In the Chatham County courthouse in Savannah, Georgia for a DUI trial I looked at my potential jurors and then to Kat and back to the jurors and began.

In a minute I am going to ask you if you think Kat is probably guilty of DUI.

Some of you are afraid that you will give the wrong answer. Some of you think that he represents Kat. He does not want to hear that many of us think Kat is guilty. I know people are supposed to be innocent unless proven guilty. Even though I think it is likely that Kat is guilty, I probably better not raise my hand. Is there anyone here who is not having those kind of thoughts?

It’s OK to tell me if you think Kat is guilty. It’s normal. When we see a girl led away in handcuffs on the news, our first thought is not “I bet that girl is innocent.”

The only wrong answer you can give is an answer that is not true. Even white lies are not allowed in court. Now something you say may mean that you are not the right person to be on this jury. That does not mean you gave a bad answer. It probably means you gave a good, truthful answer.

When you hear about some celebrity being arrested for drunk driving, is there anyone here whose first thought is, “I bet that person is innocent.”

So…how many of you think Kat is probably guilty?

How many of you think Kat should get a fair trial?

You see the problem? Just because a police officer has arrested Kat, we think she is guilty. How can Kat get a fair trial if the jury starts out thinking she is guilty?

In America, our founding fathers were pretty smart people. Here is the answer they came up with to fix this problem.

• Juries must start out biased in favor of the accused citizen. they have to treat the citizen accused as innocent unless she is proven guilty.
• Juries cannot assume guilt in any way. The government has the burden to prove its case.
• The proof must be so strong that a reasonable person cannot doubt it.
• The citizen accused does not have to testify.

Some of you may think this sounds too technical. You may think, I am just going to use my common sense rather than follow these legal technicalities. Think about what that means. Common sense tells us that Kat is guilty from the start. Think of the celebrity being taken off in handcuffs. If you just go with common sense and do not require proof you are really saying that I am going to assume Kat is guilty rather than follow the law. We all agreed that this is not fair.

Presumption of Innocence

Earlier you told the District Attorney that you would be fair to both sides. Did you mean that you would treat both sides equal and not prefer one side to the other?

When we someone on the news being led away in handcuffs, or hear of the celebrity arrested for drunk driving, we don’t think: There goes an  innocent person. Common sense tells us that person is probably guilty. We think that most people arrested for drunk driving are probably guilty. Does anyone disagree?

Matching Kat against the State of Georgia is not a fair fight from the start.

• The government can afford to pay lawyers to fight as long as it takes. They can make sure their lawyers are well trained for prosecuting DUI’s.
• If they need an investigator to help prepare the DUI case or testify, they can afford it.
• If they need to talk to a DUI expert, they have the money.
• They can afford DUI tests and machines that Kat doesn’t have access to.
• They can double-team Kat with DUI police officers if they want to. They can put two police officers on the case so that it is two against one for prosecution testimony versus the defense.
• They can double team the lawyer with lawyers if they want.
• They can afford to go to the legislature to lobby and have the DUI laws changed in their favor.

Who is stronger here? Kat? Or Georgia? Is it even a close contest? Does anyone think it is a fair fight?

From the minute someone is charged with DUI, common sense tells us that the person has a motive to lie. If the person says something that makes them sound not guilty, we are suspicious that she is making it up to get off. Does anybody disagree?

So we all agree that someone who has been charged with DUI has a motive to lie. On the other hand, the DUI police officer that arrested her normally does not have a motive to lie. Anybody disagree?

So, if Kat denies her guilt or tries to explain, we are going to be suspicious of her but not of the DUI cop who testifies against her. Anyone disagree?

So we start out thinking Kat is guilty and we do not believe her when she says she is not. How can anyone get a fair trial when we start out like that? Do you have any ideas?

Now in our everyday lives we think that if we were accused of something we did not do, we would just explain and people would believe us because we are honest people. Right?

What if you had to explain this to strangers in Savannah who do not know you and do not know you are honest?

Do you think the strangers would be suspicious of you because you would have a motive to lie?

Even if you brought in your friends to tell the jury that you are an honest person, they will be suspicious of your friends because they will think that they may be shading their testimony to help a friend. Even if you are honest, do you think a group of strangers will believe it?

So the government double-teams you with police. They double-team you with lawyers. They place you in a position where people are suspicious of anything you say or do and anything your friends say or do. They shove you in a position where most people think you are guilty from the beginning. They have almost unlimited funds and resources to prosecute you, but you have limited funds. Then you are expected to show you are innocent. Even Jesus did not do well when he was put on trial. My client is not rich. She is not Jesus. What hope is there for Kat to get a fair trial? Do any of you see a way?

Now, Kat does the best she can. But she is not in the same league as the State of Georgia. Matching her against the State of Georgia is truly David vs. Goliath. But, without the slingshot. It is a heavyweight in a boxing match against a twelve year old. That is not a fair fight. The government starts off with overwhelming advantages. Treating both sides the same is no more fair than treating the heavyweight and the twelve year old the same. Do you disagree?

If you go back and just ask yourselves which side is correct, that is not a fair question. The deck is stacked against Kat from the start. To get your vote, you are asking the twelve year old to beat the heavyweight. So what are you going to do?

Smarter people than I realized that treating the State of Georgia the same as Kat did not equal a fair fight. Experience has taught us over the years that if you do not build some protections into the system, you are going to end up convicting innocent people. To protect against this, some safeguards have been built into the law.

The government has given David a slingshot. It still may not be a fair fight, but it is better than before.

You Know the law’s fix. Kat is innocent unless proven guilty. It’s only fair to make it harder for the District Attorney to prove its case. Treating both sides equally in a mismatched contest isn’t fair. The law says you must start out biased in favor of Kat and you cannot change unless you are given the strongest proof known to the law.

Will you take back your answer to the District Attorney?

Will you tell him that you will not treat both sides equally? Will you tell him that you will start out on Kat’s side and that you will not change your mind UNLESS you are given the strongest proof known to the law?

The presumption of innocence is needed if there is to be a fair trial.

 

Secretariat won beyond a reasonable doubt.

In America, before the government can ruin your life, they have the burden of proof.  A girl’s life is on the line in Savannah, Georgia.  The State of Georgia must rule out all reasonable doubts that she is guilty of DUI. You all have heard this before.  The government must disprove all reasonable doubts.

Wouldn’t you agree that a reasonable doubt exists if the DUI breath test is broken? So then, the Chatham County District Attorney must disprove this doubt and prove that their breath test machine was functioning properly.

Isn’t there a reasonable doubt if the District Attorney doesn’t prove to you that Rachael is a good candidate for the DUI field sobriety tests?

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest level of certainty in the American Justice system.  Has the District Attorney presented proof beyond a reasonable doubt that rules out everything but alcohol as a cause of Rachael’s failure to maintain lane and speeding?

Presumption of Innocence

Rachael is a citizen accused in Savannah, Georgia.  She is fully cloaked with the presumption of innocence. The law says you have to start out biased in favor of the accused. You must start out on Rachael’s side and you cannot change unless you are given the strongest proof known to the law. Rachael starts presumed to win, and she can only lose if the State of Georgia completely disproves all other explanations, using science, no matter what Rachael does.

Imagine this is a football game.  The prosecution in a DUI trial (dressed in orange and blue) starts on its own goal line.  Unless the District Attorney moves the ball all the way up the field, proving each and every thing beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find her not guilty.  You must root for Rachael (dressed in red and black) to be found not guilty.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt puts the prosecution on the goal line, but the presumption of innocence puts twice the normal number of  red and black defenders on the field.  The Constitution of the United States of America gives every accused these defenders to battle against the State.  Rachael, simply by being accused is given these defenders without her ever having to say a word, present a witness, or doing anything.  These defenders are you.

Levels of Proof

We start with a hunch. It is a guess. In DUI trials a hunch is good for nothing. It can be used for nothing.

Reasonable Suspicion

Would you agree to vote guilty if at the close of the prosecution’s case you were reasonably sure that Rachael was guilty of DUI?

Reasonable suspicion is the amount of evidence a cop needs merely to stop you.

It is reasonable and trustworthy information that a person committed a crime.

For example, a sergeant of over 25 years experience in the same neighborhood sees some people who do not belong there. They are black. But, this isn’t important; they could be white in a black area, or Chinese in a Mexican part of town, whatever. So, the cop watches them. He notices two of them walk up and down the same block and look into the store window. Are they looking for a friend? Waiting on a shopping spouse? He doesn’t know. Instead, he walks up to them and demands they stop.

That’s it. Reasonable suspicion is not even close to the ultimate standard of beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor must produce.

Probable Cause

Would you agree to vote guilty if at the close of the prosecution’s case you were convinced that Rachael probably is guilty of DUI?

This is the amount of evidence a cop needs to arrest you, or to strip-search your wife.

It means that it is more likely than not that a crime has been or is being committed. Not a suspicion, nor a hunch, or even reasonable cause. We need more. We need to know something is up. This is all the cop had the night he arrested Rachael. The law allows him to arrest you if the cop has probable cause. No where near the amount of proof you need today to find Rachael guilty of DUI.

Preponderance

Would you agree to vote guilty if at the close of the prosecution’s case you were convinced it was more likely than not that Rachael is DUI?

Commonly referred to as the tipping of the scales, this is the burden used for someone to take your money in civil law suits.

If you are not prepared to bankrupt your own mother over the facts in this case, then you are not even close to a finding of guilt.

Clear and Convincing

Would you agree to vote guilty if at the close of the prosecution’s case you had clear and convincing evidence that Rachael was a drunk driver?

The government needs this much evidence to take away children from parents or to allow children to decide their parents’ fate late in life.

This level does not have a number attached to it, but it lies between preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt. No doubt is 100%. Preponderance of evidence is 51%. Reasonable doubt and clear and convincing must fit between these two levels.

Would you want a judge to take your child away from you if he was 75% convinced you were unfit? Would you want your family to be able to commit you to a mental hospital if they convinced a judge 80% of the way? No. You would want the person deciding your fate to be surer than that. You would want them to be clear and convinced, not “pretty sure,” or “reasonably certain.”

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Would you agree to vote guilty if at the close of the prosecution’s case you only had a slight doubt that Rachael was guilty of DUI?

If there is any doubt in a criminal case, the verdict is not guilty.

This decision is one you must live with for the rest of your lives. When you put your head on your pillow tonight, you should be able to relax and think back to this moment and smile, because you know you did the right thing.

You’ll never have a peaceful nights rest again if on the evidence presented by the District Attorney you find Rachael guilty of DUI.

Look at the picture of Secretariat again and ask yourself: “Has the government won their case beyond a reasonable doubt?”

The idea  for this blog post came from the best DUI lawyers in the world.  They are part of an organization called the National College for DUI Defense.  Bruce Kapsack, the DUI Lawyer from California and his book Innovative DUI Trial Tools gave me some awesome inspiration for this post. Justin McShane is the DUI lawyer and Scientific guru from Pennsylvania who shared with me the idea to use the photograph of Secretariat.  When he told me about that…well it brought it home for me.  For some more reading about this see Lawrence Taylor’s DUI blog posts: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and Breathalyzers: Accurate Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

 

 

1. Don’t drink and drive if you are impaired.  Don’t drive anything, even golf carts.
2. NEVER admit that you drank any alcohol.
3. Never perform field sobriety tests.
4. Never blow into a portable breath test device.
5. Be quiet.  Don’t blurt out anything to the cop to try and explain yourself because it will be used against you in court.
6. Have your license and other documents in hand and offer these to the cop.
7. Never sit behind the wheel if you are drunk.  Don’t even sit in the front seat of a car if you are intoxicated.
8. Blend in with traffic because this makes it harder for the police to detect you than if you are the lone driver.
9. Don’t be a good Samaritan on the way home because random acts of kindness bring the police around a lot.
10. Stay in your car unless told to get out by the cop.
11. Sleep in the back seat if you must.  Turn off the ignition and put the keys in your pocket.  Make sure the car is off the highway.
12. Breath tests can be wrong when you have recently been around volatile fumes, like lacquer, paint, gasoline, or dry cleaning fluids. Always get a second independent test.
13. Use the driver’s rights cards because it speaks for you to the Savannah Police.
14. Eat well.
15. Don’t argue with the officer. Give him your documents and say nothing except to respond to his questions.
16. If you are in an accident, after having drank, don’t talk to anyone at the scene about anything. Never take any field sobriety tests. If anyone was hurt or killed, refuse all tests.
17. Try to record the conversations between you and the cops because the officer’s missing or defective warnings can cause test results to be excluded from evidence.
18. Find a skilled DUI attorney who knows the ropes. You want a DUI trial specialist because he can beat the DUI or he can probably work you a better plea deal.

 

Attitude

I know I will win. My client feels that, and the jury, and the judge, and the prosecutor. The difference between a lawyer who wins DUI cases and one who loses is attitude. Henry Ford said it best, “Whether you think you can or you think you can’t, you’re right.”   My attitude is that I am a good DUI lawyer.  I’m prepared.  I know my stuff.  I’ve read the cases.  I’ve read the file.  I’ve interviewed the witnesses.  I’m on top of this case.  I know it better than the prosecutor.  I have confidence.  The most important thing: Stick to the goal — I want to win the case.

Never plead guilty to DUI.

Recently, I met a lawyer who pleads about 50 cases a year, and he’s methodical about them. He maybe tries one of twenty. I am not pleased with lawyers who take a case to plead it, regardless of what kind of chance they’ve got to win the case.

Never plead guilty to DUI. Ever. If that’s what you want, you can get another attorney to do it for a lot less money than you’re going to pay me. I will not take on a DUI case unless I believe I’m trying it down the road. I hold strong to my philosophy and I’m not taking a case knowing that I will not try it. I am not about to ruin my reputation by having somebody come in and after a month of fighting decide “Oh I want to plead guilty.” That does me no good. People will hear I’m pleading guilty to things. I’d rather do quality work. An American deserves his day in court.

Preparation

Preparation makes the difference. I come prepared. I am thorough. I file many motions, study lab regulations, challenge field sobriety and BAC tests, bring an expert, and even appeal when my client’s rights have been shot.   I must be better prepared.  I go to court with knowledge of the file, knowledge of the law, knowledge of the facts, and knowledge of the defenses.  If I’m not better prepared than my opponent, I could lose.  The odds in a DUI case are stacked against you by the legislation.  This is one reason I will not overload myself with DUI cases, because I know what it takes for me to do a good job.   I turn down far many more cases than I take.  Far many more.  I could make a lot more money if I wanted a volume DUI practice.  But, I’d rather hold to my rule that I’m not taking a DUI case knowing that I’ll never try it.  And, I only take a certain number of cases a year, because it’s physically impossible to be on trial that much.

A lot of cases look unwinnable at first. Most cases look this way. But the number of cases that are unwinnable is little. I step back. I stay away from it a few days. I come back. I get creative. I ask myself, “What thing have I missed?” I ask my colleagues. I look hard.  Whenever you take a chemical test, breath, blood, etc., bring in an expert to challenge the result. If you’re headed to trial, I almost always go for a jury trial.  Most DUI cases are not dismissed before trial. But, I spend a lot of time trying to do so. The first thing I look for in a file is “Is there some way I can avoid trial?” Maybe you can talk about sloppy police procedure and get the case dismissed. But, this is not easy to do.  The State of Georgia has many opportunities to mess up. But, I’ll only catch it when I explore every one. This takes time and commitment.

Knowledge

I keep my knowledge of DUI law and science up-to-the-minute. I know my subject cold. This gives me the winning confidence. DUI’s are winnable.  But, they are hard.  DUI is a political crime. Jurors have a much different mind set toward DUI. I am a lot different than just a criminal lawyer. I read just about every DUI publication in the country, and attend about every DUI seminar.  I am trying to get a reputation with the prosecutors and with the courts and with other lawyers as being a good, sound, prepared, and professional DUI lawyer.

Thorough initial interview

I block off two hours for the initial interview.  I want no interruptions, no phone calls, or anything.  I want the client to know that while he or she is here, this is extremely serious.  I take the time to really go through an in-depth interview.  Most people come in with a negative attitude.  They think they can’t win.  Then I begin telling them how can the case may be approached and what kinds of defenses are there. No DUI case is an open and shut loser. This way you can come in for an interview and then decide if the fee is something you can come up with.

I listen.  I try and pick up on how you present your story.  What kind of a witness will you make?  I’m sizing you up.  Are we going to get along?  Am I comfortable with you?  Are you comfortable with me?  Are you telling the truth?  These are the initial impressions I’m feeling out. Do you feel good about yourself?  Want to fight the case?  Do you feel you’ve been wronged?  Do you think you have a defense? And if you do believe these things, how serious are you?  Because once we get going here, I’m committed to winning.  If you think this is not something that you want to make an investment in, it’s best you go to another DUI lawyer.

Jason Cerbone won my DUI jury trial. I had two police lying to cover each other. It was a great deal to overcome. They would not produce any films that would prove my case. Mr. Cerbone had cast doubt on their testimony with nothing to work with. By showing their errors and lack of facts he was able to do so, much to my benefit. — Joseph

Better class of people.  At least they’ve got a car.  They are hard, fun, and anybody can get one.  DUI’s are different.  This is because there is much more law on DUI.  DUI law changes fast.  Very fast.  Stay tuned for a big change coming to Georgia with the Intoxilyzer 5000 source code. Enormous.

DUI is biology, chemistry, science. The science is false. The machine doesn’t work. The science is on our side. And the prosecutor’s in Savannah, Georgia are going to have to square with that. Soon. The prosecutor’s so-called expert witnesses are advocates, not scientists. There ex-police agents with new titles, like “area supervisor.” The Intoxilyzer 5000 (the DUI breath test used in Savannah, Georgia) is accurate only because the legislature says so. The evidence they need to find you guilty in a DUI case isn’t even forensic. The State doesn’t need a forensic expert to testify to the jury that their breath estimator was reliable and accurate. Rather, the prosecutor only needs to show the you that a machine makes the sample and spits it out. Is this fair, accurate, reliable? Where does the hospital keep their breath machine? They don’t use one. Why do doctors use blood testing? Because they need accuracy. And reliability. Whose choice was it to use a breath sample? Ever taken a prescription pain medicine? Did it last four to six hours? Not a full day? Scientifically, you know that most pain medications can be detected in you the next day? Not alcohol.

Ain’t good enough for Alabama…

The Intoxilyzer 5000 DUI breath testing device ain’t good enough for Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Florida, and many more states. Sweden quit using it over 15 years ago because it’s bad, old science. Most states don’t use it. But, Georgia still uses it to convict people.

CMI, the manufacturer out of Owensboro, Kentucky now only makes the 8000 series. They will not make new parts for the 5000 machines. The design of Georgia’s instrument is over 25 years old. The computer was built and last updated in 1985. Ever owned a boat with an outboard motor? How about a lawn mower? Did it ever fail to start? Ever heard of a space shuttle exploding?

Interfering substances are not subtracted from your sample.

Filters are made to detect and subtract out interfering substances. But, GBI made the manufacturer set up a different software protocol for the Georgia Intoxilyzer 5000. This is important because if the machine is not sniffing out interferrents perfectly then your breath sample can be falsely high. But, since Georgia has chosen to not use easily available software to capture data from the machine, interfering substances will always go undetected.

No paper trail

Almost every state in the U.S.A. uses a breath machine that leaves a paper trail for you to challenge your sample. Not Georgia. Our breath test samples leave nothing. But, you are always allowed to challenge a breathalyzer’s sample. This is where I come in. Challenge. Attack. Challenge. Show me. Challenge.

DUI Exception to the Constitution

Many constitutional protections that you and I have are not there for DUI.  Instead, there are DUI exceptions to the constitution.  For example, the crime of “Failure to maintain lane” includes driving and weaving within your own lane.  The law says this is a good stop.  Roadblocks are the falsest thing out there. But, the law says it’s all good.  Unlike every other crime, you’ve got no right to an attorney until you are arrested, processed, and booked.  Make sense?  No?  That’s the point.  To make it “O.K.,” the court’s have gone and carved out what Lawrence Taylor has quoted as the ‘DUI Exception to the Constitution.”

You are required to give evidence against yourself when you get arrested for DUI in Savannah, Georgia.  This is ridiculous. In some states it’s a separate crime to refuse a DUI test. It’s coming to Georgia.  In Arizona the cops are authorized to do a forced blood withdrawal.

There’s a presumption of guilt in DUI cases because the law says if there’s a test result, we’ll let the jury “infer” guilt.  And most people think if you drink and drive, you’re guilty.  You understand it’s not against the law to drink? And drive? Rather, it’s against the law to have too many drinks and drive.  What’s the first thing a waitress says to you after “Hello?” — “Do you want a drink?”

You can tell the truth in DUI cases. This is good. The bible says “the truth shall set you free.” So it will. I’m just bringing you the truth. I like that.

Double jeopardy is here for DUI, even though the Constitution says you and I are free from double jeopardy.  You’ve got two fights in a DUI case.  First, your administrative license suspension battle.  Second, your criminal DUI case. How can this be?  Because there’s a DUI exception to the Constitution of the United States of America — that’s how.

Criminal intent or state of mind is never an issue.  So think of it as a strict liability crime.  Do this and that’s it.  We don’t care why.

Well, that’s my dish.  I must shove off.

I don’t trust authority. Nor, the government. So, I defend those who seem doomed. For me, popularity isn’t as important as doing the right thing. There’s a trend taking away your rights in DUI law. I’m fighting it. In a recent DUI jury trial in Savannah, Georgia I helped a girl named Claire. I talked to the jury like they were folks on the post office corner. This is about what I said…

What did the prosecutor leave out? Why did he leave it out? What does this say about reasonable doubt? What did the prosecutor leave out? Why did he leave it out? What does this say about reasonable doubt?

One thing the prosecutor did not mention is that the officer testified in a preliminary hearing just two months after he arrested Claire and he admitted on cross-examination that he did not know what the time rates were for the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Field Sobriety evaluation. The time rates are the key to performing the test. The officer just did his own eye test and decided Claire failed that.

Another big thing they didn’t tell you is that the officer knew Claire had back problems. The officer is trained to not do the field sobriety evaluations if you have back problems. But he did them here. Then he said she failed.

Another point the prosecutor did not tell you is that Claire walked normally during normal activities. The officer told you that people under the influence of alcohol often have trouble walking. Did the prosecutor just forget to tell you about this? Or is it possible that they did not want you to think that Claire walked fine? Were they afraid that this might create a reasonable doubt in your mind?

Another thing that the prosecutor did not mention is that the police officer left this out of his report. If the officer is just fair and unbiased, if he is just giving you the facts, why did he leave this out of his report? Can you really rely on reports or witnesses that only give you one side of the story?

Use your common sense. It is just not possible for Claire to have been under the influence when she forgot to signal, but normal a few seconds later when she walked around the side of the car. If alcohol was the problem, it should have been present in her legs as well as her arms. What this shows you is that the failure to signal was created by something other than alcohol.

The prosecutor said Claire had bloodshot eyes. Why didn’t they tell you that she has allergies? You think they left the allergies part out because it’s not important? Or could they have left it out because they didn’t want you to think there was a reasonable doubt about whether bloodshot eyes were a sign of intoxication?

The prosecutor listed five things that they claim shows Claire was under the influence. They argue that it cannot be a coincidence that these five things are here. What they did not do is list the 55 clues to intoxication from the officer’s manual that were not here. For proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they should have more than 5 of 60. Have they given you proof beyond a reasonable doubt when 55 out of 60 clues aren’t here?

Claire looked normal. She acted normal. So, she probably is normal. The cop’s opinion that Claire was under the influence was wrong, just like his administration of the field sobriety evaluations.

The prosecution is biased. The officer is biased. The prosecution is hiding things here that are inconsistent with intoxication. I am not saying the officer is a liar, but I think you are entitled to an explanation of why many of the statements in his report don’t go along with the video.

In America, before they can destroy your life, they have the burden of proof. A girl’s life is on the line. Matching Claire up against the government isn’t a fair fight. The State of Georgia can pay lawyers to fight as long as it takes. They can make sure their lawyers are well-trained. Do they need an investigator to help make their case and testify? They’ll pay for it. Do they need to talk to an expert? They can afford it. They can afford tests and machines that Claire and I don’t have access to. They can double-team her with police officers so that it’s two against one in court. They can double team her with lawyers. So….is this a fair fight?

The State of Georgia has to rule out every reasonable doubt in this case. You have all heard this before. The government must rule out everything but alcohol as a cause. We don’t have to prove anything else was a cause.

The things Claire did right show that the things she did wrong were not caused by alcohol. Their case sucks! I am confident you will go find Claire not guilty. Find her not guilty. Let her go home.

The Chatham County jury found her not guilty of DUI less safe.

If there’s a magic in DUI lawyering, it’s the magic of fighting battles beyond endurance. Beyond ability. It’s the magic of risking everything for a dream that nobody sees but you.

This was the best DUI Defense seminar I’ve ever been to. The seminar is held at Harvard Law School every summer and it’s known as the most advanced level DUI trial seminar in the world. It covered everything you need to know to win a DUI trial from Opening statement, jury selection, cross-examination, expert witnesses, closing argument, and all things in between. F. Lee Bailey was the featured speaker. He is one of the lawyers for the defense in the O. J. Simpson murder case.  He also represented Pattie Hearst, and Sam Sheppard, (The Fugitive).  Could here a pin drop in here when he spoke. I feel honored to have been been among these great DUI Defense warriors. Being with these people made me remember why I became a lawyer. My job is to find justice no matter how well she may hide herself. I have a chance to save the world one DUI case at a time.

George Bianchi has a mustache like the cowboys in Tombstone. He invited me for dinner at “The Harvest.” So I went. With him was the group that runs the show. The man, George Bianchi is a great DUI lawyer from Seattle, Washington.  He is Dean of the National College of DUI Defense (NCDD).  This man is one of the warmest people I’ve ever known.  Two days later he gave what one DUI lawyer said was “the best new Dean welcoming speech I’ve been privileged to hear in 7 years at Harvard.”  As I walked to my seat I see Roger Dodd sitting at the table. Roger Dodd is the best cross-examiner in the world, as far as I can tell. I use his enormous red book: Cross-Examination: Science and Techniques to prepare for every cross-examination I do.  He was teaching us the next day all about how to cross-examine in a DUI case. This guy is amazing to listen to. I pity the folks who have to be crossed by him.  Down the table was Tommy Kirk, a great gentleman from Montgomery, Alabama. Tommy Kirk is a master closer (in closing argument) in a DUI case. He tells a story so good that I could listen to him all day long.  Across from Tommy was Steve Oberman, DUI lawyer from Knoxville, Tennessee.  Mr. Oberman is the author of DUI: The Crimes & Consequences in Tennessee; and the co-author of Drunk Driving Defense with Lawrence Taylor, DUI lawyer of Long Beach, California. Both texts are widely relied upon by judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers. Steve is the man whose book and DVD I use to sharpen my cross of the field sobriety test. He is a great lawyer and a teacher.  Across from me was Mike Hawkins, a top DUI lawyer in Atlanta, Georgia.  Mike has taught at several seminars I’ve attended.  I know who he is mainly because of Anthony Palacios, who is a top expert on DUI field sobriety testing and training.  The next day I’d be in front of Mike doing cross-examination and he would be critiquing me.  I’d be learning at the feet of the master.  Right next to me was Paul Burglin, one of the best DUI lawyers in San Francisco, California.  He is co-author of “California Drunk Driving Law“, a two-volume treatise commonly referred to as “the Bible of DUI Defense.” Paul is awesome.