Telling the truth: The best DUI Defense?

Is the best DUI Defense Telling the Truth?

Whether to plead guilty or not guilty is a very difficult decision. On one hand there is the frightening knowledge that a conviction will result in a criminal record and on the other hand, there is the moral issue of doing what is right and just "fessing up" and "taking one's licks".

Society is increasingly berating the courts for lax judgements and movements by social groups to take action against drinking and driving are highly visible. Concerned parties are lobbying governments for stricter penalties and the proliferation of attorneys specialising in the field has made DUI a hot topic. For the most part, much of society sees these offenders and their lawyers as vermin. And they are bothered by what they see as no justice.

But this article does not attempt to discuss the moral issues of whether a person should plead innocent or guilty and how that decision affects society as whole but rather to point out that there are circumstances under the law that may exist to justify pleading not guilty.

It may true that someone was drinking and driving but under the law, the person has the right to plead his case and ultimately plead "not guilty". And by pleading not guilty does not mean that the person is lying or not telling the truth, but rather that there are mitigating circumstances which might make him/her not guilty.

Everyone has the right to defend a charge against him/her. Whether the charge is speeding, running a stoplight or DUI, there are two sides to every story and everyone is entitled to his/her day in court. Many reasons exist for a DUI charge to be dropped or a person found innocent. Here are a few of the better-known reasons.

Breathalyzers are inaccurate. Defendants have challenged the use of the breath analysis test that declared them intoxicated and they have won. There are precedents now that lawyers can use to fight the cases of their clients.
A blood test may be requested but DUI attorneys have been successful in having the courts dismiss the evidence on the grounds that proper procedure was not followed in the handling of the sample, the person responsible for administering the blood test was new on the job, or inaccurate documents were kept.
Sobriety tests such as one-legged standing or touching a finger to the nose are not enough to prove guilt of drinking. In fact, it could quite easily be proved that the person was tired and could not walk straight or even that some other factor caused him to walk in a wavering manner. He might never have been drinking at all.
Other people have attested to the person's sobriety. In the case of an accident, witnesses such as the bartender or a waitress or someone who served the client may be called upon to testify as to the person's sobriety.
Inclement weather can cause a conviction to be over turned.
When arresting the person, they must be read their rights.

In summary, it is not really a question of whether one should tell the truth and plead guilty when confronted with a DUI charge but rather whether all the evidence is accurate enough to prove the person is indeed a DUI.

More info on the subject (and other law-related topics):