Dwai

It's a no-win situation.

But I would very much like to move the fuck out of this country. I'd really like to move way up into northern Canada, or somewhere in South America.

 

FYI anyone convicted of DUI is not allowed in Canada.

 

My mom lives in Toronto. It's ok but I have no desire to ever live there. Especially after hearing that.

I'd go with central or south america. Maybe the dominican.

 

if we lived in a world that wasn't blinded by short sighted ego, no one would have to drive under the influence of anything. or even drive at all.

which most people only have to because of the influence of the financial and fossil fuel industries on transportation policy, because keeping everyone indentured to a dam car is one of their small handful of cash cow. where the get the money to control government.

 

toronto is, i'd say, the most america-like city in canada.

if i could pick anywhere in canada, i'd move back to halifax. i love it there.

 

Those are the same phrases and emotional appeals that police and prosecutors use to try to get someone to confess to all of the initial charges. Right out of their playbook.

 

People with little or no experience with being charged with a crime and in a country such as the U.S. where the legal system is complex and the initial charges are often outlandish are usually the ones who are quickest to promote a defeatist approach onto others of pleading guilty to all the charges. Others with such an attitude may have been socialized into feeling a moral guilt that legally defending oneself is somehow an insult to the justice system when in fact it isn't. Others may have such an attitude because they are friends, colleagues, or relatives of police or prosecutors.

The police and prosecutors win the most if a defendant doesn't defend himself at all and pleads guilty to all the initial charges, which may be unreasonable, exaggerated, or false. Most of the time they are, as it gives the prosecution wiggle room for a plea bargain to lesser offenses which are usually more appropriate for what actually happened. It's the door-in-the-face approach of making outrageous demands in the beginning and then later compromising to something more reasonable. With no defense whatsoever, the prosecutor chalks up another conviction on his resume and the arresting officer can boast that another arrest of his led to a conviction. Police and prosecutors love confessions because they are the easiest way to close a case.

The defense lawyers win financially when the person defends himself and can boast that they prevented a conviction or mitigated the initial charges and conviction. The fact that the lawyers win something doesn't negate the fact that the defendant gains something, such as having initial criminal charges lowered to a non-criminal infraction, which greatly changes the options of the defendant in the future with respect to job opportunities and being permitted into other countries.

 

Exactly.

You need to fight it, even if you give money to a lawyer you need to do something to avoid taking that shit lying down. Even if you defend yourself and your defence is that marijuana is not intoxicating, and it was your nerves and picking a song, (a defence which would fail miserably) you would spend their time. If everybody did that instead of take a plea, they would have to cut about 90% (literally) of cases and drop silly charges, because the time and money for jury trials for all that stupid cash cow shit does not exist.

 

I think it's sort of clear who's side you're on.

Giving a time when asked when his last hit was, immediately after rolling down his window (while really dumb) was not a great confession, and does not mean that he is not entitled to a quality defence.

 

Seeking legal advice is simply common sense when you are not well versed in the process you are going to be dealing with.

That an error was made in judgment and that there was no injury to person or property should not ruin someones whole life, as in future consequences of filed charges. That is when a legal opinion can help someone navigate the system.

It really has nothing to do with suing, rather self education.

From what PR has posted he has personally owned what happened and now is dealing with a legal system. He should have legal advice.

 

The conversations going on here about the legal system and whether or not to 'lawyer up' are largely irrelevant in Matt's situation (and in most others, as initial charges for misdemeanors are very often lessened or dropped all together without lawyer involvement, this depends on the judge and the prior criminal history) as he is being charged with DWAI which is not even a criminal charge, it is a traffic violation. There is a difference and in fact he got very lucky that this is his initial charge from the police, they clearly took 'some' pity on him, as normally his initial charge is what one ends up convicted with after a lawyer knocks down the criminal misdemeanor. There are certain situations you find yourself in which demand a lawyer, and others where you are completely wasting your time and money, and in my opinion, this is of the latter. I am very experienced with the legal system and somewhat experienced with the prison system, I've been to court multiple times and am living with a conviction of second degree felony (initial charges were negligent homicide, over $12k was spent on a lawyer because one of my imposed conditions was that I was not allowed to inquire into the condition of the 'victim', and he lived, so I payed $12k to end up being charged with hit and run, which I would have been charged with regardless as the fucking guy LIVED; does this make my statement "I was raped by the legal system and sold-out by my lawyer" and clearer for anyone to whom this was ambiguous at first?). Matt has an admission of guilt on record, a urine test that will almost be certain to turn up positive for the drug in question, and two failed sobriety field tests on record. You can not get a traffic violation overturned when there is a pile of evidence against him, and if I know Matt, I know that he is not a liar and would not be able to maintain the contrary in a court of law to begin with. Matt, do as you see fit, if your parents are footing the bill and it won't bankrupt then and they actually want to help you, then by all means, but if you had to pay for one yourself, I'd tell you that it is a huge waste of everything. This is not going to stick to your record as a criminal offense, and it can be removed very easily; all fines can be paid with a payment plan, and you will not serve one hour of time in county, let alone 15 days (which is the maximum term for a first offense conviction in your state; you have no prior record, and even if you did, it would take a violation of parole or spitting in the judges face to get time served for this light dusting of the law).

 

100% and nothing more needs be said, this is exactly what it is and everybody knows it here. I would never suggest you do or not do anything that I honestly think could potentially hurt you Matt, and that is why I say, if your parents are willing to pay for it and don't mind, then absolutely play the game, they all love it. But if this financial burden of responsibility came entirely down on your own shoulders, I'd recommend apologizing to the judge, wearing a nice outfit (not TOO nice) and paying the fines as A. this is not criminal offense, not even a misdemeanor, and B. the cost of a lawyer is going to greatly exceed the cost of the fines, and you are not 'winning' anything, there is absolutely nothing to be won as no judge in his right mind is going to over turn a traffic violation in the face of the evidence the police are going to provide.

 

:iagree:

PR, you will most likely come out of this OK.
With it being a money grab, the offenses you committed will not potentially yield the $$$$ for the court to offset the cost of prosecuting you, so really good chance things will play out as MagicRocks suggests.

The costs involved is exactly why The Govenator (Arnie) passed the law in Ca. that possession of an ounce or less is a simple infraction with a fine of no more than $100. Saves the state multiple millions in saved court costs.
Nice that passing that law was about the last thing he did as Gov.

 

Finally, someone understands!! Lol, doesn't hurt that he's a Lamb fan, either
I do appreciate the posts above for their educational purposes, as sometimes it is absolutely necessary to get a lawyer, I do not dispute this at all, even in non-aggressive criminal cases, you can sometimes get out of serious trouble with even a half-decent lawyer. But in traffic court, it's ultimately a joke, and they try to scare you into following protocol. Rule #1. Never admit to anything to an officer, and if imprisoned, never admit to anything to detectives without a lawyer present, your right to remain silent is the most fucking important right you have as a human being in this country, BELIEVE me.. I too was scared into admitting something on tape recorder that I should not have, and even though I did not *actually* admit to an acknowledgement of what they were asking me, I did not word it properly (thinking I would try and half-talk, to half-play their game and try and outsmart them) and I am left with a felony conviction for that mistake, one of the biggest fucking mistakes I've ever made in my life. Matt this should be the most important lesson learned for you in your situation; I'm sure it is, as it was for me. They are some sneaky fucks, let me tell you, they are trained to prey on fear and uncertainty and manipulate you into admitting shit, sometimes shit that is made up, too. Evil people, all of them.

 

John,

It is a criminal offense. I was charged with DWAI-drugs, which is a misdemeanor. If it was involving alcohol, then it would only be a traffic violation.

I saw the lawyer today. He said it looks good for me, but he said he doesn't give guarantees. He said it's the "best of the best situation." I should add that this guy is considered to be the best lawyer in western NY for this type of case. The guy is literally at the top of his game.

This is going to cost my parents $5,500. I just hope it all works out.

 

Some of you know what happened to me, but for those of you who don't I will clarify; when I was being held in the station prior to going in front of the first judge for bail and elucidation on my pending potential charges, two detectives took me into a small interrogation room and turned on a tape recorder. They asked me if I waived my right to remain silent, and because the actions I took after the accident, although not 100% the 'right' thing to do, were about 85% of the way there, I figured I'd waive and talk. They asked me a bunch of questions, had I been drinking, had I been taking drugs, where was I going to &c and then they popped the question "Did you realize that you hit a human being at any point before calling the police?" to which I replied "I was not certain of what happened, it was very dark and on an unlit stretch of highway, my first assumption was that it was a deer, but as I was uncertain I drove on for another two miles before pulling over to call 911" and the one detective said "I'm going to ask you again, did it, at any point prior to calling the police, cross your mind that you may have hit a human being?" to which I replied "The person hit me according to your own police report, and although I was uncertain, sure, it was one of several things that occurred to me" and the same detective said "Stop recording" and without a word took me back to my cell. At that moment, I knew that my life was over. That's what I get for being an arrogant youth, though.

 

Ok, I see.. At any rate, what does he say looks good? My point ultimately is that I cannot foresee, no matter how topnotch a lawyer may be, how this can be overturned or even lessened, your charge is not DWI, and so you are already receiving a minimum charge, the only thing less than that would have been if they let you go with a warning?

 

Oh, and another thing Matt, not to burst your bubble, but my lawyer was "the best", too.. Anyway I wish you the best, and if I am mistaken in the severity of your charge, then I apologize, I did not consider that they differentiate between drugs and alcohol, which I won't even hesitate to research as I am certain this is the case (pathetic and, actually, backwards as it may be). What I am curious about is exactly what a lawyer is capable of lessening in this situation, as to my mind the punishment by conviction can only be license-related and monetary?

 

The thing "less" would be a traffic ticket, he went over a line, it happens ALL the fucking time, every driver does it, all a cop has to do to pull someone over is follow them a while. Or a warning. Or whatever.

As for you, you had a great lawyer, sure.... you said, for the tape recorder, when a cop asked you "again", obviously trying to get a certain answer, what they wanted you to say. He made an offhand comment, before being put in a very (obviously) stressful situation and made to "prove" his sobriety. If he doesn't look out of it on the police tape and such, his failing a test for pot should not be a big deal, even quantifying pot does not quantify impairment (which only occurs at levels generally beyond recreational use or a pleasant experience, especially in frequent users), and this is well known.

He fucked up, but not like being sat down with a cop telling you "I want you to say this into the tape recorder" and then saying it.

No offence to you, personally.

Also, they stand to gain a lot less by pressing the matter. You ran someone over. He crossed a white line with his wheel, and for that they arrested him and towed his car. If his lawyer can make it a pain in the ass to prosecute him, they simply may not bother. From the outset he sounds a bit more wronged than society in this situation, and with a jury they might not even get him.

 

The problem with this is that nobody goes over a line, and then just because a cop asks them if they smoked pot, say yes; I'd be willing to bet that, language barriers aside, the amount of times that's happened in the history of the entire world are zero. As for your next point, a warning? Sure, it's his first offence; he is also over thirty years old, good luck with that one, lol..

As far as my situation, I did not "run" anyone over, a 25 year old (I was 21 at the time) whose toxicology results later revealed excessive amount of cocaine and alcohol in his system, threw himself in a suicide attempt (later discovered and is the reason why he failed in his attempt to sue after my criminal prosecution) into my driver's side rear door, 400 yards from my hotel's exit on a 55mph hour unlit stretch of highway at 01:00am, with such force that he smashed the glass out and pushed the door in to such an extent that the center of the it reached past the limit of my child's car seat, and fell back down off of the road into the dense shrubbery and trees of the divider, or median; I did not say exactly what the detective wanted me to say, and while it dealt a devastating blow to my case, it was not a mortal blow, and if you reread what I've written, any lawyer worth of the title could have breezed around that, mine didn't even try to. I only alluded to the fact that it crossed my mind, out of numerous other possibilities, and this is no way renders me guilty of hit and run, it renders me guilty of failing to render direct aid. I was exaggerating when I said "I knew my life was over"; clearly I am still alive, am living outside of prison. This was my state of mind at the time assuming the victim died and I was being charged as responsible for his death, and because I had to clean his teeth, sickening amounts of blood and hair out of my kids car seat, back windshield and rear passenger seats, I feel that I had a reason to assume as much.

I never meant to imply that I had a great lawyer, I put that comment in quotations, implying sarcasm, that this was his reputation according to the bail bondsman agency, a friend of mine from the town in which I was arrested, and the lawyers available credentials, and unless Matt or his family are actively involved in law, or personally know the lawyer and his case history, as with most people, he has only the firm's advertisement and word of mouth to base this reputation on; it's like trying to buy a car from "the best salesman", except in this situation it is of dire importance and most of us are out of our territory. In fact with a bit of research I did find the lawyer I chose to represent me to supposedly live up to his reputation, and what he managed to do was to delay my case by one year and one month, take me into court with a judge whom he was friends with, and offer me a plea bargain were I to plead guilty to the felony charges. Because I was 900 miles from home, still in my youth, without money to continue travelling back and forth the 1800 miles and maintain my innocence, I accepted his deal assuming it to be all I could have hoped for, on the condition that I remain out of prison; the rest was not even taken into consideration as my (then only) child was still a baby and I a single parent. The reality is that this had nothing to do with whether or not the lawyer was "the best" or even "kind of okay", the situation is that he took my money, delayed the case for over one year beyond the original date, forgot about me until the week before my trial, and promised me a bunch of bullshit over the phone only to realize in the half hour before walking into the court room that the asshole did nothing, that the victim was alive and well (and looking to sue me!!) and that I would have received the exact same sentence without him, only sooner and for a shitload less money.

Ultimately, my point is that the stipulation that I was not to inquire into the situation of the victim did not extend to my lawyer, the police report states that in fact I was hit, not that I was responsible for causing the accident, and with research I discovered that the only thing I was responsible for in terms of violation is what in South Carolina is called "Failure to Preform Driver Duties", and because of the circumstances I was financially driven to accept a damn near brutal punishment for a crime I did not commit. Anyway, none of this is very important, I only outline the details of my situation because of your offhanded dismissal of my points relevancy by a few key words I've used which you've entirely failed to grasp (which had no bearing on my advice pertaining to his case, and only brought up to share with him that we've both learned the hard same lesson albeit in vastly different situations), and in one case have rudely, ignorantly twisted around, disregarding entirely the details of my story and aligning your thinking simply by my sharing the title of my conviction, when you are familiar only with the very basics and although you do not intend to offend me personally, which I do believe (only because you are such a pompous and arrogant tool that you simply can't help yourself from behaving the way you do in relation to posters here), this is a very sore subject for me with scars that likely will never fully heal, and I feel compelled to spell out the causes for my ill treatment that others may not assume that, like everybody else, "I was framed" and am talking out of my ass.

As for Matt's situation, I am fully aware of every point you've brought up, which he can confirm that I've spoken about with him personally prior to these posts. The chances of him having this overturned and lessened to a traffic violation are rather unlikely, the difficulty in proving a urine specimen as having direct influence on his ability to drive at the time of the routine traffic stop, the being tricked into saying "about an hour ago", and the field sobriety tests being failed due to overwhelming nervousness are all possible, but are again unlikely; these are the contests brought up by DUI lawyers on billboards and websites to get you to pay for their service, but the likelihood of the success are not often very high. While it is true that should it prove difficult to convict him, they may ultimately dismiss the case (unlikely, in my opinion), it is also equally true that the pursuit of maintaining innocence comes at the defendants expense, and my point remains that the cost of the lawyer is going to greatly exceed the maximum cost of the tickets, which as things stand now are not in excess of $2000, and if they are lowered, not in excess of a few hundred. With the maximum of $2000, he is under half the expense of the initial consultation and hiring of the lawyer. Again, his parents offered to pay, and in that case he would be a fool to turn the opportunity down, but going on my experience and that of those I've known in similar situations as his, the chances of getting this reduced to traffic violation are not odds I'd be willing to bet on.