Decision on DUI frustrates officials

[ConHog]

Cops come across a car parked out in the middle of nowhere. A drunk is asleep behind the wheel. The engine is off. The key is in the ignition. The hood is warm, indicating the car just arrived there. The car is registered to the drunk. No one else is anywhere around.

In most states, this is enough to convict. The basis for the conviction? Circumstantial evidence. If you were on a jury, and those facts had been presented to you, and the DA was arguing, "Ladies and gentlemen, obviously the defendant had been driving a short time before he pulled over to sleep it off by the side of the road. The hood of the car was warm, the key was in the ignition," etc., etc., how would you vote? I'm pretty sure I know how I would vote.

How would I know the person behind the wheel had not pulled over there and then gotten drunk? reasonable doubt, I would be bound to vote not guilty.

Actually, we get this defense quite often. Juries never buy it.

A jury full of blu and QW clones would. As the ADA says, thank God for Voir dire.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cops come across a car parked out in the middle of nowhere. A drunk is asleep behind the wheel. The engine is off. The key is in the ignition. The hood is warm, indicating the car just arrived there. The car is registered to the drunk. No one else is anywhere around.

In most states, this is enough to convict. The basis for the conviction? Circumstantial evidence. If you were on a jury, and those facts had been presented to you, and the DA was arguing, "Ladies and gentlemen, obviously the defendant had been driving a short time before he pulled over to sleep it off by the side of the road. The hood of the car was warm, the key was in the ignition," etc., etc., how would you vote? I'm pretty sure I know how I would vote.

How would I know the person behind the wheel had not pulled over there and then gotten drunk? reasonable doubt, I would be bound to vote not guilty.

Only cuz you're a loon when it comes to LEO and you always think the LEO are wrong.

No, I always want proof that they are right, there is a difference. I am generally willing to accept a persons word about things, I just happen to want evidence if it is going to impact someone else in any way, positively or negatively. Why do you have a problem with getting the evidence before making a decision?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cops come across a car parked out in the middle of nowhere. A drunk is asleep behind the wheel. The engine is off. The key is in the ignition. The hood is warm, indicating the car just arrived there. The car is registered to the drunk. No one else is anywhere around.

In most states, this is enough to convict. The basis for the conviction? Circumstantial evidence. If you were on a jury, and those facts had been presented to you, and the DA was arguing, "Ladies and gentlemen, obviously the defendant had been driving a short time before he pulled over to sleep it off by the side of the road. The hood of the car was warm, the key was in the ignition," etc., etc., how would you vote? I'm pretty sure I know how I would vote.

How would I know the person behind the wheel had not pulled over there and then gotten drunk? reasonable doubt, I would be bound to vote not guilty.

Actually, we get this defense quite often. Juries never buy it.

Maybe you should get me on your jury.

It really does not matter to me if they buy it or not as I do not drink, so I cannot ever be charged with DUI.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How would I know the person behind the wheel had not pulled over there and then gotten drunk? reasonable doubt, I would be bound to vote not guilty.

Actually, we get this defense quite often. Juries never buy it.

A jury full of blu and QW clones would. As the ADA says, thank God for Voir dire.

I have never gotten to voire dire, and have actually gotten a room full of jurors disqualified when someone was dumb enough to ask me a question in public. You should ask your ADA how she feels about jury nullification activists.

 

[ConHog]

Actually, we get this defense quite often. Juries never buy it.

A jury full of blu and QW clones would. As the ADA says, thank God for Voir dire.

I have never gotten to voire dire, and have actually gotten a room full of jurors disqualified when someone was dumb enough to ask me a question in public. You should ask your ADA how she feels about jury nullification activists.

She and I debate about that one quite often. I feel some issues call for jury nullification. She of course argues that that is illegal.

 

[George Costanza]

How would I know the person behind the wheel had not pulled over there and then gotten drunk? reasonable doubt, I would be bound to vote not guilty.

Only cuz you're a loon when it comes to LEO and you always think the LEO are wrong.

No, I always want proof that they are right, there is a difference. I am generally willing to accept a persons word about things, I just happen to want evidence if it is going to impact someone else in any way, positively or negatively. Why do you have a problem with getting the evidence before making a decision?

In an ideal world, if it boiled down to the cop's word v. the defendant's word, with nothing else in the picture, that would be failure of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict should be not guilty.

Unfortunately, however, defendants have an obvious motive to lie and prosecutors routinely argue that the police do not (which is laughable to anyone who knows anything about how things actually work in the real world of law enforcement, but juries buy it because they don't like to think that an officer actually would ever lie in order to get a conviction).

You mention "evidence." There are two kinds of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence can serve as the basis for a conviction absent any direct evidence whatsoever. That is how DUI defendants who are not actually observed to be driving, get convicted - on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

 

[ConHog]

Only cuz you're a loon when it comes to LEO and you always think the LEO are wrong.

No, I always want proof that they are right, there is a difference. I am generally willing to accept a persons word about things, I just happen to want evidence if it is going to impact someone else in any way, positively or negatively. Why do you have a problem with getting the evidence before making a decision?

In an ideal world, if it boiled down to the cop's word v. the defendant's word, with nothing else in the picture, that would be failure of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict should be not guilty.

Unfortunately, however, defendants have an obvious motive to lie and prosecutors routinely argue that the police do not (which is laughable to anyone who knows anything about how things actually work in the real world of law enforcement, but juries buy it because they don't like to think that an officer actually would ever lie in order to get a conviction).

You mention "evidence." There are two kinds of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence can serve as the basis for a conviction absent any direct evidence whatsoever. That is how DUI defendants who are not actually observed to be driving, get convicted - on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Not to mention, if you read the law, you don't have to be DRIVING the car to be convicted of DUI, not in Arkansas anyway, honestly I haven't looked at other state laws. All the state has to prove is that you were in control of the vehicle. Passed out behind the wheel with keys in the ignition and your bac is above .08 and that is in control of a vehicle while intoxicated. Now I know for a fact that my wife's office makes a distinction between being asleep in the backseat and being asleep behind the wheel. i would assume that is fairly standard.


And I would bet you that the ratio of LEO who lie under oath to defendants who lie under oath is on the order of 1:40000, at least.

 

[George Costanza]

Actually, we get this defense quite often. Juries never buy it.

A jury full of blu and QW clones would. As the ADA says, thank God for Voir dire.

I have never gotten to voire dire, and have actually gotten a room full of jurors disqualified when someone was dumb enough to ask me a question in public. You should ask your ADA how she feels about jury nullification activists.

A little aside here - one time I had been called for jury duty. I made it into the jury box and was being asked questions on voir dire. It was a DUI case. Defense counsel was well aware of the fact that I was a public defender. He knew I was going to get canned but thought he would get as much use out of me as he could before that happened.

Defense Counsel: "Juror No. 7 (me). You're a public defender. Have you ever tried a DUI case before?"

Me: "Dozens."

DC: "I see. Well, tell me, has it been your experience that police officers sometimes lie on the stand in order to get a conviction?"

Me: "It happens quite often."

(The ADA was a brand new little female ADA. She just sat there. The judge began fidgeting around and glaring at the ADA.)

DC: "All right, then. Tell me - do you think that sometimes police officers will exaggerate how poorly the defendant did on the field sobriety test?"

Me: "My experience has been that this is quite common."

Judge: "All, right, all right. Ms. ADA - do you intend to exercise a challenge on Juror No. 7?"

ADA: "Yes, your honor."

Judge: "Well, then DO IT!"

She did, and I was outta there. But defense counsel had gotten what he was after. It's called poisoning the jury. (Later, I learned that they found the defendant guilty anyway.)

OK - hijack over. Proceed with main topic of discussion . . .

 

[George Costanza]

No, I always want proof that they are right, there is a difference. I am generally willing to accept a persons word about things, I just happen to want evidence if it is going to impact someone else in any way, positively or negatively. Why do you have a problem with getting the evidence before making a decision?

In an ideal world, if it boiled down to the cop's word v. the defendant's word, with nothing else in the picture, that would be failure of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict should be not guilty.

Unfortunately, however, defendants have an obvious motive to lie and prosecutors routinely argue that the police do not (which is laughable to anyone who knows anything about how things actually work in the real world of law enforcement, but juries buy it because they don't like to think that an officer actually would ever lie in order to get a conviction).

You mention "evidence." There are two kinds of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence can serve as the basis for a conviction absent any direct evidence whatsoever. That is how DUI defendants who are not actually observed to be driving, get convicted - on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Not to mention, if you read the law, you don't have to be DRIVING the car to be convicted of DUI, not in Arkansas anyway, honestly I haven't looked at other state laws. All the state has to prove is that you were in control of the vehicle. Passed out behind the wheel with keys in the ignition and your bac is above .08 and that is in control of a vehicle while intoxicated. Now I know for a fact that my wife's office makes a distinction between being asleep in the backseat and being asleep behind the wheel. i would assume that is fairly standard.


And I would bet you that the ratio of LEO who lie under oath to defendants who lie under oath is on the order of 1:40000, at least.

In California, it's good news and bad news. You have to be actually driving. But actual driving can be established by circumstantial evidence. The officer does not have to actually observe the driving.

 

[George Costanza]

And I would bet you that the ratio of LEO who lie under oath to defendants who lie under oath is on the order of 1:40000, at least.

You would lose that one, my friend. In the first place, defendants do not take the stand in many cases. Secondly, what's a lie? Outright lies by police officers happen - but not nearly as often as exaggerations by police officers, short of a bald faced lie, and that can be enough to tip the scale right there.

 

[ConHog]

And I would bet you that the ratio of LEO who lie under oath to defendants who lie under oath is on the order of 1:40000, at least.

You would lose that one, my friend. In the first place, defendants do not take the stand in many cases. Secondly, what's a lie? Outright lies by police officers happen - but not nearly as often as exaggerations by police officers, short of a bald faced lie, and that can be enough to tip the scale right there.

Oh, I know they don't testify that often, but oddly it seems like the ones who do are the very ones who will tell some lies. And if we're counting LEO exaggerations, well we must count defendant exaggerations.

No way LEO lie, or exaggerate, nearly as often as defendants.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only cuz you're a loon when it comes to LEO and you always think the LEO are wrong.

No, I always want proof that they are right, there is a difference. I am generally willing to accept a persons word about things, I just happen to want evidence if it is going to impact someone else in any way, positively or negatively. Why do you have a problem with getting the evidence before making a decision?

In an ideal world, if it boiled down to the cop's word v. the defendant's word, with nothing else in the picture, that would be failure of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict should be not guilty.

Unfortunately, however, defendants have an obvious motive to lie and prosecutors routinely argue that the police do not (which is laughable to anyone who knows anything about how things actually work in the real world of law enforcement, but juries buy it because they don't like to think that an officer actually would ever lie in order to get a conviction).

You mention "evidence." There are two kinds of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence can serve as the basis for a conviction absent any direct evidence whatsoever. That is how DUI defendants who are not actually observed to be driving, get convicted - on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

I do understand circumstantial evidence, I just think that simply being drunk and in a car is not enough evidence to convict someone of DWI.

If we take the exact situation we described, and then add in the fact that there are no empty containers of alcohol around the vehicle (keeping in mind that the car is miles from anywhere) then I would be inclined to believe that it was driven there by the person inside the car. If there are dozens are empty beer cans, I would have to vote for reasonable doubt.

Still nothing but circumstantial evidence, but you can reach different conclusions based o all of the facts.

 

[ConHog]

No, I always want proof that they are right, there is a difference. I am generally willing to accept a persons word about things, I just happen to want evidence if it is going to impact someone else in any way, positively or negatively. Why do you have a problem with getting the evidence before making a decision?

In an ideal world, if it boiled down to the cop's word v. the defendant's word, with nothing else in the picture, that would be failure of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict should be not guilty.

Unfortunately, however, defendants have an obvious motive to lie and prosecutors routinely argue that the police do not (which is laughable to anyone who knows anything about how things actually work in the real world of law enforcement, but juries buy it because they don't like to think that an officer actually would ever lie in order to get a conviction).

You mention "evidence." There are two kinds of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence can serve as the basis for a conviction absent any direct evidence whatsoever. That is how DUI defendants who are not actually observed to be driving, get convicted - on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

I do understand circumstantial evidence, I just think that simply being drunk and in a car is not enough evidence to convict someone of DWI.

If we take the exact situation we described, and then add in the fact that there are no empty containers of alcohol around the vehicle (keeping in mind that the car is miles from anywhere) then I would be inclined to believe that it was driven there by the person inside the car. If there are dozens are empty beer cans, I would have to vote for reasonable doubt.

Still nothing but circumstantial evidence, but you can reach different conclusions based o all of the facts.

So, you would willfully ignore jury instructions and commit a crime to protect someone who common sense told you drove drunk?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I would bet you that the ratio of LEO who lie under oath to defendants who lie under oath is on the order of 1:40000, at least.

You would lose that one, my friend. In the first place, defendants do not take the stand in many cases. Secondly, what's a lie? Outright lies by police officers happen - but not nearly as often as exaggerations by police officers, short of a bald faced lie, and that can be enough to tip the scale right there.

Oh, I know they don't testify that often, but oddly it seems like the ones who do are the very ones who will tell some lies. And if we're counting LEO exaggerations, well we must count defendant exaggerations.

No way LEO lie, or exaggerate, nearly as often as defendants.

Why are LEOs that much better than anyone else in the world? Do you occasionally lie, or exaggerate the truth, or simply not mention something so that someone can reach a different conclusion than he would if you said it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In an ideal world, if it boiled down to the cop's word v. the defendant's word, with nothing else in the picture, that would be failure of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict should be not guilty.

Unfortunately, however, defendants have an obvious motive to lie and prosecutors routinely argue that the police do not (which is laughable to anyone who knows anything about how things actually work in the real world of law enforcement, but juries buy it because they don't like to think that an officer actually would ever lie in order to get a conviction).

You mention "evidence." There are two kinds of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence can serve as the basis for a conviction absent any direct evidence whatsoever. That is how DUI defendants who are not actually observed to be driving, get convicted - on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

I do understand circumstantial evidence, I just think that simply being drunk and in a car is not enough evidence to convict someone of DWI.

If we take the exact situation we described, and then add in the fact that there are no empty containers of alcohol around the vehicle (keeping in mind that the car is miles from anywhere) then I would be inclined to believe that it was driven there by the person inside the car. If there are dozens are empty beer cans, I would have to vote for reasonable doubt.

Still nothing but circumstantial evidence, but you can reach different conclusions based o all of the facts.

So, you would willfully ignore jury instructions and commit a crime to protect someone who common sense told you drove drunk?

What crime is that? It is not against the law to insists that the state prove its case to me, which is why some states do not require a unanimous verdict in order to convict.

 

[B. Kidd]

Nevada took care of this 'grey area' years ago by passing a statute related to DUI's called being in 'Actual Physical Control' of a motor vehicle while under the influence.
Generally, it states that if a person is behind the wheel, with the keys in the ignition or on their person, whether the vehicle is running or not, and they are intoxicated, there is a presumption that the person was presumed to have driven there while intoxicated.
So, an intoxicated individual, goes to the Taco Bell drive-thru, buys food, parks, eats it in the parking lot, car is off, they're behind the wheel, they pass out, keys are in their pocket.....BOOM!.....DUI!

 

[ConHog]

Nevada took care of this 'grey area' years ago by passing a statute related to DUI's called being in 'Actual Physical Control' of a motor vehicle while under the influence.
Generally, it states that if a person is behind the wheel, with the keys in the ignition or on their person, whether the vehicle is running or not, and they are intoxicated, there is a presumption that the person was presumed to have driven there while intoxicated.
So, an intoxicated individual, goes to the Taco Bell drive-thru, buys food, parks, eats it in the parking lot, car is off, they're behind the wheel, they pass out, keys are in their pocket.....BOOM!.....DUI!

The Arkansas law EXACTLY. I assumed other states were the same, but didn't even look.

 

[ConHog]

I do understand circumstantial evidence, I just think that simply being drunk and in a car is not enough evidence to convict someone of DWI.

If we take the exact situation we described, and then add in the fact that there are no empty containers of alcohol around the vehicle (keeping in mind that the car is miles from anywhere) then I would be inclined to believe that it was driven there by the person inside the car. If there are dozens are empty beer cans, I would have to vote for reasonable doubt.

Still nothing but circumstantial evidence, but you can reach different conclusions based o all of the facts.

So, you would willfully ignore jury instructions and commit a crime to protect someone who common sense told you drove drunk?

What crime is that? It is not against the law to insists that the state prove its case to me, which is why some states do not require a unanimous verdict in order to convict.

In Arkansas, and apparently in Nevada to, and in other states I assure you, the state does not have to prove the defendant was DRIVING while intoxicated, they simply have to prove the defendant was in control of the vehicle. Ignoring that distinction when deciding the case would be ignoring jury instructions, which is a civil crime.

 

[ConHog]

Nevada took care of this 'grey area' years ago by passing a statute related to DUI's called being in 'Actual Physical Control' of a motor vehicle while under the influence.
Generally, it states that if a person is behind the wheel, with the keys in the ignition or on their person, whether the vehicle is running or not, and they are intoxicated, there is a presumption that the person was presumed to have driven there while intoxicated.
So, an intoxicated individual, goes to the Taco Bell drive-thru, buys food, parks, eats it in the parking lot, car is off, they're behind the wheel, they pass out, keys are in their pocket.....BOOM!.....DUI!

The Arkansas law EXACTLY. I assumed other states were the same, but didn't even look.

Unless I am sitting in a car drunk I am not violating that law.

Who the hell said you were? Unless you're trying to differentiate sitting in the car, from laying down sleeping in the car, in which case there is no legal difference.

 

[B. Kidd]

Why a parking lot, the shoulder of the road, or your driveway?.....because the law defines a road or 'private property' as being anywhere the public has access to.

Years ago, comedian Rita Rudner, used to tell a joke:
"I played and lived in Vegas for 6 months and never got a chance to meet any of the locals. They were all in jail."

Alot of truth to that. It's called 'Sin City', but if you get caught, expect to get nailed. O.J. got 33 years here, and he wasn't even charged with murder. Movies like 'The Hangover' continue to spin what a person can and can't get away with here.