Another person driving - DUI

[renegade83]

I did give a complete description (estimated height, estimated weight, estimated age, and what he was wearing) to the police of the driver, and also provided a first name. (I did not know his last name). I also told them which direction he ran in. All the witness remember what he looked like and what his name was. The police had a name, a description and there were two officers. And the subject name on the printout was the officer's name not mine. The only thing that was correct was my birthdate and gender.

This is an actual physical control case..... The burden of proof is on them. They will have to prove that not only I, but three other independent witnesses are lying, that I must have thrown away my keys. Along with that they have no wheel witnesses. And the time inconsistencies may come into play, as the arresting officer put on the police report that he arrived at the scene AFTER he arrested me. Also, if I was so guilty, why did I stay at the scene over twenty minutes? I could have ran, but I had nothing to hide.

 

[seniorjudge]

...My pre-trial is coming up in the next week, and I will talk to my lawyer about the notarized statements....

That is not what I asked you to do. Talking to your lawyer will cost you time and money. Do (please) what I asked you to in my post. It will be quite eye-opening for you.

 

[CdwJava]

This is an actual physical control case..... The burden of proof is on them. They will have to prove that not only I, but three other independent witnesses are lying, that I must have thrown away my keys. Along with that they have no wheel witnesses. And the time inconsistencies may come into play, as the arresting officer put on the police report that he arrived at the scene AFTER he arrested me. Also, if I was so guilty, why did I stay at the scene over twenty minutes? I could have ran, but I had nothing to hide.

Guilty people do all sorts of strange things, so the fact that you stayed means little in the realm of guilt or innocence. And the prosecution does NOT have to offer an explanation why you stayed. And if he did, he'd likely say you were too intoxicated to go anywhere, or you were too hurt, or that you were too dumb to run. It's hard to say.

A description of the suspect 20 minutes after the crash does not give the police a great likelihood of finding the suspect ... most agencies do not have the manpower to fan out and cover the area that a person could flee in 20 minutes; and unless he were a homicide suspect they wouldn't even try. Heck, in my town they could cover the city in 20 minutes on foot!

Yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. But, by law, they can show your driving for the purpose of DUI (since it was at the scene of an accident) by your injuries and the fact that it is your vehicle. Yes, the defense can counter by offering an alternate explanation, but a jury may not buy it.

The printout name will be moot. The time inconsistincies will be moot unless you can prove you were somewhere else at the time ... and if it is a misprint that it easily rectified.

The friends identifying the suspect would be a big help.

If the DA saw all these things and still thinks he has a case, then they are not all that relevant.

Again, what does your attorney say? Do you even have one yet?

- Carl

 

[renegade83]

Yes I have retained an attorney, however we have not went over the discovery yet. I understand all your arguments and they do make sense.

 

[Happy Trails]

The problem I see even if you have three witnesses that testify seeing him get into the driver's side. They cannot put him at the scene of the accident. You could have dropped him off or kicked him out of the car and had the accident on your way home.

Maybe the person who reported the accident recalls seeing the driver flee the accident.

 

[CdwJava]

The problem I see even if you have three witnesses that testify seeing him get into the driver's side. They cannot put him at the scene of the accident. You could have dropped him off or kicked him out of the car and had the accident on your way home.

Maybe the person who reported the accident recalls seeing the driver flee the accident.

Unfortunately for Renegade, it seems that the original call was made by an anonymous caller.

- Carl

 

[renegade83]

Even though the witnesses were not at the scene of the crime, I had only been gone about 5 minutes from their sight. The accident happened maybe 2 miles away.

 

[seniorjudge]

"Even though the witnesses were not at the scene of the crime, I had only been gone about 5 minutes from their sight. The accident happened maybe 2 miles away."

So now do you see why your "witnesses" will not do you any good?

 

[renegade83]

Maybe so, but what do they do confirm is that this so-called "phantom driver" does exist and at when they last saw me, he was driving. Every little bit helps I guess, and I have tried to locate this guy, but my options are getting slimmer and slimmer as I am running out of ways to find him. So please advise me what do without the driver producing himself.

 

[seniorjudge]

"So please advise me what do without the driver producing himself."

Circumstantial evidence (at least the circumstantial evidence you have told us about) will convict you.

(Circumstantial evidence is the best kind you can get; ask Scott Peterson....)

"Dog prints in the mud outweigh the sworn testimony of a thousand bishops that no dog passed this way."

The cops have dog prints; you have the testimony of bishops.

 

[Happy Trails]

Maybe so, but what do they do confirm is that this so-called "phantom driver" does exist and at when they last saw me, he was driving. Every little bit helps I guess, and I have tried to locate this guy, but my options are getting slimmer and slimmer as I am running out of ways to find him. So please advise me what do without the driver producing himself.

Just curious, did you ever get your keys back?

 

[renegade83]

No, when I got my car back, they had to make a new set of keys to replace the ones that were taken.

Well seniorjudge, CDWJava, based on your opinions my chances are slim to none. Thank you for your advice.

 

[topsites]

Maybe so, but what do they do confirm is that this so-called "phantom driver" does exist and at when they last saw me, he was driving. Every little bit helps I guess, and I have tried to locate this guy, but my options are getting slimmer and slimmer as I am running out of ways to find him. So please advise me what do without the driver producing himself.

Man, you're not listening. It's like we have to tell you everything 2-3 times before you finally stop arguing a point. I find this frustrating.
...
No, they will not clear you of the charges because of a driver who can not be found. You, as the owner of the car, even if you had been at home when the police arrived at the scene and could not have caused the accident, would still have to answer to these issues in the absence of other evidence or responsible parties. This is one of the main reasons why it is a very dumb idea to loan your car or let someone else drive your car, even your best friend: Anything happens with your car, you ultimately face the music.
...
But, something did occur to me which may be of help. First of all, to get the ticket thrown out is going to be next to impossible.
However, nobody technically saw you driving the car, and I had this problem before years ago. The car was warm, I was there (and drunk), but I was not actually driving when the police showed up. Granted, no wreck cleared me of the serious problems, but even with a wreck, you possibly could argue this
but with a lesser degree of success because of the wreck, and you being the owner.

Now it could possibly be argued about and around with some degree of success (and your lawyer) to try and have the ticket reduced to reckless driving. That may be a possibility.

Reckless driving is a serious offense and involves a fine, a possible license suspension and possible jail time. This gives the judge some power over this otherwise frustrating situation. You see, when there is an accident, someone is guilty, and someone gets a ticket, and they want a conviction, plain and simple. Thus it is possible you may be able to plea-bargain and accept a guilty plea on reckless driving, which is still better than a dui far as long-term consequences.

Before you try it, pass this one by your lawyer, see what he says.
Peace

 

[CdwJava]

No, when I got my car back, they had to make a new set of keys to replace the ones that were taken.

Well seniorjudge, CDWJava, based on your opinions my chances are slim to none. Thank you for your advice.

I'd say its tough, but, I would think that your friends - along with your testimony on the stand - MIGHT put reasonable doubt in the mind of a juror or two.

But I'm not a lawyer, so it may or not be compelling enough to risk putting you on the stand.

- Carl

 

[renegade83]

Update

Ok just an update for anyone that cares.

My DMV hearing is within 2 weeks. My lawyer and I have went over everything obtained witness statements and everything relevant to the case. He believes we have a relatively good case. Right now we are investigating a possible Miranda violation. The officer stated that I was arrested at 2:03AM. On the DUI/DRUG INFLUENCE report, one of the questions was What Time is it now. I stated 3:00AM and the officer wrote in the actual time as 2:20AM. Breath Test Admonition sheet it shows that my writes were read at 2:40AM. So I was actively being questioned while in custody and before I was read my rights.

I know the DA is going to want something, so we are trying to work a plea bargain along the lines of:

Public Intoxication and Disturbing the Peace
Fine + Probation + AA Meetings etc.

My lawyer feels its a pretty good deal considering the prosecution does not have a witness to driving, neither police or civilian witnesses. With my witness statements that will confirm that the person exists and that he was driving my car 5-10 minutes before the crash happened. Seniorjudge mentioned something along the lines of "Dog prints in the mud outweigh the sworn testimony of a thousand bishops that no dog passed this way." I think that this case is more of a "was the dog a st. bernard or a dachsund."

CDWJava you mentioned that "One of the key requirements for DUI is that the driving be observed by someone. It's likely, if they gave you the DUI, that either the police or a witness observed you operating the vehicle ..." This situation is true in my case as no police or witness observed me operating the vehicle. Like I have said before, the call in was from a civilian who had heard a collision. In the police report the officer stated that he could find NO witnesses to the collision.