TDCAA Community
Felony DWI- Absolute Refusal (as to SFST's)

This topic can be found at:
https://tdcaa.infopop.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/157098965/m/5151060881

March 17, 2009, 12:52
joepaterno
Felony DWI- Absolute Refusal (as to SFST's)
i'd appreciate any tips, pointers, issues to voir dire before i try my first absolute refusal DWI case. thanks in advance.
March 17, 2009, 13:25
RCC
Joe, e-mail me or give me a holler and we'll chat.
March 17, 2009, 16:08
JB
Plea bargain.
March 22, 2009, 08:07
Brent Robbins
Find out the facts of the case first and TEE IT UP.
March 23, 2009, 14:00
suzannewest
Is this a felony total refusal? or DWI first or second?
April 02, 2009, 16:29
Martin Z.
Any tips? I've got a total refusal coming up soon.
April 03, 2009, 11:09
Gordon D
anybody think you could put on evidence about and argue that he refused because his prior DWIs showed him that SFSTs provide solid evidence of his intoxication? Relevance is a no-brainer, but do we survive balancing?
April 03, 2009, 11:33
John B. Lyons
You don't have to cooperate with the police, but if you don't, what are you hiding?

A guilty man will do everything he can to conceal the truth. An innocent man, on the other hand, has nothing to hide.
April 03, 2009, 11:54
RCC
"The wicked flee when no man pursueth but the righteous are bold as a lion." Proverbs 28:1

Always my favorite bit of scripture that can be used in court.
April 03, 2009, 13:29
GPuryear
Haven't made my way up to felonies yet, but have tried a few refusals. If you have other good indicators of intoxication (i.e. slurred speech, stumbling), the party example is always good. "How many of you have been to a social occasion and seen a perfect stranger that you knew was intoxicated?" Let them realize through questions that most of them have made the same determination the officer did, without benefit of SFST's or training at the police academy. Also, obviously be sure the panel knows case law allows them to use their refusal as evidence of guilt.
April 07, 2009, 10:03
suzannewest
I would really hammer on the refusal of a breath test. It seems like people uneducated in DWI detection are hesitant about the sfst's because of the old "I couldn't do that sober" myth. The above quotes about why not take the tests are great....and then follow it up with something along the lines of..even if you are uncoordinated, with two bad knees and two wandering eyes--if you have only had two beers you will blow less than an .08--no reason to refuse unless that is not really how many drinks were consumed.

Sometimes juries lean towards distrusting the intoxilyzer too, and you want to find out who on your jury believes that a refusal to blow is justified by the fear that instrument could mess up with false positives.

GPuryear's strategy has been successful for me, too, and I would add that you can get your jury to help you make a list of common sense indicators that would make the jurors not allow their child in the car with that person. Then at the end of the trial, in your closing, check off all the indicators they named that were shown on the video or testified to--and make it clear that they wouldn't have wanted their child in that car, why should the defendant have placed everyone's families in danger by driving on a public road.
April 08, 2009, 15:41
Dusty
discuss scenario by where one of the potential jurors arrives at the scene of an accident by where one of their loved ones was hit by another vehicle......while walking over to their loved one they see the person who struck them talking to the police. It is obvious from the smell and speech that the individual is drunk. You then see the officer give them their keys back (because their car isn't damaged as bad) and lets them leave. You then go over to the police and ask why they let them leave, and he/she replies that they refused to give any samples or conduct the SFST...therefore they let them go.

I then ask if that is a fair manner in which to determine guilt/innocence of a suspected intoxicated driver....
April 08, 2009, 16:55
John Talley
After reading the posts above my hat is off, in a debt of gratitude, to an obviously dedicated and creative bunch of Texas prosecutors.

Absolute refusals can be a prosecutor's worst nightmare. We know that impaired drivers kill and you are charged with protecting your community from them; with the best (and sometimes, only)possible evidence available - hidden from you.

So to all of you that refuse to not fight.....keep fighting, and the rest of us can keep working for the day that our legislators decide to end this nightmare.
April 12, 2009, 02:31
Martin Z.
Thanks for all the great ideas and responses: special thanks to RCC - great stuff!

Teeing it up on Monday, wish me luck!
April 13, 2009, 13:47
RCC
Any time, brother! I hope that stuff was helpful. Good hunting.