I sat in on the most ridiculous DWI trial yesterday. Defense counsel said that his client was too drunk, yes that is right TOO DRUNK to give consent for the breathalyzer, and therefore his BAC results should not be admissible and the jury should find him not guilty of Driving While Intoxicated. By the way, the defendant blew a .17 (drunk in Texas is anything over .08), and he injured his passenger when they wrecked. It's a no-brainer, he's obviously guilty, right? Wrong. The jury found him NOT guilty of DWI. Unbelievable. Well at least I know which defense atty I'm going to hire if I'm ever unlucky enough to get popped.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Too drunk = not guilty ???
I sat in on the most ridiculous DWI trial yesterday. Defense counsel said that his client was too drunk, yes that is right TOO DRUNK to give consent for the breathalyzer, and therefore his BAC results should not be admissible and the jury should find him not guilty of Driving While Intoxicated. By the way, the defendant blew a .17 (drunk in Texas is anything over .08), and he injured his passenger when they wrecked. It's a no-brainer, he's obviously guilty, right? Wrong. The jury found him NOT guilty of DWI. Unbelievable. Well at least I know which defense atty I'm going to hire if I'm ever unlucky enough to get popped.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment