« December 2007 | Main | March 2008 »
If you have any comments or questions please feel free to email me at ray@rayflavin.com. When you do email me, in the subject line CAPITALIZE THE WHOLE THING. It will make it easier for me to find your comment among the spam.
Ray Flavin
What is the difference between an average attorney and a DUI attorney, both doing a DUI case? Well let's look at "Bob's" case.
Bob saw me for a DUI two months ago. The prosecutor offered supervision for a DUI, which I rejected. I argued that the stop was bad because it was likely that the officer could not make the observations which he claimed he made, and the prosecutor offered to reduce the charges to leaving the scene (not a DUI) and threw out the suspension. An average lawyer would have taken the no conviction supervision offer.
Yesterday Bob got another DUI.
Here's the difference.
If Bob hired the average attorney for the first DUI, he has real problems. First he can't use supervison on the second DUI because you only can get one supervision. So if Bob loses his case and gets a conviction his license is revoked. He can avoid a revocation by getting the charges reduced to reckless driving, but he still has a suspension problem. Because his last DUI was less than 5 years ago he will be suspended for one year if he takes the breathalyzer and fails. If he refused to take the breathalyzer his license is suspended for three years. Remember that drivers who have had a DUI within the past five years can't get judicial driving permits, or restricted driving permits.
Because Bob hired me for the first DUI, he can still get supervision because he didn't use it on his first. Because there was NO DUI, he can qualify for a judicial driving permit. Bob will be happy, and his nosey neighbors will wonder how Bob does it?
Remember, every case is different and your results may vary.
Ray Flavin
I have to apologize to the few people who read this blog for not updating. I am sorry. I have had two jury trials and I lost both. While I am as mad as a wet cat about both, I will take a little time here to explain what happened.
In Illinois in a DUI trial an attorney gets to challenge 5 jurors. That means exclude them from a jury for no reason given. Remember we can always have jurors removed for good cause. The problem with this system goes something like this.
You pick your jurors four at a time. The state questions jurors until they have 4, then you get to question them. Here are my first three jurors answer to the question "Have you or a friends or family ever had any experience with DUIs?"
Juror #1 Yes, my niece was killed by a drunk driver.
Juror #2 Yes, my wife was injured by a drunk driver and he got away with it.
Juror #3 Yes, my next door neighbors entire family was killed by a drunk driver.
Ok, now you say, that's ok because they should be removed for "good cause." Well, no. The judge asks "but can you be fair in this case?" Of course the jurors answer, "Yes." because who on the planet doesn't think they are "fair" So the judge tells you because they can be fair, you have to use 3 three of your challenges to remove them. You have two left. You use the next two in the next couple of jurors, so now you have no challenges left.
Then the next 4 jurors come up for questioning. The first juror says, "I believe that you shouldn't drink and drive." You obviously want him removed, you ask several questions that demonstrate that he is a biased juror. The judge again asks him if he can be fair, and when he answers yes you get stuck with him.
Now what do you think the result of this trial will be?
Ray Flavin
