ummm the jury is usually local.
They know the titty-bars..... just the name of the bar is enough. Especially if this is a rural area.
In CA, IMHO, the name of the bar wouldn't be mentioned as too prejudicial under the EC. Also, it's not really fair for a Prosecutor to try to throw mud instead of just proving up the elements.
Do the Motion. You can do it in limine, just before trial, or try to file it and argue it now, while you still have the option of pleading out (possibly to a lesser).
Did you tick off the cop & Prosecutor after you were charged, or are they so ticked at the refusal they won't let this go ?
Basically, the Prosecutor has to prove...at that time and date,
1. you were driving
2. you were impaired.
Your observed driving should show impairment, as well as some of the FSTs - the cop should testify that based upon his observations (your smell, your eyes, your balance, speech,etc and your driving) and your performance on the FSTs, that the cop formed the opinion that you were impaired.
Then, your atty can argue that you were not impaired.
You can each put up experts, but there's not much hard evidence (BAC) to argue.
PS: the cop will testify as to how many years he's been employed as a LEO, how many stops he made for DUI, how many arrests from those stops (usually only about 50-70%), etc.
Then the jury decides.
Forget the bar. Can you win ? What did your atty say ?
Oh, and the refusal is usually received by the jury as proof that you knew you were impaired.
How strong is your case ?