up, 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 slightly more difficult.
After that, the bench trial. You frequently like to have these when you possess a exceedingly technical defense (sometimes a Seattle DUI case will warrant these), the specifics of the case are really upsetting (the jury will practically be certain to be against you from the opening), or you are going to base your defense on a legal topic that you sense the judge will value better than a jury. This also is a crap shoot, as judges, although not unpredictable, tend to tilt toward the prosecution.
In the end, the judgment to go jury trial or bench trial ought to probably be completed by your Seattle DUI attorney. They have the familiarity to discern which one to utilize, and they appreciate the intricacy of the choice. No matter which you choose, though, it's doubtless going to be an uphill fight. Good luck!
You're all right with that, but are a bit cautious on the subject of the minutiae. In particular, you are not confident if you should demand a jury trial or demand a bench trial. Your DUI attorney is pushing for a jury trial, however you simply do not know if you can have faith in a group of individuals you do not know to make the upright judgment.
Choosing between a jury trial or a bench trial (where the judge makes the decision of your guilt or innocence) can at times be tricky. Let's look at a duo of scenarios that might want you to go one way or another.
First, the jury trial. You like jury trials for the reason that jurors frequently aren't as cynical as judges (they've heard a lot of excuses over the years and start to stop attempting to deduce the difference). They struggle vigorously to do the just thing and will frequently present you at least a fighting chance. On the contrary they can be unpredictable too.
You usually desire a jury trial when the circumstances is pretty unsound, when you get several inconsistencies in the evidence that just do not add up, 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 slightly more difficult.
After that, the bench trial. You frequently like to have these when you possess a exceedingly technical defense (sometimes a Seattle DUI case will warrant these), the specifics of the case are really upsetting (the jury will practically be certain to be against you from the opening), or you are going to base your defense on a legal topic that you sense the judge will value better than a jury. This also is a crap shoot, as judges, although not unpredictable, tend to tilt toward the prosecution.
In the end, the judgment to go jury trial or bench trial ought to probably be completed by your Seattle DUI attorney. They have the familiarity to discern which one to utilize, and they appreciate the intricacy of the choice. No matter which you choose, though, it's doubtless going to be an uphill fight. Good luck!
1/04/2010
Seattle DUI Attorney | Deciding Whether Or Not to Take on a Breathalyzer Analysis Immediately Got much More Difficult
Deciding whether or not to take a breath assessment if you were seized for DUI used to be a big choice. If you were requested to take a blood alcohol examination and said no, you were subjecting yourself to increased costs for refusing, but had the benefit going onward of not having to contest blood alcohol test results. Any good Seattle DUI attorney would tell you that.
Well, at the present it appears more and more probable that the circumstances may occur where you might decline a blood alcohol test, face the more stringent penalties for the refusal, and in spite of everything be subject to giving blood alcohol results.
Most, if not all states, have created DUI laws that incorporate implied consent laws. In short, these laws state that if you drive on the highway in the state where an implied consent law exists, you are impliedly consenting to a breath test if the police possess probable cause to think you are DUI. Built into these implied consent laws, however, is the ability to reject the blood alcohol examination if you so desire. The downside to denial, however, is the imposition of harsher costs if found guilty of DUI (and a longer license suspension - for case, in Seattle, WA a refusal subjects you to a year license suspension as opposed to 90 days).
But, things have changed a little of late. The cops have started going to judges and asking for search warrants when individuals say no blood alcohol examinations. And numerous courts have upheld this tradition (the way the judges perceive it, the denial 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 representing probable cause to a judge and getting a search warrant.
One idea is definite. If you have the capability to have a word with a Seattle DUI attorney before deciding whether or not to take on a blood alcohol assessment, you must do so. The issues revolving around breath test refusal are getting more and more knotty every day, and the only way you can be certain you are doing what is best for you is by reading the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog and talking with an qualified Seattle DUI defense attorney and learning all of your options.
Related Posts:
Well, at the present it appears more and more probable that the circumstances may occur where you might decline a blood alcohol test, face the more stringent penalties for the refusal, and in spite of everything be subject to giving blood alcohol results.
Most, if not all states, have created DUI laws that incorporate implied consent laws. In short, these laws state that if you drive on the highway in the state where an implied consent law exists, you are impliedly consenting to a breath test if the police possess probable cause to think you are DUI. Built into these implied consent laws, however, is the ability to reject the blood alcohol examination if you so desire. The downside to denial, however, is the imposition of harsher costs if found guilty of DUI (and a longer license suspension - for case, in Seattle, WA a refusal subjects you to a year license suspension as opposed to 90 days).
But, things have changed a little of late. The cops have started going to judges and asking for search warrants when individuals say no blood alcohol examinations. And numerous courts have upheld this tradition (the way the judges perceive it, the denial 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 representing probable cause to a judge and getting a search warrant.
One idea is definite. If you have the capability to have a word with a Seattle DUI attorney before deciding whether or not to take on a blood alcohol assessment, you must do so. The issues revolving around breath test refusal are getting more and more knotty every day, and the only way you can be certain you are doing what is best for you is by reading the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog and talking with an qualified Seattle DUI defense attorney and learning all of your options.
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | The First Meeting
Seattle DUI Attorney | Related News
12/28/2009
Seattle Criminal Attorney Explains the Theory of Corpus Delicti
Nobody wants to know or speak to a criminal attorney until they are in concern. There is a specific jinx or hex that people seem to feel trail those seeking out criminal defense advice before they need it. Nevertheless, when you are charged with a crime, you rapidly understand how valuable a superior Seattle DUI attorney is.
And some of the need for a Seattle criminal attorney is the need to decipher all of the legal mumbo jumbo that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys. Here are just a couple of words you might hear at some point in your criminal process, some you might 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 moment to help you comprehend what one of persons legal expressions means - corpus delicti. This is a word you might not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an important term for your defense attorney to be on familiar terms with, particularly if you have confessed to a crime and he or she wishes to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better understand the word, I've broken it down for you below.
As I stated above, corpus delicti comes up most regularly in the circumstance of confessions, and particularly in the situation of confessions where not a lot of supplementary proof exists against the defendant. spot, judges and courts, although more than willing to admit a confession if one is given, don't necessarily like confessions, particularly if they are the single thing the proseuctor has on a defendant. The rationale is, we know false confessions are given from time to time. And we know that juries place in exceptionally high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are hesitant to allow confessions in unless there is some extra impartial facts of the criminal act.
And that other independent support of a criminal act is what corpus delicti stands for. If there is no corpus delicti, or additional impartial data of a wrong, the court will not agree to in a confession for the reason that there is the likelihood (whether rational or otherwise) that the confession was erroneously given. Still a little bit puzzled as to what it means? How about an example.
Let's say there is a guy. He is standing out in a parking lot with some other people around some automobiles. Let's say the individuals in the automobile and the people out of the vehicle get into a shouting match, for whatever rationale. In the end, the dudes in the car elect to leave. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a sound on his auto and turns around. He doesn't notice anyone touching his car or necessarily by his van, but there is lone one person in the area. The gentleman in the auto doesn't check his auto out until later on, when he notices a dent in the side of his vehicle. He surmises it was the man he saw around his automobile earlier.
The police go and pick up the male they suspect of hurting the car and take him down to the police station (without letting him talk to a Seattle DUI lawyer). Following some chatting and interrogating, they get the chap to allow in to kicking the auto. He is seized and charged with malicious mischief.
In this instance, do you think the rule of corpus delicti exists here? Devoid of the admission, all the cops have for proof is the chap hearing something happen to his sedan, turn around, and spot the male near the auto. What is missing is any evidence that the chap hit the sedan, and that he did it with an intent to hurt the van. It is doable (theoretically, if no confession had been provided) that he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time when the gentleman turned around. For a state of affairs like that a corpus delicti argument might be a way to get the confession suppressed.
Corpus delicti, like most additional Latin legal terms, are not tricky to understand after they are clarified. But getting that clarification can be a very difficult process at times. So why chance misunderstanding a question or a direction since you don't have the legal education of the prosecutors? The moment you are placed under arrest or believe like you can't depart is the minute you should demand to talk with a DUI attorney Seattle. A criminal lawyer can not solitarily help you through the network of legal nonsense, but facilitate you to keep your lips shut and the cops off your back.
Related Posts:
And some of the need for a Seattle criminal attorney is the need to decipher all of the legal mumbo jumbo that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys. Here are just a couple of words you might hear at some point in your criminal process, some you might 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 moment to help you comprehend what one of persons legal expressions means - corpus delicti. This is a word you might not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an important term for your defense attorney to be on familiar terms with, particularly if you have confessed to a crime and he or she wishes to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better understand the word, I've broken it down for you below.
As I stated above, corpus delicti comes up most regularly in the circumstance of confessions, and particularly in the situation of confessions where not a lot of supplementary proof exists against the defendant. spot, judges and courts, although more than willing to admit a confession if one is given, don't necessarily like confessions, particularly if they are the single thing the proseuctor has on a defendant. The rationale is, we know false confessions are given from time to time. And we know that juries place in exceptionally high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are hesitant to allow confessions in unless there is some extra impartial facts of the criminal act.
And that other independent support of a criminal act is what corpus delicti stands for. If there is no corpus delicti, or additional impartial data of a wrong, the court will not agree to in a confession for the reason that there is the likelihood (whether rational or otherwise) that the confession was erroneously given. Still a little bit puzzled as to what it means? How about an example.
Let's say there is a guy. He is standing out in a parking lot with some other people around some automobiles. Let's say the individuals in the automobile and the people out of the vehicle get into a shouting match, for whatever rationale. In the end, the dudes in the car elect to leave. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a sound on his auto and turns around. He doesn't notice anyone touching his car or necessarily by his van, but there is lone one person in the area. The gentleman in the auto doesn't check his auto out until later on, when he notices a dent in the side of his vehicle. He surmises it was the man he saw around his automobile earlier.
The police go and pick up the male they suspect of hurting the car and take him down to the police station (without letting him talk to a Seattle DUI lawyer). Following some chatting and interrogating, they get the chap to allow in to kicking the auto. He is seized and charged with malicious mischief.
In this instance, do you think the rule of corpus delicti exists here? Devoid of the admission, all the cops have for proof is the chap hearing something happen to his sedan, turn around, and spot the male near the auto. What is missing is any evidence that the chap hit the sedan, and that he did it with an intent to hurt the van. It is doable (theoretically, if no confession had been provided) that he was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time when the gentleman turned around. For a state of affairs like that a corpus delicti argument might be a way to get the confession suppressed.
Corpus delicti, like most additional Latin legal terms, are not tricky to understand after they are clarified. But getting that clarification can be a very difficult process at times. So why chance misunderstanding a question or a direction since you don't have the legal education of the prosecutors? The moment you are placed under arrest or believe like you can't depart is the minute you should demand to talk with a DUI attorney Seattle. A criminal lawyer can not solitarily help you through the network of legal nonsense, but facilitate you to keep your lips shut and the cops off your back.
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | More News
Seattle DUI Attorney | Stop and Frisk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
