DWI in a Nutshell

"Great, concise presentation for a nutshell topic..."

"I hope there's one with more depth regarding the steps to trying a dui case from a defense perspective. So what are the examples of the conflicting scientific information regarding HGN, and how to attack from all various levels what always has seemed like a blinders on refuse to acknowledge any possibility that the guy may not have been impaired. Really what does that mean? In Arizona it means that your ability to drive a vehicle is impaired to the slightest degree. Well shoot, a sip of alcohol does that, so the slightest degree really means where your ability to drive a vehicle is impaired so as to endanger others. Try and prove that one beyond a reasonable doubt. Can't, that's why the bar had to be lowered, so the prosecutors could jump over it consistently. Now that DUI prosecution is its own science, officer judgment becomes gospel and judges rubber stamp all of it. Put a jury of old people who watch the news every night and see that people are killed or hurt where "alcohol is believed to be a factor" so if you have a few beers and are driving your vehicle in a more careful manner than you normally would, slowing down to the speed limit where you are typically 10-12 over, and putting more space between you and the other vehicles than he normally would, then although it can be argued that his ability to safely operate a vehicle are slightly impaired, it could also be argued that the ability to safely operate a vehicle was slightly enhanced. Buzzed driving is still drunk driving according to the mantra, but I would have to disagree. Arm us defense attorneys to go out and rescue some of the fringe people who are getting rolled by statutory mandates and really the unresolved issue of where impairment begins and how it is defined. In Arizona, there are presumptions that don't reconcile. At .04 we will hear a prosecution expert discuss that the peripheral vision is cut down, thus one is impaired at that point due to the influence of alcohol, yet Arizona statute creates a presumption that if the BAC is .05 or below, it is presumed that the defendant was not under the influence. Adjudging someone as under the influence or driving while intoxicated is a moving target at best within the .05-.08 that routinely become convictions due to the bloodshot watery eyes theory. As long as the officer notes certain things, it's a dui conviction. All of the evidence is subjective, including HGN. A CLE on DUI-A Defense Attorney's perspective would be very helpful."