DUI stands for Driving Under the Influence and this can mean drugs or alcohol. If you are pulled over for this offense and cannot pass a test of exams, which are called sobriety tests and does not pass a breathalyzer then you will most likely be arrested. The breathalyzer test shows just how much alcohol is in your bloodstream and if it is over the legal limit, you are considered DUI. When this happens, you will need to get in touch with a DUI lawyer in Deseret.
When you first meet with your DUI lawyer in Deseret, they will explain all of the possible scenarios with you if you are convicted of DUI, which can include:
• Revoked or suspended driving license up to twelve months or lifetime suspension if they have repeated offenses
• A set number of hours doing community service
• Court ordered alcohol rehabilitation if you have many convictions.
The scenario can be one or more of these possibilities. If they are an experienced DUI lawyer in Deseret, they will challenge the arrest. They will try to convince the Court to reduce the sentence or lower the charges. Many times the lawyer will dispute if the police officer was within their constitutional rights to stop their client’s vehicle. The DUI lawyer in Deseretcan give their client details on what sentence they can expect if this their first DUI charge or if this is just one of many DUI arrests.
When they go to Court, there are generally several hearings. It will start with a hearing at the Department of Motor Vehicles and the last hearing in the State or County court.
It can be overwhelming to choose a good DUI lawyer in Deseret, especially if this is your first offense. You could look for one on the internet or the phone book but the best way is to ask someone that you know who has been in this same situation. When trying to decide which DUI lawyer to hire consider their experience and fees because some will charge by the hour while others charge a flat fee.
DUI lawyer in Deseret
Truck DUI lawyer in Deseret
Drunk driving cases have become increasingly serious, carrying harsher license sanctions, longer jail sentences, and dire financial penalties. A person accused of a drunk driving offense understands these penalties as well as the social stigma affiliated with a DUI conviction. With widespread pressure from anti-drunk driving advocacy groups, there is a growing awareness that police, prosecutors and judges hold a bias against meritorious challenges to a drunk driving crime.In many states, a vibrant defense bar has sprung up to challenge the institutional bias against the DUI suspect. California, Georgia, and Washington amongst many others have specialized DUI defense firms populated by aggressive lawyers knowledgeable in the science of breath and blood testing. The lawyers at these firms attend national seminars on trial techniques, technical programs regarding breath machines, and certification courses in standardized field sobriety tests.Advanced DUI / DWI defense programs can be expensive and time-consuming. An advanced course in GC and GC/MS might cost over $2,000.00, requiring the defense lawyer to schedule airfare and hotel accommodations. Every summer, the National College for DUI Defense hosts an intensive program in DUI defense at Harvard, but this 3-day program requires travel, airfare and lodging. It also costs $1,500.00 and requires membership in the NCDD. While these programs are top-notch seminars, few Michigan practitioners appear at these national programs.Michigan lags far behind the majority of other states, and only a couple of firms have dedicated their practice to defending drunk driving cases. The vast majority of Michigan lawyers are unwilling to limit their practice, so they are less willing to spend the necessary funds to attend out-of-state programs. As a result, Michigan courts address poorly developed issues, and they are more willing to issue bad opinions that ignore the undisputed science in drug and alcohol-related driving cases.To raise the bar on the quality of Michigan drunk driving advocacy, it is not necessary that lawyers spend a fortune. An attorney does not need to travel hundreds of miles or spend thousands of dollars to improve the quality of their drunk driving litigation skills. Networking opportunities exist within the state, and inexpensive seminars are locally sponsored.Every summer, the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan (CDAM) sponsors a Trial Practice College. Trial advocacy skills are taught, practiced, and rehearsed, lead by top Michigan criminal defense lawyers. Although the program does not specifically address drunk driving litigation skills, at least a few qualified drunk driving trial lawyers attend the program every year. These networking opportunities are golden, and every Michigan lawyer should try to attend this wonderful program. CDAM also hosts conferences in the spring and fall on valuable topics that permit networking with other criminal defense lawyers.The State Appellate Defenders Office (SADO) sponsors an email listserv for a reasonable fee. Participating on the listserv, every lawyer can get input from hundreds of criminal defense lawyers and enjoy the comradery of these fellow practitioners, even if only via email. The SADO forum has one entire email listserv dedicated to DUI defense.The Institute for Continuing Legal Education (ICLE) offers an annual one-day course on Michigan drunk driving defense. This year, the program was simultaneously broadcast over the Internet, so participants did not even need to leave the office.Retired police officer Tony Corroto offers a standardized field sobriety test training course every other year in conjunction with the Maze Legal Group. Mr. Corroto is a DRE (drug recognition expert) and SFST Instructor of Instructors. He has trained thousands of police officers, and he takes time out of his busy schedule to help train Michigan lawyers in these testing protocols for a very reasonable fee.Lastly, local opportunities exist if you simply look around for them. Local bar associations usually host an occasional meeting that might offer opportunities to learn. A few of the CDAM/SADO lawyers have banded together to form informal groups that meet over drinks to discuss cases. By bouncing ideas off friends from the criminal defense bar, insights and fresh notions spring from an otherwise stagnant pool of ideas.
In every criminal trial, the defendant faces a critical strategic decision: to testify or not to testify. Those outside the criminal justice system tend to view this decision in simple terms, believing that the innocent will take the stand and tell their side of the story while those with something to hide will not. Experienced criminal lawyers know that the decision is far more complex and rarely has anything to do with guilt or innocence.Testifying is fraught with peril for any defendant. Guilty or innocent, if the defendant takes the stand, the case will likely turn on his performance as a witness. With so much at stake, the pressure on the defendant is enormous. One false step and he could lose his case. During cross-examination, a skilled prosecutor will attempt to confuse him and twist his words to make it appear that he is lying. If he's a bad public speaker or gets nervous and says the wrong thing, he may appear guilty even though he's not. If the jury is turned off by his tone or demeanor, or simply doesn't like him for inexplicable reasons, the defense may never recover.Apart from the impression the defendant makes during his testimony, the mere act of testifying may have the unintended effect of lowering the burden of proof. In a criminal case, a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in our legal system. When the only evidence presented comes from the prosecutor, the jury focuses on whether the prosecutor has met that high burden of proof. Once the defendant testifies, however, jurors tend to focus solely on who they believe, the defendant or the alleged victim. Rather than weighing the prosecutor's case against the extraordinarily high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the jurors tend to weigh the defendant's story against the prosecutor's or the victim's story. This effectively lowers the standard of proof to something approaching a preponderance standard (more likely than not) and dramatically reduces the chances the defendant will win the case.Finally, in some cases, there is truth to the widely held belief that a defendant who chooses not to testify is hiding something. Court rules normally limit the evidence admitted at trial to that which bears directly on the alleged crime. Evidence of uncharged misconduct and prior criminal convictions is usually excluded for fear that jurors who are exposed to such evidence will convict the defendant just because they believe him to be a bad person rather than because they have been presented proof that he actually committed the charged crime. If a defendant testifies, however, he may open the door for the use of such evidence by the prosecution. Knowing that evidence of prior bad acts may prejudice the jury against him, the defendant may elect not to testify so as to avoid any risk of exposing the jury to such damaging evidence.Because of all the risks involved when a defendant testifies, many criminal defense attorneys advise their clients, regardless of perceived guilt or innocence, not to testify unless absolutely necessary. This advice frustrates the countless defendants who desperately want to proclaim their innocence to the jury. Most criminal defense attorneys have learned the hard way, however, that it is usually much safer to attack the prosecutor's case than to put on one of your own.
Utah DUI defense lawyer pro bono