12 Angry Men might struggle and deliberate for days to find a man not guilty of murder, but 5 angry bitches can decide guilt pretty quickly.  In 21 minutes, I got a jury verdict of guilty today based upon no evidence.  I thank the jurors for their time, but I do not respect their intelligence at all.  You did a dis-service to America, folks.  But that’s just me exercising my First Amendment Freedoms.  You were the jury after all, and I have to respect your decision.  I will never let it stand of course, and I will secretly wish that you are accused of various crimes facing a similar group of lying sons of bitches who lie during voir dire… but that’s just me because I’m evil prick bastard who wants to see Karma bite you in the butt.

Jury selection is paramount in DUI cases.  As a defense lawyer, you need jurors who are willing to listen to the fact and decide hard questions before they cast judgment.  When the random numbers fall against you, however, you might end up with a bad jury pool no matter how hard you try to get a fair and impartial jury.  In today’s pick, I used all my challenges, and the judge would not permit challenges for cause. I ended up with a jury that could give a rat’s ass about “proof” or “evidence.”  I should have sat down … or stood up and swore in their faces.  (I tried to after the verdict, something I’ve never done in 15 years of practice, but they scurried off like cockroaches when the lights are turned on.)  The singular juror who shared a few words with me claimed that he found my client guilty based upon the “preponderance of evidence” and the “totality of circumstances.”  That’s not the legal standard of course, but thanks for your guesswork and  speculations.  You guessed he might be guilty in 21 minutes, irreparably changing a man’s life!

Now, I still have confidence in jurors, so I can’t be all that hard.  The real problem here was the that the judge initially read a charge of high BAC over .17 and then allowed the prosecutor to argue and say everything under the sun, while prohibiting me from asking the hard questions.  It was a constant interruption from the prosecutor and the judge.  Nonetheless, the jurors share a huge amount of blame because they were charged with the most serious civic duty under our laws… and they basically couldn’t get out of the court fast enough.  It was Friday, after all.

FACTS:  Client was accused of making a sharp left turn.  In the prosecutor’s words, “had a car been there, he would have struck it.”  But… in the middle of God-awful no where, it did not result in an accident, since there was no car present in the hypothetical lane violation that went unrecorded by patrol car video.  Nor was there any danger when my client touched the dotted lane markers when his left tires touched them for a total of 2 seconds.  Hmmmm… quite serious infractions, indeed.

With no chemical test results, the client’s alleged improper recitation of the alphabet seems quite incriminating.  He was told to say it from A to Q, but he said A to T.  Holy Jeez, Louise!  Get this man off the road.  And when asked to count backward from 72 to 57, he stopped at 63.  Jesus H Christ!  He’s clearly so fucked up.  He also did the finger-count improperly.  The judge would not permit me to ask the officer to say his alphabet or count backwards, even though several police officers have screwed up this so-called test during jury trials.

There are good field sobriety tests and bad sobriety tests.  These were not validated tests.  The cop admitted it.  They were meaningless, in fact.

Over objection, these non-standard tests were admitted as evidence that the client was drunk.  The jury considered this evidence in combination with the prosecutor’s repeated comment that there was a “STRONG” odor of intoxicants.  The prosecutor repeatedly said “strong” about 42 times, even though the odor is meaningless.

Those are the facts.  Nothing more.  Oh, maybe the cop claimed that he fumbled with his paperwork.  That’s it.  Case over.  Guilty?  Not guilty?  Dunno… but if you insert the presumption of innocence with the idea of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there’s plenty of room for a not guilty verdict in there.  So, as to today’s jury? Kiss my ass.  I’m appealing your shitty decision, and I hope you and your children are accused of serious crimes facing a penal system composed of jurors just like you.