How To Defend Against A One Leg Stand Test

Did the officer allege you did poorly on the One Leg Stand standardized field sobriety test?

The Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) are a battery of three tests administered and evaluated in a standardized manner to obtain validated indicators of impairment and establish probable cause for arrest. These tests were developed as a result of research sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and conducted by the Southern California Research Institute. A formal program of training was developed and is available through NHTSA to help law enforcement officers become more skillful at detecting DWI suspects, describing the behavior of these suspects, and presenting effective testimony in court. Formal administration and accreditation of the program is provided through the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). The three tests of the SFST are:

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN),Walk-and-Turn (WAT),and One-Leg Stand (OLS).

These tests are administered systematically and are evaluated according to measured responses of the suspect.  Ohio Revised Code 4511.19(D)(4)(b) sets forth the standards for admissibility of the results of field sobriety tests in OVI (drunk driving) prosecutions.  See State v. Bozcar, 113 Ohio St. 3d 148, 2007-Ohio-1251, 863 N.E.2d 115 (2007).  In order for the tests to be admissible, the State must demonstrate:

By clear and convincing evidence.The Officer administered the tests insubstantial compliance.The testing standards for any reliable, credible, and generally accepted test.Including, but not limited to, the standards set by NHTSA.

The only guidance provided for determining the meaning of “substantial compliance” has come from State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St. 3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372 (2003), wherein the court indicated that errors that are clearly “de minimus” or “minor procedural deviations” are not substantial.  Thus, the State must set forth the testing standards, offer some testimony that the testing standards have been accepted and that the officer has substantially complied.  If the State fails to introduce testimonial or documentary evidence of the standards (most likely via the NHTSA training manual), then they have not met this burden. See Village of Gates Mills v. Mace, 2005-Ohio-2191 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County), wherein the State did not meet this burden despite the Court having its own copy of the manual.

The validity of SFST results is dependent upon practitioners following the established, standardized procedures for test administration and scoring. NHTSA’s SFST Student Manualstates that the procedures demonstrated in the training program describe how SFSTs should be administered under ideal conditions, but that ideal conditions do not always exist in the field. Variations from ideal conditions, and deviations from the standardized procedures, might affect the evidentiary weight that should be given to test results.  Perhaps the most important statement about standardization can be found at VIII-19 which states:

IT IS NECESSARY TO EMPHASIZE THIS VALIDATION APPLIES ONLY WHEN:

THE TESTS ARE ADMINISTERED IN THE PRESCRIBED STANDARDIZED MANNERTHE STANDARDIZED CLUES ARE USED TO ASSESS THE SUSPECT’S PERFORMANCETHE STANDARDIZED CRITERIA ARE EMPLOYED TO INTERPRET THAT PERFORMANCE

IF ANY ONE OF THE STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TEST ELEMENTS IS CHANGED THE VALIDITY IS COMPROMISED.

I have not added capitalization or bold to emphasize the importance of this warning.  The manual itself uses these indicia of importance at VIII-19.  Use this portion of the manual in conjunction with the State’s burden of proof (The State must demonstrate substantial compliance with the NHTSA manual by clear and convincing evidence) and you have some compelling arguments to make to the trier of fact.

In the One-Leg Stand test, the suspect is instructed to stand with one foot approximately six inches off the ground and count aloud by thousands (One thousand-one, one thousand-two, etc.) until told to put the foot down. The officer times the subject for 30 seconds. The officer looks for four indicators of impairment, including swaying while balancing, using arms to balance, hopping to maintain balance, and putting the foot down. NHTSA research indicates that 83 percent of individuals who exhibit two or more such indicators in the performance of the test will have a BAC of 0.08 of greater (Stuster and Burns, 1998).  As stated above, the validity OLS results are dependent upon law enforcement officers following the established, standardized procedures for test administration and scoring.  The criteria to establish a proper test are set forth in the NHTSA manaual as follows:

Requirement of a reasonably dry, hard, level, and non-slippery surface.Is the individual over 65 years of age? Did officer question whether individual was over 65 years of age?Did officer ask the individual whether he or she has any back, leg or middle ear problems?Did the officer check to see whether the suspect was overweight by 50 or more pounds?Did the officer check to see whether individual is wearing heels more than 2” high and if so, did he give them the opportunity to remove their shoes?“Please stand with your feet together and your arms down at the sides, like this.” (Demonstrate)“Do not start to perform the test until I tell you to do so.”“Do you understand the instructions so far? (Make sure suspect indicates understanding).”“When I tell you to start, raise one leg, either leg, with the foot approximately 6 inches off the ground, keeping your raised foot parallel to the ground.” (Demonstrate one-leg stance.)“You must keep both legs straight, arms at your side.”“While holding that position, count out loud in the following manner: one thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three, until told to stop.”Demonstrate a count as follows: one thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three, etc.“Officer should not look at his foot when conducting the demonstration” – OFFICER SAFETY“Keep you arms at your sides at all times and keep watching the raised foot.”“Do you understand?” (Make sure the suspect indicates understanding.)“Go ahead and perform the test.”“Officer should always time the 30 seconds. Test should be discontinued after 30 seconds.”Observe the suspect from a safe distance.“If the suspect puts the foot down, give instructions to pick the foot up again and continue counting from the point at which the foot touched the ground.”“If the suspect counts very slowly, terminate the test after 30 seconds.”“Observe the suspect from a safe distance and remain as motionless as possible during the test so as not to interfere.”

Information obtained from www.nhtsa.gov and is considered public information provided at www.ohiopd.com

Recall the test’s four indicators of impairment:

swaying while balancing,using arms to balance,hopping to maintain balance, andputting the foot down.

The One-leg stand test requires your body to something unnatural; maintain a rigid body structure while precariously balanced.   The most natural reaction to being on one foot is to sway to find your center of gravity while lifting your arms like a tightrope walker.   Why do humans do this?  This technique provides several advantages. It distributes mass away from the pivot point and moves the center of mass out. This reduces angular velocity because her center of mass is now swinging through a longer arc. It takes longer to sweep out the same angle because the center of mass has a longer distance to go. The result is less tipping.  Millions of years of evolution have designed complex vestibular systems and wired our brains to act this way.  Unfortunately, swaying and holding your arms out will be counted as indicators of impairment according to the government.  As any skipping child will tell you, hopping is an instinctive way to quickly correct the body when attempting to locate the center of gravity. Again law enforcement uses natrual and  instinctive behavior to allege intoxication.  As documented in other articles on this blog, overweight people, older people, arthritic people and the simply uncoordinated may have trouble immediately finding and maintaining balance under ideal and fair conditions.  However law enforcement will unfairly count putting a foot down as an indicator of impairment.  It is up to your attorney to make a compelling defense against the use of this biased and unfair test to demonstrate that you were impaired.

Not only does the one-leg stand test require you to behave in an unnatural way, understanding its defects requires a jury to act in a unnatural way.  For example, if you see me trip over a crack in the sidewalk, you would consider me to be clumsy or uncoordinated.  If, however, you trip over a crack in the sidewalk you are much more likely to blame the crack.  The same is true for most people. This discrepancy is called the actor–observer bias.  In social psychology, thefundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain the behavior of others. It does not explain interpretations of one’s own behavior—where situational factors are often taken into consideration.  This bias can be devastating in a DUI trial when jurors are asked to consider your performance on field sobriety tests.  They will view the actions with a “bias” that they do not know they have.  Furthermore, they use this error to exclude factors of vital importance to both the scientific validity of the tests and your factual innocence.  For instance, jurors may under-value situational factors such as anxiety, lack of sleep, inherent lack of coordination, passing cars, environmental factors etc.  When we look at some of the underlying assumptions of the fundamental attribution error, we see some scary stuff that we, as advocates, must point out and overcome.

Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio. He has the credentials and the experience to win your physical control or DUI case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671. You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500. Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog. You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

“All I do is DUI defense.”

Fairborn, Dayton,Springfield,Kettering,Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg,  Huber Heights, Springboro, Oakwood,Beavercreek, Centerville

Continue Reading...

DUI Charge Against Texas Judge Nora Longoria Dropped

Los Angeles DUI attorneys and pundits have been following the story of Nora Longoria, a judge for the 13th Court of Appeals in Texas, who was charged with a DUI in July 2014. Recently, prosecutors dropped her charges. McAllen police say that Longoria “begged for special treatment” when faced with sobriety tests, but Justice Rolando Cantu threw out the case based on “lack of evidence,” marking “other” as his reasoning on formal paperwork.

Longoria was originally pulled over for driving 69 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, but the arresting officer claimed she “smelled of booze and had slurred speech.” Longoria allegedly admitted she’d had five beers that evening but that she consumed her last one three hours before driving. She allegedly told the officer, “I live a couple miles away… You are going to ruin my life.” Longoria also refused to take a breath test. Social media exploded after Longoria’s DUI charge. People made comments such as, “Resign, you drunk” and “You are a disgrace to the court system, to the legal profession, and the citizens of Texas.”

Despite the angry comments and the evidence presented in court, Longoria eventually beat her DUI charge. Several people, including regular Kraut Law Group blog readers, may be wondering how and why. Our attorneys hypothesize a few possible reasons:

•    Lack of a conclusive test. A breath test and other sobriety tests are not generally as conclusive as a blood or urine draw, neither of which Longoria underwent. In fact, some experts believe traditional sobriety tests are “designed to make [people] fail.”

•    Unclear video evidence. The prosecution was able to obtain a video allegedly showing the circumstances of Longoria’s DUI arrest. However, the tape’s footage did not clearly show whether her speech had been slurred. Thus, the evidence that she “smelled of booze” essentially consisted of the arresting officer’s opinion.

•    Lack of other evidence. Besides the unclear video, the prosecution brought no conclusive evidence against Longoria.

Do you need assistance constructing an appropriate response to a DUI charge? Look to the Kraut Law Group’s Michael Kraut for insight and peace of mind. Mr. Kraut is an experience Los Angeles DUI attorney with many relevant connections in the local legal community.

If police arrested you for Los Angeles DUI, you may feel scared and confused. Contact Harvard Law School educated, ex-prosecutor Michael Kraut for assistance at (323) 464-6453 or online. We’re located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

Can Secret Recordings Be Used Against You?

The Florida Supreme Court ruled today that recordings made secretly by a crime victim cannot be introduced at trial. These recordings fall under Chapter 934, Florida Statutes, which prohibits “intercepting” (i.e. recording) a conversation where one party to the conversation has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Court’s decision comes from the conviction of Richard McDade for child sexual abuse. The victim, a minor, recorded the defendant pressuring her to have sex with him in the bedroom of their shared home. The recordings were presented at trial along with testimony from the victim and others. McDade was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The Florida Supreme Court reversed McDade’s conviction and ordered a new trial without the recordings.

Let’s get this out of the way before we get into the nitty-gritty: if McDade is guilty of molestation, he needs to be in prison. But that’s not the point here – as I’ll explain the point is whether someone can use secret recordings made in your house against you in a trial simply because you were allegedly committing a crime.

After his conviction, McDade appealed to the Second DCA arguing that the recordings made by the victim should not have been used against him at trial. The Second DCA affirmed his conviction, reasoning that

this case involves recordings made by a victim of the very criminal acts by which she was victimized. The minor victim recorded McDade soliciting her for sexual acts, as he had done for years. And though the conversation took place in McDade’s home, it was also the victim’s home. … [W]e conclude that any expectation of privacy McDade may have had is not one which society is prepared to accept as reasonable.

In other words, the Second DCA lessened the reasonableness of McDade’s expectation of privacy based on him allegedly being a child molester. In a concurring opinion, Judge Altenbernd explained the Second DCA’s reasoning more logically:

Under the “society is prepared to recognize” test, I conclude that in 2011 a person who regularly and consistently abused a teenager in a bedroom of their shared home had no reasonable expectation that their conversations about the abuse would never be recorded. In this modern digital world, any such adult should have expected that eventually a teenage victim would record such conversations in self-defense. Accordingly, I concur in this decision because Mr. McDade could not reasonably expect his statements to be protected oral communications.

The Florida Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that McDade did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his own home, even though he was committing crimes there. This is the point of the Fourth Amendment – it is designed to protect you from unreasonable searches and seizures, even if you’re committing a crime. A different interpretation would allow the police to violate the fourth amendment with impunity as long as you were caught doing something wrong. Federal courts have held this way for a long time:

We may not justify the search after the fact, once we know illegal activity was afoot; the legitimate expectation of privacy does not depend on the nature of the defendant’s activities, whether innocent or criminal. . . . If this were the case, then the police could enter private homes without warrants, and if they find drugs, justify the search by citing the rule that society is not prepared to accept as reasonable an expectation of privacy in crack cocaine kept in private homes.

U.S. v. Pitts, 332 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 2003).

Although Chapter 934 has multiple exceptions to the prohibition on recording conversations, there is no exception covering the victim of a crime. As the Florida Supreme Court correctly recognized, the decision to allow an exception would be up to the legislature and not the courts.

This case reverses what was a dangerous decision by the Second DCA that would have allowed the police to justify illegal searches after-the-fact. Let’s hope that if the legislature tries to change the language of Chapter 934 they do so with care.

photo credit: opensourceway via photopin cc

Sam proudly represents those accused of crimes and injured through no fault of their own throughout the greater Tampa Bay area.

Read all posts by Sam Harden

Continue Reading...

DUI charges against Lambertville Mayor dropped

According to court records, charges against the Lambertville Mayor accusing him of driving under the influence were dismissed on Dec. 11 in Mansfield Municipal Court. In exchange for the dismissal, the mayor reportedly pleaded guilty to charges of reckless driving and failing to maintain a lane for the Nov. 9 incident.

The original incident occurred on Route 130 around 1 a.m. when he was stopped by Mansfield Police. Officers reported that the mayor failed roadside sobriety tests. He had reportedly been swerving on the roadway. Despite his apparent failure and his swerving, two breath tests performed after his arrest showed no trace of alcohol in his blood.

The mayor was reportedly polite and cooperative during his arrest. He apparently told officers he had been drinking earlier in the day but that his drinks had been spread apart by a number of hours. Upon entering his plea to the traffic infractions, the court assessed traffic fines totaling $206 as well as $32 in court costs. The mayor reportedly paid the fines in full prior to leaving the municipal court building.

The Lambertville Mayor's case demonstrates that just because someone is arrested and charged with DUI does not necessarily mean he or she is guilty of the offense. The facts of his case also show that failing roadside sobriety tests does not always mean the person who does so is drunk. Many things can cause a person to fail a roadside sobriety test in addition to and separately from intoxication. Like the mayor, further analysis may demonstrate that the person has no alcohol in his or her system. People who are accused of drunk driving may benefit by retaining a criminal defense attorney for help in fighting the charges. By doing so, he or she may be able to plead to a lesser offense or fight the charges through trial.

Source: NJ.com, "Lambertville Mayor David DelVecchio has DWI charge dismissed, admists reckless driving", Keith Brown, December 11, 2014

Tags: fines

Continue Reading...

Virginia Court Dismisses DWI Charges Against Ousted FAA Leader

By guest-writer

Randy Babbitt, the former head of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has cleared his name after a Virginia judge dismissed a DWI charge that led to Babbitt’s departure from the agency.

The 65-year-old Babbitt resigned from his post this December after he was arrested for allegedly driving on the wrong side of the road while intoxicated, according to a recent report from Reuters.

Sources say that police administered an alcohol breath test for Babbitt at the scene, but they initially refused to publicly release the results of the breath test. It appears police had a good reason for keeping the results quiet.

Apparently, Babbitt’s initial breath test revealed a blood alcohol level of .07, which is just below the legal limit. After the first test, the police then administered a second test, which showed a reading of .08.

However, according to Babbitt’s attorney, in Virginia police are not allowed to engage in such tactics. In addition to the flubbed breath test, the police reportedly made other errors.

Sources indicate that the arresting officer’s report of the incident said that Babbitt was driving on the wrong side of the road. But video footage of the incident reportedly shows Babbitt making a legal left turn into a parking lot.

On this evidence alone, the judge for Babbitt’s case decided to dismiss the DWI charge after determining that the arresting officer did not have a legitimate reason to pull the man over. The judge criticized the officer for simply acting on a “hunch” that Babbitt was driving while intoxicated.

The case was dismissed so quickly that the state’s prosecutors were not even given a chance to present their case, according to sources.

Randy Babbitt, to his credit, handled the dismissal of his claim and the actions of the police officer with plenty of class. After the dismissal, Babbitt told reporters that the police officer was “acting in good faith,” which suggests that he does not harbor a grudge against the man who caused him to lose his job.

The dismissal of Babbitt’s DWI provides a strong example of the potential merits of challenging an alcohol breath test after a DWI arrest. In addition, it also reveals the value of obtaining police footage of DWI arrests.

After an arrest for drunk driving, many people are concerned that they won’t be able to fight the charges. This, however, couldn’t be further from the truth.

A number of different errors can be made during the DUI process, and a DUI attorney may help alleged drunk drivers challenge several aspects of their arrests.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

What group is against ignition interlock to prevent DUI? (Hint – it isn’t DUI Lawyers!)

A night on the town could be a thing of the past

As a DUI Lawyer in Orange County, I try to keep ahead of developments in breath and blood testing.  But technology from the automotive world might be a game changer as far as how DUI s might be handled, or prevented, in the future.

Several automotive manufacturers have been meeting with, partnering with, and developing experimental technology to detect alcohol, including alcohol emitted from the skin in sweat through the steering wheel, or from the breath.

In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched a 5-year campaign to develop ignition interlocks as standard equipment in all vehicles. NHTSA and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety—which is funded by auto manufacturers—have budgeted $10 million to solicit research and development on the widespread use of this in-vehicle technology.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has asked Congress for another $60 million to be allotted annually for alcohol detector development.  So there is big money behind this.

The group opposing this?  It’s the American Beverage Institute, which fears this would prevent people from going out for even one drink.  Of course, as my fellow Orange County DUI Lawyers know, a machine is only as accurate as the maintenance, calibration and margin of error for the device allows it to be, assuming no deviations from standards.  Garbage in, garbage out, as they say, and in this case, a false positive or machine malfunction could have serious consequences to the driver.  The Beverage Institute’s newsroom is here at:  http://abionline.org/newsroom.cfm?t=inthenews

By the way, if you want to to be kept in the know for the latest DUI checkpoints, check out this blog frequently, or subscribe to the Orange County DUI Checkpoints Blog, or like our Orange County DUI Checkpoints Facebook page.

Tags
Alcohol, American Beverage Institute, Driving under the influence, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, orange county, Orange County California, orange county dui arrests, Orange County DUI Attorney, orange county dui attorneys, orange county dui checkpoint locations, orange county dui checkpoints, orange county dui lawyer, orange county dui lawyers

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 19th, 2012 at 11:42 am and is filed under Dui Checkpoints, DUI News, DUI politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Who is fighting against ignition interlocks? (Hint: It’s not DUI lawyers!)

A night on the town could be a thing of the past

As a DUI Lawyer in Orange County, I try to keep ahead of developments in breath and blood testing.  But technology from the automotive world might be a game changer as far as how DUI s might be handled, or prevented, in the future.

Several automotive manufacturers have been meeting with, partnering with, and developing experimental technology to detect alcohol, including alcohol emitted from the skin in sweat through the steering wheel, or from the breath.

In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched a 5-year campaign to develop ignition interlocks as standard equipment in all vehicles. NHTSA and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety—which is funded by auto manufacturers—have budgeted $10 million to solicit research and development on the widespread use of this in-vehicle technology.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has asked Congress for another $60 million to be allotted annually for alcohol detector development.  So there is big money behind this.

The group opposing this?  It’s the American Beverage Institute, which fears this would prevent people from going out for even one drink.  Of course, as my fellow Orange County DUI Lawyers know, a machine is only as accurate as the maintenance, calibration and margin of error for the device allows it to be, assuming no deviations from standards.  Garbage in, garbage out, as they say, and in this case, a false positive or machine malfunction could have serious consequences to the driver.  The Beverage Institute’s newsroom is here at:  http://abionline.org/newsroom.cfm?t=inthenews

By the way, if you want to to be kept in the know for the latest DUI checkpoints, check out this blog frequently, or subscribe to the Orange County DUI Checkpoints Blog, or like our Orange County DUI Checkpoints Facebook page.

Tags
Alcohol, American Beverage Institute, Driving under the influence, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, orange county, Orange County California, orange county dui arrests, Orange County DUI Attorney, orange county dui attorneys, orange county dui checkpoint locations, orange county dui checkpoints, orange county dui lawyer, orange county dui lawyers

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 19th, 2012 at 11:46 am and is filed under Dui Checkpoints, DUI News, DUI politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Felony Drug Charges May Be Dropped Against Mom Who Grew Marijuana For Son’s Use- Attorney Sam’s Take

We haven’t talked about drug cases for awhile. As you know, possession of a small amount of marijuana has been decriminalized. However, that does not mean that having it is now problem free.

Confused?

Well, it depends on the circumstances in which you possessed it. For example, if there is even the hint that you might be sharing or otherwise distributing pot you are going to be charged with possession with intent to distribute.

And then there was the case of Ms. Sue Thayer, 65 (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) She was charged with felony drug charges when it was discovered that she was growing marijuana. Apparently, she was growing it for her son.

In 2007, the Defendant was charged with possessing more than 25 pot plants. She said she grew the plants out of necessity because the marijuana improved the appetite and general condition of her son, who suffered from chronic wasting.

She tried a defense of "necessity". It did not fly.

Fortunately for the Defendant, however, prosecutors, and the court of course, had a heart. They have now agreed to refer her to court diversion. If she completes it, the charges against her will be dismissed.

I have handled drug cases of all sorts in my 25+ years as attorney in the criminal justice trenches. The realization that drug crimes are often a result of illness and addiction is an area in which many courts have begun to react to reality and try to actually do some good. Unfortunately, it seems that the more this happens, the more politicians change laws to prohibit anything but long term prison sentences for nonviolent drug crimes.

Which way is the pendulum really swinging? I’m not sure…what day is it today?

Usually, at least in Massachusetts, diversion programs like the one here is reserved for kids who have “strayed off the path” and are considered redeemable. Additionally, many states have eased the handling of “medical marihuana” cases. However, those are usually cases in which the pot is actually prescribed by a physician.

This is an interesting case in that the marihuana plants are not being grown by the user. They are being grown by the Defendant to then give to her son. That “giving” is technically a sale and could be prosecuted as such.

One would hope that the government has become involved in some other kind of treatment for the son, assuming that this avenue of treatment has now been closed.

Generally, though, it is a mistake to rely upon goodwill of the prosecution when facing drug charges. Get an experienced criminal defense attorney. Such an attorneysshould have the experience to get whatever kind of goodwill is out there…and, maybe, create some that isn’t there at first.

If you want to contact me to discuss such a case, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://mobile.boston.com/art/30/news/local/vermont/articles/2011/01/18/mother_avoids_trial_on_marijuana_charges/

View the original article here

Continue Reading...