DUI victory can only follow a not guilty plea, says Fairfax DUI lawyer

DUI victory — and any criminal trial win — can only follow a not guilty / innocent plea. As a Fairfax DUI lawyer, I know that this concept is at once a truism but also hard for at least a handful defendants to choose, at least until I convince them about the narrow or nonexistent difference (when true) between the worst that may happen from a not guilty plea and from accepting the prosecutor’s last settlement offer. Of course, even when that gap is wide, winning a trial eliminates that gap.  I have taken hundreds of DUI cases to trial and have won many of them. Others sometimes have not settled favorably until we are mid-trial, sometimes after the prosecutor recognizes that the defense is not budging from our last offer, that the defendant and defense lawyer are a strong and fearless team, that the defense has firepower based on the law and evidence that the prosecutor had not expected, and/or after one or more of the prosecutor’s witnesses — or the prosecutor himself or herself — flubs irreparably and with the handwriting on the wall. Suffice it to say that any prosecution alleging driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs under § 18.2-266 calls for a vigorously skilled defense.

Fairfax DUI Lawyer Wins DUI victory with Absent Breathalyzer Administrator and Willful Police Ignorance

I recently obtained a DUI victory by way of acquittal when the prosecutor did not have the breathalyzer/ Intox EC/IR II operator present, and did not seek a postponement for that absence, together with the police officer’s failure to have made field sobriety testing (FST /SFST) sufficiently relevant.  By pleading not guilty, I was able to exploit every opportunity on the road to this acquittal, including the following:  On my arrival to the courthouse, the prosecutor said he would be seeking a trial date postponement due to the arresting officer’s having been called to do accident reconstruction work for a recent collision.  That would not have been helpful for the defense in that it would have given the prosecutor the opportunity to have the breath technician present on any next trial date.  I told the judge that my client and I had come from a long distant to be there, that we were happy to wait for the police officer to finish his offsite assignment, and that we were without details about when he might be finished, let alone whether he was the only available accident reconstructionist for local law enforcement.  The judge told us to come back in 45 minutes with a status of the officer’s availability or not, and by that time, he had already arrived to the courthouse. The law enforcement officer (LEO) testified that he stopped my client’s car after clocking him traveling 23 miles over the speed limit, with his radar equipment for which he brought a certification for its operation.  Praised be video technology for showing my client speaking clearly without any slurring, being fully respectful (without being a sycophant) to the cop, and getting out of his vehicle as coordinated as could be.

Should Willful Police Ignorance Ever Be Rewarded?

The police officer in this DUI victory case requested field sobriety testing and engaged in willful ignorance by asking my nearly senior citizen client whether he had any injuries rather than asking if he had any non-injury physical or health impairments, for instance arthritis, weak or bad back, weak or bad knees, or any other ailments to my client’s orthopedic system.  The video underlines that my client was far from the picture of perfect coordination health with a large belly that would not have assisted good coordination with the field test of walking the line nor particularly with the field test of standing on one leg for an extended period of time (the prosecutor avoided questions about the HGN test).

How Can the Absence of Impaired Cognition Help me Win My Virginia DUI Trial?

Although the judge denied my motion to suppress evidence in this DUI victory case, I did argue that willful police ignorance should not be rewarded in considering legality of an arrest, and that none of my client’s behavior on the scene exhibited any impairment in cognition whatsoever.  I instead argued that my client’s coordination that was far from that of an athletic 25 year old was fully consistent of that of someone who was driving at a time when most people are sleeping, with substantially excess body weight, and with the police officer not having determined whether my client had a bad back or any other multitude of orthopedic issues that extend beyond injuries. (Pursuant to the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment and Supreme Court jurisprudence, neither my client nor any DWI or criminal defendant has any obligation to fill in the blanks for this or any other LEO willful ignorance.)

Should I Let the Prosecutor’s Certitude Make me Doubt My Chances of Winning?

Having no burden of proof and no evidence to present to help our case, I rested our case in this DUI victory trial after the judge ruled on my motion to strike evidence. In closing I reincorporated by reference my probable cause and motion to strike arguments.  I also emphasized the stark difference between the low burden of proof to establish probable cause to arrest versus the high burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  It was music to my ears when the judge’s words in explaining his ruling (acquittal for everything other than speeding) included my theme that my client’s far from perfect balance could have had been explained by other than alcoholic consumption (he did deny to the police officer having drunk any alcohol but then said he had a shot of whisky- his measured blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was over 1.5 times the legal limit). Before I started arguing in closing, the prosecutor tried to paint my client’s field sobriety testing as among the worst one could see, which is far from reality.  Praised by my client for not letting any of the prosecutor’s words rattle him.

Fairfax DUI Lawyer Jonathan Katz relentlessly pursues your best defense against Virginia DWI prosecution.  You will see that for your self within moments of starting you free in-person consultation about your criminal prosecution.  Call 703-383-1100 for your meeting with Jon.  Usually we can schedule the same or next day for your meeting with Jon.