A drunk driving label is considered a major black mark on any life resume. Frankly, it should be. For individuals convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, the consequences should be relatively swift and moderately harsh, to say the least. But, the charge should be full and without holes. It should be a clear case, through and through, and that is represented in the harshness of the consequences.
Unfortunately, this really is not always the case. Often times, the stigma of DUI and the wrath of the persecutors will push forward aggressively in a spotty and dodgy DUI case. Who is most to lose in this aggressive and vengeful energy against individuals who were allegedly driving under the influence? The driver, of course.
The consequences should be pretty severe for a successful DUI charge to the full extent of the law. But, these consequences should be justified and applied to a case that is black and white. DUIs are are not usually like this. A drunk driving lawyer in Geneva, IL can find falls in the case that could minimize charges dramatically or get the whole thing tossed aside altogether.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt
There has to be no doubt that the defendant was under the influence. It’s really a component of the law that many people do not understand or apply to the fullest. No doubt means no doubt, and that means evidence that is substantial and largely irrefutable. This means a blood test on the site and not the next morning. This means more than an empty bottle in the backseat.
How the Test Is Substantiated
The test is an area of discrepancy. It is often the main thrust of substantial evidence the prosecution can deploy. If it is not present, it weakens their argument. If it is done incorrectly, it could shatter the entire charge. To prove that the alcohol test stands as substantial evidence, it needs to not have any holes. A drunk driving lawyer in Geneva, IL can explore if the test was done properly.
The test is a great area to explore at . Was it done to code? Is there a confirmed time and at least two witnesses? As said in the introduction, it is rarely a slam-dunk case of obvious criminal activity.
