Taimoor Rana is seasoned criminal defense attorney specializing in DUI related cases. He shares his expert legal opinion here DUI and the Disappearing Right to a Jury Trial »
3
- Ok, so it has been said by the cop that I looked bad on the field sobriety tests, but I know myself that I’m not guilty: I only had two drinks and I have got the witnesses. It doesn’t matter what the arresting police officer is saying, I can tell my side of the story to my fellow citizens and then let them decide. Right?
Well that is not necessary. This right to jury trial, had been handed down centuries ago from England’s Magna Carta, it was considered so fundamental to the framers of our Constitution that it had been included by them in the Bill of Rights? This is what we call Sixth Amendment. So it makes no exceptions to this sacred right to trial by a jury of peers.
So why is this happening that some states today are denying jury trial to a person who is accused of drunk driving? Why is that, for instance, an American citizen who has been arrested in New Jersey is forced to accept the decision of a politically-appointed judge? After all, on that subject the Sixth Amendment is pretty clear:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”
You might also like
 |
 |
 |
 |
Have a Close look at DUI Fatality Statistics »
The numbers of deaths on the highways caused by drunk drivers has justified the "DUI crackdown", along with the loss of constitutional rights. As it has been said by the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz, for instance, DUI "sobriety checkpoints" seems to be violating our Fourth Amendment right to be free of suspicion less stops by the police but this illegal intrusion on our privacy is "outweighed" by the "carnage" on our highways of 25,000 deaths that occur due to drunk driving each year.
What is the source of these statistics? Several years ago, the statistics that had been kept on traffic fatalities by law enforcement agencies included a category for "alcohol-caused" deaths. However, these statistics were subtly changed to "alcohol-related" in order to justify such things as sobriety checkpoints, lowered blood alcohol levels and automatic at-the-scene DUI license suspensions. Here you must note that they changed it to “DUI related", but not “DUI caused”.
You might also like
 |
 |
 |
 |
FAQs About Drunk Driving »
Here I have tried to give the answers to some frequently asked questions about drunk driving. After reading that you might understand few aspects of drunk driving.
How High the drunk level should someone possess before he can be convicted of driving under the influence?
To drive a car while a person is “impaired” by the effects of alcohol or drugs also including prescription drugs is considered to be illegal. What it means is that there must be enough alcohol or drugs in the body of driver which would have been preventing him from thinking clearly or driving safely.
This level is reached by many people well before they’d be considered “drunk” or “stoned.” In all states, a person is considered to be guilty of a DUI (driving under the influence) or DWI (driving while intoxicated) who has a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of .08% or above.
In spite of all the facts, in almost all states drivers under the age of 21 are considered to be driving under the influence of alcohol if they are having their BAC at or greater than .01% or .02%, depending on the state.
You might also like
 |
 |
 |
 |
