Interviewer: What would you say are my chances for success, if indeed this was the case, and if I was eligible?
The Best Scenario Currently Is If the Driver Pled Guilty to Statute 28-1381A3
Brian Sloan: It’s a case-by-case basis. The best results are going to be where there is only marijuana with metabolite, the inactive one, being Carboxy-THC, in the system; that there is no alcohol; that there was only one chemical test done, either a blood or urine test; and where the person pled guilty solely to 28-1381A3. That is going to be the best scenario.
Any time there is anything else found in the person’s system, such as if there is any little bit of alcohol in their system, if they pled guilty to the 28-1381A1, if there was a test done on a urine sample but the prosecutors never bothered to test the blood sample—that can complicate things. It doesn’t mean that we are not going to be able to get the conviction overturned, but it just adds on some additional facts that we may have to deal with.
Are There Any Risks Associated with Overturning a Conviction?
Interviewer: Are there any risks in initiating this process?
Your Attorney Can Advise You during an Initial Consultation If There Are Grounds to Overturn the Conviction
Brian Sloan: There really aren’t many risks involved, other paying my fees. There’s no guarantee, but I can give people a pretty good indication as to whether the request to overturn would work or not. Technically, getting the case overturned does not necessarily mean that the case is dead.
As I mentioned, you can start over again at Day 1. I think two of the five or six cases that I’ve done this on, it got completely overturned and that’s going to be the end of the case. They are not going to attempt to move forward. On some cases that other attorneys are handling, it sounds like they are planning on moving forward. They’re just going to start over again and they’re going to take the case to trial if necessary.
The Facts of Your Individual Case Are Examined by the Attorney
So it really depends on the facts of the individual person’s case. It does not matter if the person admitted to the officer to using marijuana, and that’s a big deal. The Shilgevorkyan case that came out from the Arizona Supreme Court, that person who was subject to that, Mr. Shilgevorkyan, admitted to smoking marijuana.
But when they tested his blood, all it showed was the inactive marijuana metabolite, and the Supreme Court still held that as not a DUI. So it doesn’t matter if you admitted to the officer that you smoked earlier. What matters is what the evidence would show whether there is active or inactive marijuana or its metabolites in a person’s system.