Co worker DWI

[Islander]

As someone pointed out already the number is probably .13 because you are not trashed at a .013. By way of reference the "legal" limt is .08 in every state now. A .013 is a blip on the radar. Even if the number is .13 it does not mean he was "trashed." There is probably a video of him doing the field soberity tests so that is going to be one way to know.

It was the original poster who used the term "trashed". He would have more knowledge of the incident than all of the rest of us.

Your professional skills might enable this citizen and child of God to escape a conviction, but it wouldn't show your profession in its best light...

[mark1101]

Travis, thanks for all that info. Honestly. My wife defends folks all the time exactly as you describe. Most don't take it that far, but some do. I have seen her take a situation worse than this one and get it reduced to wreckless driving. She has won several jury trials in situations like this and wiped the issue out altogether.

A good lawyer is worth every penny it costs. Why have your carreer and public reputation ruined along with the personal issues you face? In the end it could be decided you are not guilty, or guilty of something less than you were charged with. Getting someone off "technically" has no bearing on whether or not the root cause personal problem will or will not get addressed. That is not up to an attorney or the police, or the court.

[colterphoto1]

" That is not up to an attorney or the police, or the court."

I respectfully disagree.

For someone who might be a real alcoholic, the results of the actions of the court system might very well get them the treatment they need. Drinking and driving and getting caught only to be released free of consequences sets them up for a healthy state of denial and repetition of the behavior. Sometimes the addict or alcoholic needs to reach 'their bottom' and only will seek help when things get bad enough. I've seen the revolving door of DWI cases like this many times and they are doomed to repeat the offense until the results of their actions are clear and devastating enough. Many find help before it's too late but some will maim or kill innocent bystanders or themselves because they 'got off' earlier.

If they are truly guilty of driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol (yes there are some mistakes in the system), anyone involved in reducing their punishment is not doing the individual or society any favors.

[mark1101]

Mike, I'll respect your opinion on this. You make your point. I disagree though. I don't believe that someone who under the closest scrutinized circumstances (jury trial) could be found not guilty of charges should instead automatically be slapped with a permanent record and social stigma that will surely cripple their carreer and could their social lives for the rest of their lives. If a jury can find them not guilty............then why pay the life long penalty? So they can be steered to jail and get their medical help? OK..........so they get a little help that might or might not stick. Now where do they go work with their crimal record?

I can understand the "intervention" requirement for some people.............but pronouncing them guilty of a crime automatically so they can get their medical help seems counterintuitive to me. I would think you would instead protect their public future because once that is tarnished it can't be fixed. Personal problems are personal and are best dealt with separately.

There are other ways to get addicts the help they need.

Every situation is unique and complicated. There is no right way we can say how this one should be handled. But EVERYONE deserves their day in court to protect their reputations and their future.

[colterphoto1]

Appreciate your thoughts Mark.

Usually an 'intervention' per se has no lasting effect. The real alcoholic or addict must seek help because their life has truly become unmanageble and they have proven time and again that they cannot control the outcome if they partake of these substances. Reducing the penalty for use may help them short term with relationships or careers, but if they truly have a problem with substance abuse, 'helping them out of the jam' will only prolong the agony for themselves, their loved ones, and ultimately society.

The legal system is not perfect, but a wise judge can usually see the ones that have real trouble with substances. Given the opportunity, they can then help them along their way to treatment that as you say, might or might not stick. But it's a start. My thinking is that it's better to give a chance and have it fail than to deny a chance at success and a healthy life. A career and family can also be taken away by substance abuse so they are not automatically salvaged by sparing treatment either.

You are certainly right on one thing. It's always complicated, although usually not terribly unique. The innocent should not be punished, but the guilty should also not go free if we can help it. What I'm dead set against is releasing truly guilty parties from the consequences of their actions.

[Tom Adams]

Drinking and driving is stupid and illegal. The guy was speeding, therefore exhibiting poor judgement and being wreckless with a vehicle.

Getting them 'off' on some technicality is even more stupid.

I'm done here.

Michael.....with all due respect. You posted the above, yet you're still posting.

I'm against driving drunk - truly driving drunk. Not "drunk" as defined by some machine or any other of several variables that might be interpreted as "drunk".

But you know what I'm opposed to even more? Three words - RUSH TO JUDGEMENT. And IMHO, that's exactly what some here have done and all dwilawyer has, I believe, attempted to point out. And for those that can't find the objectivity in them to see this point, I just pray that none of you or those like you are ever on a jury hearing my case.

And BTW....let me give some of you a clue. Not sure I've ever mentioned this and maybe I shouldn't, but I will after that post from oscarear. My wife is a paralegal and works for a District Attorney. She is responsible for 3 counties and anyone that knows about paralegals know that they, in some respects, know the law more than the attorney does. I've been around her in court and I've seen her in action and believe me, she's very well respected and knows her sh*t. So it's too bad you can't ask her about "corruption" and loose cops and rookie cops and profiling and search & seizure indiscressions and on & on. I'll put it to you this way - she's probably the best friend you can have between you and the police - AND SHE WORKS FOR THE PROSECUTION!!! She believes in justice, but believes in truth more. She will call out an officer for a BS trumpt-up charge in a minute And if she recommends to the DA to not prosecute the charge, 98% of the time he won't. She's seen bail money and drugs "lost". She knows of planted drugs on a speeding stop (3mph over in 60mph zone). You drive a sporty car and look to be 23 or so and a black male - look out. She has a whole different perspective about the justice system and I've been educated as well. But what the heck - we got speaker builders and HT creators and paramedics and whatevers here that seem to have it all figured out. Sheesh......

Tom

[colterphoto1]

I've been trying to discuss the human aspects of getting help for a TRULY GUILTY party, not tossing innocent citizens in jail, not releasing dangerous people back into society, that's all. geesh [:^)]

I think few of us is pretending to be the ultimate authority on such
matters, just to discuss something brought before us. That's it.

If the government, the legal system, the cops, and attorneys are all liars and crooks, I
guess anyone who is stopped is pretty much screwed unless they have a
pile of bucks to pay off the system then, is that what you guys are
saying?

This isn't even a civilized discussion anymore.

[Islander]

The innocent should not be punished, but the guilty should also not go free if we can help it. What I'm dead set against is releasing truly guilty parties from the consequences of their actions.

People can argue technicalities and particulars all day, but it's pretty hard to see anything wrong with the above statements.

[oscarsear]

Travis and I got into a lengthy discussion on a different thread on this sort of an issue. The crux of my problem there were defendants who would tell their defense attorneys that they were actually guilty of the crimes that they were charged with, and the attorneys still advising them to plead not guilty and working diligently to lessen the charges or get them found not guilty. I think we all agree that no one should be railroaded into jail. Any police authority found guilty of evidence tampering should be imprisoned as well. But when the defendant tells their own attorney that they are indeed guilty of the crime in question then that should be the end of discussion. Attorney's should not knowingly work to defend a person they know is guilty.

[Islander]

But when the defendant tells their own attorney that they are indeed guilty of the crime in question then that should be the end of discussion. Attorney's should not knowingly work to defend a person they know is guilty.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, I'll point out that a lawyer is also called a counselor or an advocate. He counsels his client and advocates for him. He stands up for the accused, regardless of his own feelings about that accused. He's not a judge and it's not up to him to decide whether a possibly guilty person should be convicted. There certainly must be cases where the attorney is tempted to tell the client to find another lawyer, but I don't think he's being a bad lawyer if he tells a client not to admit guilt unless the lawyer advises him to.

[Travis In Austin]

In years past this could have been me on many occasions. I had a little meeting with my self about this a few years back and put my self on a strict 2 beer limit with food.If I want to drink hard liquior or wine I either have a DD or I drink at the house. I know many otherwise responsible professional people that think nothing of slugging down 4 or 5 martinis and driving home.I try to tell them- some have listened - others have not. This guy drove for like 10 miles before they caught him. Could have killed or injured someone. Something to think about when you order that 3rd or 4th beer at the local sports bar.

You are a responsible drinker and driver. You fit the exact profile of 90% of my clients. They have never been arrested for anything in their entire life, they are pulled over for one reason or another that has nothing to do with bad driving (speeding, not headlights, light out) after having 2 beers or two glasses of wine with dinner and the next thing you know they are arrested for DWI. Most are smart enought to refuse the breath test, but some are not and then and they end up with a high breath test for one reason or another. They look great on their video doing the field soberity tests. 95% of the cases where the person does not blow I'm able to get dismissed or reduced to a non-moving violation. Some still have to do probation and take the classes a person conviced of DWI would have to take.

On the cases where there is a breath test, 90% of those cases have to go to trial and I win 80% of those.

As I mentioned before, 90 to 95% of these folks never have another problem again. Unfortunatley, 5 to 10% are repeat customers, and a lot of them do need some type of help, and we try and get them some.

Winchester, you take good precautions and are responsible, but so are 90% of my clients. Two drinks, driving home, arrested, and away we go. (By the way, 1 beer equals 1 glass of wine equals 1 1/2 oz of 80 proof alcohol, they are all equivilent as far as you body is concerned, but some people feel that they it effects them differently so I understand why you limit yourself to beer if you are going to drive).

Your co-worker friend could easily have had only two beers and posted a .13, it happens all the time. It is caused by mouth alcohol instead of deep lung air (aleviolar). It is too complicated to get into all of the problems with the machine here, but don't judge him based on a govt. machine's number. It means nothing. Get your co-worker friend to a good DWI lawyer, I know two very good ones there, and his life and job won't ruined. It will cost him to be sure, and he will probably learn a valuable lesson, even if it is only never blow.

Travis

[Travis In Austin]

No one should drive impared.

I agree, 100%. But it legal to drink and then drive so long as you are not intoxicated (or impaired, or the influence, depending on your state).

My grandmother was killed by a drunk driver, so I'm kind of against driving drunk.

I'm am sorry for your loss, it is a horrible tragedy. I'm againt driving drunk also, but the standard is well below that, as it should be, Intoxicated is way below being drunk.

Is the legal limit a meaningful number?

A lot of people agree with you. My personal opinion is that it should be zero tolerance--You cannot have any alcohol in your system if you get behind the wheel of a car, the way it is for minors here in Texas. It is very close to that in Europe, .04 in most locations, but they have better mass transit there. I don't see that ever happening here unfortunatley. We don't have good mass transit, save for a few cities, and we are not going to outlaw drinkinng in resturants and bars.

NO!

Back when I only weighed 285lbs, two beers would make me woozy, three and I was staggering. Now in Drivers Education they had us calculate how much beer we could drink for out bodyweight and be under the legal limit (was 0.1 back then). The calculations showed I could drink a twelve-pack and still be legal.

In case anyone out there is reading this who weighs about the same, these numbers are wrong. There are several online blood alcohol calculators that are easy to use that you can use to show this. They are all based on Widmark's formula, a german scientist who did a lot of testing on blood alcohol. The one factor you are omiting, which is key, is time. IJust roughing it out, at 280 if you drank a 12 pack, even over a 4 hour period, you are going to be above a .08.

Here is a link to a simple calculator:

http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/drunkdriving/calculator.htm

On the other hand, I could drink an entire fifth of hard stuff and not feel woozy at all (but be at the leagal limit).

Again, depending on the time period involved, you could be way over the legal limit even at 285. To convert from "hard stuff" to equilv. beers you divide the hard stuff by 1.25 to 1.50 depending on the proof of the hard stuff. A fifth is going to equate to way more then a 12 pack.

For a while I worked with a bunch of boozers. They would get caught in a minor trafic violation (as this guy did). If was not their driving skills, but their bad license-plate light that got them stopped. Their average blood levels were around 0.28%!!! One guy got stopped and blew a 0.4%!!! (you're supposed to pass out at 0.3% and be dead at 0.4%) Even though he stayed in jail for the 48hrs (hardly anyone does the whole time), they wouldn't let him leave until he was under 0.1% (which meant he was in until Tuesday, after being picked up on Saturday).

This is probably a old wive's tale in your area, but anything is possible. How would they be checking his bac? Blood? They are not allowed to have him keep blowing in a machine, I guess unless they got him to consent. Human's eliminate, on average, .015 per hour. Even at .4 he would eliminate everything by 24 hours.

That guy probably got up with a level of more that 0.1% every day. He couldn't concentrate enough to work until he had an entire fifth! It would have been interesting to see what his level was at this point.

After I was too trashed to walk after three beers, I would have one of these guys drive me home (because they could drive better than I could).

0.08% is a good number for generating revenue. I don't see the correlation with driving skills.

They fired a guy at work for being over 0.02%! He came in on a Saturday morning for some overtime.

[Travis In Austin]

Drinking and driving is stupid and illegal.

Wrong. While it is illegal to drink and drive at the same time while you are driving in every state now, it does not mean you are DWI/DUI/OUI. It is called an open container violation. Drinking and then getting behind the wheel of a car is not illegal, not in any state in this country. There is nothing to indicate the co-workder had an open container in his car, the subject we are dealing with DWI. You are free to have your opinion about whether it is stupid or not to drink and then drive, but it is not illegal. That is the problem, people think they know what they are talking about in this area but haven't the first clue except what read that the Govt. and MADD campagins put out. "Drink, Drive, Go To Jail." Well unfortunatley it's just not the law.

I think it should be the law, I think it should be no alcohol in your system if you get behind the wheel of a car. It would make me a bizillionaire, but it just makes since. I mean why kid ourselves, as long as it is legal to drink and drive people will.

Arizona was going to require that evey new car sold have an ignition interlock device installed in it (have to blow in it before your car will start, it if detects alcohol, won't start). Everyone was on the band wagon until they saw what the cost to the voters was going to be.

Drinking and driving is not illegal, it is legal. If fact we make it convienient. When is last time you were local 7-11 at 3 or 4 p.m., (maybe it's call Sack-O-Suds where some folks are from), ever notice that giant horse trough sized cooler covered in ice, with every flavor and size of beer being cooled down for folks to buy on their way home. Of course they don't open it until they get home, and those paper sacks that cover just the label are so condensation doesn't drip on your new leather. Almost every bar or resturant that serves alcohol that I have seen has a parking lot.

Travis

[Travis In Austin]

But, I'm moreover a civil rights activist. I believe more in the constitution, and the right to move about this great land free of harassment. And I believe, while he was drunk, a simple speeding ticket is not Probable Cause to continue with DWI enforcement investigation. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, police officers stop speeders all the time and do not issue DWI enforcement actions. By the mere time of day, or day of week, is not adaquate enough to continue enforcement of DWI, for merely a speeding ticket.

If a police officer stops a speeder and notices that he's "completely trashed", how and why would he ignore that? Freedom of movement is a great right, but if a person puts himself and others at great risk in the course of exercising that right, he should no longer use that means of movement and instead take a bus or taxi, where he's less of a danger to himself and others.

Thursday night he was coming home from a downtown at 1:00 in the morning and was stopped for speeding. Blew a .013 on the breathalizer. Completely trashed.

As well, at that time of night, there are lots of people trying to make it home from bars in varying states of drunkenness and the police are likely looking for any signs of impairment. This guy was speeding. We don't know if that was the only thing about his driving that drew the officer's attention.

As someone pointed out already the number is probably .13 because you are not trashed at a .013. By way of reference the "legal" limt is .08 in every state now. A .013 is a blip on the radar. Even if the number is .13 it does not mean he was "trashed." There is probably a video of him doing the field soberity tests so that is going to be one way to know.

The number from the Intoxilyzer means NOTHING. It is a machine, purchased by the govt. One of the questions I ask of potential juror's is finish this sentence: If theGovt. bought it, it has to be "blank", now fill in the blank.

It is not specific for alcohol (think about that for a minute), it's has technology less advanced then your microwave (eprom chip), having a fever, or naturaly high body temprature will cause it to read high, chewing on white bread and blowing into it, without any alcohol in your system will cause it to read positive for alcohol, if you are a painter you should never blow because you are going to read positive all day every day, etc., etc. etc.

Don't ever take a number the Govt gives you and assume it is accurate.

Travis

Which is probably one of the worst defenses to go on IMO. Any good prosecutor will come to the table with necessary documentation ie maintenance, and validation records to disprove faulty equipment. I am sure this angle is tested at every trial and would assume is mostly debunked.

Well that is the problem when you assume. That is the whole problem with this thread is that people are assuming because of the number .13 he is drunk, needs AA, rehab, is going to kill somebody's mother, cause GM to go bankrupt, whoops, can't pin that on him, but everything else we should.

These machines are mainted by the Govt., you are in private sector so maintance and so on is quite different. As you know, way better than I, maintance and QC are required for hospital and medical labs to be qualified to received medicare and medicade payments so they are going to make sure they are properly maintaned and up to spec,. Bottom line is that it costs them money if they don't.

The same is not true for breath testing equipment. The requirements for maintance and inspection vary from state to state. In Colorado for example, an agency seperate from law enforcement maintains and calibrates them and administers the testing. Their breath testing is seperate and independant from law enforcement.

In Texas, on the other hand, each law enformcent agency has it's own breath testing program, which are all admistered by the Texas Highway Patrol (DPS). There are NO regulations or guidlines on how much maintance and calbration is done. Each program gets to decide on his own. (I know that must blow you away given your background. My two best types of jurors in a breath test case are medical lab equipment people and EE's). But you say, well the manufacturer has a manual that provides for maintance and inspection and service. Wrong, the manual is printed in the way the State wants it. The Breath Testing Manual is specific for Texas, and they can as little or as much in there as they want.

The head of the breath testing program outside of Houston, for 4 or 5 counties, is under felony indictment for faking and forging maintance and claibration records on the machine down there. She was on a private contract, she was paid the same whether she did a lot of calibrations, or none. They are going to have to throw out, or retry about 300 or 400 DWI cases because of it. I think she should get the max of 10 years prison time, or at least have to go to rehab, AA's, and MADD meetings for the rest of her life, whether she drinks or not.

So don't assume anything when it comes to breath testing equipment, it varies greatly from state to state.

Travis

[jacksonbart]

Travis

If pulled over and asked to submit to a breathalizer and one refuses, I thought that was a manditory loss of your license for one year. Am I wrong? I hope so, but that was what I understood.

Thanks inadvance

[Travis In Austin]

Curious here. Would you be just as emphatic at trying to find a legal loophole for this person if he had actually harmed people? Would you defend him if he admitted his guilt to you? You know full well that the breathylizer is a well understood tool that has calibration records. The method of employing the tool is simple and its application in this case was also probably videotaped. Are you inferring that all gov't agencies are totally corrupt intent on incarcerating anyone, anytime for any reason? Is this your line of defense for every defendant regardless of the the allegations? The police lied, used fake equipment, planted evidence, manufactured or doctored video tapes.

Absolutely, but unfortunatley there are no loopholes, in the legal sense, on DWI. If you are referring to consitutional challenges, would I use a constitutional challenge if someone were hurt or killed? Abosolutely, because it means my client's rights were violated. There is no reason for a cop to violate someones rights in a DWI case, because the rights are minimal. There is never a reason to. They violate rights because they are lazy, or stupid and don't belong wearing a badge. The penalty for violating someone's rights is they walk. Period, end of story. We should want our best and brightest being teachers and police. Unfortuantley, all it takes is to be a cop is a high school education and a clean record. Like any profession, most are good, but a few just don't belong. Blame the dumb cop, not me.

Yes I would defend them, whether they admitted their guilt to me or not, if their rights were violated. That is the reason why people walk if thier rights are violated, regardless of the crime, it keeps cops honest, at least you would think it does but it does it.

I know full well that the breathylizer is a brand name and has not been used in any jurisdiction in years. it was actually the most accurate of all breath testing equipment but it could be manupliated by the operator. What is in place now is the Intoxiyzer and Drager. We use the Intoxilyzer 5000 in Texas, which is not the most up to date model available. It is well understood, but it isn't a tool. They call it a instrument, I call it a machine. It is not specific for alcohol, and I'm sure you know what that means. It will read way high if someone has mouth alcohol as opposed to a sample of avelor air, which I know you are familr with. If you have GERDS it will read high, way high. Can it be accurate, sure it can, can it be inaccurate, it sure can, without regard to how it is maintained or calibrated.

I'm not inferering anything at all about agencies, where do you get that from. All I said is the guy needs to talk to a good lawyer, who knows how to defend a DWI case, before he does anything. Then we get people, who know nothing about the case other than a .013 , which is probably wrong, and someone's assumption he was "trashed" and causes them to assume that this poor kid doesn't need legal advice, he needs "help." As in programs, rehab, etc. I then tried to point out that you can't just look at the number and assume anything, that's why he needs to see a good lawyer. The machine may be well maintained for all I know, I just said it could we a defensable case and check your rights.

Why are you such a sheep that you wouldn't question something the govt. says or does? It is our duty as good citizens to question, to investigate, to see what is really going on. But a gov't agency does't have to be corupt for their to be an innacurate breath test, or for someone to be arrested who is not intoxicated. It happens all the time with no bad intent on the part of anyone.

I have never had to use the defense of they used fake equpement, planted evidence, or doctored videotape. A lot of times it is pretty simple, they see the defendant doing field soberity tests on in car video, plus they see them walk and talk, and they look pretty good. And then they hear about a machine that says my client is .12, or .22 or whatever. The higher the better as far as I'm concerned. I get the state's expert to admit that certain things can cause the Intoxiyzer to read high. I then ask the jury whether they are going to believe their own eyes or the govt's machince.

Like I said above, I had a jury trial on Monday, a .12, guy looked good on the video. Jury came back "Not guilty" after 30 minutes. One of the jurror's asked for my card, said they wanted it case they were ever in trouble, they knew that I would "fight for them."

Don't assume because the govt. is behind something that it is all good, perfect and no problems. Most programs are good, most tests are good, but not all are, and the state has to prove it is good beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not my job to prove their case for them, my job is to require the state to meet its burden.

But don't think for one minute that gov't agencies don't manufacture stuff up. Like I said in a post or two up above, there is a gal who ran the breath testing program outside of Houston under felony indictment for manufacturing calibration and maint. records. Don't be so naive that this stuff doesn't happen. It happens with breath testing, DNA, all sorts of stuff. That is why the NIH was recently commissioned to review all sorts of forensic evidence recently and list what was reliable or not. Other than fingerprints and DNA, not much was. It did not meet the standards for scientific reliability. So the gov't had the gov't check itself out, and the gov't said there was lots of problems with forensic testing. I guess we better not believe that either.

Travis

[Travis In Austin]

Travis

If pulled over and asked to submit to a breathalizer and one refuses, I thought that was a manditory loss of your license for one year. Am I wrong? I hope so, but that was what I understood.

Thanks inadvance

What state are you in again? It varies state by state.

In Texas, on a first, if you refuse the test it is a 180 day suspension. If you take test and fail, it is 90 day suspension. Either way you are entitlted to an occupational driver's license which allows you to drive to and from work or school and take care of essential household.

Let me know what state you are in and I can tell you generally what the situation is.

Travis

[jacksonbart]

Travis

If pulled over and asked to submit to a breathalizer and one refuses, I thought that was a manditory loss of your license for one year. Am I wrong? I hope so, but that was what I understood.

Thanks inadvance

What state are you in again? It varies state by state.

In Texas, on a first, if you refuse the test it is a 180 day suspension. If you take test and fail, it is 90 day suspension. Either way you are entitlted to an occupational driver's license which allows you to drive to and from work or school and take care of essential household.

Let me know what state you are in and I can tell you generally what the situation is.

Travis

Sorry I am in PA

[tigerwoodKhorns]

How about Nevada?

BTW, how many hours do you spend on a typical DUI trial? I am impressed. It seems that everything is a plea bargain here.

[Travis In Austin]

You are certainly right on one thing. It's always complicated, although usually not terribly unique. The innocent should not be punished, but the guilty should also not go free if we can help it. What I'm dead set against is releasing truly guilty parties from the consequences of their actions.

Michael,

You could have been a founding father, you summed up our judicial system in one sentence, something a legislator or lawyer could never do. That is always the deliema in a system of justice: Is it better to have a system that can convict 9 innocent people so that one guilty person is not allowed to go free, or is it better to have a system that allows 9 guilty people to go free to TRY and prevent one inncoent from being convicted.

Our founding fathers, some having been from backgrounds involving the first situation, thought it better to have a system where the guilty might go free then chance the conviction of an innocent person. That is why we have the presumption of innocence, and, that the state is required to prove to the jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonablle doubt. Those two things result in people who are probably guilty from not being convicted. It is designed that way, on purpose, after a lot of thought, and bloodshed going back to the Magna Carta. It is a shame more people don't understand why our system is the way it is, how it evolved, and why it is the way it is. It is not perfect, but ours is the best on any continent, I can guarantee you that. Because we trust the people, our fellow citizens, to sit in judgement of one of us. A jury is to protect us from the Gov't, not the other way around.

Yes the truly guilty, whatever that is, should not go free or unpunished. If the state has a rock solid case the case usually gets plea bargined, they are found guilty of DWI, and they have to do the required stuff like classes. If the case is marginal it may get plea bargined down to something below a DWI or it may go to trial. If the jury says guilty, then he is truly, truly, truly guilty, by definition. Or he is truly, truly, truly, truly not guilty by definition (which doesn't mean innocent, not guilty does not mean innocent).

Travis