Proving Causation in OWI Causing Injury and OWI Causing Death Cases

DUI Accident 2

Michigan OWI Causing Injury or Death Attorney

Any OWI or drunk driving charge is serious. Not only can it never be expunged, you potentially face jail, probation, points on your driving record, increases insurance rates, thousands of dollars in fines, costs, and driver’s responsibility fees, as well as negatively impacting scholarships, housing, or your career. If you are charged with an OWI Causing Injury or Death, the consequences are far worse. Not only is it a felony but there is a strong likelihood, if not a guarantee, of prison time. If you are charged with any felony OWI, you need an experienced DUI attorney on your side more than ever.

The Causation Element in OWI Causing Injury and Death Charges

Proving causation is a critical element that the prosecutor has to prove in OWI Causing Injury or OWI Causing Death cases. It is not a “strict liability” crime. A defendant cannot be convicted merely because they were driving drunk and was in an accident where someone happened to get injured or killed. They have to prove your drunk driving was the “cause” of the injury or death. The prosecutor has to prove both factual and proximate cause. Although, proximate cause is the central focus rather than factual cause.

Superseding Causes

The focus is on whether the victim’s injury or death was a direct and natural result of the defendant’s operation of the motor vehicle and whether there was any intervening causes that may have superseded and severed the causal link. A superseding cause is an act of nature, gross negligence by the victim or third party, or intentional misconduct. However, ordinary negligence is not a superseding cause as it is reasonably foreseeable. The trial court must make an initial determination that a question of fact exists regarding the victim’s gross negligence before the evidence is relevant and admissible.

Evidence that the Victim was Intoxicated

Evidence that the victim was intoxicated during an OWI accident is inadmissible by itself. Mere intoxication is not gross negligence. However, extreme intoxication in People v Feezel was held by the Michigan Supreme Court to be highly probative of alleged gross negligence (victim’s BAC was .268 in Feezel). It also negated the defendant’s causation as the victim’s extreme intoxication would have affected the victim’s ability to perceive risks posed by his conduct and eliminate his capacity to react. The threshold determination before a defendant can present this evidence to the jury is whether or not a question of fact exists as to whether the victim engaged in gross negligence or a question of fact as to another superseding cause.

Michigan OWI Defense Attorney

If you have been charged with OWI Causing Injury or OWI Causing Death you need an experienced OWI attorney on your side. There are many variables that go into investigating a felony OWI case. You need an effective advocate to argue against causation to a jury. Call Austin Legal Services, PLC today at (517) 614-1983 to speak to a Michigan OWI attorney.

Representing OWI, drugged driving, and OWPCS charges throughout Michigan in the counties of Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Gratiot, Calhoun, Jackson, Livingston, Barry, Shiawassee, Gennessee, in the cities of Lansing, East Lansing, Mason, St. Johns, Ithaca, Battle Creek, Jackson, Brighton, Howell, Hastings, Corunna, Durand, Flint.

Drugged Driving: Operating with the Presence of a Controlled Substance (OWPCS)

Drugged Driving

Lansing Michigan OWI Drugged Driving Attorney

Under the general DUI/OWI umbrella are categories of drugged driving. Not only can you be charged for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or driving with an unlawful blood alcohol content, but you can be charged for driving under the influence of controlled substances (cocaine, marijuana…) or prescription medicine. The standards are different in that the prosecutor does not have to prove an arbitrary amount of drugs in your system like the .08 BAC standard for OWI. Instead, the prosecutor only has to prove that you were operating a vehicle with any amount of a controlled substance.

Zero Tolerance: Driving with any Amount of a Controlled Substance

A person may not operator a vehicle on a public roadway if there is any amount of a Schedule I controlled substance under MCL 333.7212 or MCL 333.7214(a)(iv). This includes marijuana. It is a “zero tolerance” policy towards driving with any presence of a controlled substance regardless of whether it impacts your ability to drive. Even if it is a residual from a few days or even weeks prior (marijuana can stay in the system for up to a month) it doesn’t matter.

Schedule I Controlled Substances

Schedule I controlled substances include opiates, opium derivatives, hallucinogens, gammahydroxyutyic acid (GHB), ecstasy, and marijuana.

Michigan Medical Marijuana Card Patients

A licensed medical marijuana patient may drive as long as they are not “under the influence” of marijuana according to the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA). The problem is the legislature didn’t clarify what they meant by “under the influence.” For example, Washington defined it in their DUI statute as having 10ng/THC per 100ml/blood. This created an apparent conflict with the OWI statute as it defines “under the influence” of marijuana as having any amount of marijuana in your system. The Michigan Supreme Court stepped into the role of the legislature and declared that the medical marijuana patients could drive as long as it does not substantially interfere with their ability to safely operate a car. That is what the prosecutor has to prove if a medical marijuana patient is charged with OWI or drugged driving.

Other Intoxicating Substances

On March 31, 2013 the statute was amended to include “other intoxicating substances.” That means any substance, preparation, or a combination of substances and preparations other than alcohol or a controlled substance that is either of the following:

  • Recognized as a drug in any of the following publications or their supplements: official US pharmacopeia, official homeopathy pharmacopeia of US, official national formulary
  • Substance other than food, taken into a person’s body including but not limited to: vapors or fumes that are used in a manner or for a purpose for which it was not intended and that may result in a condition of intoxication

OWPCS is unique in OWI cases as it does not require proof of “under the influence”—a long-standing foundation of drunk driving law.

Penalties for OWPCS

The penalties for OWPCS are the same as the OWI penalties with the exception that the driver responsibility fees are lower. If convicted a defendant faces up to 93 days in jail $500 in fines plus court and police costs, one-year probation, six points on your driving record, 180 days suspended license (first 30 days a “hard suspension”—no driving, with restrictions for the remainder 150 days), and $1,000 in driver responsibility fees ($500/year for two consecutive years).

Michigan Drugged Driving Attorney

If you have been charged with drugged driving or OWPCS, you need the representation of an experienced OWI attorney who will thoroughly evaluate every aspect of the case including the initial police contact, blood draws, and administration of any field sobriety tests. If you have been charged with any DUI offense contact Austin Legal Services, PLC today to speak to a Michigan OWI attorney.

Representing OWI, drugged driving, and OWPCS charges throughout Michigan in the counties of Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Gratiot, Calhoun, Jackson, Livingston, Barry, Shiawassee, Genesee, in the cities of Lansing, East Lansing, Mason, St. Johns, Ithaca, Battle Creek, Jackson, Brighton, Howell, Hastings, Corunna, Durand, Flint.

DUI Blood Draws

DUI Blood Draw

Lansing Michigan OWI Defense Attorney

If you have been arrested in Michigan for a DUI, you will be taken into custody where an officer will request you submit to a chemical test of his choosing. It could be breath, blood, or urine. Breath tests are the most common which are done on the DataMaster machine. Blood draws are the next most common. Usually blood draws occur when the driver has been in an accident and the hospital performs one as a part of their standard procedures, the chemical breath machine is not working, hasn’t been calibrated or serviced, or a certified DataMaster operator is unavailable, or the officer suspects the driver of using drugs (because a breath test will only reveal alcohol).

Implied Consent

If you refuse to submit to the officer’s request for a chemical test, you will be in violation of Michigan’s implied consent law and your license will be suspended and six points will be added to your driving record. The police can get a warrant to do a blood draw if you refuse if they present probable cause to a judge. If you submit to the officer’s request, you may have another chemical test performed of your choosing at your expense.

Admissibility of Blood Tests in OWI Cases

In order for blood test results to be admissible in an OWI trial, the prosecution has to prove the following conditions were met:

  • The blood test was taken in a timely manner
  • The sample was from a particular person
  • The blood draw was taken by an authorized physician, medical technologist, or a registered nurse designated by the physician
  • Sterilized instruments were used
  • The sample was properly preserved and labeled
  • Proper methods of transportation were used
  • Proper methods were used in the blood sample withdrawal
  • Identity of the supervising person, under whose care the sample was withdrawn, was established

What Happens in an OWI Blood Draw

It is important that you are represented by an OWI attorney that understands the complex process of blood draws in drunk and drugged driving cases. It is important your attorney knows what to look for and file the proper motions to either suppress the blood tests results for improper procedures or call into question the reliability of the results at trial during cross examination.

Scientific Testing Procedures for Blood Draws

A proper test procedure requires use of a control sample, a test sample, and two analyses of the test sample. A test sample is a sample of a substance at a known concentration. For example, a known ethyl alcohol concentration in blood. A control sample contains all of the substances normally found in the substance to be tested, except for the substance of interest, e.g. ethyl alcohol. The purpose of the control sample is to demonstrate that the test instrument will not reveal a result based on substances common in the tested subject, thus giving a false positive. For blood draws, the control sample is blood without alcohol.

It is important to understand that it is not really the driver’s “blood” that is being analyzed. Rather, it is a comparison of known and unknown volatiles. The Michigan State Police (MSP) Forensic Lab receives a sealed kit with the subject’s blood sample contained in two separate 10ml tubes. The kits are supposed to be mailed by the participating officer via first class mail. Once received and documented by an MSP lab technician, it is placed into a temperature-controlled storage room. It is presumed the tubes contain a known amount of preservative and anti-coagulant (100 mg of sodium fluoride and 20mg of potassium oxalate) in order to preserve the integrity of the sample. One tube will be tested by the MSP and the other tube is available for testing by the defendant if he chooses to. Even at this stage the lab does not have your blood, but a mixture.

Methods of Testing Blood Samples

There are three generally used methods of blood testing.

  1. Dichromate Procedure—This is not a specific test for ethyl alcohol. It may show a reaction to acetone, acetaldehyde, wood, or rubbing alcohol. Wood and rubbing alcohol are not usually found in the bloodstream but are found in laboratories.
  2. Enzymatic Procedure—This procedure uses the same enzyme found normally in the body.
  3. Gas Chromatography—This procedure is specific for ethyl alcohol and uses separate volatile substances. Other substances during the test are not registered and is specific only for ethyl alcohol. This is the most commonly used and the most scientifically reliable. It is the method used by the MSP labs.

Whole Blood Versus Serum

The blood alcohol results can be from testing serum, plasma, or whole blood. It is important your OWI lawyer understand the difference. The administrative rules governing blood tests require that serum or plasma alcohol concentrations be translated into an equivalent whole blood alcohol concentration. The MSP forensic labs test whole blood using gas chromatography.

Hospitals use an enzymatic method when analyzing blood alcohol. It tests serum, not whole blood that contains cellular material and clotting proteins. The results using serum may not correlate to the results using whole blood because serum contains approximately 1.6 times more alcohol than whole blood. Some scientific studies and journals have concluded that the blood alcohol concentration in serum can be as 10-30 times higher than whole blood. Thus, serum can yield a much higher blood alcohol content (BAC). While there is no Michigan appellate decisions directly on point, the trend in other states is to preclude using serum or plasma results as evidence unless a conversion method is used demonstrating the blood alcohol equivalent in whole blood.

Are Blood Draws Reliable in DUI Cases?

Of the three chemical tests (breath, blood, and urine), blood tests are the most reliable. No one disputes that. However, there is a whole lot more that can go wrong with blood tests than any of the other chemical tests. It is important that you have an OWI attorney that is familiar with the testing procedures and forensic science to properly evaluate your case. An experienced and trained eye will know what to look for. There may be chain of custody issues where numerous people are checking out the test tubes or there are periods of time that the whereabouts of the test tube cannot be accounted for. This is especially important if they cannot prove that the test tubes were in a certain temperature controlled environment as required by the administrative rules. This can lead to a suppression of the evidence or can be used to cast serious doubt in the jury’s minds as to the reliability and accuracy of the test results.

Michigan OWI Attorney

If you have been charged with an OWI offense, it is important that you are represented by someone that devotes a substantial part of their practice to drunk and drugged driving defense. It is too complex and the consequences too serious to go with a lawyer who merely “dabbles” in DUI defense. Contact Austin Legal Services, PLC today at (517) 614-1983 for a free consultation with our Michigan OWI attorney.

Representing felony OWI cases throughout Michigan in the counties of Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Gratiot, Jackson, Livingston, Kent, Washtenaw, Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Shiawassee, Barry in the cities of Lansing, East Lansing, Mason, St. Johns, Ithaca, Charlotte, Jackson, Brighton, Howell, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Hastings, Corunna, Durand.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommends States to Lower BAC to .05 for DUIs

0_0_0_0_250_140_csupload_57703655Lansing Michigan DUI Lawyer
Recently the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced that they are recommending that all states lower the blood alcohol content from .08 to .05 to constitute drunk driving. They claim that drivers are impaired at that level and in order to reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes, the qualifying threshold needs to be lowered. But where have we heard this rhetoric before? Oh yeah, back in the 1980s when Congress practically coerced states to lower the BAC for drunk driving offenses to .10 less they lose a portion of their highway funds. The Supreme Court says Congress can pressure states to change or enact laws by withholding federal money under Congress’s “spending power” (although it would be more appropriately characterized as their extortion or coercion power). The battle cry was that states needed to lower the BAC in order to save more lives and keep the roads safer. Apparently, it wasn’t good enough because in the 1990s they embarked on another successful campaign to get states to lower the BAC requirement to .08 under the same battle cry. Now, in 2013 they are recommending it go even lower to .05 because .10 and .08 just isn’t keeping us safe enough (although they told us at the time it would). Would lowering the BAC to a point where perfectly safe social drinkers could face criminal conviction actually save more lives and keep dangerous drivers off the road? I think not.
As a Michigan OWI attorney, the problem I have always had with these DUI standards is that they never take into consideration the quality of the driving. Legislators enact these arbitrary figures which keep getting pushed lower and lower instead of focusing on whether the driver was actually impaired or not. Instead, with the BAC threshold, the driver is presumed to be under the influence regardless of whether they are or not. These standards don’t take into consideration that many people are perfectly capable of safely operating a motor vehicle at .08 or .10 or even higher. Instead, by lowering it 37.5% states will only be criminalizing responsible drinkers who will now have to bear the shame and expense of a DUI charge as well as potentially having their career and educational opportunities go up in smoke all because they had a couple drinks at the bar and drove home.
Another problem I have with this constant clamor of “we need to change the DUI laws” is that they never seem to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. Their usual response is the clichéd “you can’t put a price tag on safety” but will these new enactments actually make us safer? First of all, alcohol-related deaths are at an all-time low since 1982 while non-alcohol related traffic accidents have sky-rocketed by 78% during that same time span according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Furthermore, the NHTSA further states that texting while driving is now the leading cause of death and accidents among teens. Texting drivers are 23 times more likely to be in a crash that non-texting drivers. Texting is responsible for 3,000 deaths and 330,000 injuries a year according to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
Are drivers with a low BAC really the problem? The statistics resoundingly scream no. In 2011 less than 1% of traffic fatalities were caused by drivers with a BAC of .05-.08. The majority of crashes and fatalities involved drivers with a BAC of .15 or above. These are the drivers that legislation should be targeting and most states do with “Super Drunk,” “High BAC,” and “Aggravated DUI” charges with increasingly stiff penalties and many prosecutors have policies against plea bargaining on.  If you are intoxicated and have an accident that causes an injury or death, prison is all but a guarantee. Ignition interlock and vehicle immobilization are imposed by many judges on High BAC cases or repeat offenders. These measures make sense. Criminalizing social drinkers doesn’t.
Among their list of recommendations, the NTSB wants an “automatic administrative suspension of your driver’s license” upon being charged with a DUI. In other words, when you are merely accused and (supposedly) presumed innocent, they want the government to automatically yank your driving privileges. Sounds like something that would happen in a totalitarian state doesn’t it? Whatever happened to “innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?” I guess that Constitutional safeguard doesn’t matter. Michigan already confiscates and destroys your license upon being charged with an OWI offense and replaces it with a “paper license” until your matter is resolved which is tantamount to convicting you by being charged.
The NTSB and other drunk driving advocate zealots, don’t seem to realize (or care?) that the average DUI stop, investigation, and arrest can take over an hour, and often an hour-and-a-half to two hours. That’s time that law enforcement could have spent on the road tracking down impaired drivers who are an actual threat to the safety of others, instead of going after the 110-lb. female who had a couple glasses of wine with dinner. Not to mention clogging up the court dockets prosecuting people who are little to no threat to fellow motorists or pedestrians.
While implementing these recommends would probably be years down the road, it’s scary to think that it’s even a possibility being considered. If states want to protect the roadways, they should crack down on drivers with High BACs, repeat offenders, and drunk drivers who cause damage or injury to property or others. Better yet, enact stricter laws against texting while driving. If I had the choice of sharing the highway with someone with a BAC of .05 or a distracted texting driver, I’d opt for the former any day.
What are your thoughts?
If you or someone you know have been charged with OWI or drunk driving, contact Austin Legal Services, PLC today at (517) 614-1983 to speak to a Michigan OWI attorney.
Representing clients on DUI, OWI, and drunk driving charges throughout Michigan in the counties of Ingham, Eaton, Barry, Clinton, Gratiot, Jackson, Shiawasse, Livingston, Washtenaw, Kent, Calhoun in the cities of Lansing, East Lansing, Mason, Charlotte, Haslett, Okemos, Williamston, Eaton Rapids, Corunna Durand, Hastings, St. Johns, Bath, Ithaca, Alma, Jackson, Brighton, Livingston, Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek.

How I Approach a Michigan DUI Case

0_0_0_0_250_137_csupload_54758312HOW I APPROACH A MICHIGAN DUI CASE

Lansing Michigan OWI Attorney

When a client comes into my office facing a DUI they have a myriad of concerns, especially if it is their first offense. Their fears center around if they are going to jail and are they going to lose their license. This is closely followed by concerns of losing their job, scholarship, or not getting accepted into college or graduate school. After carefully explaining the process, what they are charged with, and what penalties they are facing, I explain my approach on how I handle a DUI case.

Challenging the Stop

First and foremost, I always look at the initial stop to see if there are any arguments to be made that the stop is invalid. After all, the police just can’t pull you over for any reason. They have to have “reasonable suspicion” which is a lower standard than probable cause. Anything from speeding to infractions of the motor vehicle code will suffice. Sometimes the police initiate a stop based on an anonymous call that a possible drunk driver is on the road. These have to be very carefully scrutinized as the courts have held that the information given by the caller must be very specific and not too general. The officer’s observations and length of the observation will play a critical role in determining the validity of the stop. It is very important to obtain the police reports, cruiser cam videos, and any 911 tapes to properly evaluate the stop.

This is not only the most logical place to start, but it also often proves to be the most effective because if you can get the judge to rule that the reason for the stop was insufficient, then all the subsequent evidence following the stop and arrest is invalid as “fruit of the poisonous tree” and thus, your case will be dismissed for lack of evidence. Don’t let the police trample on the Fourth Amendment– make sure they have a legally articulate reason for pulling your car over.

DUI Investigation– Field  Sobriety Tests

The next phase is to look at what happens after stop. This involves your initial encounter with the police before beginning their drunk driving investigation. Usually it starts with the police asking you to step out of the car and perform one or several field sobriety tests, concluding with the preliminary breath test and then the arrest. This is often the bulk of my investigation as there are a lot of issues at play here. First of all, the police just can’t ask you to perform field sobriety tests just because they feel like it or it’s 2:30 on a Saturday morning (although that may very well be the real reason). The police will have to point to facts that give them suspicion that the driver is drunk or impaired by some substance. This can include a lot of factors including: a strong odor of intoxicants, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, disorientation, nervousness or fumbling around, responding slowly to questions or requests, admitting to drinking… it’s a long list. I carefully examine the police report and the video to not only see if they match up, but if what they are claiming gives them adequate reason to begin the field sobriety tests such as the one-legged stand, walk-and-turn, and horizontal gaze nystagmus.

Once the field sobriety tests begin, I carefully review the video to see if they are done properly. If they are not administered properly by the officer, that can give good grounds to challenge the arrest if you can successfully eliminate the evidence that gave rise to the arrest. You would be surprised at how many times the tests are done wrong. Only someone who is trained in what to look for will be able to scrutinize the tests to check for any issues or deficiencies. Any inadequacy in either the stop or field sobriety testing can provide ammunition to either get the charge dismissed or to get a better plea offer than the standard.

The preliminary breath test is usually given at the roadside and is often the clincher in the officer deciding to make the arrest. This too must be carefully evaluated. Not only does the officer administering the PBT have to posses the proper training and certification, but there must be a 15-minute observation period prior to administering the test to make sure the subject has not regurgitated or placed anything in their mouth during that time period as it could effect the validity of the reading. It is also important to obtain the maintenance records and calibration logs for the PBT to make sure that it was properly calibrated and maintained. If not, that could possibly get the PBT results suppressed.

Chemical Test– Breath, Blood, or Urine

Next comes the chemical testing. Although the officer has a choice of breath, blood, or urine, they usually opt for the breath test by the DataMaster machine at the police station. Again, there must be a 15-minute observation period as well as the machine being maintained and calibrated and operated by someone trained and certified. Sometimes the officer chooses blood as the choice for the chemical test. Usually they only do that when they suspect the driver of having drugs in their system (the breath machine only measures breath alcohol) or the DataMaster is unavailable, not calibrated, or no one that is certified is available to operate it. Blood draws have their own unique criteria. Again, it is important that it must done by someone who is trained and qualified to do blood draws and that it was done in the prescribed manner.

Chemical Test Rights

It is also important to carefully check that the chemical test rights were given to the suspect before administering the chemical test. Usually there is a form that is checked off and signed that accompanies the police report. If these were not given or were inadequately given, there may be grounds to suppress the chemical test results. When that happens, the case is often dismissed or at least severely reduced. That is why it is critical to closely evaluate the entire police report and other information that goes along with it.

I always make sure to get all the material I need from the police department via a FOIA request. This is how you can tell a good, experienced DUI attorney from a lazy novice. The inexperienced DUI attorney will get the police report and maybe the cruiser cam video and that’s it. In order to properly evaluate the case much more is needed. Besides the police reports and cruiser cam videos, it’s also important to obtain the breath room video, calibration logs and maintenance records for the roadside PBT and DataMaster, certifications of the PBT and DataMaster operator, complaint reports and discipline records of the police officers involved with the arrest, as well as all the booking information including mugshot and fingerprints.

This is how a DUI attorney earns his fee and is worth every penny. If you’re shopping around and someone says they will represent you on a DUI for $500, run for the hills from that guy because he can’t possibly do an adequate job and put in all the time necessary to represent you. He will get the police report and maybe the videos and plea you out at the first court appearance. That is not the guy you want. The only thing worse than representing yourself is being represented by a bad attorney. A good DUI attorney will more than pay for himself. The stakes are too high and the procedure much too complicated to do it alone.

After I have decided on whether there are grounds to challenge the stop or suppress the evidence, or the judge has ruled against me on such matters, my focus now shifts to a different phase.

My first objective is to see if there is any way possible that the charge can be outright dismissed. That’s always my goal right out of the shoot. If that proves to not be the case, now we move on to what I call minimizing the damage. That means I try to work out the best plea possible with the prosecutor and the best sentencing outcome as well. The standard plea in most jurisdictions for a first offense Operating While Intoxicated (OWI), is Operating While Visible Impaired (OWVI) or Impaired Driving. This may not work for some people as while it has it benefits from the OWI charge (restricted as opposed to suspended license, less points on your driving record, lower fines and driver’s responsibility fees) it is still a substance-related offense which may not help some people depending on their profession or educational pursuits. If that is the case, the tactics must switch to pursuing a non alcohol-related conviction such as Reckless Driving.

On it’s face, such a plea doesn’t look like a suitable offer considering it carries the same points and driver’s responsibility fees as the OWI charge plus a hard suspension meaning no driving for 90 days. At best it seems a lateral plea but the benefit it that it doesn’t carry the stigma of a substance-related conviction like impaired driving. Also, if you unfortunately get charged with a DUI later on, you will be charged as a first and not a second offender. In the long run, this may help some clients even if the initial pain is more severe. You would think prosecutors wouldn’t be so reluctant to the plea but due to political pressure to get a “drunk driving conviction” they consider it a concession and usually will not willingly offer it unless persuaded with good reasoning by your DUI attorney. Financially the township, city, or county will come out the same, if not better, but it’s not as big of a feather to stick in their cap as an impaired or OWI conviction. Your best bet in obtaining Reckless Driving is on your first offense and the lower your blood alcohol content the better. If it’s your second offense, it’s harder to convince them to have sympathy for the detriment it’s going to have on your career. Absent some problems with their case to use as leverage, your best bet at getting a reckless plea is for your first offense.

Once a conviction or plea has been entered, the next step before the sentencing is the mandatory alcohol assessment by the probation department. A lot of people and attorneys just don’t realize how critical this is. It is vital that your client score the lowest they can on the assessment thus demonstrating that they are a low risk. The higher the score, the higher they look as a risk which means the worse the recommendations are from the probation department. Often the higher the score the more cumbersome and expensive the recommendations too. While jail is still a rarity for first time offenders, other punishment comes in the form of reporting probation with random and/or scheduled pbts, community service, alcohol educational classes, attending a MADD Victim Impact Panel; all of which cost money on top of your fines, court costs, driver’s responsibility fees, and higher insurance premiums. That’s why it is important to get the best score you can on the assessment. I often spend an hour or more preparing the client for the assessment and sometimes have them get an assessment shortly after hiring me to 1) give me an idea as to what their assessment will reveal, and 2) if it’s good use it as leverage with the prosecutor for getting a better deal. This is an important step than many attorneys overlook or downplay.

The conclusion of your DUI case is the sentencing. This takes place last after you and the judge have read the Presentence Report completed by the probation department. Many judges strictly or at least closely follow the recommendations but there are some that can be persuaded otherwise. That is where having a good, experienced attorney comes in handy. I prepare for sentencing just like I do the other phases of the case. It’s important to not only go over the Presentence Report for errors, but on how to respond or mitigate any unfavorable comments. It’s also important to present your client in the best light possible. This can include bringing documentation of any educational or professional accomplishments, volunteer work, family support, evidence of any AA attendance or alcohol classes that they have attended, letter of support or character reference. I prepare to point out as many good qualities that my client has in order to show the court not just their redeeming qualities, but to show the occasion that gave rise to their DUI was an anomaly, uncharacteristic, and not who they truly are. I then prepare the client on how to address the court if they wish to. I encourage clients to but some don’t and I respect that as not everyone is comfortable speaking infront of the judge in a crowded courtroom. It’s better to remain silent than for them to speak and make matters worse.

That is how I prepare for and approach a DUI case. Hopefully you can see the value in hiring someone experienced in this complex area of practice. It can be a lot of work, but the results can also be very rewarding and my goal is to always strive to get the best possible resolve for my client whether that is a dismissal, a good plea deal, or go to trial. Whatever the outcome, it all starts with preparation.

If you have been charged with DUI, OWI, or drunk driving, contact Austin Legal Services, PLC today at (517) 614-1983 to speak to a Michigan DUI lawyer to review your case.

Representing clients on charges of DUI and OWI throughout Michigan in the counties of Ingham, Eaton, Clinton, Barry, Gratiot, Jackson, Livingston, and Shiawassee in the cities of Lansing, East Lansing, Mason, Holt, Williamston, Okemos, Eaton Rapids, Charlotte, Hastings, Ithaca, St. Johns, Bath, Brighton, Howell, Corunna, Durand.