THERE ARE NO SMALL CASES! Hire a lawyer for that misdemeanor charge and go to trial!

 Attorney Will Young, an associate at Peterson Lawyers writes todays post on misdemeanor cases.

So, you have been charged with a misdemeanor. You are probably feeling overwhelmed, nervous, and at least a little bit confused about the process ahead of you.

What Is A Misdemeanor?

A misdemeanor is defined as any “lesser criminal act.” Misdemeanors are punished less severely than a felony, generally including any crime punishable with jail time for one year or less (with some exceptions). This includes: petty theft, simple assault, disturbing the peace, trespass, vandalism, reckless driving, DUI (first or second offense), and many others.

Just because you charged with a misdemeanor does not mean you should go to court without a lawyer. A misdemeanor conviction can have serous consequences for your life, now and in the future.

Do I Need An Attorney?

Even in small cases you may need a lawyer. Your case matters and you should get the best legal advice you can. Even a simple DUI can have a huge impact on your life; you need an attorney that cares about you and your future.

If you are debating whether or not to hire an attorney I would suggest you take the time to carefully consider a couple of things:

1.     The Process

A criminal case is a winding, confusing process filled with red tape and potential pitfalls. Your case may involve motions, court orders, hearings, pleas, or even a jury trial. In order to navigate this process it is important to have a guide. An attorney will be able to explain what is happening, as well as take necessary action on your behalf.

Even if all you want to do is plead guilty, an attorney will help negotiate a punishment that is agreeable to both you and the state. Having an attorney in your corner can make all the difference in the severity of any punishment you receive.

2.     The Consequences

If you are convicted of a misdemeanor, the penalties can have a substantial impact on your life. Direct penalties for a misdemeanor can include: jail time, probation, fines and court cost, certain license suspensions or revocations (drivers license, hunting license, etc.), alcohol/drug counseling, expensive rehabilitation classes, and more. Unfortunately, many of these penalties are time consuming and cost significant amounts of money. For example - if you are convicted of domestic battery, you may have to spend 52 weeks in a specialized court, that requires participation in counseling and treatment. All that costs money! A fine in a misdemeanor case can be $1000 or more. Small case? Not if you have a big fine, mandatory classes and the loss of a privilege (like a hunting license).

There are also many indirect penalties associated with a misdemeanor conviction. The conviction will be reported to a criminal database that is accessible to the public. This means that anyone who performs a background check on you, including potential employers, leasing agents, and school admissions administrators, will know about your conviction. This can have a significant impact on your present and future employment opportunities, educational opportunities, federal student loans, immigration status, standing in the community, and relationships with family and friends.

3.     Going To Trial: It May Be Worth The Risk

Often in misdemeanor cases, the difference between the prosecutor’s settlement offer and the penalty a defendant would receive if convicted at trial is small. The only difference may be in the amount of a fine or the number of community service days. Because of this it may be worth the risk to take the case to trial.

While going to trial is just one of many avenues you can choose in a misdemeanor case, it may be the right choice for you. Many people are bullied into taking plea deals because they have an unrealistic expectation as to what penalties would be if they lost their case at trial. Prosecutors often scare people by reciting the maximum penalty available under the law. An attorney can use their experience with cases similar to yours to provide you with a realistic approximation of what the penalties would likely be if you were convicted at trial. This information will give you a better idea of what you would actually be risking if you went to trial. In the end, trial may be worth the risk.

4.     It May Not Be As Expensive As You Think

The number one reason criminal defendants do not hire an attorney is their mistaken belief that they cannot afford one.

Defending a misdemeanor charge does not involve as many hearings, as much evidence, or, quite simply, as much time as defending a felony charge. This means that hiring an attorney could cost you considerably less in a misdemeanor case than it would in a felony case.

Don’t be afraid to call our office, discuss the case, and ask us how much it would cost for you to be represented by Peterson Lawyers. These are common conversations that we have every day. We will happily discuss potential costs of representation and explain how we came to that number. 

Continue Reading...
Tags:

Our New DUI Website is up - DUI in Idaho

 We have been working on a new site specifically designed to provide more information for folks charged with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol - DUI. Click here to visit the site and learn even more about DUI in Idaho. The site is a work in progress, but it may help answer your questions with respect to this serious charge. 

And if you need to talk - give us a call.

Continue Reading...
Tags:

Idaho State Police stop to check on temporary license gets tossed!

 Ever wonder why every drug arrest begins with a traffic stop? Because all too often the police stop first and provide some reason later! If the drug task force decides to effect an arrest, they call the ISP or locals and have them do a traffic stop. Then, they give a "reason" for the stop - a reason that is simply a pretext. They didn't stop that car because it was "weaving," they stopped it because a drug task force officer wanted it stopped. 

Occasionally the same is true of those "after 2:00 am" stops of cars leaving the downtown corridor. Bars, plus early morning hours do not necessarily add up to probable cause.

So it was commendable that 4th District Magistrate Judge Theresa Gardunia ruled this week that the stop of a car driven by John Long was not reasonable, and therefore not supported by the law that the ISP officer had sworn to uphold. In case you think Judge Gardunia was out there on the edge in her ruling, she based her decision on an Idaho Court of Appeals decision seven years ago that held the placement of the temporary license was not a reason for a stop unless it was obvious from the officer's view that there was an alteration or other problem with the license.

Credit defense lawyer Charles Crafts for filing the motion to suppress evidence illegally obtained by the police based on the stop. Read the Statesman story here. The basics: early morning hours, ISP Officer Janet Murakami pulls over John Long to "check" the temporary license displayed in his window. 

Now in the officer's defense - she claims she saw Long stumble and trip as he approached his car after leaving a Boise bar. She stopped the car, then had Long perform field sobriety tests (which she claims he failed) and then arrested him for DUI. The problem here is that the Judge found the reason for the stop given by the officer (uncertain if temporary license in window was real) was a pretext for the stop. The officer said she could not tell if the temporary license was valid, so she had to stop the car. An officer video apparently convinced Judge Gardunia that the stop was not based on the officer's need to check the validity of the license. 

How about just stopping the guy as he sat in his car - "in physical control" prior to letting him drive? The officer might have had a better argument for approaching the car based on observing the defendant trip or stumble, to check on Mr. Long's condition, as an investigative stop before he started driving. That seems to have been the real reason for the stop. 

I don't want people to drive drunk. I am worried about my own safety and that of my family and friends. Drunk drivers kill. But look - if you believe you need to stop someone to keep the public safe, do it as the law permits. 

There are lots of great law enforcement officers in Idaho, and for the most part they do "protect and serve."

But a couple weeks ago I noticed that the motto had been changed a bit - now it says "protect, serve, lead."

Lead! Please! Don't pretend you see a violation just so you can see if the person driving that car is over the limit or violating some other law. 

Lead! Show us that you will enforce the law, not get around it by making something up. We expect professional law enforcement.

Thankfully, there are judges who still call a strike a strike.

 

Cops Can't Search Cell Phone Without Warrant

           Will Young is an associate attorney with Peterson Lawyers. He writes today's post:

           The Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday that the police must acquire a warrant before searching a cell phone seized from someone they arrest. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the opinion on behalf of the Court, acknowledged both the individual’s right to privacy and the State’s need to investigate crime, but the decision came down strongly on the side of privacy rights.

            Roberts pointed out “[I]t is no exaggeration to say that many of the more than 90% of American adults who own a cellphone keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives – from the mundane to the intimate.”

            This is a fact that many people don’t consider until it is too late. Think about all the information someone would have access to if they were to search through your cellphone. Your email? Pictures? Calendar? Text-messages? This is information that can be found on a device in nearly every pocket in the United States. Roberts went so far as to acknowledge how even the term “cellphone” is itself misleading; “many of these devices are in fact minicomputers…[t]hey could just as easily be called cameras, video players, Rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.”

           Three years ago we noted that this issue was headed for the Supremes. See that post here.

            In addition to broad range of information stored on your cellphone, the Court also took into account the information that can be accessed from a cell but is stored in “the cloud.” Searching this data is “like finding a key in a suspect’s pocket and arguing that it allowed law enforcement to unlock and search a house,” wrote Roberts.

            While this decision may defend against an unwanted police search of your cellphone, the real lesson of today’s ruling is password lock your phone. While technology gives us easy access to vast amounts of personal and public information, these devices are too easily lost, stolen, or searched for you not to protect yourself.

            Now what do you suppose would happen if the police seized your phone and then could not break your password? Would there be any way for that information to be retrieved? Is your password information held anywhere besides your phone?

            And just what will it take to get a warrant to search the phone those officers grabbed when you were arrested? Will a generic “based on my training and experience I know that information relating to the commission of crimes is often found on cellphones” type affidavit from a cop be enough?

            

Continue Reading...

When it comes to SGT Bowe Bergdahl, let's be happy he is back in the US

 SGT Bowe Bergdahl’s “disappearance” is not necessarily desertion.

Once upon a time I served as an Army JAG officer - a Trial Defense Services lawyer - defending the men and women of the 4th Infantry Division at Ft. Carson against criminal charges. Viet Nam was over, but there were traces of its wrath daily in the halls of the building in which we were housed. A service member who had served honorably in Viet Nam, but “left” a little early on arrival to the States without having “processed out.” Or the occasional soldier who had never reported for that flight to "Namland," and somehow evaded detection for a dozen years or so.

The first question for the Staff Judge Advocate in each case was whether a crime had been committed and if so, which crime?.

Did the soldier go AWOL (absent without leave) or was he or she a deserter? Does it really matter?

The Convening Authority (a General who serves as the grand decision maker in these matters) in Bowe Bergdahl’s case will have much to weigh when it comes to making that call. He may decide that SGT Bergdahl deserves the benefit of the doubt, and simply permit him to be discharged.

From my experience as a military lawyer, such decisions are generally made after carefully considering the soldier’s service, as well as the circumstances surrounding his or her “disappearance” from the unit. Add to that the fact that SGT Bergdahl’s release was negotiated on behalf of the United States with full knowledge that he was reported to have walked away from his unit.

Even so, not every person who walks away is a deserter. Desertion is a separate offense that requires proof of an intention to permanently remain away or avoid hazardous duty. The military treats desertion very seriously - and it can result in the death penalty during wartime. AWOL is not nearly as serious, and there are administrative, non-judicial means of punishing that conduct which might be more appropriate here.

But did SGT Bergdahl intend to remain away? That question is more difficult to answer, and the process used by the military to investigate such a case is similar to a grand jury proceeding, but better. SGT Bergdahl and his lawyers will be present to hear the evidence to be considered by the investigating officer and they can cross-examine the witnesses. He can have and needs the best lawyers he can get. And those lawyers should ideally include both military and civilian counsel. After all - at some level this is a political case that may be pursued more out of a feeling we traded away five really bad guys for one possible deserter than because we believe SGT Bergdahl committed a crime.

I trust the military justice system. I like the checks and balances within the system and I like the way it tries to avoid politics. Still, SGT Bergdahl's case is political. Remember that Rose Garden press conference with the President and Bowe's parents? Politics. 

We always say nobody is guilty until proven so, but the popular presumption echoed by talking heads across the cable news outlets is that he ran away from his unit. The presumption of innocence will have to fight for space, and that will take help. 

Let’s just try to reserve judgment for now and find joy that he is back in the states.

 

Continue Reading...
Tags:

DBSI Convictions - Fraud Allegations Drive Emotions

 First - a disclaimer - I watched the DBSI trial in federal court here in Boise with considerable interest over the past three months and I admire the lawyers involved on both sides. I also had a client who was a witness (a key witness perhaps, after viewing a juror interview on local television).

I may not be seen as entirely neutral on this one but the case serves as such a great reminder of the difficulties defending against any federal felony charge.

Federal cases begin with the Government already way ahead - their investigations take years in cases like this one. They have more investigators and more time into the build up before indictment than you will ever have if you have to defend yourself. I watched a few years ago as a war chest of money (in the millions) was "burned" by east coast, big city, big firm lawyers who promptly got out of the case, coincidently, when the money ran out, and that was long before any indictment. The money that would be needed to fight governmental agencies and defend against a criminal indictment are now long gone, and so are the big time lawyers.

The federal government has unlimited resources, unlimited experience and the ability to out churn and burn almost any defendant. They can grind you up, and in a big case, like DBSI, that is precisely what they do. If you are under investigation, check out this post from 2010.

I think I had forgotten that as I watched the DBSI trial unfold.

By the time that case started, only the best lawyers and the best of circumstances would give the defendants a chance at avoiding conviction.

The defendants in DBSI had both, and still, jurors returned guilty verdicts within a few days deliberation on charges of securities fraud, and after a trial that lasted roughly three months. In part, the explanation for the speedy decision likely rests with the inherent advantage that comes with having spent years investigating and preparing for the trial. 

Trials are wars. Epic battles. And such adventures are won by the best prepared and equipped.

Even the greatest lawyers can't change the facts. They can craft a defense and move the conversation toward another way of interpreting a case history, but sometimes that may not be enough. Jurors in fraud cases hear that mountain of information, and watch the story unfold, but in the end they may not be moved from what they have heard - "scam."  "Ponzi-scheme." "Millions of investor money gone." 

Moving the needle in these case is so difficult. To defend here you have to "justify" the actions of men who were argued as having "taken millions" of investor money knowing their company was losing money without fully disclosing that fact.

DBSI presented the toughest of cases to win for any defendant.

Investors have lost plenty of money investing in stocks in big companies that lost traction. Rite-Aid. AIG. Shearson Lehman Brothers. Once the money is gone, they generally cannot "blame" anyone - although the "investment gurus" who touted each in the face of obvious problems seems to me to be partially responsible. But in each case, we made the investments. We made decisions. We took risks.

DBSI provided faces and bodies in the courtroom on which to focus blame. The investor decisions didn't really seem to count. It didn't matter that the investors had advisors, accountants and lawyers to review their decisions. What mattered were the faces of the defendants, the claims that these "suits" had special knowledge that had not been shared with investors before they parted with their cash.

Maybe the verdict simply reflects a deeper belief, that people with special knowledge of the underlying viability in an investment will shout it from the rooftops. But that is not always possible in the face of a crisis like the market meltdown and the real estate collapse. Condos bought for $300,000  eight or nine years ago may today be worth only $150,000. Who is to blame? The realtors, appraisers and bankers who should have seen it coming but kept selling, valuing and lending?

As a lawyer, DBSI just reminds me that there are tough cases that will eat up our lives and destroy our clients, sometimes no matter how hard we work.

And it reminds me that to win any case we need to focus our cases on themes that will play well with jurors. Ultimately the jurors will have to carry our clients to the other side if we are to win.

This is no knock against the great lawyers who defended the case. They fought like warriors. But even Ragnar Lothbrok and his Vikings ultimately must battle better equipped forces and circumstances favoring their opponents.

So too the fate of the DBSI defendants and their lawyers - and anyone facing off against the federal government. 

Fighting the feds? Better get an army.

 

Continue Reading...
Tags:

"Reasonable Grounds" to administer a breathalyzer in Idaho - odor of alcohol, an admission you've been drinking and red eyes is probably enough!

 "Reasonable Grounds" - kind of sounds like a new coffee joint, doesn't it? Like a place that you'd find lawyers tending to that every day habit. In the DUI defense world, reasonable grounds means so much more.

The Idaho Court of Appeals reminded us a few weeks ago that it doesn't take much to require a driver to take an "evidentiary breath test" (Breathalyzer) in Idaho. The odor of an alcoholic beverage, an admission you've been drinking and red, glassy or watery eyes is probably enough! In State v. Nicolescu, officers rolled onto the scene of an accident in which Nicolescu's car had been struck by a driver who ran a red light. On contact, they found Nicolescu with red, blood-shot and watery eyes. Nicolescu admitted he had been drinking. When officers tried to perform the Gaze Nystagmus, Nicolescu's injuries - including a scratched cornea from the collision - prevented them from finishing the task. They produced an Alco-Sensor and had him blow. That Alco-Sensor is not an "evidentiary breath test," but it's accuracy is arguably enough to provide "some" information about how much alcohol Nicolescu had in his system at that time he was driving.

I have seen the Alco-Sensor before, but that device is not evidentiary in the sense that a court would rely use it on which to decide guilt at trial. However, Nicolescu's failing Gaze Nystagmus (6 points before abandoning the test due to the scratched cornea), plus the eyes, admission and odor, when added to the Alco-Sensor result, were viewed by the State as enough to require Nicolescu to take the Breathalyzer. His resulting .103 and .096 were over the limit, so Nicolescu was charged with driving under the influence (DUI).

The Magistrate suppressed the Breathalyzer results on the theory that officers were not permitted to require Nicolescu to take the Alco-Sensor, and without that result, they lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to require him to take the evidentiary breath test. The State argued the officers had a reasonable suspicion that Nicolescu was driving impaired, and also argued Nicolescu had consented to take the test. The Magistrate found that he had not consented and no other exception to the warrant requirement existed to save the Breathalyzer result. On appeal, the district court found the preliminary breath test (Also-Sensor) was part of an investigative detention, and that the officer only needed reasonable suspicion to perform that first breath test. Magistrate reversed, state wins and now the Court of Appeals gets to weigh in (ala Judge Gratton).

On appeal the State argued that the preliminary breath test only requires reasonable suspicion to administer, and the officers had a reasonable suspicion that Nicolescu was driving while impaired, based on the totality of the circumstances (which included the Alco-Sensor). Nicolescu argued that absent the Alco-Sensor, the officers lacked facts necessary to require him to take the evidentiary breath test (Breathalyzer). 

The bottom line? The Court says that based on Idaho Code § 18-8002, a motorist implicitly consents to "evidentiary testing" if the police have "reasonable grounds" to believe the motorist is intoxicated. "Reasonable grounds" is an even lower standard than reasonable suspicion or probable cause - low enough, arguably, that an admission you have been drinking, plus "red, watery, glassy, and bloodshot" eyes, plus the odor of alcohol can be enough to make you take the Breathalyzer with or without that Alco-Sensor test.

Here's my take away - the Court of Appeals reminds us that our consent to take the test comes from the state's extension of the privilege to drive. We drive, therefore we consent - as our Existentialist friends might say. And that officer doesn't need much to require us to take the Breathalyzer under Idaho Code § 18-8002. Not probable cause. Not reasonable suspicion. 

Just reasonable grounds - whatever that means!

 

Continue Reading...
Tags:

Before You Choose A Blood Draw - think about how little margin for error there is and how it may PROVE your guilt!

 

   It happened again last week - a client faced the prospect of losing his driving privileges for a year from the Idaho Department of Transportation because he had refused a breathalyzer, and insisted officers conduct a blood test. His test result was .204%, a level evidencing an "excessive DUI" for which IDOT could suspend him for a year, and so could the court if he was found or pled guilty. There is also a civil penalty from IDOT and the cost of the test. Our only way out was to accept a one year suspension from both the court and the IDOT to run concurrent. 

There is this belief among some Idaho drivers that the blood draw will "prove" they did not have too much to drink before taking control. Wrong. According to a prosecutor I spoke with the opposite seems more likely.

Those former "refusals" are now turning into more "excessive" DUIs because the blood draw is more accurate and harder to defeat in court. So even if you don't refuse, the impact is the same if the result is a more accurate test reading that happens to be above .20%.

Bottom line - insisting on that blood draw takes the uncertainty out of the result and if it is excessive, there is no room to argue that the machine has a margin of error that may create reasonable doubt.

The safest thing to do here is hail a cab. Your risk if you have been drinking is too much to drive. And if you are going to gamble, I would not suggest opting for the blood draw. The Breathalyzer has inherent risk - the machine itself is subject to error. To beat the blood draw you will likely have to show a contaminated sample or an inept analyst. Neither is very likely. And when was the last time you got a result from a physician relating to blood and then rejected the result because of the inherent unreliability? I don't know about you but I have been on statins for five years because the doc said my blood showed cholesterol above 230. I never once thought to object to his decision because the results might have been tainted.

And neither will a jury. 

Jurors have experience with blood tests. You are pregnant or you aren't. You have an infection or you don't. You need medications or not. So jurors are hard pressed to reject the results. 

Not so with the breathalyzer - nobody except the cops who give it believes it is error-proof.

Again - best action: don't drink and drive. Second best - don't demand the blood draw.

 

Continue Reading...
Tags:

Supremes Say Your Truck Can Be Stopped On An Anonymous Report

 

 Once again we see that our right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure finds too few friends in the United States Supreme Court. The issue in Navarette v. California, decided this week, was whether the fourth amendment requires an officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding a drunken or reckless driver to corroborate the claim of dangerous driving before stopping the car. In a decision written by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court ruled that the stop was "reasonable" and complied with the constitutional requirement based on "the totality of the circumstances."

This case started with an anonymous 911 call from a driver who claimed to have just been driven off the road by a specific truck. Officers stopped the truck, and said they smelled marijuana as they approached it. The tip was said to have created a reasonable suspicion of drunk driving, so the stop could be justified as a "brief investigative stop."

Not everyone agreed. The decision was 5-4, with Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Scalia (writing in dissent) joining to warn of the potential implications of such a decision. To be sure, there was more than an anonymous tip by the time the Patrolmen found the 30 lbs of marijuana in the truck. There was the smell of marijuana when they had approached, as well as the assumed reliability of the 911 call and the specific details of the vehicle. But as Justice Scalia writes, the majority opinion"purports to adhere to our prior cases" and "does not explicitly adopt... a departure from our normal Fourth Amendment requirement that anonymous tips must be corroborated."

But, he warns: "Be not deceived."  "The Court's opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail."  He explains: "Law enforcement agencies follow closely our judgments on matters such as this, and they will identify at once our new rule: So long as the caller identifies where the car is, anonymous claims of a single instance of possibly careless or reckless driving, called in to 911, will support a traffic stop. This is not my concept, and I am sure would not be the Framers’, of a people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures."

So there we have it - the Supreme Court continues to make it easier for the police to stop us in our cars based on nothing more than an anonymous claim to a 911 dispatcher. The investigative stop originally required that police officers have articulable facts supporting a "reasonable belief that criminal activity was afoot." If I call dispatch and claim that a silver Ford pickup truck just forced me from the road, should officers be able to stop any and every silver Ford pickup truck they see? Apparently five members of the court believe that to be the case.

The framers of the constitution feared that this country might, without adequate safeguards, permit authorities to search their homes without any cause. Their answer was to require that any search or seizure require probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. Admittedly, probable cause is not a high standard, but it is something. I'd have thought it was something more than an unsworn claim over a cell phone to a 911 dispatcher.

DUI Cases Dismissed in Two Counties in the Last Month

 

In the past month we have finished two cases in which our clients were charged with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and in both cases, prosecutors ultimately dismissed the charge of DUI and accepted pleas of guilty to inattentive driving. Not a big deal? Oh yes it is. Inattentive driving does not carry the consequences of a DUI conviction, and the difference between the charges may save you thousands of dollars and time in jail.

In a county just north of us, our client was charged with DUI as he headed home after dinner at a local restaurant and bar. He admitted he had a couple drinks. He had been stopped because he reportedly did not stop fully before exiting a private parking lot onto the street. Seriously. In fact, the local cop had simply been parked nearby "fishing" for folks to stop coming out from the club. On video our client looked great. He spoke freely with the officers, did not slur his words, and passed the field sobriety tests - except, they said, the gaze nystagmus. Serious voodoo in that one! Anyway - we called their bluff and got ready to try the case. The breathalyzer result was just over .08% and showed the level was increasing with time. So when he took the test, roughly 45 minutes after he was driving, it was going up. A smart prosecutor ultimately decided their case did not look good and he offered a plea to inattentive driving and a couple hundred dollar fine.

In a county a ways east of us, a retired professor over-corrected on the highway, rolled his car, hit his head on the steering wheel, and had to be cut from his wrecked rig. An officer at the scene told a supervisor that the driver had "seemed confused" when questioned. And then they found some prescription medication bottles in the car. Confusion plus pill bottles must mean driving under the influence - right? That was the charge. DUI. They had NO proof of any quantified amount of any drug. They had no expert to say that the pills affected the driving pattern. And importantly, the officers had not considered whether any "confusion" was the result of his injuries or some other cause. What the state had was a weak case. We filed a motion to suppress the results of the search of the car (no probable cause) and to suppress the results of the search of our client's blood (although not quantified, there was proof that one of the medications was in his bloodstream, but it had been so for every day of the five years he had taken it). The prosecutors did not respond to the motion. Instead, they offered a plea to DUI and no jail. Our client said "no way!" But before trial, when it seemed clear even to them that they were about to lose, they folded and dismissed the DUI.

Here's the lesson I learned from both cases: anyone charged with DUI has to be willing to fight. The State can't always win, and a prosecutor may eventually see what you see from the beginning - the evidence may not prove that you were guilty of any crime.

DUI is a serious charge. Make sure you get a fighter to review your case before you plead guilty.

Got a tough case? Give us a call to discuss how to win.

Continue Reading...
Tags: