This is really a policy question, not a legal question... But here is my point of view. DUI cases generally account for nearly 1/3 of all criminal cases filed. Over 52K people were arrested for DUI in Pennsylvania last year. However, the State has essentially tied the hands of everyone involved (judges, DAs, and defense attorneys) by enacting statutes which require the court to impose certain mandatory sentences and taking away the right of trial by jury for first offense cases.
The DA, an elected official, cannot afford, politically, to be known as the guy who cut a deal on a DUI if the guy later goes out and kills a family while DUI. The judge, trying the case, cannot afford, politically, to be known as the guy who acquitted a DUI driver who later went out and killed a family while DUI.
In addition, the statutory elements of DUI are not complex. So, absent a legal basis challenging probable cause to stop or probable cause to arrest, the defenses are limited. The toxicology defense (challenging your BAC) is an excellent defense if you can afford the expert necessary to inform the judge and jury that the Breathalyzer and/or blood testing is inherently flawed.
MADD has a substantial lobby in the legislature and in the court of public opinion. The loss of life caused by a person who operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated is an unfortunate reality. However, that lobby has now caused a number of people who are not intoxicated, but who do have a BAC above .08% to be caught in this legal conundrum.
Get a good lawyer. Look for the best defense. The winds are not going to change in the direction of the defense anytime soon.
The Associates, Senior Attorneys and Staff of my firm represent individuals charged with DUI throughout Pennsylvania. In every case, including those eligible for the ARD Program, we always perform a full and fair evaluation of your case.
No comments:
Post a Comment