Just in from a marketer via email, with the title line “Thousands of DUI Defendents are Coming!”:
Because we are the #1 Google ranked DUI/DWI website, thousands of DUI/DWI defendents[sic – I couldn’t bring myself to misspell it in the title of my post though] will come to our site next week looking for an attorney. Will you get your share?
Just one case will pay for your Membership many times over. Please respond to this email now or call (123) 456-7890.
I haven’t linked to the “nationwide network of DUI defenders” that sent me the email, not wanting to hand out any undeserved Google love. But from a quick click through to the site – I had to look - the amusing thing, at least from my perspective, is that it tries to sell both potential clients on member lawyers, and potential lawyer clients of the network on paying the site to list them.
It’s super obvious that there is absolutely no screening of the lawyers whatever. If you pay the fee, you are listed, and then become (simply by virtue of sending them money):
…expertly familiar with all the intricacies and nuances involved with DUI offenses. This index of lawyers will take you through them step by step, explaining testing, sentencing, jury trends…
Do the recently arrested who comb the internet realize: a bar card and some money makes any and every lawyer an expert?
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
SCRAM Violation? Maybe, Maybe Not...
From an out of state commenter:
I received a summons today to appear in court next week. The papers did not even include what the appearance would be for. I have been on the SCRAM bracelet for two months now. This is the second time that I have been notified of violation of the bracelet.
The first was just a failure to download. I just received a prerecorded phone call for that violation, "no biggy." Today when I called the court house to find out why I had to appear, I was informed it was a violation from SCRAM.
I then called SCRAM. I asked what the violation was and when it occurred. She informed me that the violation was tampering, then implied that I had stuck something between the bracelet and my skin.
I have a witness that knows that I was not drinking. I know this does not matter because our judicial system fails all the time and has already convicted me of this DUI that I was
innocent of. I have come to terms with the fact I was found guilty of the DUI. How am I supposed to come to terms with being violated for something that I did not do?
I received a summons today to appear in court next week. The papers did not even include what the appearance would be for. I have been on the SCRAM bracelet for two months now. This is the second time that I have been notified of violation of the bracelet.
The first was just a failure to download. I just received a prerecorded phone call for that violation, "no biggy." Today when I called the court house to find out why I had to appear, I was informed it was a violation from SCRAM.
I then called SCRAM. I asked what the violation was and when it occurred. She informed me that the violation was tampering, then implied that I had stuck something between the bracelet and my skin.
I have a witness that knows that I was not drinking. I know this does not matter because our judicial system fails all the time and has already convicted me of this DUI that I was
innocent of. I have come to terms with the fact I was found guilty of the DUI. How am I supposed to come to terms with being violated for something that I did not do?
Witness Chicken (The Police Version)
Maybe your client is guilty. Maybe it will be easy for the State to prove that your client is guilty. That is, if they can get their witnesses to show up.
There are all sorts of reasons that defense lawyers set cases for hearings and trials, not the least of which is that they expect(well… hope?) that a judge will suppress some or all of the evidence, or that a jury will find their client not guilty.
Occasionally a client will even volunteer this as the solution to their problems, “What are the chances that so-and-so won’t show up, and my case will be dismissed?”
For now, I’ll ignore the ethical issues that answering that question raises, and focus on one small aspect of it. The answer depends greatly on whether or not the witness against your client is a police officer or a civilian. The chances of winning witness chicken when the only folks the State needs wear a badge and a gun are substantially less than if they don’t. Part of every cop’s job description includes “professional witness,” and they even take classes to learn how to do it.
So what are the chances that an officer won’t show up to testify in a pretrial suppression hearing? Usually pretty slight. But a cynic might say there are other factors to consider, such as… what your client does for a living. Is the answer different if your client is also part of the thin blue line?
From “Texas Officer Catches Break in DWI Case; Arresting officer is no-show for court”:
An Hidalgo County judge killed a McAllen policeman's criminal case after one of the defendant's fellow officers failed to appear in court and testify against him, court records state.
Judge Jay Palacios of Hidalgo County Court-at-law No. 2 dealt a "fatal" blow to the prosecution's case, Hidalgo County District Attorney Rene Guerra said, when he granted a motion to suppress evidence in Officer Alex Alvarez's pending case on a charge of driving while intoxicated.
No witness, evidence suppressed, case closed. Until the newspaper called, and the D.A. had to come up with an explanation.
District Attorney Guerra said he learned Wednesday that the case was set for dismissal when a Monitor reporter contacted him about the matter. Guerra said he would ask Palacios to reconsider his decision to suppress the evidence in the case.
"Legally, I don't know if he can reconsider it," the district attorney said. "I don't know until I try."
But why the arresting officer missed the court date remains unclear.
Did the state even ask for a continuance? According to the article, “McAllen's Police Chief Rodriguez said he believed the officer was hospitalized.” In Austin, prosecutors will ask for a continuance at a first setting, even if they have no idea why their witness isn’t there, and it will usually be granted. One time any way.
Did that happen in this case? And if it regularly happens in that court, but didn’t this time, what made this case different from any other?
There are all sorts of reasons that defense lawyers set cases for hearings and trials, not the least of which is that they expect(well… hope?) that a judge will suppress some or all of the evidence, or that a jury will find their client not guilty.
Occasionally a client will even volunteer this as the solution to their problems, “What are the chances that so-and-so won’t show up, and my case will be dismissed?”
For now, I’ll ignore the ethical issues that answering that question raises, and focus on one small aspect of it. The answer depends greatly on whether or not the witness against your client is a police officer or a civilian. The chances of winning witness chicken when the only folks the State needs wear a badge and a gun are substantially less than if they don’t. Part of every cop’s job description includes “professional witness,” and they even take classes to learn how to do it.
So what are the chances that an officer won’t show up to testify in a pretrial suppression hearing? Usually pretty slight. But a cynic might say there are other factors to consider, such as… what your client does for a living. Is the answer different if your client is also part of the thin blue line?
From “Texas Officer Catches Break in DWI Case; Arresting officer is no-show for court”:
An Hidalgo County judge killed a McAllen policeman's criminal case after one of the defendant's fellow officers failed to appear in court and testify against him, court records state.
Judge Jay Palacios of Hidalgo County Court-at-law No. 2 dealt a "fatal" blow to the prosecution's case, Hidalgo County District Attorney Rene Guerra said, when he granted a motion to suppress evidence in Officer Alex Alvarez's pending case on a charge of driving while intoxicated.
No witness, evidence suppressed, case closed. Until the newspaper called, and the D.A. had to come up with an explanation.
District Attorney Guerra said he learned Wednesday that the case was set for dismissal when a Monitor reporter contacted him about the matter. Guerra said he would ask Palacios to reconsider his decision to suppress the evidence in the case.
"Legally, I don't know if he can reconsider it," the district attorney said. "I don't know until I try."
But why the arresting officer missed the court date remains unclear.
Did the state even ask for a continuance? According to the article, “McAllen's Police Chief Rodriguez said he believed the officer was hospitalized.” In Austin, prosecutors will ask for a continuance at a first setting, even if they have no idea why their witness isn’t there, and it will usually be granted. One time any way.
Did that happen in this case? And if it regularly happens in that court, but didn’t this time, what made this case different from any other?
Sunday, July 3, 2011
DWI or DUI in Austin
If you have been accused of a DWI or DUI in Austin, TX, Travis County, or the surrounding area, it pays to have good legal counsel on your side. If you are in need of experienced Austin DWI lawyers, research is key. Many lawyers claim to have appropriate experience in this area, but few have the means to truly help you with your case.
Finding the right Austin DWI or DUI attorneys now can often save you a lot of headaches in the future.
Also, if you or a loved one have been a victim of a DUI or DWI driver's negligence, you may be entitled to a lawsuit against the offender. Experienced personal injury lawyers or accident lawyers are the key to winning your case.
Trying to prevent a dui? Not drinking and driving is the best prevention. If you are going to drive, you can research Austin DUI checkpoints before you plan your driving route.
Finding the right Austin DWI or DUI attorneys now can often save you a lot of headaches in the future.
Also, if you or a loved one have been a victim of a DUI or DWI driver's negligence, you may be entitled to a lawsuit against the offender. Experienced personal injury lawyers or accident lawyers are the key to winning your case.
Trying to prevent a dui? Not drinking and driving is the best prevention. If you are going to drive, you can research Austin DUI checkpoints before you plan your driving route.
Austin DWI Lawyer
Austin DWI Lawyer Kyle Lowe is an experienced DWI lawyer in Austin with a concentration in DWI defense, drug offenses, violent offenses and other criminal defense areas.
DWI bills in the 82nd Legislature
In this session, like in previous one, some state legislators targeted drunk drivers but most of those proposals, seem to be going nowhere. Here are some of the bills and their status three weeks before the Legislature adjourns. .
Bill Goal Status
• SB 231 To revoke driving privileges of anyone with two convictions. In committee
• HB 99 Third-degree felony for anyone with a previous conviction. House calendar
• HB 101 A hotline to report suspected cases of impaired driving. In committee
• HB 189 Mandating ignition interlock for any DWI conviction. Attached to other bill
• HB 237 To mark driver’s license of anyone with a prior conviction. In committee
• HB 3477 Ten-year driver’s license suspension after five convictions. To full House
Fortunately, the Legislature seems distracted with cutting education funding, cutting back who can vote, and making sure the police don't give immigrants any protection from deportation even when they are witnesses to a crime, to care much about DWIs this session.
Bill Goal Status
• SB 231 To revoke driving privileges of anyone with two convictions. In committee
• HB 99 Third-degree felony for anyone with a previous conviction. House calendar
• HB 101 A hotline to report suspected cases of impaired driving. In committee
• HB 189 Mandating ignition interlock for any DWI conviction. Attached to other bill
• HB 237 To mark driver’s license of anyone with a prior conviction. In committee
• HB 3477 Ten-year driver’s license suspension after five convictions. To full House
Fortunately, the Legislature seems distracted with cutting education funding, cutting back who can vote, and making sure the police don't give immigrants any protection from deportation even when they are witnesses to a crime, to care much about DWIs this session.
So That's What SOAH Stands For
Administrative Law Judges handle all sorts of cases for the State Office of Administrative Hearings – aka SOAH - from the tremendously boring, such as boat motor sales and use tax cases, to the no doubt endlessly fascinating scenarios where a trucking company is alleged to have failed to carry a required certificate of registration. (I know so little about those cases that I can barely understand what is written in the previous sentence; frankly, I cribbed it from the “about us” page on the SOAH website.)
Of course, they also handle license revocations arising out of DWIs. I got to my ALR this week a little early, and stuck my head in a different courtroom than the one my client’s case was being heard, to chat with a Judge. He handed me a printout of this – sorry, just click the link – it’ll look better from the original website than if I try to cut and paste it into a little box on this blog.
Apparently that site is all the rage on whatever informal listserv the subset of ALR Administrative Law Judges use. Probably the others too, but it seems most (least?) appropriate for the DWI court personnel.
Of course, they also handle license revocations arising out of DWIs. I got to my ALR this week a little early, and stuck my head in a different courtroom than the one my client’s case was being heard, to chat with a Judge. He handed me a printout of this – sorry, just click the link – it’ll look better from the original website than if I try to cut and paste it into a little box on this blog.
Apparently that site is all the rage on whatever informal listserv the subset of ALR Administrative Law Judges use. Probably the others too, but it seems most (least?) appropriate for the DWI court personnel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)