Board Certified in DUI Defense: One of the very first few lawyers in the country to achieve this distinction in 1999 -- and is still one of only four in the State of Georgia.DUI News
DUI Lawyers Blog Watch
-
The Chief Justice for the Supreme Court penned an incredibly articulate and devastating attack against Minnesota’s test refusal law today. In the case of State v. Larson, the Court held that:
"Larson also argues that his due process right to a fair trial was violated because the State was allowed to introduce evidence that he had refused to submit to voluntary . . . testing, and that the State used his refusal as evidence of his guilt. It is uncontested that Larson refused to allow the police to take a . . . sample . . . until the police produced a warrant. At trial, the district court ruled, over Larson’s objection, that Larson’s refusal to submit voluntarily to . . . testing could come before the jury. The court acknowledged that, while Larson “had that right to refuse to cooperate,” he did not see that “any constitutional rights of [Larson’s] are violated by that fact being told to the jury.” This ruling ...
-
A ruling by Louisiana's 2nd Court of Appeals has expanded the arrest power of police officers outside their jurisdictions. Prior to the court's ruling, an officer outside his jurisdiction was considered a civilian and could only make a "citizen's arrest" for a felony.
A private person may make an arrest when the person arrested has committed a felony, whether in or out of his presence. - Art. 214, Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure
At trial, in two separate cases, police officers outside their jurisdiction stopped motorists they believed were driving while intoxicated. In one case, State v. Stapa, an officer noticed a motorist weaving between the fog line and the center line and called a state trooper. The state trooper told the officer to "light up" the motorist but to stay in her car until he arrived. ... -
Is it worth it to hire an attorney for a DUI? This is one of the most common questions I get asked. "I mean really, what can you do for me? If I'm just going to get convicted anyway, why pay a lawyer?" My answer is simple, "Yes! You need a lawyer." No matter how bad your case looks, hire a "competent" lawyer that will not just do for you what you could do for yourself. Here is three examples of people that asked me that question over the past year, took a chance on me, and got their answer in August of 2010.
1. Citizen pulls out of a store on Hill Air Force Base and does not use his blinker. The officers pull him over for not signaling. The police notice slurred speech, odor of alcohol, horrible balance problems, and red blood shot eyes. He fails all the field sobriety tests and is taken to the station for an intoxilyzer test. The result was a .13. He hires me. We are in Federal Court where many people plead guilty, don't hire lawyers, and take their blows. We stood up and said "Not Guilty your honor. We want a trial." We first did a suppression ...
-
Yesterday, we discussed the mechanics of this matter. Basically, we addressed the difference between a criminal appeal and a motion for a new trial as well as why it may have made sense for the defense attorney, prosecutor and SJC to take the action that they did. I should point out, by the way, that although this is a murder case, it does not change the procedures we discussed yesterday.
The case involved the December. 13, 2005, killings of four men in a basement in the Boston area. It had been dubbed the city’s worst shooting in 10 years.
The Defendant was convicted by a jury of killing Jason Bachiller, 21; Jihad Chankhour, 22; Edwin “E.J.’’ Duncan, 21; and Christopher Vieira, 19. Prosecutors said that he
