Overcoming The Presumption Of Guilt In A Dui Case

The Constitution of the United States provides that every person accused of a crime shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even in the most horrific crimes with overwhelming evidence, the news channels pay, at the very least, lip service to the fact that the suspect ought to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We've seen cases with large amounts of DNA and scientific evidence which, even from a defense prospective, look pretty damning. Enter the criminal defense attorney who challenges that evidence and leaves people astounded that the suspects are found not guilty. Is it that the criminal defense attorney twists facts and lies for his client "off the hook?" That is absolutely not the case. With cases involving pseudoscientific evidence, the defense attorney's job would be to convey to the jury what the evidence means.

DUI cases aren't any different and perhaps even more difficult than other cases involving scientific evidence. How in the world can somebody who's blood alcohol concentration was reported at .08 or higher be found not guilty? How can somebody who's urine or blood tested positive for cocaine be found not guilty? It comes down to many things, however the essence of the defense is simply "what substance was actually detected by the test and how accurate is the test?"

Oddly enough, it is probably easier to try a DUI blood case than a DUI breath case. People are inclined to have a misguided sense of trust in the Intoxilyzer Machines. From a users standpoint, the machines are easy to run and simple to get a result. The faulty scientific assumptions behind the machine are generally not presented to the jury. Unfortunately, the majority of the time, the jury doesn't hear the answers to the following crucial question, "how did it do that?" Many times, the officer running the Intoxilyzer is not going to know the fundamental scientific principals and assumptions behind the machine. Accordingly, a Defendant may have to hire his or her own expert or take their chances without one.

Under Florida Law, most tests for drug driving DUI's are going to be urinalysis. As such, urinalysis is an easy place to clarify why a person with drugs in his or her system can be found not guilty.

Let's assume that a person is pulled over and arrested for DUI. The person is asked to take a breath test and complies. The results on the Intoxilyzer 8000 read .000. Still believing the Defendant is under the influence, the arresting officer asks the Defendant to submit to a urine test. The Defendant does so. The results come back from the lab as positive for marijuana.

Whenever a person ingests a drug, that drug is named the "parent" drug. Almost immediately the parent drug will begin to break down into what are called metabolites. Metabolites have a different chemical structure than the parent drug. The psychoactive substance in marijuana in THC. There are both active and inactive metabolites to THC. An active metabolite will still have a psychoactive effect. An inactive metabolite has no psychoactive effect.

So, in a DUI case, when the State tests urine for marijuana, what shows up on the test? The State of Florida uses a Gas Chromatograph test in these circumstances. Only inactive metabolites can be detected on the State's test. Despite the fact that the State found no psychoactive substance in the urine, the State often will present evidence stating that the Defendant tested positive for marijuana. Therefore the DUI defense attorney's job is to convey the message that 1) the Defendant did not test positive for marijuana; 2) the Defendant tested positive for an inactive marijuana metabolite; 3) that there is no way of telling when the Defendant was exposed to marijuana & 4) that the substances found in the Defendant's urine would have absolutely no impact on the Defendant's driving.

This is a basic example intended to show why individuals charged with DUI are entitled to the same presumption of innocence as defendants with any other type of criminal charge. There are numerous other problems with urinalysis in the context of a DUI. A fundamental misunderstanding of qualitative urinalysis can not just result in a bad conviction, but additionally to absurd legislation. For an example of absurd legislation, see the commentary of somekeyword.

You have read the best review article categorized by IRS Tax Attorney and the title Overcoming The Presumption Of Guilt In A Dui Case. You can bookmark or spread this post by using this URL https://attorneygeneralusa.blogspot.com/2013/02/overcoming-presumption-of-guilt-in-dui.html. Thank You!