Almost everyone has dreams of starting their own law firm. I know I did. The thought of being your own boss (for me a DUI lawyer). The thought of taking the direction of your business wherever you want. The thought of creating a culture of excellence that just plain doesn't exist at a lot of place. And the thought of putting all of the money my hard work earns in my pocket were too much to pass up.
But it's not all roses and rainbows. I started a law firm with the idea of being the number one eminent domain attorney in Seattle, and that quickly morphed into the best DUI attorney in Seattle. I'd done a little bit of both, and I quickly realized that as a DUI lawyer I could do two things - I could help more people out of bigger problems, and I could make a lot of money.
It's this kind of twist and turn that you've got to be ready for if you are considering starting your own law firm. Because they will come, and they will come hard. Maybe there just isn't a market out there for what you want to do. Maybe what you think works really doesn't. Or maybe it just takes longer than you thought it would to get going.
Starting a criminal law firm is tough. Being a DUI attorney is hard. But it's rewarding. And there is success to be had out there. All you need to do is put one foot in front of the other. Keep working hard, and the results will come.
5.24.2010
5.09.2010
DUI Attorney | Walk And Turn Explained
I'm a Seattle DUI attorney. That means I spend a lot of time helping people get out of DUI charges. And, more specifically, I help people tell prosecutors, and sometimes juries, why they actually weren't drunk but were the victim of a set of failed tests that people have been brainwashed to believe are fail safe.
One of those tests, called standardized field sobriety tests by the cops, and simply called field tests by DUI lawyers, is the walk and turn. As the name implies, it is a test that involves walking and turning. But there is much more to it. And if you fail, it allegedly provides an officer some level of certainty that you are too drunk to drive.
The instructions for the test are fairly straightforward, though if you've never heard them before the length can be a little distracting. In short, these are the instructions: "Place your right foot in front of your left foot with your hands at your side and stay there until the instructions are finished. With your hands at your side, walk heel to toe nine steps, then pivot around with small steps around your left foot and take nine heel to toe steps back. While you are walking keep your eyes fixed on your feet and count out your steps. Go."
Sounds pretty easy, right. Okay, do it. See how easy it is. The clues they use are these - starts before the directions are finished, no heel to toe, arms are raised away from side, sways while listening to directions, doesn't take the correct number of steps, doesn't count the steps. If you do two of these things you fail and you better be on the phone to your criminal attorney pronto.
The problem with this test is twofold, at least. First, it doesn't test your ability to drive a car safely. It is a completely random test dreamed up by someone who thought there might be a correlation between it and driving. But the tests don't add up (these tests have never been scientifically validated and published). Second, the test doesn't take into account age, height, and weight differentials. Think a 25 year old fit man and a 65 year old overweight man should perform the same? The people who made this test up do.
This is why most DUI lawyers preach that you should not do field sobriety tests if asked. You most likely won't pass, and if you don't, there is that much more evidence they'll try to use against you.
One of those tests, called standardized field sobriety tests by the cops, and simply called field tests by DUI lawyers, is the walk and turn. As the name implies, it is a test that involves walking and turning. But there is much more to it. And if you fail, it allegedly provides an officer some level of certainty that you are too drunk to drive.
The instructions for the test are fairly straightforward, though if you've never heard them before the length can be a little distracting. In short, these are the instructions: "Place your right foot in front of your left foot with your hands at your side and stay there until the instructions are finished. With your hands at your side, walk heel to toe nine steps, then pivot around with small steps around your left foot and take nine heel to toe steps back. While you are walking keep your eyes fixed on your feet and count out your steps. Go."
Sounds pretty easy, right. Okay, do it. See how easy it is. The clues they use are these - starts before the directions are finished, no heel to toe, arms are raised away from side, sways while listening to directions, doesn't take the correct number of steps, doesn't count the steps. If you do two of these things you fail and you better be on the phone to your criminal attorney pronto.
The problem with this test is twofold, at least. First, it doesn't test your ability to drive a car safely. It is a completely random test dreamed up by someone who thought there might be a correlation between it and driving. But the tests don't add up (these tests have never been scientifically validated and published). Second, the test doesn't take into account age, height, and weight differentials. Think a 25 year old fit man and a 65 year old overweight man should perform the same? The people who made this test up do.
This is why most DUI lawyers preach that you should not do field sobriety tests if asked. You most likely won't pass, and if you don't, there is that much more evidence they'll try to use against you.
3.30.2010
DUI Attorney Seattle | Bench Trial or Jury Trial?
So you have been accused of a misdemeanor. Perhaps a DUI, perhaps an stabbing, maybe a robbery. And the prosecutor isn't giving you anything you feel at ease accepting as a plea bargain. Your Seattle DUI attorney informs you the only alternative, if you don't care for the offer, is a trial.
You're all right with that, but are slightly hesitant on the subject of the particulars. In particular, you aren't positive if you should demand a jury trial or demand a bench trial. Your Seattle DUI lawyer is promoting a jury trial, however you simply do not know if you can depend on a bunch of people you don't know to make the appropriate choice.
Picking between a jury trial or a bench trial (where the judge makes the conclusion of your guilt or innocence) can at times be challenging (especially if you have just started a law firm). Let's look at a duo of scenarios that may need you to go one way or another.
To begin with, the jury trial. You like jury trials because jurors usually are not as worn-out as judges (they've heard a great number of excuses over the years and start to stop trying to ascertain the difference). They try rigorously to do the accurate thing and will usually grant you at least a fighting probability. However they can be unpredictable as well.
You regularly desire a jury trial when the case is pretty questionable, when you have various inconsistencies in the evidence that just don't make sense, and when you need the fact finder to give you the benefit of the doubt. Juries are capable of doing this. With judges it's slightly more hard.
Next, the bench trial. You commonly like to have these when you hold a especially technical defense, the details of the case are really unpleasant (the jury will virtually be certain to be against you from the start), or you are going to base your defense on a legal topic that you think the judge will value better than a jury. This too is a crap shoot, as judges, although not unpredictable, have a propensity to slant toward the prosecution.
In the end, the choice to go jury trial or bench trial should maybe be made by your Seattle DUI attorney. They have the knowledge to know which one to use, and they comprehend the intricacy of the judgment. No matter which you choose, though, it's doubtless going to be an uphill war. Good luck!
You're all right with that, but are slightly hesitant on the subject of the particulars. In particular, you aren't positive if you should demand a jury trial or demand a bench trial. Your Seattle DUI lawyer is promoting a jury trial, however you simply do not know if you can depend on a bunch of people you don't know to make the appropriate choice.
Picking between a jury trial or a bench trial (where the judge makes the conclusion of your guilt or innocence) can at times be challenging (especially if you have just started a law firm). Let's look at a duo of scenarios that may need you to go one way or another.
To begin with, the jury trial. You like jury trials because jurors usually are not as worn-out as judges (they've heard a great number of excuses over the years and start to stop trying to ascertain the difference). They try rigorously to do the accurate thing and will usually grant you at least a fighting probability. However they can be unpredictable as well.
You regularly desire a jury trial when the case is pretty questionable, when you have various inconsistencies in the evidence that just don't make sense, and when you need the fact finder to give you the benefit of the doubt. Juries are capable of doing this. With judges it's slightly more hard.
Next, the bench trial. You commonly like to have these when you hold a especially technical defense, the details of the case are really unpleasant (the jury will virtually be certain to be against you from the start), or you are going to base your defense on a legal topic that you think the judge will value better than a jury. This too is a crap shoot, as judges, although not unpredictable, have a propensity to slant toward the prosecution.
In the end, the choice to go jury trial or bench trial should maybe be made by your Seattle DUI attorney. They have the knowledge to know which one to use, and they comprehend the intricacy of the judgment. No matter which you choose, though, it's doubtless going to be an uphill war. Good luck!
1.06.2010
Seattle DUI Attorney | To Blow or Not to Blow?
Determining whether or not to undergo a breath assessment if you were arrested for DUI used to be a gigantic decision. If you were requested to take on a blood alcohol test and said no (whether you talked to a Seattle DUI attorney or not), you were subjecting yourself to higher punishments for saying no, but had the advantage going forward of not having to fight blood alcohol assessment results.
Well, at the present it seems more and more probable that the circumstances may arise where you could refuse a blood alcohol assessment, face the more stringent punishments for the refusal, and in spite of everything be subject to giving blood alcohol results.
Nearly all, if not all states, have created DUI laws that incorporate implied consent laws. In brief, these laws state that if you drive on the highway in the state where an implied consent law exists, you are impliedly consenting to a breath test if the cops have probable cause to think you are DUI. Built into these implied consent laws, however, is the facility to decline the blood alcohol examination if you so opt. The downside to refusal, however, is the imposition of more stringent costs if found guilty of DUI (and a longer license suspension - for instance, in Seattle, WA a refusal subjects you to a year license suspension as opposed to 90 days).
However, things have changed a little lately. The police have begun going to judges and asking for search warrants when individuals reject blood alcohol examinations. And numerous judges have upheld this system (the way the judges perceive it, the refusal has to do with the implied consent laws, not necessarily your right to be free from searches - that is covered by the fourth amendment, which can be overcome by demonstrating probable cause to a judge and obtaining a search warrant.
One thing is assured. If you have the capacity to tell with DUI attorneys Seattle before determining whether or not to take a blood alcohol analysis, you should do so. The issues revolving around breath test denial are getting more and more complicated every day, and the only way you can be certain you are doing what is best for you is by talking with an knowledgeable Seattle DUI defense attorney and learning all of your options.
Related Posts:
Well, at the present it seems more and more probable that the circumstances may arise where you could refuse a blood alcohol assessment, face the more stringent punishments for the refusal, and in spite of everything be subject to giving blood alcohol results.
Nearly all, if not all states, have created DUI laws that incorporate implied consent laws. In brief, these laws state that if you drive on the highway in the state where an implied consent law exists, you are impliedly consenting to a breath test if the cops have probable cause to think you are DUI. Built into these implied consent laws, however, is the facility to decline the blood alcohol examination if you so opt. The downside to refusal, however, is the imposition of more stringent costs if found guilty of DUI (and a longer license suspension - for instance, in Seattle, WA a refusal subjects you to a year license suspension as opposed to 90 days).
However, things have changed a little lately. The police have begun going to judges and asking for search warrants when individuals reject blood alcohol examinations. And numerous judges have upheld this system (the way the judges perceive it, the refusal has to do with the implied consent laws, not necessarily your right to be free from searches - that is covered by the fourth amendment, which can be overcome by demonstrating probable cause to a judge and obtaining a search warrant.
One thing is assured. If you have the capacity to tell with DUI attorneys Seattle before determining whether or not to take a blood alcohol analysis, you should do so. The issues revolving around breath test denial are getting more and more complicated every day, and the only way you can be certain you are doing what is best for you is by talking with an knowledgeable Seattle DUI defense attorney and learning all of your options.
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | Plea Bargaining
Seattle DUI Attorney | Talking Doesn't Help
12.30.2009
Seattle DUI Attorney | Corpus Delicti
No one wants to be acquainted with or talk to a criminal attorney until they are in trouble. There is a particular curse or hex that people seem to sense pursue folks seeking out criminal defense counsel before they require it. But, when you are charged with a misdemeanor, you swiftly grasp how vital a first-class Seattle DUI attorney is.
And some of the need for a criminal defense attorney is the requirement to translate all of the legal nonsense that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys. Here are just a couple of expressions you might hear during your criminal process, some you may perhaps be acquainted with, some you may well not: hearsay, nunc pro tunc; arraignment; omnibus; voir dire; res ipsa loquitor; and on and on.
Well, today at the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog we're going to to help you know what one of those legal expressions means - corpus delicti. This is a word you may not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an critical term for your defense attorney to know, specifically if you have confessed to a wrong and he or she wishes to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better appreciate the word, I've broken it down for you below.
As I stated above, corpus delicti comes up most regularly in the context of confessions, and specifically in the context of confessions where not a lot of supplementary data exists against the defendant. witness, judges and courts, although more than ready to allow in a confession if one is provided, don't necessarily like confessions, specifically if they are the single thing the proseuctor has on a defendant. The reason is, we be acquainted with false confessions are provided from time to time. And we be acquainted with that juries place in awfully high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are timid to permit confessions in unless there is some other independent proof of the criminal act.
And that other independent facts of a criminal act is what corpus delicti connotes. If there is no corpus delicti, or extra unconnected support of a wrong, the court will not permit in a confession for the reason that there is the likelihood (whether reasonable or otherwise) that the confession was falsely provided. Still a little bit baffled as to what it means? How about an example.
Let's say there is a guy. He is standing out in a parking lot with some supplementary citizens around some automobiles. Let's say the citizens in the vehicle and the citizens out of the auto get into a shouting match, for whatever rationale. In the end, the chaps in the car decide to depart. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a noise on his van and turns around. He doesn't spot any person touching his van or necessarily by his car, but there is solitary one person in the vicinity. The male in the automobile doesn't check his van out until later, when he sees a dent in the side of his sedan. He surmises it was the guy he saw around his auto before.
The police go and pick up the man they suspect of injuring the vehicle and take him down to the police station. After some chatting and interrogating, they get the man to let in to kicking the car. He is detained and charged with malicious mischief.
In this state of affairs, do you sense the rule of corpus delicti exists here? Devoid of the confession, all the cops have for data is the man hearing something happen to his auto, turn around, and notice the gentleman near the auto. What is omitted is any proof that the male hit the vehicle, and that he did it with an plan to injure the auto. It is feasible (in theory, if no confession had been given) that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when the gentleman turned around. For a instance like that a corpus delicti line of reasoning might be a way to get the confession suppressed.
Corpus delicti, like most additional Latin legal terms, are not difficult to understand after they are clarified. But getting that explanation can be a very difficult process at times. So why chance misunderstanding a question or a direction because you don't have the legal training of the prosecutors? The instant you are placed under arrest or believe like you can't go away is the moment you should demand to speak with a Seattle criminal defense attorney. A criminal defense lawyer can not only help you through the network of legal nonsense, but assist you to keep your jaws shut and the police off your back.
Related Posts:
And some of the need for a criminal defense attorney is the requirement to translate all of the legal nonsense that is tossed back and forth between the judge and the attorneys. Here are just a couple of expressions you might hear during your criminal process, some you may perhaps be acquainted with, some you may well not: hearsay, nunc pro tunc; arraignment; omnibus; voir dire; res ipsa loquitor; and on and on.
Well, today at the Seattle DUI Attorney Blog we're going to to help you know what one of those legal expressions means - corpus delicti. This is a word you may not hear spouted in court a lot, but it is an critical term for your defense attorney to know, specifically if you have confessed to a wrong and he or she wishes to try to get that confession suppressed. So that you better appreciate the word, I've broken it down for you below.
As I stated above, corpus delicti comes up most regularly in the context of confessions, and specifically in the context of confessions where not a lot of supplementary data exists against the defendant. witness, judges and courts, although more than ready to allow in a confession if one is provided, don't necessarily like confessions, specifically if they are the single thing the proseuctor has on a defendant. The reason is, we be acquainted with false confessions are provided from time to time. And we be acquainted with that juries place in awfully high regard confessions of defendants. So, judges and courts are timid to permit confessions in unless there is some other independent proof of the criminal act.
And that other independent facts of a criminal act is what corpus delicti connotes. If there is no corpus delicti, or extra unconnected support of a wrong, the court will not permit in a confession for the reason that there is the likelihood (whether reasonable or otherwise) that the confession was falsely provided. Still a little bit baffled as to what it means? How about an example.
Let's say there is a guy. He is standing out in a parking lot with some supplementary citizens around some automobiles. Let's say the citizens in the vehicle and the citizens out of the auto get into a shouting match, for whatever rationale. In the end, the chaps in the car decide to depart. As they are pulling away, the driver hears a noise on his van and turns around. He doesn't spot any person touching his van or necessarily by his car, but there is solitary one person in the vicinity. The male in the automobile doesn't check his van out until later, when he sees a dent in the side of his sedan. He surmises it was the guy he saw around his auto before.
The police go and pick up the man they suspect of injuring the vehicle and take him down to the police station. After some chatting and interrogating, they get the man to let in to kicking the car. He is detained and charged with malicious mischief.
In this state of affairs, do you sense the rule of corpus delicti exists here? Devoid of the confession, all the cops have for data is the man hearing something happen to his auto, turn around, and notice the gentleman near the auto. What is omitted is any proof that the male hit the vehicle, and that he did it with an plan to injure the auto. It is feasible (in theory, if no confession had been given) that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time when the gentleman turned around. For a instance like that a corpus delicti line of reasoning might be a way to get the confession suppressed.
Corpus delicti, like most additional Latin legal terms, are not difficult to understand after they are clarified. But getting that explanation can be a very difficult process at times. So why chance misunderstanding a question or a direction because you don't have the legal training of the prosecutors? The instant you are placed under arrest or believe like you can't go away is the moment you should demand to speak with a Seattle criminal defense attorney. A criminal defense lawyer can not only help you through the network of legal nonsense, but assist you to keep your jaws shut and the police off your back.
Related Posts:
Seattle DUI Attorney | Theft
Seattle DUI Attorneys | Politicians and DUIs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
