Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Free in Kentucky: Are You a Cop? Because You Have to Tell Me If You...
Free in Kentucky: Are You a Cop? Because You Have to Tell Me If You...: No. No, they don't. Glad we had this talk. For more information, contact Greg Simms at 502.618.4949.
Are You a Cop? Because You Have to Tell Me If You Are, Right?
No. No, they don't.
Glad we had this talk.
For more information, contact Greg Simms at 502.618.4949.
Glad we had this talk.
For more information, contact Greg Simms at 502.618.4949.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Take em or Leave em: my Suggestions for your District Court Ballot
If you’re looking for advice on who to vote for in the
District Court Judge’s races, here are my suggestions:
1st Div: Annette Karem – She has experience and
she’s fair.
2nd Div: Amber Wolf – Amber is a prosecutor. Yes, I’m telling you that you should vote for
a prosecutor. She’s smart, professional,
and she’ll be a great judge. Amber also
has a ton of endorsements from organizations across the city.
3rd Div: Matt Eckert – I don’t know much about Matt Eckert. But by sheer
statistical probability, he will have a better approval rating than his
opponent. That is all I have to say about that...
5th Div: Donald Armstrong – He has a ton of
experience and he’s a smart, nice guy.
Very professional.
8th Div: David Bowles – David is a former police
officer and to be completely honest, he’s a little “tough on crime” for my
taste. But he’s an incredible judge – He’s
quick, smart, and he’s on the Judicial conduct committee. His ethics are second to none. David Bowles is the right choice for the 8th
Division.
11th Div: Gina Calvert – Incumbent Judge Gina
Calvert is a no brainer on this one. She’s
an amazing judge and a bigtime victim’s advocate. And she really gives a damn about being
fair. I’ve seen her protect people’s
constitutional rights when it needed done, and I’ve seen her give serious jail
time to someone who hurt people in a DUI accident. She cares about making the right decision. Great judge.
13th Div: Anne Delahanty – When in doubt, go with
a Delahanty. That’s a good rule for
voting on judge’s races.
14th Div: Stephanie Pearce Burke – She’s another
no brainer. Stephanie is a phenomenal
judge because she’s not afraid to make some people angry by making the right
decision. She isn’t controlled by the
media, or the county attorney, etc.
Stephanie has all the right qualities for a judge; you should keep her.
17th Div: Erica Lee Williams – This is the only
race where I feel the need to tell you that her opponent would also make a
great judge. Dana Cohen has everything
it takes. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t be
willing to sacrifice one of the best judges in our judiciary in order to put
Dana on the bench. Erica Williams is an
absolute model for how a judge should act on the bench – she’s incredibly
smart, professional and strong willed. Erica
Williams is the right pick.
If you don't go with my picks - to each their own. But please vote!
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Free in Kentucky: Opening Statement for a Rx drug DUI
Free in Kentucky: Opening Statement for a Rx drug DUI: You can click on this link to watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIkM9yVDnRQ The above link is for an Opening Statement on...
Opening Statement for a Rx drug DUI
You can click on this link to watch the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIkM9yVDnRQ
The above link is for an Opening Statement on a prescription drug DUI case. This is a case where my client was accused of mixing narcotic prescription drugs and driving. These cases are tricky because they usually get complicated and involve more evidence than a normal alcohol DUI. For example, you may need to deal with toxicology results, testimony from KSP lab technicians, toxicologists, treating physicians, and medical records from diagnostic tests. All of these were involved in this particular DUI case.
This is why I love doing DUI cases - every one is different. There's always a new, fun twist.
Here's my advice (take it or leave it) for Rx drug openings:
1) Right off the bat, you need to highlight the fact that there is no alcohol in the client's system and no illegal drugs. Repeat this a time or two during the trial and in a closing statement.
2) If your drugs are in Therapeutic Range, say it slowly, repeat it, and explain what that means in language that sounds favorable to your client. When jurors hear that this means your client took their medication in a way that was prescribed to them, and tends to show they aren't abusing medication, jurors remember that kind of thing. And most jurors (especially those on medications) are hesitant to find someone guilty for DUI even if they took their medicine as prescribed - even if they believe the person might have been impaired.
3) Own the bad facts. In this case, my client was all over the road and the driving was extremely dangerous. He came to rest across 2 lanes of traffic. Obviously that's not good for me. But I made it good for us by pointing out how odd this is for a DUI. Normal intoxicated driving isn't that bad - which opens the door for consideration of another medical event. Also, their expert says he was intoxicated. You need to frame the issue on something like that. Tell the jury what to look for - "Ask yourself whether Dr. Davis looked at any of my client's medical history or pharmalogical history." I know the answer to that question and I know it's good for my client.
4) Own the good facts. Fortunately for me, my client was actually not guilty. He had an abnormal EEG after the arrest that showed a brain injury from either stroke, anticholinergic crisis, seizure, or some other medical event. And he's on the same medications every day without an incident. All of this really sets the tone for a Not Guilty verdict.
The jury ended up making the right call in this case and returned a verdict of Not Guilty. They took about 7 minutes to deliberate.
Anyway, I hope this is at least entertaining - and if you're an attorney, I hope this helps prepare you for a Rx drug DUI opening.
For any questions on Rx DUI cases, feel free to call me at 502.618.4949.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIkM9yVDnRQ
The above link is for an Opening Statement on a prescription drug DUI case. This is a case where my client was accused of mixing narcotic prescription drugs and driving. These cases are tricky because they usually get complicated and involve more evidence than a normal alcohol DUI. For example, you may need to deal with toxicology results, testimony from KSP lab technicians, toxicologists, treating physicians, and medical records from diagnostic tests. All of these were involved in this particular DUI case.
This is why I love doing DUI cases - every one is different. There's always a new, fun twist.
Here's my advice (take it or leave it) for Rx drug openings:
1) Right off the bat, you need to highlight the fact that there is no alcohol in the client's system and no illegal drugs. Repeat this a time or two during the trial and in a closing statement.
2) If your drugs are in Therapeutic Range, say it slowly, repeat it, and explain what that means in language that sounds favorable to your client. When jurors hear that this means your client took their medication in a way that was prescribed to them, and tends to show they aren't abusing medication, jurors remember that kind of thing. And most jurors (especially those on medications) are hesitant to find someone guilty for DUI even if they took their medicine as prescribed - even if they believe the person might have been impaired.
3) Own the bad facts. In this case, my client was all over the road and the driving was extremely dangerous. He came to rest across 2 lanes of traffic. Obviously that's not good for me. But I made it good for us by pointing out how odd this is for a DUI. Normal intoxicated driving isn't that bad - which opens the door for consideration of another medical event. Also, their expert says he was intoxicated. You need to frame the issue on something like that. Tell the jury what to look for - "Ask yourself whether Dr. Davis looked at any of my client's medical history or pharmalogical history." I know the answer to that question and I know it's good for my client.
4) Own the good facts. Fortunately for me, my client was actually not guilty. He had an abnormal EEG after the arrest that showed a brain injury from either stroke, anticholinergic crisis, seizure, or some other medical event. And he's on the same medications every day without an incident. All of this really sets the tone for a Not Guilty verdict.
The jury ended up making the right call in this case and returned a verdict of Not Guilty. They took about 7 minutes to deliberate.
Anyway, I hope this is at least entertaining - and if you're an attorney, I hope this helps prepare you for a Rx drug DUI opening.
For any questions on Rx DUI cases, feel free to call me at 502.618.4949.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Free in Kentucky: Watch an Opening Statement for a .105 DUI Case
Free in Kentucky: Watch an Opening Statement for a .105 DUI Case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTlxk7Ulu74 The above link is to an Opening Statement I made in a DUI case in Hardin County (permission f...
Watch an Opening Statement for a .105 DUI Case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTlxk7Ulu74
The above link is to an Opening Statement I made in a DUI case in Hardin County (permission from the client was given to post online). This was a "relation back" DUI. So if you're a lawyer getting ready to try a relation back case, it might help. Or, if you find courtroom stuff entertaining, it might be something you find enjoyable to hear.
If you're going to try one of these cases at a jury trial, here's my advice on an opening statement:
1) Be Confident. If you aren't confident in a situation where your client blew over the .08 mark, the jury will sense that, and they are going to assume your lack of confidence means she's guilty.
2) Don't Exaggerate. If the officer didn't intentionally falsify evidence, don't call the officer a "liar." He isn't. He just made some mistakes. In this particular case, the officer wasn't a bad guy, he was just incompetent. The prosecutor in this case, who did a pretty fantastic job overall, made the mistake of exaggerating by saying that "all" of the field sobriety tests would show a sign of impairment and that the evidence would show that the intoxilyzer was "accurate." Be careful about exaggeration - if you exaggerate, you lose credibility. Also, as a side note, I broke this rule when I referred to my client's performance on the One Leg Stand as "gymnast" like. I shouldn't have said that - it just popped out.
3) Own the Bad Facts. My client drank and drove. I needed to admit that, but remind them that it is not illegal to drink and drive (if you've done a good job in voir dire explaining the difference between "drinking and driving" and "driving under the influence" the jury will understand this. You need to own the BAC. My client had a .105 - and I needed to be up front about that but explain that a BAC of .105 as measured 45 minutes later does not equal a .08 while driving.
4) Own the Good Facts. We had a few good ones in this case - my client was in charge of physical faculties. She had a very good performance on One Leg Stand test. Also, the officer in this case gave me a lot of ammunition - he has no idea how to administer field sobriety tests correctly.
5) Better be less than 15 minutes. Seriously, don't put people to sleep.
6) Frame the Issue. Seriously, give them a question to think of during trial. Some jurors will even write it down. "Ask yourself as we go through this, has the prosecution proven to me what her BAC was while she was driving." That issue means I win, because I know the prosecution can't prove this.
On this particular case, this formula seemed to work. The jury found my client Not Guilty.
I hope you enjoy it, and/or it can be good research for other DUI lawyers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)