Sometimes the Treatment for an Oklahoma DUI Conviction Can Seem Like Punishment Itself- Oklahoma DUI Defense

Conviction based on a violation of Oklahoma’s DUI laws carries with it a number of penalties, which vary in severity based on factors such as whether the conviction is for a first-time or subsequent offense or the degree of intoxication. Penalties can include sanctions like fines, community service, jail time, or the requirement to have an ignition interlock device installed in his or her vehicle. The home page of our Oklahoma DUI Defense website contains the text of the law as it pertains to drunk driving and its legal consequences.

One additional consequence of an Oklahoma DUI conviction, receiving a deferred sentence, or losing your Oklahoma driver’s license that may not be as well-known as the penalties mentioned above is the requirement to participate in an alcohol and drug substance evaluation and assessment program. Unlike a term in jail or a monetary penalty, this requirement is not necessarily intended to be a form of punishment as much as a form of treatment. But as we will see on closer examination, sometimes when the criminal justice system seeks to help you the experience can feel like something else entirely.

As a starting point, any alcohol and drug assessment must be performed by persons and organizations that are officially certified to perform them. This certification requires whomever administers the assessment to comply with a multitude of regulatory requirements which can quickly become burdensome and intrusive to the person being evaluated. As an example of this, consider the Alcohol and Drug Substance Abuse Course (ADSAC) participant evaluation, which consists of:

A formal intake interview performed in a clinical setting. Here, you will be required to provide socio-demographic information about yourself as well as answer questions about your personal history. You will also need to complete an Addiction Severity Index, which will be scored.The evaluation will also delve into your driving record, your history of alcohol and drug use, past treatment, and past drug-related arrests.

That may sound tedious to have to undergo, but it is only the beginning. You will also be subject to a “biopsychsocial assessment,” an Orwellian-sounding name for a formal interview that will go into even more minute details of your personal life. The assessor will seek to uncover your medical conditions, your family and social history, your cultural and religious orientations, your marriage history and your living arrangements, your finances, your school background, your health history, any mental health treatments you may have had, even your recreational and leisure time preferences.

This psychological and inquisitory stripping-down of your personal privacy is meant to “help” you, and will be the foundation to determine what kind of specific treatment courses and programs that you will be required to undergo. But you may be excused for being reluctant to undergo such an intimate form of assistance. If you are required to go through one, we have assessors that will treat you with respect for your privacy.

There is no way to get around going through the ADSAC if you have been convicted of an Oklahoma DUI offense or lose your Oklahoma driver’s license.  The only way to avoid it is to not be convicted if you stand accused of such an offense. This, in turn, can depend heavily on your choice of legal counsel to represent you in court.  For more information, contact the Oklahoma DUI Lawyers at the Hunsucker Legal Group.

http://www.ok.gov/odmhsas/Substance_Abuse/DUI_-_Alcohol_and_Drug_Substance_Abuse_Courses__(ADSAC)/index.html

See also Title 450, Chapter 22 of the DPS statute.

Continue Reading...

Defense Lawyer Offers Scholarship for Underage Drunk Driving

In an effort to help teens recognize the dangers of drunk driving, Colorado Springs defense attorney Christian Schwaner recently announced that he will award a $1,000 college scholarship for the best essay that recounts a teen’s experience of driving while intoxicated.

Schwaner states the goal of his First Step Scholarship is to get teenagers to think about the risks associated with drinking and driving. A parent himself, Schwaner is concerned that speeches given by parents often aren’t heard by teens. He believes that having applicants account for their actions, research the risks, and plan ways to avoid future drunk driving may make a difference for students who apply.

However, Schwaner’s idea is drawing fire from some critics. Underage drinking and intoxicated driving are both crimes, and some question whether the scholarship could be seen as rewarding teens for their dangerous and illegal behavior. Furthermore, some wonder if the process of writing an essay will truly get teens to think twice about the consequences of drunk driving. And in another wrinkle, legal experts have cautioned that in applying for the scholarship, teens will admit to criminal offenses without the protection of attorney-client privilege—a move that could have consequences down the road.

Yet, the reality is that teen alcohol misuse and underage drunk driving are serious and widespread. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 10% of high schoolers drink and drive. According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, teen alcohol use kills 4,700 people each year and about one-fourth of teen deaths from car crashes involve an underage drunk driver. Given stats like this, supporters of the scholarship program argue that anything that could help is worth a try.

Decreasing the rate of underage drunk driving certainly requires innovative ideas. Do you think a DUI scholarship has the potential to make a difference when it comes to teens and intoxicated driving?

Continue Reading...

Marin Traffic Ticket Defense July 2014

Marin Traffic Ticket Defense July 2014 - Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Published by Marin, California DUI Attorney Law Office of John Stanko, Inc. HomeFirm WebsitePractice AreasContact Us « Previous | Home | Next » Marin Traffic Ticket Defense July 2014 |Share August 8, 2014

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc.
________________________________________
JOHN W. STANKO
Attorney at Law

TRAFFIC COURT RESULTS July 2014

COURT CHARGE RESULT

San Francisco Red Light Camera Reduced to a no pointer
Sonoma Speeding with accident (no traffic school) Negotiated traffic school
Marin Driving over double yellow lines Dismissed

Many traffic tickets in California are classified as moving violations and carry points on a person's driving record. Accruing too many points, 4 in 12 months, 6 in 24 months, or 8 in 36 months will result in the DMV designating a person a negligent operator which carries a driver's license suspension.

Moving violations also effect insurance rates for up to 3 years.

An experienced traffic ticket defense attorney can work to get tickets dismissed or reduced to charges that do not carry DMV points.

If you receive a speeding ticket, red light camera ticket, or any moving violation in Vallejo, San Rafael, San Francisco or Oakland, call an experienced aggressive traffic ticket attorney for help.

For more information about traffic and speeding ticket defense in Sonoma and Marin Counties and throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, or for a free consultation, call Marin County traffic attorney John Stanko at 415-755-8899, or toll free at 1-877-204-8900.

Categories: Negligent Operator, Red Light Camera Tickets, Speeding Tickets, Suspended Driver's License, Traffic Ticket Defense Posted by John Stanko | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Negligent Operator , Red Light Camera Tickets , Speeding Tickets , Suspended Driver's License , Traffic Ticket Defense

Contact Us 415-755-8899 Name: Email: Phone: Comments: Enter text from the Image Above: Search Connect Topics DUI (98) DUI Checkpoints (44) Celebrity DUI (2) DUI Field Sobriety Tests (16) Ignition Interlock Device (11) DUI Trials (2) DUI Program (24) Felony (6) Dry Reckless (1) DMV Administrative Hearings (10) Suspended Driver's License (50) Negligent Operator (4) San Francisco DMV DUI suspension (1) Oakland DMV license suspension (1) Santa Rosa DMV license suspension (1) Traffic Ticket Defense (30) Red Light Camera Tickets (10) Speeding Tickets (21) Hit and Run (1) Cell Phone and Texting Tickets (2) Criminal Defense (12) Sex Offenses (1) Assault and Battery (6) Batter on a Police Officer Battery on a Police Officer (2) Marijuana (2) Drunk in Public (1) Vandalism (1) Theft Crimes (5) Felony (8) Drug Possession (6) Child Endangerment (5) Domestic Violence (2) Evading a Police Officer (2) Trespassing (1) Resisting Arrest (2) Conspiracy (2) Embezzlement (1) Misdemeanor (5) Domestic Violence (1) Car Theft (2) Probation Violation (3) Felony (4) Drug Possession (2) Child Endangerment (1) Probation (8) Evading a Police Officer (1) NHTSA (7) Robbery (1) Drug Crimes (3) Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance (1) Speed Trap (1) Recent Entries

Sep 25, 14 12:05 PMAugust Traffic Court Results LAW OFFICE OF JOHN STANKO, Inc. ________________________________________ JOHN W. STANKO Attorney at Law TRAFFIC COURT...

Sep 12, 14 12:23 PM10 Arrested for DUI During Marin County Labor Day Crackdown Police officers in Marin County made ten arrests for drunk driving over the Labor Day...

Aug 27, 14 10:00 AMLabor Day Driver's Beware Marin DUI Checkpoints Are Setup Two DUI checkpoints will be run by Marin County police agencies over the Labor Day...

Aug 26, 14 10:17 AM2 Arrested at Novato DUI Checkpoint Two drivers were arrested for driving under the influence last Friday, August 22, 2014, at...

Aug 24, 14 06:19 PMAvoid the Marin 13 DUI Saturation in San Rafael Labor Day Weekend Officers from the San Rafael Police Department will be stepping up their drunk driving enforcement...

Aug 23, 14 09:58 AMMarin County - San Rafael Police Proclaim STRIDE Program a Success The City of San Rafael Police Department's STRIDE (Stopping Traffic Related Injuries and Deaths through...

   Main Office:
4040 Civic Center Dr #200
San Rafael, CA 94903

Phone: 415-755-8899
Toll Free: 877-204-8900
Fax: 415-532-1436 Vallejo Office:
312 Georgia St #200
Vallejo, CA 94590

Phone: 707-642-8900
Fax: 415-532-1436 Home Website Disclaimer Contact Us Website Map Blog Posts Copyright © Marin DUI Lawyer Blog Justia Legal Website Design  

Continue Reading...

Finding A Good, Experienced DUI Defense Attorney In Orange County California

If you have been arrested for DUI in Orange County, California, you need a lawyer who can protect your rights and who will make sure that your rights are not violated. Orange County is considered very strict when it comes to driving under the influence and they take it very seriously.

It is understandable that you are probably feeling afraid, confused and angry about what has happened and what you may be facing as a result of your arrest. The whole process of being arrested, taken to jail, fingerprinted and photographed is embarrassing and scary and we are very sympathetic to that. But, the reality of the situation is that a conviction of DUI can have very serious consequences. However, having an experienced attorney can help to mitigate the severity of those consequences.

There are many possibilities that can be challenged in an arrest and potential conviction for DUI. An aggressive defense attorney will raise those challenges, and look for those challenges to see if they apply to your situation. Closely reviewing the police report, viewing any video and listening to audio can sometimes reveal inconsistencies in the police officer’s report and/or testimony.

Although our goal is always to have the case dismissed without a conviction, as well as preserve your right to drive, when the evidence is overwhelming against you, the next step is to be aggressive and creative with the ultimate outcome. The first thing we always look at is was the stop and arrest legal. Did the arresting officer have cause to pull you over and ultimately arrest you? Were any of your rights violated with regard to the stop and arrest? These are questions that must be addressed immediately to determine what the rest of the case may look like going forward.

Another very important piece to the arrest is, was any equipment used in assisting the officer with his decision to arrest you? If so, was it working properly and was the officer who administered the test certified to do so. If any of these procedures were not followed properly, it may result in your case being dismissed and preserve your right to drive.

There is no guarantee that any attorney will be successful because each case is different and has a different set of circumstances. Each case has to be looked at individually, looking for those errors, mistakes or inconsistencies on the part of the arresting officer. Further, taking a look at your life, your history, your family and just getting to know you will help us when it comes time to talk to the District Attorney. We feel it is extremely important that the prosecution and judge know you as a person, not just as the person who has been arrested for DUI.

So, even if you know that you were in fact over the legal limit when you were stopped and arrested, you should consult with an experienced DUI attorney to determine whether or not you have a chance at preserving your record.

Continue Reading...

Minnesota Supreme Court Rules "Necessity" Defense Does Not Apply to DWI

Posted on May 21, 2014 by Dan Koewler

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Axelberg v. Commission of Public Safety. In a 4-3 decision, the Court concluded that Minnesota's Commissioner of Public Safety has the absolute authority to revoke the driver's license of an intoxicated victim of domestic abuse if she (or he) tries to flee (or even hide from) their attacker in a motor vehicle.

The facts of the Axelberg case are sordid, and we laid them out for our readers when the Supreme Court accepted review of this case, but the case can be effectively summarized this way: Axelberg, who had been drinking, was assaulted by her husband at a remote location where they were vacationing. Axelberg, without a cell phone, eventually locked herself in her car to avoid her husband's assault. After he punched the windshield hard enough to break it, she started the vehicle and fled to a nearby resort, driving less than a mile. Axelberg's husband followed her on foot, and was only prevented from further assaulting Axelberg when police were called to the resort.

Axelberg's husband was arrested and taken into custody . . . and the Commissioner of Public Safety revoked Axelberg's driver's license due to the fact that her alcohol concentration was over the legal limit. The Minnesota Attorney General's Office appeared in Court, and argued that it not only had the right to revoke Axelberg's driver's license, but also that Axelberg did not even have the right to explain why she drove while over the legal limit, or raise the ancient, common law defense of "necessity."

Four justices from the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the government attorneys, and concluded that Axelberg was precluded from even arguing that her flight to safety (for 9/10 of a mile along a deserted rural road) was permissible under Minnesota's Implied Consent law. Effectively, the Court concluded that because the Implied Consent law does not explicitly permit intoxicated drivers to flee from domestic assault as a last resort, the defense is entirely unavailable no matter how severe the situation. Today, Axelberg not only lost her license as a result of her decision to hide from her attacker, but this license revocation is treated exactly like a conviction for DWI for the purposes of enhancing future offenses.

The decision in Axelberg prompted three strongly worded dissents from three justices. One of the dissents, authored by Justice Lillehaug, wasted no time pointing out that the Commissioner of Public Safety, responsible for punishing Axelberg for her decision to flee from domestic abuse, has the statutory responsibility to promote, "the highest attainable standards of . . . justice for crime victims" and is actually expected, by statute, to advocate for the rights of victims of domestic violence. The dissent then pointed out that "it is hard to imagine that the Legislature intended that the judiciary revoke the license of victims who drive only to escape domestic violence."

A second dissent, authored by Justice Wright, underscored just how unreasonable the result in Axelberg really is, emphasizing that the role of our judicial system has always been to be fair, and that the defense of "necessity" has existed for centuries for just that reason - fairness in the application of our laws. Justice Wright then took the time to carefully outline the serious problems that our society continues to face when it comes to domestic violence - importantly pointing out how access to a vehicle should provide a level of independence and security to a battered woman . . . and not another shackle tying her to her abuser.

The final dissent, authored by Justice Page, neatly summarized the decision reached by the majority when it pointed out that, "By its decision, the court also discourages domestic abuse victims from even seeking refuge in a motor vehicle. Based on our case law, today's decision deprives many victims of domestic violence of the only available refuge." This dissent also highlighted a great deal of case law that would support the application of the "necessity" defense in an Implied Consent hearing.

The Axelberg case is a very troubling one, calling into question not just the problems our society continues to have with drunk drivers and domestic violence, but what role we expect our laws and our judges to fill in ordering that society. This includes questions about the role of our government attorneys, who pressed the Axelberg case all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Needless to say, as the authors of the amicus curiae brief that we filed in support of Axelberg, we are disappointed in the result reached in this case. Even more hard work was put into this case by Ryan Pacyga and his team, from the start of this case in Kanabec County all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The one question that needs to be answered now is this: does the Legislature have the political will to fix this situation and protect the rights of domestic abuse victims against an overly rigid set of DWI laws?

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.mndwidefenseblog.com/admin/trackback/314498

Continue Reading...

3 Surprising Lessons about Los Angeles DUI Defense from the Recent Ebola Scare

Unless you’ve been living under a rock – or you’ve been so totally overwhelmed by your Los Angeles DUI that you haven’t checked CNN or your Facebook feed in months – you probably are keenly aware of the explosive Ebola outbreak in the West African countries of Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea.

In mid-October, officials with the World Health Organization (WHO) and other prestigious bodies panicked and worried that the epidemic could explode outside of West Africa and create a worldwide pandemic that could lead to the infection of hundreds of thousands if not millions of individuals. Thanks to alert action on part of the U.S. Military, health authorities, and philanthropists, it at least appears that we are finally staunching the Ebola tide. However, the Ebola outbreak – in particular, how it played out in the media – holds powerful lessons for DUI defendants. Here are three.

1.    We tend to fear the disturbing and exotic as opposed to the mundane and realistic.

For instance, if you have been arrested for DUI, you might be terrified about going to jail for 2+ days. While staying in jail is not a picnic, you might be overlooking far more profound consequences… such as losing your California driver’s license for a year or longer. Imagine not being able to drive to work, take your kids to school, and even go on simple errand runs.

2.    When things go wrong in life, it’s easy to spiral out of control into a panic, but overreacting can make problems worse.

For instance, despite statistical and epidemiological evidence that closing off the U.S. borders to West African countries would not stop the spread of Ebola in the U.S. — and potentially even impede efforts to contain disease, because rescue workers and doctors could not as easily travel back and forth — many people choose not to hear these rational arguments. Likewise, many DUI defendants react in nonstrategic fashion by, for instance, waiting way too long to hire attorneys to represent them and guide them through the process.

3.    The right kind of help at the right time can make a huge difference.

If you look at the projections for Ebola before and after the massive international reaction, the data are stark. Our intervention really seems to have made a big difference. Likewise, if you find the right people, such as a qualified Los Angeles DUI defense attorney with the Kraut Law Group, you may be able to powerfully affect your future, win back your freedom, and avert personal catastrophe.

Call the Kraut Law Group today for a free and confidential consultation.

If police stopped you for Los Angeles DUI, you may be worried and anxious. Contact Harvard Law School educated, ex-prosecutor Michael Kraut for assistance at (323) 464-6453 or online. Our team is located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1480, Los Angeles, California 90028.

Continue Reading...

DUI Criminal Defense and Jury Trials- Clients and Defenses

In the last post I discussed the difficulty in DUI jury trials and why I enjoy DUI and criminal defense. In this blog entry, I will discuss clients and defenses. The two go hand in hand for a number of different reasons that will be explained. The last blog post in this series will examine the "cost-benefit" analysis which involves what is given up in the decision to go trial.

First, the mentality of the client is very important. Some clients go into an initial client meeting and the first thing they say is they want to plead guilty- they want to accept responsibility and all this over. On the other side of the spectrum, clients want a jury trial. For the first type, the advice is to wait- that the People's case must be examined prior to pleading guilty. Further, this is exactly the type of person that is least likely to be a risk to society- they recognize that their behavior must change- and can change their behavior on their own regardless of punishment. Personal responsibility is separate than the People's duty to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The client may also have to testify. This involves public speaking, which can terrify a person. I have taken the testimony of many civilians in criminal and civil proceedings, and can usually help a client work through their fears to give good testimony. It is also important to answer the question, and not go off on tangents. I've won jury trials where a witness spoke too much, and proved their own defense to be a sham. The witness must be credible, efficient, and confident. Or, again, they may be giving the prosecution a guilty verdict.

Second, is the defenses involved. There are a number of defenses I list in my mailings. However, for many defenses, the facts must fit the defense. Attempting to shoe-horn facts into a defense will not pass the common sense test- and common sense is the cornerstone of jury trials. For instance, a rising defense with a .15% BAC, necessity defenses where other options are obvious, driving defense in the middle of a lighted, populated area with witnesses, GERD defense with no medical history, etc.

Criminal defense attorneys sometimes lose sight of common sense and work themselves up into a righteous ignorance. A defense may exist that would score extra points in law school, but does not work in the real world. And jurors live in the real world. The defense must fit facts, albeit with room to squeeze some, but otherwise the client is headed straight towards a guilty verdict.

Finally, the client must be present for the jury trial. For misdemeanors, through Penal Code 977, defendants do not need to be present. But if the client/defendant is not taking the time to be present for their jury trial, the message to the jury is that it isn't worth their time either. The defense theory itself is compromised. The presence of a defendant humanizes the experience, and grounds the full weight of "beyond a reasonable doubt" which our land demands of criminal prosecution. If not present, the prejudicial effect of DUIs is magnified, and it is quite easy for the jury to convict.

Continue Reading...

The National College for DUI Defense

Until a few years ago, attorneys attempting to defend a client against drunk driving charges were general practitioners who had little, if any, understanding of the nature of the offense. They were unfamiliar with such DUI investigatory methods as field sobriety tests, and there was an almost complete lack of seminars on how to defend these clients.
Most importantly, defense lawyers were completely ignorant about the complexities of blood alcohol analysis — whether of blood, breath or urine samples. How does this "breathalyzer" work? What is "infrared analysis"? "Gas chromatography"? How is alcohol metabolized in the human body? What is "Widmark’s formula"? "Hematocrit"? What is "retrograde extrapolation" and how does that work? What physiological variables occur between individuals? What medical conditions can effect a breath reading and how? What happens if blood samples ferment or coagulate?
Chemical analysis of blood, breath or urine involved knowledge of such highly technical fields as physiology, organic chemistry, physics, biophysics, electrical engineering — subjects far beyond the experience and training of lawyers.
Then about 17 years ago, ten of the most prominent DUI defense attorneys in the country met in a hotel conference room near Chicago’s O’Hare Airport.  Over the following three days they hammered out plans for a new professional organization: "The National College for DUI Defense". They created this as a non-profit organization dedicated to improving the quality of the DUI bar, primarily through providing educational seminars, and donated their own money for initial funding.  An important secondary purpose of the organization was to address the problem of insularity in the profession — the isolation of lawyers; the College would be a tool with which attorneys across the country could share information, ideas and experiences.
I am proud to say that I was one of those ten founders, and have since served as Dean and on its Board of Regents. For each of us, the College was a true labor of love.
The first national seminar was held at Harvard Law School. It was an intense 3-day series of lectures, demonstrations and workshops, featuring a faculty of the top lawyers, scientists and forensic toxicologists in the field.
The experiment was a huge success, and has been repeated every July at Harvard for the past 16 years. In fact, the College’s governing Board of Regents soon expanded this educational effort by creating a second 3-day annual seminar in the winter. This proved another resounding success: in the recent session held in Las Vegas, there were over 500 lawyers attending from all over the country.  Other annual seminars, one focusing on blood-alcohol science exclusively, soon followed.
The National College for DUI Defense also created an internet website, along with an email discussion group where attorneys could share information and ideas. There are currently hundreds of members across the country using this forum — and discovering, for example. that what one lawyer in Texas has found effective in dealing with the effects of diabetes on breath tests can be helpful to another in Oregon.
Having provided the means to develop greater skills in this demanding field, the College next addressed the need to recognize those lawyers who had achieved the highest levels of competence. Within recent years, they began certifying attorneys as specialists in DUI defense. In order to be Board-certified, an applicant must satisfy demanding requirements of practice and trial experience, as well as pass intensive written and oral examinations.
Most recently, the College has been successful in applying to the American Bar Association for recognition of a new legal specialty: DUI defense. After considerable study, the ABA went further and recognized the National College for DUI Defense as the sole organization authorized to certify attorneys as specialists in this new field.
Today, with headquarters in Montgomery, Alabama, the College has a membership of over 1200 attorneys across the country.  It continues to sponsor or c0-sponsor numerous national seminars annually, including the original seminar at Harvard Law School; maintain an extensive online library of legal and scientific literature related to drunk driving litigation; contribute funds and support to Supreme Court appeals involving important DUI-related legal and constitutional issues; supervise demanding ABA-approved oral and written exams of attorneys applying for certification as DUI specialists; and provide a busy online discussion forum for its 1200+ members and selected blood-alcohol scientists to share ideas, problems and solutions.
The result: if you are some day accused of this demonized offense, you are more likely to have an attorney who understands the very complex legal and scientific issues involved — in other words, you are more likely to realize your constitutional right to competent counsel and due process.

Continue Reading...

Howard County DUI - Serious Case -Serious Defense

Luckily the overwhelming majority of DUI cases in Maryland are relatively bland, that is, the driver had a little too much to drink and was stopped by Maryland's law enforcement for speeding or driving on the shoulder; nobody gets physically hurt. However, occasionally a very serious case comes along which necessitates an extremely high level of defense or the Defendant is going to jail for a very long time.

In this very serious Howard County DUI case, my client mistakenly proceeded the wrong way on the highway and struck a Mac truck head on. The driver of the truck escaped with very minor injuries, however my client was brought back to life at the scene of the accident by the highly skilled Howard County Medics. She was taken to shock trauma where she spent the next month having multiple surgeries and clinging to life from her life threatening injuries including breaking almost every bone in her body. Following a month of Shock Trauma it was off to a rehab facility to learn how to walk.

Unfortunately for this client, her BAC (blood alcohol content) was in the .20 range which is very high. She is a professional and had never been in trouble with the law before. She retained Robinson & Associates to provide her defense in this very serious case and we were able to comb through her case and find several weaknesses in what appeared to be a very strong case against this defendant.

On the day of her trial, following pretrial motions and several meetings with the State's Attorney, we were able to walk our client out of court that day with no conviction and unsupervised probation, a Herculean result in Howard County. If you have a DUI in Howard County Maryland and need experienced and aggressive counsel to protect you and your family, give us a call, anytime, we'll be glad to discuss your case at no charge.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Broward DUI Defense & Video Evidence

Video evidence is among the most important evidence the Assistant State Attorney can use against a DUI defendant, but it can frequently work in the defendant’s favor, depending on what the video shows. There are any number of possible scenarios in which a DUI video provides evidence useful to a defendant, according to experienced Fort Lauderdale DUI attorney William Moore.

In the case of a DUI suspect who performs the roadside field sobriety exercises, decent or good performance can work in his favor. This is true regardless of whether or not there is a breath test reading. For instance, if the driver suspected of DUI performs the roadside tests reasonably well, especially in light of the fact that they are unusual activities drivers are not accustomed to performing, the video is more helpful to the suspect and his DUI defense attorney. One interesting argument in this scenario is when the driver actually receives a very high breath test reading. These two things occasionally happen. If a driver blows a 0.32 breath test reading -- four times the “legal limit” at which intoxication is presumed -- yet still performs the exercises well, a reasonable jury may well understand that the breathalyzer may have been faulty or inaccurate.

If a video captures the time leading up to a traffic stop, the driving pattern may also be under scrutiny. If a person is pulled over on suspicion of driving under the influence, the police officer will need to be able to justify the traffic stop. Failure to maintain a single lane, just by itself, will probably not cause reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop if the driver is not affecting other traffic. However, weaving, drifting into another lane, failing to go at a green light, and very slow driving speeds may all trigger traffic stops.

Another possible scenario would be when a non-English speaking driver is pulled over by an officer who cannot communicate effectively with him. As a result, the driver may not understand the instructions for either the roadside field sobriety tests or the breath test machine. If a police officer fails to adequately (or correctly) explain the consequences of refusal, regardless of the language the officer and the driver are communicating in, that may also work in a DUI defendant’s favor. Likewise, a police officer or breathalyzer operator who is extremely rude or expresses a bias may not win favor with a jury hearing the DUI case.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

A Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Discuses Changes In MA Parole System Due To Homicide Of Woburn Police Officer- Attorney Sam’s Take

If you heard a cacophony of crashing noises yesterday from the direction of Boston’s Beacon Hill, it was the sound of Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick , along with a certain Parole Board, caving in to public ridicule and political pressure.

As you have heard time and time again, the now-infamous Massachusetts Parole Board released a repeat violent offender in 2008. Of course, it was not the first time that this has happened. However, this time, said offender , in 2010, was involved in a robbery to which the late police officer John Maguire responded. There was a gunfight and the officer, as well as the offender, were killed. Since that time, amongst various reports of unexplained police shootings of suspects and non-suspects, a state-wide hand-wringing has been occurring.

Naturally, in 2011, tragedy must be someone’s fault. Someone living’s fault. Thus, it was the Parole Board’s fault.

At first, Governor Patrick had the gall to be a leader and indicate before rushing to judgment and demanding the Parole Board’s heads on a stick, that perhaps we should concentrate on the victims, then gather all the evidence and then decide fault.

Well, so much for that kind of nonsense.

Governor Patrick has now announced “sweeping changes” at the Massachusetts Parole Board. The political broomstick has swept out, for example, the five Parole Board members at issue (through their own resignations, of course).

Said sweeping also includes a moratorium to remain in place on executive sessions for high-risk offenders, he said. The governor also promised to file legislation calling, among other things, for tougher sentencing for repeat offenders and greater truth in sentencing. According to press accounts, Governor Patrick wants paroles of repeat violent offenders to stop until the Parole Board can demonstrate an ability to oversee their release.

Patrick also said at the news conference he was appointing Josh Wall, first assistant district attorney in Suffolk County, as the interim executive director of the board. He also said he had nominated Wall to the board and intended to appoint him chairman.

During my many years as an experienced Boston criminal defense attorney , I have had many dealings with assistant district attorney Wall. He is an experienced prosecutor and, as the late Jerry Williams would say, “Not a bad guy”.

He is, of course a seasoned prosecutor which means he is well indoctrinated to that point of view. I suppose that’s ok…the assumption at parole is, after all, that the potential parolee “did it”.

The problem is when the governor, who should know better, succumbs to the weight of political expediency. Statements like no paroles should be allowed until the Parole Board can guarantee that it can oversee all parolees is a command not rooted in reality and he knows it.

Parole cannot guarantee that. Not enough resources.

One might as well say that nobody will be placed on probation any longer because the Department of Probation cannot guarantee adequate oversight. Anyone in the system will tell you that, actually, they can’t if they are honest.

I wonder if, given the above-referenced police shootings and beatings, whether we should hold off on giving police officers weapons until we can guarantee that they are all fit and properly supervised. Ahh, but now I am talking crazy...!

Again, in a system where we try to cure everything by criminal sentences and prison terms, it is not possible. There are not enough resources and there will be less tomorrow. Raise taxes for it? Come on…you know better than that.

On the other hand, the governor claims he wants better “truth in sentencing”:. Actually, we have that. A sentence of 10 years, for example, means that you will basically serve 10 years. However, “life sentences” which sound so good ‘n tough cannot actually always mean life. First of all, it would not be appropriate for all those who receive such sentences. Further, again, we would not have the resources to keep all of them in for life. Finally, take away all hope of freedom and all such prisoners would have nothing to lose by their conduct. In short, an already inadequate and, n my view dangerous, correctional system will become more out of control.

On the other hand, such “tough talk sounds mighty good when you say it fast, doesn’t it? True, it might trample on a few felons’’ rights, but, after all, they are criminals, so we don’t really care about their rights.

Nor the problems the resulting anger, bitterness and realization that the “Justice System” is anything but that in the “big house” will bring.

At least, for now.

Until the whole system shuts down.

But we can continue to play our word games until then, can’t we?

In the meantime, if you want to cut down on the odds of your becoming one of these “human beings turned statistics” after being accused of a crime, you want a criminal defense attorney with experience. If you want that attorney to be me, If you would like that attorney to be me, please feel to call me to arrange a free initial consultation at 617-492-3000.

Have a great, safe and law-abiding weekend!

To view the original story, and charming photograph about which parts of this blog were based, please go to : http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/governor_announ_2.html?p1=News_links

View the original article here

Continue Reading...