Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    706

    Default Re: Designated Driver/DUI

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    We don't know the state's case. Without that it's really not possible to say how strong it is. And in a criminal case, it all starts with the strength of the state's case. The state is the one that has to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The job of the defense is to attack the state's case poke as many holes in it as possible. Bear in mind that criminal law and procedure, as well as what juries are likely to do, vary from place to place. Colorado is different from your state of California. So what you are familiar with from California may not be what the OP will face in Colorado. Moreover, in Colorado, it'll make a difference where in the state this is taking place. There is a distinctly different outlook in, say, Denver than in Grand Junction. Which is why the OP is going to get his best recommendations and advice from a Colorado DUI attorney, preferably one in the part of the state where the case is being prosecuted.
    Your post is a common, generic excuse for not wanting to say the OP has a good case and I'll explain why:

    Opinions are given to OP's all the time here with very little information offered. In this case, if the OP said he failed a FST, blew a 1.5bac, puked on the officer and ran down a pedestrian in a crosswalk, you'd likely say that he is screwed royal. You would not say "we don't know the state's case." Yet when an OP says the opposite, that he did not take (or fail) a FST, did not take (or fail) a blood test, was observed for two hours by an officer in the ER, got in a traffic accident (but the roadway was wet), that the cop did not pursue the blood test, you are going to say you don't have enough information about what the DA has in the form of evidence? Well, you know what the DA does not have. He does not have any hard evidence that the OP was impaired.

    Why won't you (or others) tell the OP what are the strong points of their case? You tell them what is most probable when the evidence is against them. You also won't tell the OP what DA's often do with a weak case...they go for whatever conviction they can. In this case it was a pled down case. Why? Likely because the DA doesn't have any hard evidence but wants a conviction anyway. Would you even agree that DA's strive for convictions?

    IMO, you guys are very quick to say someone is screwed and doesn't have a defense but you nearly always use the excuse that "we don't have enough information" to avoid saying "it sounds like you have a good case." Why is that? This has 'good case' written all over it! You as a lawyers should see that...and say that.

    None of you see through the eyes of a defense attorney. You are all DA's at heart when this site should be occupied by defense attorney minded folks. And your post reflects that mindset.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,222

    Default Re: Designated Driver/DUI

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Your post is a common, generic excuse for not wanting to say the OP has a good case and I'll explain why:
    I say quite frequently that I don't have enough information to know how it will turn out, and often tell others responding here that they are making conclusions based on insufficient information. You're lumping me in with others, and despite what you think, we do not all respond to posts the same.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    In this case, if the OP said he failed a FST, blew a 1.5bac, puked on the officer and ran down a pedestrian in a crosswalk, you'd likely say that he is screwed royal.
    In that case what I would tell the OP is that if that is what the state has against him he would indeed have a difficult time. But I would also tell him to see a DUI attorney to see what defenses he has because it is important to know what the state's case is and what other evidence the OP had available. I doubt even you would say that a guy with those kinds of facts, especially a BAC of 0.15, would have a very good chance to beat a DUI. In Colorado and most other states, assuming the chemical test is admissible, that's all the state needs to win a DUI conviction. So if the state has that, it's got a very strong. But that assumes that the test results are admissible and that the officer didn't screw something up during the stop. The tests might not be admissible or there might be some other defect in the state's case, so the defendant in that situation would still be well advised to at least consult a DUI attorney and see what he might have to work with.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Why is that? This has 'good case' written all over it! You as a lawyers should see that...and say that.
    How can I say he has a good case when I don't know what the state has? If, like in your example above, he were to admit that the state likely has a good case, that's one thing. But here he hasn't told us what the state has. Only what the state doesn't have it doesn't have a chemical test and it doesn't have FSTs. And lacking those things certainly helps the OP, those are two things he doesn't have to contend with. But I don't yet know what it is that the state DOES have because, frankly, the OP doesn't yet know that. And he needs to find that out to figure out where he stands. IMO you are often too quick to render opinions when there is not sufficient information. I might give an opinion based just on what the OP provides, but if it is clear to me that what is provided likely isn't all of it, I'll generally caution that additional information might change it. My answer reflects the mindset of a lawyer; lawyers tend not to want to offer opinions without full information. You're not a lawyer, so you don't look at it the same way lawyers do.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    706

    Default Re: Designated Driver/DUI

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    I say quite frequently that I don't have enough information to know how it will turn out, and often tell others responding here that they are making conclusions based on insufficient information. You're lumping me in with others, and despite what you think, we do not all respond to posts the same.

    In that case what I would tell the OP is that if that is what the state has against him he would indeed have a difficult time. But I would also tell him to see a DUI attorney to see what defenses he has because it is important to know what the state's case is and what other evidence the OP had available. I doubt even you would say that a guy with those kinds of facts, especially a BAC of 0.15, would have a very good chance to beat a DUI. In Colorado and most other states, assuming the chemical test is admissible, that's all the state needs to win a DUI conviction. So if the state has that, it's got a very strong. But that assumes that the test results are admissible and that the officer didn't screw something up during the stop. The tests might not be admissible or there might be some other defect in the state's case, so the defendant in that situation would still be well advised to at least consult a DUI attorney and see what he might have to work with.

    How can I say he has a good case when I don't know what the state has? If, like in your example above, he were to admit that the state likely has a good case, that's one thing. But here he hasn't told us what the state has. Only what the state doesn't have it doesn't have a chemical test and it doesn't have FSTs. And lacking those things certainly helps the OP, those are two things he doesn't have to contend with. But I don't yet know what it is that the state DOES have because, frankly, the OP doesn't yet know that. And he needs to find that out to figure out where he stands. IMO you are often too quick to render opinions when there is not sufficient information. I might give an opinion based just on what the OP provides, but if it is clear to me that what is provided likely isn't all of it, I'll generally caution that additional information might change it. My answer reflects the mindset of a lawyer; lawyers tend not to want to offer opinions without full information. You're not a lawyer, so you don't look at it the same way lawyers do.
    You are not entering a courtroom on behalf of the OP. You are going on what you've been told so far. It is easy to say "if the DA does not have this, this, this, this or this, then you are in a good position." And that "taking the plea might not be advised."

    Of course the cops might have a video of him stumbling, falling or puking. But that is just as likely as them having nothing more than what has been discussed here. If they had a case, they'd go for the blood.

    In my trial, even though both sides prepared for a year and a half, there was a severe lack of information presented to the jury. So, that statement of 'lacking information' is a constant problem in law.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Other Violations: Designated Driver Cited with Underage Person Transporting Intoxicants
    By Transportationredlight in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-14-2015, 10:24 AM
  2. Open Container Laws: Designated Driver Charged With Open Intox
    By sheana in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-17-2012, 06:19 PM
  3. Police Conduct: Police Officer Takes Keys from Designated Driver While at the Beach
    By kvnkvn in forum Police Investigations
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-30-2010, 08:48 PM
  4. Designated Driver with No License
    By snoop in forum Driver's Licenses
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 08:25 PM
  5. Accident by Designated Driver in My Car
    By vigorous1 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-10-2008, 09:29 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources