Used this opening statement for a DUI case recently where my client was charged with DUI. He was on side of road sleeping in vehicle with keys in ignition. No one seen him drive nor was there blood or Breath a test give
Motion for discovery in regards to fingerprint evidence to be used in trial.
A DWI, DUI, or OUI arrest means you’re caught driving a vehicle while “under the influence” of alcohol or drugs. … You can still get a DWI if you’re pulled over for some reason other than erratic driving, by the way. As long as your BAC is 0.08 percent or higher, you can be charged, even if your driving wasn’t affected.
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.
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.
The document provides a sample questions that can be used in a voir dire on Driving while impaired cases. There are voire dire question regarding relationships between potential jury and witnesses, scientific testing, officer conduct and alcohol smell and behavior
Government response to motion to suppress and exclude blood sample evidence on the grounds it was obtained illegally without a warned from the hospital.
Whether or not the exclusionary rule applies in driver’s license revocation proceedings, the express consent statute does not allow the Department of Revenue to revoke a driver’s license pursuant to section 42-2-126 on the basis of a search that itself is the product of an illegal stop and arrest. In this case we argued that, The court of appeals erred in holding that a driver cannot rely on the exclusionary rule to raise the illegality of initial police contact as a defense in a driver’s license revocation proceeding conducted pursuant to section Colorado Law,
Note statute has changed this since the appeal.
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.
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.