Posted: 10/24/2009 2:06:38 PM EDT
|
I had the opportuity to sit in on a jury trial for someone fighting a DUI. I saw what happens when the defense lawyer strategy is to challenge everything and hope that one of his 10,000 points hits home to the jury. His client wasted alot of money that he could have saved by just pleading no contest. The lawyer lacked the technical knowledge necessary to challenge things like the blood draw, the sample vials, the chain of custody and the Madison lab including the Chemist who tested the samples and the equipment used to test them.
The other thing I noticed is that the dash cam video was awful. Although it was in a DVD format for viewing, it looked like it was recorded on a 20 year old VHS tape that had been recorded over a couple of hundred times before. |
I did once. During jury selection the judge asked if anyone felt they couldn't be on the jury for any reason. I raised my hand with one of these looks  . Judge said ok, whats the reason. I told him of a story when I was in highschool I took a breath test for a demonstration in health class. Long story short, I blew a .8 something and I hadn't had anything to drink. The instructor said it could be because the machine was cold or was dropped or something. I will never trust the results of one of those after that.
Funny thing was I could tell the judge was pissed after I told the story because the whole jury pool also listened. I should have stuck around and watched to see what the jury decided! LOL |
|
Quoted:
I did once. During jury selection the judge asked if anyone felt they couldn't be on the jury for any reason. I raised my hand with one of these looks . Judge said ok, whats the reason. I told him of a story when I was in highschool I took a breath test for a demonstration in health class. Long story short, I blew a .8 something and I hadn't had anything to drink. The instructor said it could be because the machine was cold or was dropped or something. I will never trust the results of one of those after that.
Funny thing was I could tell the judge was pissed after I told the story because the whole jury pool also listened. I should have stuck around and watched to see what the jury decided! LOL As a note, there is a world of difference between the test you took in gym class, the PBT or preliminary breath test which is inadmissible at an OWI trial because of problems with reliability vs. the blood draws and intoximeter. As an additional note, I'm yet to see a PBT do what you just described, or anything close. Sounds like a faulty unit that was not properly maintained and tested. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did once. During jury selection the judge asked if anyone felt they couldn't be on the jury for any reason. I raised my hand with one of these looks . Judge said ok, whats the reason. I told him of a story when I was in highschool I took a breath test for a demonstration in health class. Long story short, I blew a .8 something and I hadn't had anything to drink. The instructor said it could be because the machine was cold or was dropped or something. I will never trust the results of one of those after that.
Funny thing was I could tell the judge was pissed after I told the story because the whole jury pool also listened. I should have stuck around and watched to see what the jury decided! LOL As a note, there is a world of difference between the test you took in gym class, the PBT or preliminary breath test which is inadmissible at an OWI trial because of problems with reliability vs. the blood draws and intoximeter. SoundAs an additional note, I'm yet to see a PBT do what you just described, or anything close. s like a faulty unit that was not properly maintained and tested. Im a little confused by this? Maybe I wasn't clear? The test I was given was by an LEO with the unit he uses in his patrol car. Is this what you are calling a PBT? What did it do that you havn't saw before? I blew in it and it gave a reading? This all happened more than 10 years ago so im sure the equipment they use today is much better but the last part of your statement is exactly why I don't trust what the machine reads. BTW, I don't drink, at all. If I ever get pulled over for this I will ask that they take me to the hospital to do a blood draw. |
|
I got called to jury duty for a DUI case a few years ago. The judge interviewed me and started to ask the usual questions - have you ever been arrested for DUI ? (no), and then he asked if I knew any of those involved (he already knew the answer, but went through the formality of asking). I answered "Yes, of course I do... I know Todd (the arresting officer), Al (the prosecutor), Brian (the defense attorney), and of course you, your honor" (the judge had been my attorney before becoming judge). "I don't know the defendant personally... but I believe his wife works at the same place as my wife."
Hey, I had to be honest, and it was all truthful. Needless to say, I wasn't picked for that jury. 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I did once. During jury selection the judge asked if anyone felt they couldn't be on the jury for any reason. I raised my hand with one of these looks . Judge said ok, whats the reason. I told him of a story when I was in highschool I took a breath test for a demonstration in health class. Long story short, I blew a .8 something and I hadn't had anything to drink. The instructor said it could be because the machine was cold or was dropped or something. I will never trust the results of one of those after that. Funny thing was I could tell the judge was pissed after I told the story because the whole jury pool also listened. I should have stuck around and watched to see what the jury decided! LOL As a note, there is a world of difference between the test you took in gym class, the PBT or preliminary breath test which is inadmissible at an OWI trial because of problems with reliability vs. the blood draws and intoximeter. SoundAs an additional note, I'm yet to see a PBT do what you just described, or anything close. s like a faulty unit that was not properly maintained and tested. Im a little confused by this? Maybe I wasn't clear? The test I was given was by an LEO with the unit he uses in his patrol car. Is this what you are calling a PBT? What did it do that you havn't saw before? I blew in it and it gave a reading? This all happened more than 10 years ago so im sure the equipment they use today is much better but the last part of your statement is exactly why I don't trust what the machine reads. BTW, I don't drink, at all. If I ever get pulled over for this I will ask that they take me to the hospital to do a blood draw. Yes, that's what he's calling a PBT. Preliminary Breath Test, which is non evidentiary. The Intoximeter is the actual evidentiary chemical test for court and is significantly different. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did once. During jury selection the judge asked if anyone felt they couldn't be on the jury for any reason. I raised my hand with one of these looks . Judge said ok, whats the reason. I told him of a story when I was in highschool I took a breath test for a demonstration in health class. Long story short, I blew a .8 something and I hadn't had anything to drink. The instructor said it could be because the machine was cold or was dropped or something. I will never trust the results of one of those after that.
Funny thing was I could tell the judge was pissed after I told the story because the whole jury pool also listened. I should have stuck around and watched to see what the jury decided! LOL As a note, there is a world of difference between the test you took in gym class, the PBT or preliminary breath test which is inadmissible at an OWI trial because of problems with reliability vs. the blood draws and intoximeter. SoundAs an additional note, I'm yet to see a PBT do what you just described, or anything close. s like a faulty unit that was not properly maintained and tested. Im a little confused by this? Maybe I wasn't clear? The test I was given was by an LEO with the unit he uses in his patrol car. Is this what you are calling a PBT? What did it do that you havn't saw before? I blew in it and it gave a reading? This all happened more than 10 years ago so im sure the equipment they use today is much better but the last part of your statement is exactly why I don't trust what the machine reads. BTW, I don't drink, at all. If I ever get pulled over for this I will ask that they take me to the hospital to do a blood draw. Yes, that is a PBT. Sorry, I assumed it was given by a health class instructor as you never mentioned any LEO in your first post. PBTs can be used at some trials, as they are not prohibited by law and at the judge's discretion. They are only prohibited in OWI trials. I say trial because they can used for pre-trial motions and to set bail amongst other things. But to be used at trial, both lawyers will likely have to file motions in limine beforehand and argue. Some alcohol offenses (underage drinking, absolute sobriety, bail jumping where the terms and conditions of bail prohibit alcohol consumption, etc) do not require anything beyond PBT. PBTs are not blocked by law either in cases such as where there was a bar fight and PBTs were given to the combatants. Now, just because it is not barred by law does not mean the judge will let it in. I know at least one judge who never ever lets PBTs into trials. Other judges will always allow outside of an OWI trial. It just varies. |
|
So I take it that your first offense for OWI in WI is not pretty well automatically downgraded to reckless driving if it was "sole source" (you were pulled over by chance, no damage or second vehicle, etc) like in NV.
I thought I read on the registration/DMV site the first OWI is pretty much a joke? It seems contradictory to what the news keeps pushing. V OUT |
|
Quoted:
So I take it that your first offense for OWI in WI is not pretty well automatically downgraded to reckless driving if it was "sole source" (you were pulled over by chance, no damage or second vehicle, etc) like in NV. I thought I read on the registration/DMV site the first OWI is pretty much a joke? It seems contradictory to what the news keeps pushing. V OUT If there is a provable OWI case that gets referred in, the DA will almost certainly prosecute. Outcome of first offense OWI: Fine to the tune of $650+ Drivers License revocation: 6-9 months (if you are caught driving during this period of revocation, or if your DL is indefinitely revoked due to non-compliance with your AODA assessment, see below, then you face an additional misdemeanor charge of operating after revocation punishable by up to a $2,500 fine, 1 year in jail, or both) Alcohol and drug assessment (expect to dish out a few hundred more dollars 6 points on license There are a number of circumstances that could bump the first offense to a criminal charge: ~hit and run of an attended vehicle ~minor under the age of 16 in the vehicle ~OWI causing injury ~OWI causing homicide |
|
Quoted:
So I take it that your first offense for OWI in WI is not pretty well automatically downgraded to reckless driving if it was "sole source" (you were pulled over by chance, no damage or second vehicle, etc) like in NV. I thought I read on the registration/DMV site the first OWI is pretty much a joke? It seems contradictory to what the news keeps pushing. It is not a joke, and it is not downgraded to anything. It currently is not considered a "criminal" charge. More like a really bad moving violation. When you are pulled over, they give you 2 tickets. 1 for operating with a prohibited BAC and the other for operating while impaired. Neither are inferring that you are driving "drunk". All impaired means is that you are operating less safely than if you had nothing to drink. It means that the alcohol impairs your safe driving even a itsy bitsy bit. When I have seen people plead no contest, they only get stuck with 1 of the 2. Also this covers if you are impaired because of other drugs instead of or besides alcohol. Even though weaving in your own lane and/or crossing over the "fog" line (white line on the shoulder) is not illegal, it may cause suspicion that you are driving impaired. I think that the attorney was Marc How (not correct spelling to defeat google), but I am not certain. It pays to get a second opinion when it comes to something this important and to get another opinion of the planned line of defense. The shotgun defense definitely did not work this time. It did not appear to me that enough research had been done in order to be credible when challenging an expert witness. |
|
Quoted:
I did once. During jury selection the judge asked if anyone felt they couldn't be on the jury for any reason. I raised my hand with one of these looks . Judge said ok, whats the reason. I told him of a story when I was in highschool I took a breath test for a demonstration in health class. Long story short, I blew a .8 something and I hadn't had anything to drink. The instructor said it could be because the machine was cold or was dropped or something. I will never trust the results of one of those after that.
Funny thing was I could tell the judge was pissed after I told the story because the whole jury pool also listened. I should have stuck around and watched to see what the jury decided! LOL Probably a pretty simple answer to that one. On the older PBT's, a reading of .888 is the machine's way of asking for a new battery. |
|
I've had to blow into those things twice in my life.
Both times I was pretty drunk...both times I ended up blowing 0.00. I'm not really arguing those results. 
The first time I was underage at a party that got busted. Cop asked if i've been drinking and didn't lie to him. Blew 0.00...he looked the device, made sure it was working and had me blow again. Again 0.00...I could tell he was po'd but just said, "OK, you're free to go". Second time we were out partying, we get pulled over. The driver gets arrested for DUI. The cop gave the rest of us breath tests to see if someone could drive the car. Of course, I blew 0.00 and the cop proceeded to reprimand me for not driving instead. The truth is I drank more than the driver. I then had to follow the squad car back to the police station and I couldn't even keep up with him. So I guess I drove drunk once...at an officers request. I'm sure a field sobriety test would have been a better indicator. I wonder if some people just metabolize alcohol differently than others? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't remember what it was exactly, but it was less than .10.   They had a BAC over the limit of .08....... Less than the previous legal limit of .10.......I'm aware. It's HIGHLY unusual for someone between .08 and .10 to fight it all the way to jury trial, at least around here. Normally they get a plea deal long before that. Not to mention it's not particularly common for someone to get arrest between 08 and 10. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't remember what it was exactly, but it was less than .10. LIAR!!!!! I have been assured less then .10 cases are always dropped by prosocuters FROM THE EXPERTS RIGHT HERE ON ARFCOM!!!!!!  My county does not drop those cases. If it is a first, then we'll allow them to plea to the PAC instead of the OWI (lower penalties). If it is a 2nd or subsequent, then many other factors are looked at. But I have never heard of one being outright dropped. (I recognize you put a winking face at the end of your post, so I'm not sure if you're being serious and if not, then about what parts). |
|
Of the 37,077 people arrested for OWI in 2001, 990 (2.7%) tested in the
0.080 to 0.099 range. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/docs/08law.pdf |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If it is a first, then we'll allow them to plea to the PAC instead of the OWI (lower penalties). What is the difference in the penalty assessed??? I always thought it was the same... The penalty for PAC between. 08 and .10 is significantly reduced. |
|
Quoted:
Of the 37,077 people arrested for OWI in 2001, 990 (2.7%) tested in the
0.080 to 0.099 range. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/docs/08law.pdf conversely: The median BAC for people arrested for OWI and who test positive for alcohol
in their system is 0.17. In 2001, 82% of those arrested and tested were at 0.10 or above. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't remember what it was exactly, but it was less than .10. LIAR!!!!! I have been assured less then .10 cases are always dropped by prosocuters FROM THE EXPERTS RIGHT HERE ON ARFCOM!!!!!! Cite, please. Sorry , you can feel free to dig through the 9,000 or so threads i have been in to find it but it is certianly not worth my time to do so . |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Of the 37,077 people arrested for OWI in 2001, 990 (2.7%) tested in the 0.080 to 0.099 range. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/docs/08law.pdf conversely: The median BAC for people arrested for OWI and who test positive for alcohol in their system is 0.17. In 2001, 82% of those arrested and tested were at 0.10 or above. 82+2.7= 84.7 ..... 12.3% were what exactly? Someones playing with the numbers somewhere...... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of the 37,077 people arrested for OWI in 2001, 990 (2.7%) tested in the
0.080 to 0.099 range. http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/docs/08law.pdf conversely: The median BAC for people arrested for OWI and who test positive for alcohol
in their system is 0.17. In 2001, 82% of those arrested and tested were at 0.10 or above. 82+2.7= 84.7 ..... 12.3% were what exactly? Someones playing with the numbers somewhere...... a typo maybe? 2001 990 - BAC .08 -.99 (2.7%) 30403 - BAC .10 and up (82%) 5684 - BAC .079 and under (15.3%) My best shot at figuring out the stats, I suck at math. Edit: 2.7% of 37077 is 1001 so that page has a typo/math error. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it is a first, then we'll allow them to plea to the PAC instead of the OWI (lower penalties). What is the difference in the penalty assessed??? I always thought it was the same... The penalty for PAC between. 08 and .10 is significantly reduced. I realize that there is a multiplyer for higher BAC. My question is... What is the penalty difference if you are found guilty of driving under the influence/driving while impaired vs having a PAC of .08 or above???? At the jury trial, both tickets had to be addressed. It just happened that the person was found not guilty of the Driving while Impaired and Guilty of having a PAC. If he were to have been found guilty on both counts, I would expect that the judge would drop one as is done when the person pleads no contest at the initial appearance. |
|
In my book, it's real simple, don't drink and then drive... plan ahead if your going to drink...
Have one beer... but it rarely is... it's always truthfully more then that when a person is stopped. and with 80 plus % of them being way over the limit, there really is no excuse. Everyone makes mistakes, but after one DUI, if a person racks up multiple DUI's, that tells me that this individual just does not give a shit about the law and is going to do what they want... Saw the dash cam video on the news showing State rep Wood getting pulled over.. He ran up on the curb as he was pulling over... Failed his FST and almost fell over while doing it... clearly from my observation, he was impaired big time... Clearly WI has a problem... drive drunk and hit my wifes car killing her and my daughter, and I'm going to have issues with that... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If it is a first, then we'll allow them to plea to the PAC instead of the OWI (lower penalties). What is the difference in the penalty assessed??? I always thought it was the same... The penalty for PAC between. 08 and .10 is significantly reduced. I realize that there is a multiplyer for higher BAC. My question is... What is the penalty difference if you are found guilty of driving under the influence/driving while impaired vs having a PAC of .08 or above???? At the jury trial, both tickets had to be addressed. It just happened that the person was found not guilty of the Driving while Impaired and Guilty of having a PAC. If he were to have been found guilty on both counts, I would expect that the judge would drop one as is done when the person pleads no contest at the initial appearance. Operating with a PAC of .08but less than .10 $250.00 and 6 points Operating witha PAC of .10 or more $897.50 and 6 Points I believe that's 1st offense only. |
|
Quoted:
Operating with a PAC of .08but less than .10 $250.00 and 6 points Operating witha PAC of .10 or more $897.50 and 6 Points I believe that's 1st offense only. That isn't what I have been asking. What is the penalty for not guilty of BAC greater than .08 but guilty of operating while impaired, driving under the influence?????? 2 seperate tickets..... What are the differences between the penalties?? Case in point, the jury could have had doubt regarding the blood test but not doubt regarding the officer testimony and the video showing the last few moments of driving and the roadside tests... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Operating with a PAC of .08but less than .10 $250.00 and 6 points Operating witha PAC of .10 or more $897.50 and 6 Points I believe that's 1st offense only. That isn't what I have been asking. What is the penalty for not guilty of BAC greater than .08 but guilty of operating while impaired, driving under the influence?????? 2 seperate tickets..... What are the differences between the penalties?? Case in point, the jury could have had doubt regarding the blood test but not doubt regarding the officer testimony and the video showing the last few moments of driving and the roadside tests... Oh, Sorry. OWI 1st offense and PAC greater that .10 are both the same bond amount wise. ($897.50) I believe everything is the same, penalty wise and I am attempting to confirm that but the state website is down. |
|
Quoted:
OWI 1st offense and PAC greater that .10 are both the same bond amount wise. ($897.50) I believe everything is the same, penalty wise and I am attempting to confirm that but the state website is down. Being convicted of OWI is worse than of a BAC between .08 and .10???? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: OWI 1st offense and PAC greater that .10 are both the same bond amount wise. ($897.50) I believe everything is the same, penalty wise and I am attempting to confirm that but the state website is down. Being convicted of OWI is worse than of a BAC between .08 and .10???? Yes. ETA: That is the State of WI's little fuck you to the fed .gov. Wisconsin didn't want to lower the BAC from .10 to .08 but the Gov said they would with hold federal highway funding if they didn't so the State lowered it and then put a ridiculously low fine on it. |