Certain DUI cases should not go to trial because there would just be too much risk involved, because that is something that is important to a lot of people. Sometimes the risk involved in going to trials is that there may be more than just the possibility of getting a harsher jail or prison sentence.
Sometimes going to trial would end up having harsh consequences on the person’s license or their privilege to drive in the state. This would be especially true when dealing with someone who had alcohol as well as drugs or medication in their system.
A DUI case that has a combination of alcohol and drugs would usually be much better served when dealing with a plea agreement then trying to go to trial, because if the person was convicted of alcohol and drugs after a trial because the jury decided they were guilty on one or both offences, then that would normally go all the way to trial.
They would end up having the worst of both worlds and they would end up having a 1 year license revocation as well as least 1 year of ignition interlock devices whereas one of those things could be deleted as part of plea agreement prior to trial.
Another thing that people should know is that DUIs are charged as alternate counts to one another. This means that someone would usually be charged with 2 or more counts of DUI going to trial, but it would still not really be a win even if they were successful on one of those cases or one of those charges.
Going to trial on 2 charges and the jury finding the person not guilty on one of the charges would basically be the same as being found guilty on both of the charges. People need to realize that even if there is a win, it would not necessarily mean the client would benefit from it.
The jury would basically need to find the person not guilty on either either counts or all counts in order for it to be truly successful. On a misdemeanor DUI case, the jury would not have the option of deciding whether or not the person should be found guilty of a lesser offence such as reckless driving.
The judge would not give the jury that option, so the jury would have the option of finding the person either guilty of a regular DUI or not guilty, there really would not be much of a middle ground.
People who go to trial need to understand that the jury would not hear the evidence about how they are a good person, how they did counseling afterwards and how they have medical issues. The judge’s job would be to focus the evidence only on the incident at hand, so it would be a matter of what took place from the time the person was pulled over to the time they were ultimately arrested.
Usually, what happened before and after would not come into play, and it would not be something the jury would hear. Every now and again, it may be possible to bring in information about any good legal or factual issue that involved what happened before or after.
One of the current problems we are facing in courts is this idea that necessity is not a defense to a DUI. I disagree with that, although unfortunately there is a case right on point from a few decades back that indicates that necessity cannot be a defense, meaning that the reason why someone was driving would not be something the jury would hear.
Jury trials are very limited so they only focus on the facts out of the case and the jury would not get to consider all this superficial information surrounding the incident itself. The jury would not find someone not guilty just because the defendant looked like they are a good person and they seemed to be really polite while in court.
The jury would be there to determine the facts and the law they have been provided by the judge, and the person would have to go into a trial believing the jury would follow their instructions.
For more information on Alcohol, Drug Or Medicine DUI In Arizona, a free initial consultation is your next best step. Get the information and legal answers you’re seeking by calling 480-900-0384 today.
