No one condones driving while impaired, it is a foolish proposition to assume a DUI defense attorney would want someone on the road who has the potential to harm others due to their impairment. What we, as DUI Defense attorneys, and defense attorneys in general, are really doing is defending liberty and ensuring we don't have a police state wherein all accused persons are automatically found culpable.
Think about it: What kind of world would we live in if just because the government were to allege some offense it would be good enough. Even when police officers, judges and attorneys are accused of DUI, they enter a plea of not guilty at arraignment, why?, because there is a process and the government has an obligation to prove its case.
I hear all the time "well the State wouldn't have charged him if he did nothing wrong." It is a difficult thing sometimes to get that bias out of the minds of jurors. I've conducted numerous jury trials and the bias towards the actions of the government comes up, my response is always, have you heard of the Duke LaCrosse case, have you heard of the thousands of people acquitted/released from improper findings due to subsequent DNA tests, what about rouge DUI cops trying to garner an award for most arrests (this happened)?
So it is our job as defense attorneys to represent the best interests of those accused of a crime, even DUI. DUI defendants have less rights than your average criminal: they don't have a right to a private conversation with an attorney, in King County there really is no speedy trial right (right to a trial within a certain amount of time) and there is no defense to signing something and agreeing to somethign you didn't intend to or were coerced into signing when you could not be in a position to know what you were doing - so DUI are tough to defend, but I do it, I do it because everyone deserves a defense, even those who snear when I tell them what I do for a living.
I see moms, sons, daughters, sisters, CEOs, lawyers, police officers, etc. come into my office because they are accussed of a crime. Are they automatically guilty in my eyes, of course not! That is because I have seen all kinds of charges which were unsubstantiated.
The next time you get into a conversation about whether defense attorneys are defending guilty people, remember that anyone, anyone can be charged with an offense which has no merit. Nelson Mandela, Dr. King, Duke LaCrosse, O.J. (yes O.J.! - the state didn't prove its case), etc. etc. etc.
So the next time you think about making some sort of negative statement about defense attorneys remember, you never know when you may need one....ponder this as well: did you cheat on your taxes, did you speed, did you hit that parked car and didn't leave a note, did you get home safe after drinking too much and driving, did you take that extra bit of money for something at work (a bribe, no matter how small), if you did, then you could be in the need of the services of a defense attorney. We are moms, dads, fathers, mothers and helpers, mostly we are helpers, ensuring thousands of people's rights are protected daily. And you know what: we are here when you need us regardless of how you feel about defense atotrneys at this very moment!
Showing posts with label Seattle DUI arrest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seattle DUI arrest. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Seattle DUI attorney, Nate Webb, discusses the question "If I was arrested aren't I guilty?"
Just reading and watching the news today about Michael Phelps DUI arrest (click here to read about it) I was wondering how many people out there who could be potential jurors might conclude that just because he was arrested he might also be guilty before having his day in court.
I hear it all the time from prospective jurors when they are asked by a prosecutor during voir dire, does anyone think Mr. or Mrs. so and so is automatically guilty and they all say, "oh no of course not" then I follow up with a question like, "let's pretend we just walked in here off the street and sit in the back and see the accused sitting in his chair here, don't you think we might nudge each other and say to ourselves 'I wonder what he did'". Someone in the jury pool always says "well of course because he is here" and I say "well would you want someone to say that about you if you had entered a plea of not guilty?" Usually the response is "oh I see what you are saying."
In closing argument (summation) it is essential that your Seattle DUI attorney points out the defendant simply being charged is evidence of nothing, him being arrested is not evidence of guilt and that he doesn't have to show you anything to disprove the government's allegations.
I always remind jurors that beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden that exists in our judicial system and thate it is the same for all defendants, whether they are charged with rape, murder, or driving without a licnese or DUI.
So, in a nutshell, an arrest is certainly not evidence of guilt and in fact, many judges will dismiss a case if the arresting office failed to have probable cause in the first place. So it is absolutely necessary your Seattle DUI Lawyer points this out to jurors!
I hear it all the time from prospective jurors when they are asked by a prosecutor during voir dire, does anyone think Mr. or Mrs. so and so is automatically guilty and they all say, "oh no of course not" then I follow up with a question like, "let's pretend we just walked in here off the street and sit in the back and see the accused sitting in his chair here, don't you think we might nudge each other and say to ourselves 'I wonder what he did'". Someone in the jury pool always says "well of course because he is here" and I say "well would you want someone to say that about you if you had entered a plea of not guilty?" Usually the response is "oh I see what you are saying."
In closing argument (summation) it is essential that your Seattle DUI attorney points out the defendant simply being charged is evidence of nothing, him being arrested is not evidence of guilt and that he doesn't have to show you anything to disprove the government's allegations.
I always remind jurors that beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden that exists in our judicial system and thate it is the same for all defendants, whether they are charged with rape, murder, or driving without a licnese or DUI.
So, in a nutshell, an arrest is certainly not evidence of guilt and in fact, many judges will dismiss a case if the arresting office failed to have probable cause in the first place. So it is absolutely necessary your Seattle DUI Lawyer points this out to jurors!
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Should I take a field sobriety test (FSTs) if pulled over?
Field Sobriety Tests (aka Standardized Field Sobriety Tests).
I'm always asked whether someone should (or more commonly should have) take field sobriety tests when asked. My common answer is no! Now, I have heard of one instance wherein a friend of mine told me he took them (against my advice) and was let go. That result is an anomaly in my experience. If you have had anything to drink, or smoked marijuana recently, I would advise you skip these tests. Why? Well, the way in which these tests are administered are much different than how they were "standardized." What I mean by that is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted three tests (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, One Leg Stand and Walk and Turn) to determine the accuracy of predicting a BAC result based upon the clues observed and reached conclusions with percentages related to accuracy (the officers administered these tests on people who had been drinking, observed the clues, guessed what their BAC would be ultimately and whether they would have arrested the subject - of course these were volunteers at the study locations). After calculating their results they standardized these three tests, meaning that if all three are administered correctly and the individual exhibits a number of clues, there is a high percentage they would submit a BAC reading above the legal limit (0.08).
Seem legit? Well no...why you say? Take for example the subjects who participated in this "standardization." They were a group of family and friends and co-workers who were dosed with specific amounts of alcohol and asked to take these tests. The tests were conducted without fear of arrest, so you can take out the anxiousness and nervousness, who were of relatively good health and average age. So officers did not conduct these on older individuals or those suffering from any physical limitations. Troopers often testify when they were conducting tests on individuals with physical limitations (i.e., knee injury, etc.), "oh I took into consideration their limitations." Really, how? Were they ever trained how to "take the limitation into consideration?" NO! Also, consider that the standardization took place in a controlled environment, meaning not on the side of the road, in the cold or rain with cars whizzing by at 70 mph. How could these tests accurately represent a standardized result? Simple, they can't and don't. So when a trooper records clues from these tests, those clues themselves are skewed because the conditions of administration are vastly different than how they were trained. Keep in mind that this is how troopers are currently trained to administer these tests, typically in a high school gym, in controlled temperatures, with no distractions, administered on individuals who volunteered and are not subject to arrest. How standardized is that? Ha! Why would anyone want to participate in these feats of balance given the training?
My advice, simply politely decline, inform the trooper you are not impaired but that you have been advised not to participate in them. Then, if arrested, ask to speak with an attorney at the earliest opportunity.
If you have been arrested for a DUI in Seattle or anywhere in Washington State, give me a call (425) 398-4323. This is what I do and can help you!
___________________________________________________________________
I'm always asked whether someone should (or more commonly should have) take field sobriety tests when asked. My common answer is no! Now, I have heard of one instance wherein a friend of mine told me he took them (against my advice) and was let go. That result is an anomaly in my experience. If you have had anything to drink, or smoked marijuana recently, I would advise you skip these tests. Why? Well, the way in which these tests are administered are much different than how they were "standardized." What I mean by that is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted three tests (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, One Leg Stand and Walk and Turn) to determine the accuracy of predicting a BAC result based upon the clues observed and reached conclusions with percentages related to accuracy (the officers administered these tests on people who had been drinking, observed the clues, guessed what their BAC would be ultimately and whether they would have arrested the subject - of course these were volunteers at the study locations). After calculating their results they standardized these three tests, meaning that if all three are administered correctly and the individual exhibits a number of clues, there is a high percentage they would submit a BAC reading above the legal limit (0.08).
Seem legit? Well no...why you say? Take for example the subjects who participated in this "standardization." They were a group of family and friends and co-workers who were dosed with specific amounts of alcohol and asked to take these tests. The tests were conducted without fear of arrest, so you can take out the anxiousness and nervousness, who were of relatively good health and average age. So officers did not conduct these on older individuals or those suffering from any physical limitations. Troopers often testify when they were conducting tests on individuals with physical limitations (i.e., knee injury, etc.), "oh I took into consideration their limitations." Really, how? Were they ever trained how to "take the limitation into consideration?" NO! Also, consider that the standardization took place in a controlled environment, meaning not on the side of the road, in the cold or rain with cars whizzing by at 70 mph. How could these tests accurately represent a standardized result? Simple, they can't and don't. So when a trooper records clues from these tests, those clues themselves are skewed because the conditions of administration are vastly different than how they were trained. Keep in mind that this is how troopers are currently trained to administer these tests, typically in a high school gym, in controlled temperatures, with no distractions, administered on individuals who volunteered and are not subject to arrest. How standardized is that? Ha! Why would anyone want to participate in these feats of balance given the training?
My advice, simply politely decline, inform the trooper you are not impaired but that you have been advised not to participate in them. Then, if arrested, ask to speak with an attorney at the earliest opportunity.
If you have been arrested for a DUI in Seattle or anywhere in Washington State, give me a call (425) 398-4323. This is what I do and can help you!
___________________________________________________________________
About the author:
Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer. His practice emphasizes DUI defense. He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (perfect 10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Mistrial after empanelled jury results in reduced charge for my client...
Earilier this month I advised a client to take his case to trial after his Seattle DUI Arrest.
Initially, my client was reluctant to proceed because the client didn't see any issues on which we could prevail at trial. As I always do in this situation, i.e., wherein the State is not willing to offer any type of resolution for my client, I recommend trial because you never know what will happen during the course of a jury trial. Well, after we empanelled a jury of six good citizens, did our opening statements and began direct examination of the arresting officer, a mistrial was declared. A mistrial means that the current jury trial is stopped, but that the State may still try the case again, no double jeaopardy issues arise in this scenario.
However, as a result of the mistrial, the State offered my client a fair resolution and he accepted. The point of this story being that if you have an attorney unwillng to push for you, you will never have the opportunity for a better resolution of your case. My client had no criminal history whatsover so this was a win in our minds.
If you have a Seattle DUI Arrest, don't hesitate to call one of Seattle's Best DUI Attorneys, Nate Webb!
___________________________________________________________________
About the author:
Nathan Webb, is a seasoned Seattle DUI Lawyer. His practice emphasizes DUI defense. He has been repeatedly recognized as one of Seattle's Best Attorneys! He was recognized as a Top Seattle DUI Attorneys by Seattle Met Magazine, Repeatedly named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in the area of DUI Defense by Washington Law and Politics Magazine, and Rated Superb for DUI Defense (perfect 10.0 out of 10.0) by Avvo.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)