For some lawyers, attending continuing legal education seminars is like going to the dentist; necessary, but not something you look forward to. For me, I actually look forward to many of the seminars I attend, and there are a few I have repeated. One I just attended for the second time is the “summer session” of the National College for D.U.I. Defense.
Kerry Kennedy recently ran her vehicle into a truck and continued driving. She was soon found slumped over the steering wheel, and she was unable to remember what happened, as reported by ABC News. Kennedy said it was possible she accidentally took Ambien that morning rather than a thyroid pill. She also said an examination by her doctors revealed she had a seizure. Kennedy was charged with driving under the influence of drugs and has pled not guilty. Her crash raises questions regarding driving under the influence of Ambien.
The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution has been the subject of a series of modern cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. Last month, the Court issued its latest interpretation of a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. The new case, Williams v. Illinois, leads to Confrontation Clause confusion.
This weekend is the annual ‘Lifesavers’ National Conference on Highway Safety Priorities. Lifesavers is a yearly seminar that addresses traffic safety issues like seatbelt enforcement, pedestrian safety, distracted driving, and driving under the influence. This year is the 30th anniversary of the conference, and the keynote address was given by Jan Withers, the National President of Mother’s Against Drunk Driving (M.A.D.D.)
After three weeks of trial and nine days of deliberation, the jury found John Edwards Not Guilty on one charge and could not reach a unanimous verdict on the other five charges involving campaign finance fraud. Similar to the O.J. Simpson trial, the verdict and the jurors have been the subject of controversy and criticism. What the critics should grasp, and don’t seem to, is this: “not guilty” means “not proven”; it doesn’t mean “innocent”.
On December 3, 2011, Randy Babbitt was the head of the United States Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.). Three days later, Babbitt was the former head of the F.A.A. In those three days, Babbitt was charged with a D.U.I. that led to his resignation.
During a D.U.I. /O.V.I. trial, jurors are instructed to limit their deliberations to the evidence presented in court. In fact, they are specifically instructed not to investigate or conduct their own experiments. In the recent high-profile trial of John Goodman, a juror ignored that instruction and conducted an experiment regarding the effects of drinking vodka.
Like so many times before, officers responded to a call about a suspected drunk driver. The officers approached the driver and noticed the driver had the usual indications of intoxication: slurred speech and the odor of alcohol. Like most D.U.I. cases, the driver failed field sobriety tests and a breath test. Unlike most cases, however, the incident occurred on the driver’s front yard. Yes, Dennis Jones was arrested for driving under the influence in his front yard in Paisley, Florida. Could this happen in Columbus, Ohio?
Race car driver Al Unser, Jr., two-time winner of the Indianapolis 500, recently pled guilty to his second DUI, as well as Racing on a Freeway, according to the Albuquerque Journal. The judge in Albuquerque, New Mexico sentenced Unser to 90 days in jail, but one day was credited for time already served, and the remaining 89 days were suspended on the condition that Unser complete one year of probation. He was previously convicted of DUI in 2007. Unser’s plea and sentencing raises some questions: Would his sentence for a second O.V.I. offense in Ohio be harsher? Why was his sentence lenient even by New Mexico standards?
Every television-watching American knows about Miranda v. Arizona, and most have the following misunderstanding about criminal law (including O.V.I./D.U.I. law): “The officer never issued Miranda warnings; doesn’t that mean they have to dismiss my case?”
No. That’s not what it means.
Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog