Next week I am doing a two day training with MADD staffers about Intoxication Manslaughter. As well as covering topics on professional ethics, the law, evidence, crash science, alcohol science, evidence etc., I am conducting a session on "Working with Prosecutors, Judges and Officers". The class will be attended by MADD professional staffers from across the state. What I hope to get from all our posters and lurkers are some comments on what you suggest works and does not work in dealing with MADD.

I really don't need griping, whining or praise, but rather solid advice on practical how to's from your perspectives. I have a rare and exciting opportunity and I do not want to waste it.

Thanks in advance.

W. Clay Abbott, DWI Resource Prosecutor, TDCAA

Clay: I think something along the line of explaining to MADD not to get high expectations to victims or victim's families on sentencing or prosecution until LE has an opportunity to finish the investigation. As you know, blood tests and accident reconstruction takes time to prepare. Sometimes those findings are contrary to your case.

I would caution them that although the result of the crime of intoxication manslaughter is always death, they need to understand that the quality of the evidence is markedly different in every case. As do juries and judges, we have to take into consideration the quality of the evidence. It affects the ultimate outcome and our attitude on the case.

In all other kinds of cases, when we have a proof problem, we adjust the recommendation accordingly. In these kinds of cases an adjustment is seldom understood.

mandatory blood draws!

Yes JB we are doing a whole hour on blood.

I think that sometimes MADD people fail to appreciate how sympathetic Intox. Manslaughter or Intox. Assault defendants can sometimes be. Sometimes they are horrible people with criminal histories, but sometimes, they are young people or attractive women, or elderly people, or people with no criminal histories, sometimes they have injuries themselves, and I think sometimes MADD characterizes all drunk drivers as "evil" and doesn't communicate well to victims' families how a jury might find a particular defendant sympathetic and that sympathy may affect punishment. This creates unrealistic expectations from the victims' families.

I am routinely invited to attend Victim Impact Panels (VIP) that MADD puts on for probationers as a condition of their supervision. It appears to me that most of the probationers are first time offenders who were stopped for minor traffic or equipment violations and have a relatively low BAC; While most of the presentations involve the worst of the worst examples of driving and intoxication facts. I am concerned that these probationers walk away from the VIP thinking that by comparison, they really did nothing wrong after hearing about intoxication assault cases with facts like a 0.30 BAC hours after the wreck, driving the wrong way down the interstate, or shooting up cocanie while driving. It would be nice if MADD woud present in their commuinty education efforts that it is just as tragic for someone to be killed by an intoxicated driver as it is be be killed by a falling down drunk driver.

Too true, Jane. I had an Intox. Man. involving a teenager where the victim's parents didn't want me to prosecute the driver. I now have an Intox. Assault where the victim and his parents are asking me not to prosecute. They all reason that it could have been their kid driving instead of being hurt/killed. These both involve teens.

We did prosecute the intox man. The teen girl is currently doing her 120 days jail time. We participated in two different presentations of "Shattered Dreams", the reality DWI program for High School students. The girl appeared at both programs in an orange jail jumpsuit and shackles and spoke to the audience.

The Intox. Ass. is still pending.

Mr.Greenwood has a really good point. The attention tends to go to the high BAC numbers because it sounds so dramatic. But the .1s and .15s can be just as dangerous.

Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful replies, I will do my best to cover all this sage advice.

I've only had a hand full of cases where MADD was involved in any form or fashion. All of those have been positive encounters...but having said that, I have been critisized by the defense folks for being unduely influenced by MADD's "agenda." They have suggested that because MADD has been active in a particular case or active in accompanying victims of intoxicated drivers, then I am somehow being overly inflexible with recommendations, trial tactics and the like.

After a while the defense folks pretty much find out that I am naturally inflexible, tacky and such with drunk cases and it has nothing to do with anybody's particular agenda

But I would remind our brethern from MADD that we prosecutors are scutinized closely for our association with MADD as if justice is somehow compromised by teaming up with MADD as advocates on behalf of victims.

I don't much care personally...but the prosecutor/MADD team is often painted as a negative.