Weaknesses of Field Sobriety and Breathalyzer Tests and How to Beat Them
March 11th, 2010 by Robert M. Jenkins
Perhaps the most crucial decision a DUI attorney must make during a case is deciding on what argument to present. As once this argument is presented, it is often times quite difficult to present another argument if the first one falls flat. The
Once the DUI attorneys first argument is made, the following arguments must remain consistent and support the main argument. If a DUI attorney fails to do this, they can come across as being sneaky or unorganized.
It is never a wise choice to argue that your defendant was hardly over the legal limit, as this tries to make room for a gray area when one does not exist. You are either guilty or not guilty, and the jury will determine which one you are. You cannot be “a little bit” guilty. If this is your approach, it would be a better idea to negotiate a bargain with the prosecutor rather than taking your case to trial.
Following that same idea, it is not wise trying to argue that the defendant was unaware they were intoxicated over the legal limit, as it really does not matter. If the defendant is legally an adult, then they will be responsible for their conduct. Also, another helpful tip is to not refer to the breathalyzer device as an instrument or machine, as most people associate both of these terms to be correct the vast majority of the time.
It would be much more wise to described the results that were given by the equipment and argue how it is not completely accurate, as breathalyzer devices do not test this for blood alcohol levels but rather gives an estimate based off of the persons breath. The fact is, this will vary greatly between people, as one individuals results can actually display as much as 180% more alcohol on their breath as another person with the exact same BAC.
Try not to use scientific sounding terms when fighting breathalyzer test results such as “margin of error”. These types of terms tend to confuse and bore the jury. It is a much better technique to give them a range. Such as, when someone drinks a specific amount of alcohol their BAC can register between X and X. This is much easier for a jury to understand. Also, do not ever try to claim the police officer is biased or corrupt unless you have of evidence, as most jurors will not believe this and can come across as desperate.
Instead, it would be more effective to review the proper breathalyzer procedures and show how the police officer did not follow the rules. For example, the police officer must stand next to the driver for 15 to 20 minutes before giving them the test because burping or even eating specific foods can give a false reading and show higher than actual results. Also, instead of saying field sobriety tests, refer to them as preliminary roadside evaluations, as that is what they are.
It is also very important to discuss that breathalyzer devices and field sobriety tests are different from city to city. You need to make sure the jury understands that old of these procedures are not 100% accurate, and can commonly give a false reading. If the jurors have it in their head that these devices or tests are perfect, you will have a very difficult time convincing them the defendant is not guilty.
Looking to find out more about getting a , then visit Robert M. Jenkins’s site on how to choose the best attorney for your needs.
Related Posts
- No Comments »
- Posted in San Diego