STATE V. E.O. (DUI)

//STATE V. E.O. (DUI)

STATE V. E.O. (DUI)

The client was charged with DUI.  At the roadside, the client admitted to drinking at a local night club.  Moreover, the client performed poorly on the roadside exercises.  The videotape revealed that our client could not speak coherently, had poor dexterity, and that she spoke several different languages.  Mr. O’Toole took the case to trial.  At trial, Mr. O’Toole knew the police officer would try to persuade the jury that everything is a sign of impairment by alcohol, including someone speaking different languages.  This is how the police work, they take a fact and spin it in front of the jury (i.e. – driving too fast, driving too slow – both are signs of impairment by alcohol).

Mr. O’Toole successfully cross-examined a seasoned officer on the stand and got him to admit that there is no driving pattern that cannot be construed as a sign of DUI.  After that, the officer pretty much shut down and Mr. O’Toole had his way.  The prosecution then argued to the jury that since the client refused the breath test, she must be guilty because she was hiding something.  Mr. O’Toole demonstrated to the jury that when the prosecution have nothing else, they make that argument.

The result:  15 minutes NOT GUILTY verdict.

The police officer told Mr. O’Toole that he had never been cross-examined so effectively and shook Mr. O’Toole’s hand after trial.  The judge told Mr. O’Toole that she was sure the jury would come back guilty based upon the videotape.

By |2018-11-15T07:05:03+00:00November 15th, 2018|CASE DISMISSALS|0 Comments

About the Author:

Leave A Comment