So I just finished trying a DWI 2nd with no FST's. I had no "drunk facts". Defendant looked great on video. He walked good, talked good and showed no signs of intoxication. But it was a DWI 2nd and he refused all of the FST's and admitted drinking 3 beers.

Anyways, I argued the case and convinced the jury to vote 5-1 to convict. After 35 minutes, the jury acquits the defendant. One juror convinced the other 5 to vote not guilty. All this was learned by talking to them after the trial was over. GO FIGURE!

PS: the holdout juror...a DWI victim! He was involved in a DWI wreck and he was the victim.

Just out of curiosity, was the juror's "victimhood" made known to the defense during voir dire? Obviously, if he said he would not be influenced by his prior experience he was telling the truth. Still interesting that he was not struck.

The fact that the juror was a DWI victim came out during voir dire. The defense questioned him several times on his ability to be fair.

I didn't strike him because I thought a DWI victim would be a great juror. I also expected the defense would strike him. To have him as the holdout blew me away.

Did you talk to the jurors after the verdict? I know it can be painful to talk to jurors who have rejected your evidence but it is still the best way to find out what weight certain evidence was given.

I'd like to hear more about what the jurors said afterwards... that story resonates with me.

g

Interesting, but don't feel bad. Those are very tough cases to win.

I'm not sure what your caseload is, but you may consider implementing a warrant procedure to obtain blood samples from people that refuse "everything".


John

When I spoke to the jurors after the trial, only five stuck around. The "DWI victim" (and ring-leader) took off leaving only the 5. They all told me that they thought defendant was drunk. But, eventhough I told them the refusal could be used against defendant, because that was not in the charge they did not know they could hold his refusal against him.

They also told me that the other guy ("victim") was never going to vote guilty and they just gave in so as not to hang the jury. It was a little frustrating to come so close.

Stuart, I understand your frustration. This same type of compromise, I believe, happens often in felony cases ... except the ultimate compromise is that the jury will vote guilty for a lesser punishment. Not supposed to happen but, in my opinion, is the most common type of jury misconduct.

I Feel Your Pain!!!!! I just got a Not Guilty Verdict on a DWI 2nd (with an accident) yesterday. After talking to the jury they believed that because the D looked good in the in station video there was no way he could be intoxicated. Somehow they managed to forget about the refusals and that he had an accident.

Did your D look good in the field and in the station?

[This message was edited by Laura Nodolf on 06-25-04 at .]