Tucson DUI Lawyers
- Ricardo Bracamonte:
The consequences of a criminal conviction can be devastating. These charges must be vigorously defended
- Dennis Gray:
You Want an Experienced Trial Lawyer to Stand Up and Fight for You!
- Altschuler & Kulseth:
A DUI conviction results in fines, the revocation or suspension of your
driver's license, an increase in insurance premiums and possible jail
or prison time.
- David Bjorgaard: the Full Faith and Credit clause
does not always allow prosecutors to use another state's prior
conviction to enhance a new charge. In fact, there are some
circumstances where the DUI statute in a foreign state is so
significantly different from the DUI statute in the state where the new
charge is being prosecuted that full faith and credit may not be
awarded, including:
1. When the blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) level recognized
in the foreign state as the "per se" threshold for legal impairment is
.08% or higher, and the BAC level referenced by the in-state statute is
.10% or higher 2. When the states have different "look back" time
limits for how long a prior conviction can be used against a defendant
(e.g., If a foreign state only recognizes prior convictions for up to
five years and the state pressing a new charge can use a prior
conviction for up to 12 years, records in the foreign state may no
longer exist).
- Munoz & Lopez: One disadvantage to plea
bargaining is that you lose some of your rights to appeal. Once you
have voluntarily pled guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence, you
have submitted to the evidence already presented and cannot challenge
the sufficiency of the evidence.
- Jesse Smith:
Admission of Testimonial Statements The Court ultimately determined
that prior interpretations of the Confrontation Clause mandate that
testimonial statements, unlike other out-of-court statements, should
not be admitted unless the declarant is unavailable and there is a
prior opportunity for cross-examination. Although the Court did not
definitively define "testimonial," it stated that the following types
of statements, at the very least, should be considered testimonial:
Prior testimony at a preliminary hearing (before a grand jury or
former trial) Statements made during police interrogations The
Court's rationale regarding protecting these types of statements from
being improperly admitted into evidence was that they "are modern
practices [most closely related to] the abuses at which the
Confrontation Clause was directed."
- Natasha Wrae:
Appellate courts frequently state that "a defendant is entitled to a
fair trial but not a perfect one" when invoking the "harmless error"
doctrine to review trial court decisions. Essentially, the doctrine
recognizes that some legal errors, however blatant they may be, are
harmless. "Harmless errors" may not warrant a reversal of the trial
court's verdict; the error must have possibly affected the outcome of
trial before an appellate court will reverse a verdict based on that
error.
Return to Arizona DUI Lawyers
|