Here’s a great article from Zooomr – a great platform to get car lease deals. According to California law, it’s unnecessary for a police officer to catch you in the act of drinking or using drugs to get arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). Over the years, many accused drivers have attempted to defend the suspension of their license for a DUI based on the assertion that they weren’t caught drinking and driving. They’ve argued that circumstantial evidence [defined by Evid. Code, § 600(b)] isn’t enough to prove guilt.
Unfortunately, the argument doesn’t work. Experienced legal representation is essential to both the criminal justice process and administrative process in a Los Angeles DUI arrest. You need knowledgeable, aggressive defense to overcome criminal prosecution, driver’s license suspension, and circumstantial evidence. Contact the Los Angeles DUI lawyers to protect your legal rights now.
Circumstantial Evidence in DUI Arrest
In a California DUI case, a great deal of evidence of impairment or intoxication is circumstantial. The law says that a fact may be proved by either circumstantial or direct evidence or a combination of both.
Direct evidence proves the fact by itself. For instance, if the arresting police officer says that she saw the defendant driving a car, that’s direct evidence of the defendant’s action of driving. In comparison, circumstantial evidence is indirect. It doesn’t directly or specifically prove a fact to be determined. However, circumstantial evidence may be used in consideration of other facts by the jury to discern the truth of the case in consideration.
For instance, a defendant’s poor performance of a breathalyzer test, a type of field sobriety test, is considered circumstantial evidence. If we believe that the test is accurate, and the defendant’s blood alcohol level (BAC) is above the legal limit of 0.08 percent, then we may believe that the defendant was impaired at the time the test was administered.
When Circumstantial Evidence is Presented as Fact
A prosecutor attempts to show that poor performance on a field sobriety test is proof that the defendant in question was too intoxicated to drive the vehicle. He or she uses circumstantial evidence with one or more facts to prove the point.
The defense attorney argues the other side. It’s certainly true that a defendant may be convicted based on weak circumstantial evidence. CALCRIM No. 224 says that a jury is allowed to use and rely on circumstantial evidence to determine guilt. A knowledgeable Los Angeles DUI attorney understands the law and knows how to challenge it in the courtroom.
For instance, it’s possible to challenge the defendant’s poor performance on a sobriety test in a number of ways. Perhaps the defendant is diabetic. His or her ketone levels were too high and, after the stress of being pulled over by a police officer, the defendant’s ruddy skin and the smell of alcohol on the defendant’s breath can be explained by a chronic medical problem. Perhaps the police officer didn’t perfectly perform the breathalyzer test, anyway.
The jury must consider these types of reasonable arguments. It’s up to the defense attorney to point out the differences between direct facts and circumstantial evidence. Without the skills of experienced defense counsel or your side, it may be all too simple to convince the courtroom that a too-high BAC equals a DUI conviction.
When you’re charged with DUI in Los Angeles, realize it’s in your best interests to fight the charge. You aren’t guilty until the verdict is rendered. Unless you enter a guilty plea, it’s your legal right to challenge the arresting officer.
Don’t go it alone. If you or someone you love has been arrested on a DUI charge in Los Angeles, call the Los Angeles DUI lawyers now.