Alcohol & Drugs: DUI, DWI opening statement to jury

[buzzdav]

I am going pro se in my superior court trial for dwi. Is it possible I could use this as part of my opening statement, before the jury.? DWI is a common crime. I am not trying to down play it's seriousness, but people from every walk of life have been found guilty of this crime. politians, doctors, lawyers, judges, sheriffs, chiefs of police, prosecutors, movie stars, and the list goes on. I ask you to give me the same impartial treatment you would give any of these groups. Be an independent thinker. Judge for yourself the facts in this case. Dont just go along with other peoples opinions, decide for yourself what is right and wrong, what is justice and what is an injustice. If you have doubts about my guilt voice them. Don't let anyone lead you around by the hand. Peer pressure is an awsome human failing. Look at teen peer pressure. A teen may have the finest of moral parents, and be seduced by their teen peers into doing things they have been taught were terrible wrongs. Determine for yourself what is the truth. Highway Patrolmen have been put under alot of pressure. There's alot of pressure on the courts to convict for DWI. Recent NC laws have ben passed to compell prosecutors to explain to judges there reason for any agreement to reduce charges or dismiss a DWI. Prosecutors have to file a written statement of those reasons and say what they could and could not prove and why any DWI was dismised or reduced, and send a copy to the NC Attorney General. Also the results, name of judges, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and defence attorneys will be posted on the internet Anyone can access these postings for free. While other public records cost. They must be saved there for ten years. It puts chilling effect on the rights of trial judges to render a decision which is legally correct but politically unpopular. (nc) Judges who are elected officials have been voted out of their seats when the soft on DWI card has been played on them during election campaigns. Each year Mrs. Jones the Clerk of Superior court sitting over there has to set up and keep seperate DWI Case records for ten years. Each year she has to prepair and to submit records to the NC Legislature. Her reports will name the judge, prosecuters, and defense attorneys involved on each DWI case, how the case was resolved, any punishment, and whether the case was appealed. Judges are supposed to rule without regard for the politically correctness of there decisions. Judges don't represent the views of people they represent the law. Every accused person from the lowest court in the land to the U.S. Supreme Court is intitled to impartiality before any judge. When a judges seat dangles on an election and where his record on DWI cases is under the scrutiny of a microscope. Ask yourself , can he be impartial. A lot of this political pressure is coming from mothers across the country who have had children and other family members killed by impaired drivers. All this is understandable. DWI laws should be strict, but where does that leave the few innocent people who are are convicted of DWI. I would be devastated if one of my 2 daughters or 3 grand daughters, any family or friend killed by an impaired driver. But i ask again what about the few who are innocent and convicted. Once the driving license is gone for a year or more how do they provide for their families. I won't get into police officers drawing blood, or the diabetics convicted when their bodies produce acetone ( same as fingernail polish remover) or the woman arrested DWI on a horse, or the farmer on a tractor in his own field drinking a beer arrested for DWI, ect., ect., ect.

 

[raskalnikov]

. . . I can't predict Judges. most will not allow some of this, in my opinion.

I also find it to be a very weak opening statement. You don't say much of anything about your case, you never say "You must find me not-guilty because. . . " instead you just talk about bureacracy, which has nothing to do with you in regards to guilt.

If you wish to have future critiques, please use paragraphs, etc. I had a hard time reading this.

 

[dee_dub]

Whether or not it would be allowed, I agree with raskalnikov - I would consider much of it unwise to say anyways.

The emphasis on politics looks like a tactic to distract from the merits of the case. If I were on the jury, I would immediately think, "Why isn't he talking about the merits of his case?"

Talking about the commonality of the crime could backfire - "damn, it's an epidemic of DWI! We need to do something!"

Insinuating that the jury might be "led around by the hand" and not judge your case on the facts could be insulting.

Who cares about Mrs. Jones over there? She's doing her job.

If you don't actually impugn the impartiality of judges, you come awfully close. Never a good idea.

 

[raskalnikov]

listen to Dee_Dub, for Dee_Dub is wise!

 

[buzzdav]

Thanks to all for the critique!! I said at the begining ( as part of my opening) I have a highway patrolman and a deputy sheriff who are colluding. (no conspiricy theory here) They were both there. plus another deputy who is listed as a witness. They both have the routine answers. ( engine was running) ect. ad nauseum. Some lies have already been told under oath. Is there any way I could seperate them at trial? Please HELP!! Oh, I am used to hitting tab to start new paragraph. So how does it work on this site?

 

[dee_dub]

If you think you can prove they lied under oath, or can at least cast doubt on their reliabililty, say so. If you can't, don't even bother insinuating it in your opening - you'll just look like a crank. IF you are going to go there, I would frame it in terms of reliability, not collusion. Anyone can be unreliable, it's common human frailty. Collusion implies malevolence, and is a tougher sell.

I would suggest that being there + having stock answers does not equal collusion, IMHO - maybe the stock answers are true in this case. You need to show there's reason to doubt them.

You could skip it in your opening and wait to see how the evidence comes out. There is nothing worse than telling a jury you are going to show something and then fail to show it. If it comes out in evidence that there is reason to doubt the veracity of their testimony, then HAMMER on it in your closing.

Most of what you've said above is not relevant to the issue of credibility, and that's what your case turns on. I wouldn't go near it.