Notice of Motions in a DUI Case
Notice of all motions related to DUI case.
DUI JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE
A jury Questionnaire that can be used in DUI, DWAI and driving while impaired by marijuana. Both Word format and PDF
Motion for Reduction of Sentence
Client was sentenced to one year of jail, client finished a inmate jail program and now wants his jail reduced.
DUI Trial Preparation Documents
Typically about two percent of cases end up going to a jury trial. For some attorneys, it can go either way; it just depends on the cases. There might be times where ten percent or more of these cases will go to trial.
Some conviction rates were as low as 63 percent while several were 85 to 95 percent. Actual dismissals of charges occurred at rates, when stated, of around 1.5 percent. One country cited about a 10 percent dismissal rate. Rhode Island cites a rate of about 67 percent convictions.
Certain key factors of what happened during a DUI or DWI arrest, can work to get a case dismissed before court or trial. First-time DUI charges are regularly dismissed by prosecution attorneys or the court itself.
When you hire a private DUI lawyer, it’s typically to represent you in DMV proceedings and criminal court. … However, hiring a private DUI attorney (assuming you can afford one) can be well worth it. Of course, when you’re retaining an attorney, you get to decide who that attorney will be.
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
COMES NOW, Martinez Law Firm, LLC, behalf of Defendant, Marisa Aranda, and hereby submits this Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by stating as follows:
1. On January 5, 2015, Defendant, Marisa Aranda was issued a Uniform Summons and Complaint or Penalty Assessment alleging driving under the influence, DUI per se, failure to present insurance and failure to obey a traffic signal. See attached Exhibit 1. In the Summons the officer states the offenses as alleged occurred in Arapahoe County, CO. The Colorado State Patrol Case Report also states the alleged offenses occurred in Arapahoe County, See attached Exhibit 2.
Government Response to Motion to Suppress and Exclude – McNeely Memo
Government response to motion to suppress and exclude blood sample evidence on the grounds it was obtained illegally without a warned from the hospital.
MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF WITNESSES PURSUANT TO § 16-9-203, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES 2016
MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF WITNESSES PURSUANT TO § 16-9-203, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES 2016
Motion for Specific Discovery (Certifications and Dispatch) (Gilpin County) – Criminal Defense Legal Document
Motion for parties to disclosure specific discoveries during trial.
McNeely Reply Memo – DUI Case File- DUI Case File
Defendant reply memo to governments newly filled memorandum.
Motion for Frye-Mack Hearing – DUI Case File
Motion for Frye-Mack hearing determines the admissibility of an experts scientific testimony during trial.
MOTION TO SEVER POSESSION OF A WEAPON BY A PREVIOUS OFFENDER FROM THE OTHER CHARGES [DEF – 1]
Defendant seeks an order severing the Possession of a Weapon Count from the other counts of Driving Under the Influence, Lane Usage Violation, Possession of a an Illegal Weapon, Prohibited Use of a Weapon, and Possession of Alcohol in a Motor Vehicle.
Appellant’s Opening Brief
Appellant’s opening brief concerning the case where the appellant is charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, careless driving, resisting arrest and obstruction of police.
A Colorado Supreme Court order dealing with the exclusionary rule and driver license DMV
The Department of Revenue, through the Division of Motor Vehicles, revoked a driver’s license, following a hearing officer’s determination that the driver had driven a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content in excess of the statutory maximum. The district court reversed, holding that the initial stop of the driver’s vehicle was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The court of appeals reversed the district court and held that the legality of the initial contact between the police and the driver was not relevant in the civil administrative proceeding to revoke the driver’s license. The court also held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to suppress evidence of the driver’s BAC. The supreme court holds that, under section 42-2-126, C.R.S. (2011), “probable cause” in the context of the driver’s license revocation statute, as it existed at the time of the hearing in this case, refers to the quantum and quality of evidence necessary for a law enforcement officer to issue a notice of driver’s license revocation, not whether the officer’s initial contact with the driver was lawful. The supreme court further holds that the exclusionary rule did not apply to suppress evidence of the driver’s BAC in the driver’s license revocation proceeding. Accordingly, the supreme court affirms the judgment of the court of appeals.
MOTION FOR OUT-OF-STATE WITNESS TO APPEAR BY PHONE
MOTION FOR OUT-OF-STATE WITNESS TO APPEAR BY PHONE