A DUI charge can affect one’s professional life and career, making prospects harder to achieve. A strong defense can lead to reduced sentences and even a straight dismissal of all charges in a DUI. Hiring a solid defensive team such as Tad Nelson & Associates in Galveston can help stir your case in the best direction possible. Here are a few insights or tips to be kept in mind:
- Unreliable Field Sobriety Tests: The concept of field sobriety has drawbacks that can make it unpredictable in court. The test could include walking in a straight line or recitation of the alphabets backward etc. If it is carried out, law enforcement may be biased to declare the actual result.
- Lack of Probable Cause: In the event of the vehicle being stopped at a public road, it is essential to know the cause behind it. If the reason is uncertain and vague, it can be used as a weapon in the convicts’ favor in court.
- Defective Breathalyzer: A breathalyzer is used to show the person’s blood-alcohol level in the question of a DUI. However, the readings of the breathalyzer can be admissible in court only if the machine functions accurately. If the defense attorney can prove that the breathalyzer readings are inaccurate, then the evidence from the said machine gets tossed beyond question.
- Probable Symptoms: It is ubiquitous for the police to convict a person with a DUI if they show signs like bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech, a flushed face, etc.; however, these signs could be induced by factors other than that caused by the consumption of alcohol. Lack of sleep, consumption of prescribed medication, speech disabilities, etc., can contribute to such symptoms.
- Independent Blood Testing: The blood sample collected by authorities may have been tainted with or misplaced with another, which may work against the favor of the convicted in court. Hence the use of independent testing within the prescribed time can help resolve any deficiencies in the accuracy of the blood testing methods used or results presented.
- Constitutional Rights: Every individual has the constitutional right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination. Suppose the convict was not in the place nor needed to answer the question at any point in the conversation between the convicted and the authorities. In that case, the convicted can invoke their constitutional right against self-incrimination and remain silent until the right to seek counsel is available.