Why bring a DUI Attorney to your DUI Arraignment

The other day I was in Seattle Municipal Court and I had the chance to watch a couple of DUI arraignments while I was waiting for my clients case to be called.  In case you don't know the arraignment is the first court hearing that someone faces after their arrest.  So in Seattle Municipal Court generally the arraignment happens a few days after a DUI arrest in Seattle.  Obviously this is a quick turn around.  And most people that get arrested for a DUI in Seattle have never been in trouble before.  So they don't know how to go about getting a DUI Attorney or at least coming to court prepared.  

And that is exactly what happened on the few DUI arraignments I saw.  Particularly two individuals came to court without an attorney, and they left in a worse position then when they arrived.  One case this guy had an alleged BAC level of .15.  He didn't have any prior criminal history.  He wasn't involved in a car accident.  It sounds like he was relatively cooperative with the arresting officer.  The Prosecutor asked the court to impose $2500 bail and an ignition interlock device in his car while the case is going on.  Long story short, there was no bail imposed, but an ignition interlock device was.  The cost of an ignition interlock device is around $100 a month.  So assuming the case lasts 7-10 months.  That is easily could come to a $1000 fee on top of whatever other fees may occur.

The second case was more interesting.  This was a second offense DUI.  Meaning the guy hadn't gotten a DUI two years ago.  But in the recent case his BAC level was .05.  Which is extremely low.  In his case the Prosecutor asked for $5000 bail, and IID, and a scram bracelet.  The scram bracelet is something new in SMC, but it is like an home detention device that detects alcohol from your skin.  It is pretty expensive and a tremendous pain in the ass.  Now despite the extremely low BAC the Judge imposed both an IID, and the $5000 bail.  Needless to say he was not very happy about this, and went off a little on the Judge.  Bad move, but nothing happened.

So what would have happened if either one of these gentlemen had taken the time to hire an experienced DUI Attorney.  Well I cant say for sure.  But I would have argued to the Judge in the first case there was no basis to find the defendant was likely to commit another drinking and driving offense.  The City presented absolutely no evidence of this.  In fact they said if he was allowed to be free there would be a community safety risk.  Well under the rule that is not a factor the Judge is to consider.  There is always a presumption of release unless it can be shown the defendant will likely commit a violent offense in the future, or will not come back to court.  Since the guy had no warrant history, and there was no past behavior of DUI or alcohol related offenses.  I believe the Judge made a bad ruling, and this guy will now have to have an IID because of it.

The second guy is the more difficult case of the two.  Simply for the fact it was his second offense.  But what he had going for him was the allegations.  This was a really low breath test case.  Arguably he didn't violate any of the conditions of his sentence on the first DUI because he did not drive with an alcohol level over .08.  What I probably would have done is get him an alcohol and drug assessment.  He probably would have received a relapse prevent treatment program and I would have provided that to the court to show he is taking this seriously and currently involved in treatment.  Additionally at an arraignment if the Judge does find the defendant is likely to drink and drive again, the least restrictive means possible must be imposed.  In a DUI case that is to abstain from alcohol.  Thus it would be far more lawful, and reasonable to impose that condition instead of the bail and IID.  I would have made a case and really pushed that.

Now it is easy to second guess what happened, and play Monday morning QB.  But what probably isn't up for debate is both of these individuals were obviously worse off because they didn't take the time to meet and hire an attorney.

_

Matthew A. Leyba is a DUI lawyer in Seattle, WA.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other alcohol related offenses.  He is currently rated a TOP DUI Attorney by Avvo, and a Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine in the area of criminal defense.    

Happenings in Court

Yesterday I was in a local municipal court here in the King County area.  I was there representing a client on a Bellevue DUI charge.  The calendar was a jury call calendar/readiness hearing.  Meaning it was the court date prior to a jury trial.  At this hearing both the Prosecutor and Defense Attorney get in front of the Judge and announce whether the case is going forward to trial, or whether there has been a plea deal reached, or whether either party will be asking to move the trial to another date.

Now this particular court is really unique on how they handle this jury call calendar.  In most jurisdictions there really isn't an order to how cases are called.  You just get up there, announce to the Judge what you're going to do and you're on your way.  But in this court the Judge makes any case that is either a plea or continuance request go first.  So if you're there to announce that ready for trial you have to wait until the end of the calendar.  And depending on how many cases there are you could be waiting for 2.5 - 3 hours. 

This is just one of the downsides to being in this court.  But there is nothing really you can do.  So I always advise my clients that were going to be there for awhile, so just plan on being there all morning. And I would think any decent attorney with common sense would tell their client the same thing.  Otherwise a client will show up there thinking its going to be a brief hearing, and next thing they know they are there for 3 years.  

Well yesterday I was announcing ready for a trial.  So my client and myself were just sitting there until about 11:00 am.  We got to court at 8:45.  And things are going like they normally do.  All the cases that are being continued, or resolved are being taken first.  The rest of the trial cases are waiting until the end of the calendar.  So I was just half paying attention to what was going on with the other cases, and half reading the Internet on my IPhone.   

But then a defense attorney decided to take her case out of order and got in front of the Judge.  I didn't catch exactly what she was saying, but the gist of it was she didn't want to wait anymore and she wanted her case taken out of order.  And to be honest with you I didn't think there was anything wrong with that request.  Sometimes you have other hearings to get to, and it is pointless to wait 3 hours for a 15 second hearing.  But what was offensive about her request was her tone of voice.  She really seemed to be upset when the Judge said no.  She kept trying to talk over him.  And when she didn't get her way, she slammed down her brief case on the defense attorney desk making a loud sound.  Afterwards the Judge made her come back in front of him, and he pretty much scolded her behavior.  

I don't know this defense attorney, but I was pretty embarrassed for her.  We as attorneys often have a bad rap when it comes to the general public.  I think being an attorney is a privilege and an honorable profession, and we should hold ourselves to a certain decorum.  Especially when it comes to speaking with Judges and court staff.  I personally find it very offensive when I see attorneys talk disrespectfully to Judges or court staff.  And it doesn't take much to be polite and courteous.

I mean don't get me wrong there are Judges out there that I absolutely despise.  But I always treat them with respect regardless of how I personally feel.  Obviously this attorney does not hold herself to a higher level of professionalism, and her actions were pretty shameful.  And I bet her client was not too impressed with having her attorney get scolded like a 5 year old in front of the entire court.  

_
Matthew A. Leyba is a Seattle DUI Lawyer.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other serious traffic offenses.  If you have been arrested for a Seattle DUI contact our offices immediately to set up a consultation to discuss your rights, and options following an arrest.

One of the benefits of a deferred sentence on a DUI possibly ending?

If you read this DUI blog with any regularly then you know there are two types of sentences imposed when a person pleads guilty.  

There is a suspended sentence and there is a deferred sentence.  A suspended sentence means the charge imposes a sentence at the time of the sentencing, but suspends all or a portion of the jail and fines and hangs over the defendants head for the period of jurisdiction.  At the end of that period the case is closed, but the conviction still exists on the defendants criminal history.  

A deferred sentence on the other hand is a much better deal.  Essentially the a defendant will still plead guilty but a Judge will not impose a sentence at the time of sentencing, and instead will defer it for a period of time.  Then at the end of that period if the defendant has complied with whatever terms the Judge set at the time of the sentencing, the defendant can take back the guilty plea and the charge will be dismissed.  

Currently this is one of the best deals out there if arrested for a DUI and the charge gets reduced to the lesser offense of Negligent Driving 1.  Most Judges, and Courts do not offer such a deal, but there are some occasions when it can be obtained.  In fact in 2012 I had 10 clients who received such a deal where the original charge of DUI was reduced to Negligent Driving 1, and the Judge imposed a deferred sentence.  

Now in addition to the benefit of having the charge dismissed.  Receiving a deferred sentence on a Negligent Driving 1 does not count as a prior offense.  Well it is debatable I guess.  Prosecutors will argue it does.  Defense Attorneys argue it doesn't.  The RCW spelling out what is a prior offense does not include the language "deferred sentence."  So based on a plain reading of the statute it doesn't count as a prior offense.  Meaning if a defendant successfully completed a deferred sentence on a Neg 1, and then within 7 years received another DUI.  That subsequent DUI would be considered a first offense.  

However there is currently a bill in the House of the Washington State Legislature proposing a change to this little loophole.  HB 1482 proposes amending the language of a prior offense under RCW 46.61 to include deferred sentences.  This is an interesting development.  I tend to not agree with such a change.  

First a deferred sentence is pretty rare.  It generally is only granted when it is a first offense, no prior criminal history, low breath test, and the defendant has completed all the assessments, and classes.  Secondly even if a Judge grants a deferred sentence, and the defendant completes it, but then gets another DUI.  The Judge of the subsequent DUI still has the discretion to treat the subsequent DUI has a second offense, in fact they could impose whatever sentence they want.  And if I had a client who was in that boat, I would probably tell them there is a strong possibility the Judge would do that, considering they were already given a break the first time around.  

In my opinion the only reason for proposing such a change is purely punitive.  Not surprisingly the sponsors of this amendment seem to be very "Prosecutorial friendly" if you know what I mean.  Hopefully this bill does not go any further, but I guess we will see at the end of this legislative session.  

_

Matthew A. Leyba is a DUI Attorney in Seattle, WA.  His practice focuses on representing those accused of DUI and other traffic offenses.