Houston DWI Defense and Drunk Driving Attorneys
Every drunk driving arrest involves a unique set of circumstances. Specific facts require tailoring a DWI defense to each client's traffic stop situation. Once probable cause and stopping a driver by an arresting officer occurs, tests are usually administered including a chemical test to establish a driver's blood alcohol content. These "field tests" are important areas Stradley, Chernoff & Alford can exploit in building a defense.
DRIVING WHILE NOT INTOXICATED
By far, the most successful way to defend a DWI case is by attacking the opinion of the officer that the driver was intoxicated in the first place. In Texas, intoxication is defined as the loss of one's normal mental or physical faculties as a result of alcohol or some other intoxicating substance. An officer's information in that regard is limited. His opinion on whether a person has lost normalcy is based only on what he hears and sees at the scene of the stop. He has no information about the driver's true physical and mental abilities, and unless the driver made some admission, he doesn't know how much he had to drink.
With the exception of the driver who is so drunk that he stumbles out of his car and falls to the ground, the officer must develop his opinion of intoxication by giving field sobriety tests that he learned in DWI school. Although helpful, these tests are flawed. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) developed them thirty years ago to aid peace officers in identifying intoxicated individuals. Even NHTSA recognizes that these tests aren't foolproof. Further, no matter how "scientific" one claims these tests are they are still dependent on the perception, interpretation and bias of the officer. NHTSA makes clear in its teaching materials that unless the field tests are properly given in the standardized manner, they must be disregarded. The sad fact is many police officers who make DWI arrests have not been sufficiently trained to give standardized field tests. A good defense attorney will know how to obtain that information and bring it to the jury.
Whereas the officer makes his decision about your guilt based on limited facts, the jury doesn't have to. A good lawyer can minimize an officer's testimony by pointing out that much of the evidence that he had for deciding that his client was intoxicated is also consistent with innocent behavior.
For instance, if a citizen has crossed the line several times while driving down Westheimer Road, an officer might presume that he is weaving due to intoxication. The jury, however, might hear that the citizen had dropped his cell phone and crossed the lane because he had been trying to dig for it between the center console and seat. If a citizen cannot stand on one leg, the jury can be told about the two knee surgeries he underwent during the previous five years. It is likely that the field sobriety tests were given on the side of the road, in poorly lit environments in difficult weather conditions. These are factors that will certainly be ignored by the prosecution. A good DWI defense lawyer can highlight them.
Even without a medical reason for failing a field test, the Jury can be made aware that the tests given to the citizen were designed for failure. The officer only reports problems - even minor problems - in performing these tests. By this scoring system, one could perform the test 90% correctly and still be considered a "failure". Nobody practices balancing on one leg or walking heel to toe. It seems to surprise many police officers we cross-exam that the vast majority of citizens, including Jurors, question whether they could do these tests in even the most ideal circumstances.
The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, often called the pen test, is particularly nefarious. This test involves the officer shining a pen light fifteen inches from a citizen's head and asking him to follow the tip with his eyes. The officer then attempts to interpret any jerking of the eyes. Most law enforcement agencies don't videotape the eyes when the officer gives a citizen this test. This means that if one is forced to defend at trial, no expert can view the test independently to determine whether the officer's assessment is accurate. In our view, this is patently unfair; especially when the officer has absolutely no medical training.
Many people have a natural jerking in their eyes that mimics the effect caused when a central nervous system depressant is introduced into the body. The officer, not medically trained, would not know whether he was testing such an individual. Further, any amount of intoxicant might affect an involuntary jerking of the eyes, and the officer must interpret whether the jerking is sufficiently severe to show intoxication. Is it any wonder, that the officer almost always reports a maximum score on this test?
BREATH TEST DEFENSE
If a client has taken a breath test it is absolutely vital that his or her attorney understand both the procedure used to obtain the specimen of breath and the way the machine measures that specimen. It has been our experience that, absent an effective defense presentation describing the frailties of both the machine used in Texas and the State's breath-testing program, juries have a tendency to believe the results of a breath test. Discussions with jurors after trials show that most walk into court with the impression that the State has done its necessary due diligence with regard to the machine used in State breath testing and has sufficiently trained its officers to give the test. They are shocked when presented with the truth.
However, truth will not set that accused citizen free unless DWI defense counsel is prepared and able to present the whole truth. In many cases, the defense will need to put on an expert to introduce evidence of the machines failings. In every case the DWI lawyer must know how to carefully and effectively obtain contrary information from the expert presented by the State. The lawyer must be able to acquire and interpret repair and maintenance records. He must be conversant in technical language and be able to call out a State witness who makes questionable claims about the efficacy of the test machine. Quite simply, the lawyer must know what he is talking about, or the jury surely will penalize his client.
Contact Our Texas DWI Lawyers
Because every client's case requires individual evaluation and presents challenges a DWI defense attorney must consider, we provide unique defenses strategies. Stradley, Chernoff & Alford is not hired to plead DWI cases. We are paid to win them. That is why we are committed to creating a defense that gives each client the very best chance at success. Contact us for a free consultation.
