If your DUI defense was so rock solid, you probably would not have been charged in the first place. This is the way I approach DUI trials in Michigan. The prosecution will have some strong evidence, and it's important not to take the 180 approach to everything they are saying about the case.
For example, if the defense is "I wasn't driving the car" then don't fight the chemical test results - who cares what they say, as long as the client is over 21, they can have as high of a level as they want. If it's clear the client was driving backed by officer testimony, client's admission and a video, why fight that battle - concentrate on the chemical tests and field sobriety to show sure the client was driving, but wasn't driving while intoxicated or impaired.
It's also important to acknowledge how your care is being perceived. Yes members of the jury, my client had a chemical test twice the legal limit, and you're probably jumping to the conclusion "well that's seems pretty high, he must be guilty, what's the catch". By acknowledging the obvious, it will easier to explain this result. If the machine wasn't working correctly, well then the result itself is just meaningless. It could read 0.09 or 0.25, and it wouldn't really matter. Put the number out there, acknowledge the common sense perception, but then explain why it doesn't matter.
If the prosecutor has strong evidence, go ahead and say something is true - yes he was driving, but he wasn't drunk. To fight every battle makes the client look desperate with no real defense. Better to focus the jury on one key component than the kitchen sink.
For example, if the defense is "I wasn't driving the car" then don't fight the chemical test results - who cares what they say, as long as the client is over 21, they can have as high of a level as they want. If it's clear the client was driving backed by officer testimony, client's admission and a video, why fight that battle - concentrate on the chemical tests and field sobriety to show sure the client was driving, but wasn't driving while intoxicated or impaired.
It's also important to acknowledge how your care is being perceived. Yes members of the jury, my client had a chemical test twice the legal limit, and you're probably jumping to the conclusion "well that's seems pretty high, he must be guilty, what's the catch". By acknowledging the obvious, it will easier to explain this result. If the machine wasn't working correctly, well then the result itself is just meaningless. It could read 0.09 or 0.25, and it wouldn't really matter. Put the number out there, acknowledge the common sense perception, but then explain why it doesn't matter.
If the prosecutor has strong evidence, go ahead and say something is true - yes he was driving, but he wasn't drunk. To fight every battle makes the client look desperate with no real defense. Better to focus the jury on one key component than the kitchen sink.
