PA DUI 2 Hour rule. not guilty

[paguy88]

As an example, I wonder how many people out there still assume that they have to be read Miranda Rights for a DUI.

99% of them if you ask me. It's the TV effect.

 

[paguy88]

I'm not popular for saying this, but you would be surprised how the "burden of proof" has changed for DUI prosecution.

please explain what you mean

thanks

 

[BigMistakeFl]

It's only my opinion.

I think that if you have had anything to drink and you are pulled over legally for suspicion of DUI, you don't have a chance of getting off. I think the laws have been written so that you are saddled with the burden of trying to prove innocence against prosecution with the deck stacked in its favor.

Most people think they should get Miranda rights. Most people think they should have the right to speak to an attorney before submitting to any tests. Neither are true. The proof has already been gathered and handed to the prosecutor, and there's almost nothing you can do to fight it.

I recommend getting an attorney only because no one should go into court unrepresented, not because I think the person has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the charge reduced or thrown out.

 

[lenny71]

I recommend getting an attorney only because no one should go into court unrepresented, not because I think the person has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the charge reduced or thrown out.

If you are pulled over for a reasonable cause, are found to have a bac above .08 at the station (blood or breath) then you have a snowballs chance in hell. Because you are guilty. Pay for an attorney to hold your hand and maybe get you a slightly better deal (rare though).


If you are not pulled over for a reasoble cause and/or have a BAC less then .08 then get an attorney since you may have a chance of winning in court.

 

[cyjeff]

Let's review for a second... and know that I am not saying whether it is correct or incorrect.

You woke up approximately 3:30. Decided to go for coffee and cigarettes.

So far, so good.

Swerved to miss a deer. BING... your honor, we have our first problem. I have the statistics around here somewhere, but single person DUI accidents blamed on swerving to avoid a mysterious Deer/Dog/Cat/Cow/Pedestrian/Space Alien are so numerous that the judge will instantly discount it.

Unless, of course, you have the deer carcass to show the court...No, hmmm.

Let's keep going....

You walked home. It is now approximately 4:30. You decide that your blood sugar is low and drink a coke...

Fine.

Haven't called the police yet, though, to report your accident.

Hmmm.

then you shotgun six shots of straight vodka. BING... Your honor, we have our second problem.

You drank more vodka in one sitting than most drink in a weekend... and in the small hours of the morning, right after a single car accident....

Oh, and diabetic. I guess you didn't read the "alcohol is sugar" pamphlet.

A judge is going to laugh at this... perhaps, literally.

Saying, "I drank AFTER I wrecked my car in a mysterious single car accident but BEFORE you got here even though I realize drinking that much vodka at one sitting could put me in a coma" is another in the list of "most heard and never believed excuses for a DUI".

All you have left to add is that you have recently found Jesus and/or that a mysterious passenger that you cannot remember the name of was actually driving to have the whole list.

I am not saying it isn't the truth. I am just saying that the court has heard it so many times in the past that your chances of being believed without some kind of proof is remote.