Articles Posted in DWI Defense Lawyer

Not a very good one. A Johnson County magistrate earned $50 for each forced blood draw warrant she reviewed.

When you compensate someone for the volume of work done, you will get quantity, but not always quality. What do you know? She signed at least one warrant without the required probable cause.

From the Star Telegram-

I had a DWI bench trial few weeks ago and received a directed verdict of not guilty. I respect the ADA involved so I’ve waited until now to write about it. I don’t want to appear like I’m scoreboarding anyone. It was a unique case that played out very strange at trial.

It offers a lesson for DWI defendants. The information contained in a police report may very greatly from the evidence at trial. Cross examination is still the best way to test the veracity of evidence.

What is a directed verdict?

Celebrate the new year with the DWI Security Theater production of No Refusal. Of course by “no refusal” what is really meant is that the police are going to punish you for not taking their breath test, exercising your right to remain silent and not produce evidence, and exercising your right to not be held down while police goons steal your blood.

“No refusal” sounds better to the public than “forced blood draw program”. PR points for the police. Here the story from Bell County.

“We want everyone in Bell County to have a great New Year’s holiday,” Sheriff Dan Smith said. “Our intent is to protect the public and have an accident and fatality free holiday.”

I’m only surprised MADD, TxDot, or DPS didn’t think of this first. We already use the fake DWI death/car crash and the fake DWI arrest to scare students. How long until we threaten them with eternal damnation?

.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url(‘http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png’) !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}

I’m on an ALR win streak. My last three hearings have resulted in a victory for my client. (ALR hearings are when the state moves to suspend your license for a DWI arrest).

I know these clients appreciated not having their license suspended. However, two of the victories were dismissals because the arresting officer failed to appear. That is still a victory, but only in the short term. (The other was because the State couldn’t prove my client refused to provide a specimen). When the officer fails to appear my client gets a short term benefit (no DL suspensions) but still faces long term problems (the criminal DWI charge).

I tell my clients that it can be better to lose the ALR hearing if I get to cross examine the arresting officer. Many of the best results I have got in a DWI case (dismissals, obstructions etc) resulted directly from ALR testimony. The DWI offense report contains one set of facts. An officer’s memory can, and often is, completely different.

Many potential clients assume that if there no video tape of a DWI arrest, it helps their case. They believe that the absence of such evidence will make it harder for the State to convict them. Some also believe the State will, or must, dismiss the case for lack of video evidence.

This is a logical assumption. The State bears the burden of proving the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn’t seem unreasonable that when the State loses critical evidence they should have to dismiss the case (unfortunately, the appellate courts require an impossible showing of “bad faith”). In my experience, the absence of a DWI videotape always hurts the defense more than the State.

First, the absence of a video tape leaves out the only unbiased observation of events. Defendants don’t take notes during their arrest (most wouldn’t know what to write anyway). That means the only record of events is the police report.