The first type of evidence that will be presented to the jury by the prosecution will be the arresting officer’s observations of the defendant’s erratic or otherwise unusual driving symptoms—what attracted the officer’s attention in the first place. In the rare case where the officer witness did not observe driving, such as where there has been an accident, then that portion of the corpus delicti will be supplied by lay witnesses or by circumstantial inference.
How important are the driving symptoms in a DUI case? Most DUI defense attorneys would probably consider the blood-alcohol evidence to be the most critical, followed perhaps by field sobriety tests. But many experienced prosecutors believe that the most important area in obtaining a conviction is police testimony concerning the defendant’s driving.
A manual prepared by one of the largest prosecuting agencies in California recognizes four major categories of evidence: driving symptoms; appearance and demeanor; FSTs; and blood-alcohol test or refusal. Of these, the manual states, driving is the most important—and field sobriety tests, “which are not generally viewed by jurors as highly persuasive,” the least.
While the author does not necessarily agree with this view, it may be helpful to understand what the view of one’s opponent may be.
Typically damning testimony would involve the officer initially observing the defendant’s car traveling at a high rate of speed. For example: as the officer began pursuit, the officer noticed that the car weaved across lane lines on five occasions; at one point, the defendant failed to stop for pedestrians who were crossing in an intersection. When the officer finally decided to turn on his flashing red lights, the defendant failed to pull over for a quarter of a mile; when he did, he parked at an odd angle to the curb, the rear of his car presenting a hazard to passing traffic.
How does the DUI lawyer deal with testimony of damaging driving symptoms? Each case is different, of course, but engaging in a frontal attack on the officer is rarely productive—to premise a defense on the sole theory that the officer is a liar and is trying to hang your client for some unknown reason. The usually more effective approach is to take each observation, one at a time, and suggest reasonable explanations for the observed conduct—and thus, a reasonable explanation for why the officer believed (mistakenly) that the client was intoxicated.
"I have come across many attorneys in my life and I have never been treated as well as I have her"
I have come across many attorneys in my life and I have never been treated as well as I have here. Every phone call was ...Anthony D.
"This is a top level law firm. The Bible of DUI's comes from this firm!"
This is a top level law firm. The Bible of DUI's comes from this firm! These are the guys other attorneys call when they are ...Tania C.
"They will fight strategically to help you win your case."
These are the best lawyers in LA/OC when it comes to DUI cases. They will fight strategically to help you win your case. My ...Kendall L.
"Chris not only got me down to a Wet Reckless but was able to significantly reduce the penalties I would face."
Im am so glad that I read the reviews of Taylor and Taylor after my first "incident" and immediately contacted them. Chris ...Suzi J.
"Won DMV hearing and got my case expunged for a minor issue"
Truly great team of lawyers. Handled everything the very best they could. Won DMV hearing and got my case expunged for a ...Nick T.
"I would recommend this firm with no qualms!"
I received counsel in a sensitive legal matter from Lawrence Taylor Sr., and his advice was spot on. I did some research and ...Jerry S.
"Mrs. Normandeau is by far the hardest-working and most diligent attorney I have ever met."
I cannot express enough gratitude towards Taylor and Taylor's Attorney, Jeanne Normandeau. I hired Mrs. Normandeau for a VERY ...Bruce R.
"Jeanne Normande is a great lawyer. She knows how the Riverside court judges work."
Jeanne Normande is a great lawyer. She knows how the Riverside court judges work. She will fight for you and will get you the ...Joe E.
"Thankfully Mr. Taylor was able to help fight my case without me ever having to go to court"
You should never drink and drive anywhere, but especially don't do it in la Jolla! Cops down here have nothing better to do ...Steven K.
"Christopher always made me aware of what was going on with my hearings, and got me the best outcome possible."
When you need to get a lawyer, you aren't usually in a great situation. I wasn't at least. Christopher and his team never ...Jessica S.
Consider first the officer’s testimony that the defendant was speeding. One tactic is to ask the officer how many speeding tickets he has issued in his career—and how many of those involved drunk driving. The answer to this last question should be “none,” since an officer arresting someone for drunk driving rarely bothers to issue a speeding citation as well. But this simple line of questions presents issues which can later be developed in arguments to the jury.
- If speeding is symptomatic of drunk driving, why has the officer never found speeding to be involved in any of his DUI arrests?
- If speeding is not a symptom, then why was the officer attempting to present it as evidence of intoxication?
- If the defendant was speeding, why wasn’t he cited for it?
DUI attorneys must, obviously, keep a tight rein on the officer during cross-examination and not permit the officer to offer explanations. If the subject is not explained in redirect, then the issue should be discussed during argument.
Evidence of speeding can be turned to the client’s advantage. This involved leading the DUI officer to admit that controlling a car requires more coordination and greater judgment as speed increases. Quite simply, driving a vehicle at the speed observed by the officer without having an accident requires considerably greater reflexes, coordination, and judgment than at the legal speed. Thus, the very fact of speeding without mishap is evidence of sobriety. In other words, rather than trying to prove the client was not speeding, counsel should simply accept the fact and turn it to his advantage. The natural tendency of the trial lawyer to contest everything should be overcome; the client is not on trial for speeding.
DUI & Hit-And-Run (.30%)
Vista - 1-year jail, fine, license suspension.
DUI Dismissed, Plea to Hit-and-Run (Fine)
Drunk Driving w/ Drugs
Glendale - 6 months jail, fine, license suspension.
2nd Offense DUI At High Speed
Ventura - 1-year jail, fine, loss of license.
Los Angeles - 6 months jail, fine, license suspension
Reduced to Exhibition of Speed (fine)
Felony DUI w/ Injury
Rancho Cucamonga - 18 months prison, loss of license.
Reduced to Misdemeanor DUI (fine, no jail)
The next driving symptom almost universally encountered in DUI cases is “weaving.” In fact, along with “alcoholic breath,” “thick and slurred speech,” and “bloodshot eyes,” it seems nearly a prerequisite to any arrest for drunk driving. And, without question, there are officers who will add these symptoms to their reports to create the classic DUI scenario. In most cases, however, the officer is honest—but guilty of suggestive perception: once he has decided that the suspect is possibly under the influence, he expects to see the usual symptoms —and normal inattentive driving becomes “weaving.”
DUI lawyers must develop through cross-examination of the officer that weaving is not nearly as unusual or symptomatic of intoxication as it sounds. The officer should be led to admit that no driver steers a car in a geometrically straight line dead center in the lane; only railroad cars travel perfectly straight. During argument, the jurors should be reminded that even the most sober of them will find that as one drives, one is constantly, perhaps subconsciously, correcting course with a back-and-forth steering wheel motion. So it is a matter of degree—and of the car's mechanical condition.
The mechanical condition of the client’s car at the time of arrest should not be overlooked in preparing for trial. A thorough inspection by a licensed mechanic may well produce a valuable defense witness, since mechanical problems can cause weaving and other erratic driving symptoms. Testimony that the car had bent tie rods, a sticking accelerator, defective suspension, worn brakes, faulty steering, improperly inflated tires, or poor wheel alignment, can be effective. Even without such a witness, the possibility of such mechanical problems can be brought out in cross-examination of the officer.
With an average of 32 years of experience, a top A-V rating, and a listing in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, the firm continues to be widely recognized as California’s premier DUI defense attorney's and has twice been recognized in the American Bar Association Journal for its specialization and unique technical support staff of former law enforcement, blood-alcohol and DMV experts.
Defendant’s Failure to
The officer’s next observation may involve the client’s failure to pull over after the siren or flashing red lights were activated. Once again, the tactic of the DUI lawyer is not to disprove that this happened, but rather to offer a reasonable explanation. For example, it is not unusual, and thus not evidence of inebriation, to be unaware of flashing lights to the rear, particularly during daylight hours. If the client saw the lights, they may have assumed that they were intended for someone else — not an unreasonable assumption for someone who believes they have done nothing wrong. Or the client may have reasonably believed that it was an emergency and they were to get out of the way (which the officer will see as more weaving or an unsafe lane change). If the siren was then used, counsel should develop the increasingly common problem familiar to officers, firefighters, and ambulance drivers, of motorists being oblivious to sirens because of air conditioning and car stereo systems. With the windows rolled up, the air conditioner on and the stereo blaring through large door-mounted speakers, it is hardly a surprise that many drivers do not hear sirens.
Manner of Pulling Over
The DUI officer may testify that when the client did finally pull over, the client parked at a dangerous angle to the curb—indicating the poor judgment and coordination of the drunk driver. It can also indicate, however, a very nervous and frightened driver. The officer should be asked if they have observed this type of parking in cases involving routine traffic citations and if it is common for drivers who are pulled over to be flustered and apprehensive. With blood pressure rising and adrenaline pumping, totally sober drivers have been known to cause traffic accidents under such circumstances. If the officer chooses to deny this, jurors who have been pulled over may begin to doubt his entire testimony; few jurors would react coolly and dispassionately to being pulled out of traffic with flashing lights and sirens.
The DUI attorney should not limit the inquiry to what the officer has testified they observed: counsel should also bring out what the officer did not observe. Some experience with DUI cases is helpful here. The officer can be asked if alternately speeding up and then slowing down can be a symptom of drunk driving — or, in the alternative, if the officer has seen such driving in past DUI cases. If so, did the officer observe this type of driving with the defendant? Was the defendant going off on the shoulder of the road? Was the defendant obstructing traffic by traveling too slowly? Did the defendant run any red lights? Did the defendant cause any other cars to swerve to avoid them? What the officer did not observe can be as relevant to the issue of inebriation as what the officer did observe.