[bc_collapse title=”I Refused The Breathalyzer, So There Will Be No Evidence Against Me.” open=”y/n”]Rectification: That’s kind of a more complicated question than just a yes or a no. In the state of New York, if you refuse to take a breathalyzer and you’re not asked to provide a sample of blood or urine, then there is obviously a lack of evidence as to what your actual blood alcohol content is. On the one hand, you could say, “They can’t prove your blood alcohol content to a certainty”, and that’s true. The District Attorney will still charge you with DWI as a misdemeanor under the theory that through the officer’s observations of the motorist, they’re able to establish, at least they’ll try, beyond the reasonable doubt that the person was intoxicated. Bearing in mind, they don’t know what the breath reading is, right? So, when you say that there’s a lack of evidence, the question then becomes how do they try to prove what we commonly call a common law DWI without a breath testing reading, urine reading or a blood reading?
The way it’s done is through the officer’s testimony at a trial where it’s elicited from the prosecutor about the person’s condition. It usually starts with whether or not there was any aberrant driving, a careless driving or reckless driving and then, it can go on to the physical observations of the police officer of the motorist, bloodshot eyes, watery eyes, odor of alcohol, whether or not they’re unsteady on their feet, whether their speech is slurred. All of those things can be considered by a judge or a jury to determine whether or not somebody is driving while intoxicated. Furthermore, the officer can certainly give an opinion; usually police officers are experienced to some extent and certainly, they’re experienced in their own lives to be able to determine whether somebody, in their opinion, is intoxicated. So, they can certainly give an opinion as to whether the motorist is intoxicated. That still doesn’t mean that it’s true, they still have to convince a judge or a jury that it’s true. There are other indicators that they would try to elicit such as the person’s performance on standard field sobriety tests.
Ordinarily, in the state of New York, a motorist is asked to do several field sobriety tests, mostly commonly done field sobriety tests are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, which is an HGN, which tests nystagmus in the person’s eyes to determine whether or not there’s a presence of alcohol. A One Leg Stand, a Walk and Turn test, which is a third test. Very often they’ll do what’s called the Romberg test, which asks the motorist to stand still, arms at their sides, eyes closed, chin up and asked to then touch their nose kind of like Simon Says, right hand/left hand, left hand/right to see whether or not they touch the tip of their nose with the right hand. Another way to try to prove a DWI in the state of New York is through additional evidence of testimony from the police officer of the field sobriety tests. In the city of New York, there will often be video evidence of the performance of the field sobriety tests which can be shown to a judge or a jury. The triers of fact, the judge or jury, can view for themselves what the instructions were and how the motorists performed on those tests.
Bear in mind that each of these indicators might have innocent explanations, like in other words; someone might have bloodshot and watery eyes because it’s late at night, they’ve been up early, and they have allergies. Someone might have an odor of alcohol but if they’re over the age of 21, it doesn’t indicate how much alcohol, what type of alcohol and when it was drank. If you’re over 21, you’re permitted to drink and you’re permitted to drive, you’re just not permitted to drive while under the influence, which is a higher standard since the standard really starts at 0.07 to be impaired, at 0.08 to be intoxicated. So, certainly it defines logic that people can’t have any alcohol they can just whether or not it’s proven that they’re either impaired or intoxicated.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”I Think I Performed Rather Well On The Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, So It Will Be An Easy Case.” open=”y/n”]Rectification: Field sobriety tests in the city of New York are often times videotaped. Those videotapes are turned over to the defendant, turned over to the defense counsel, turned over to me so that I can watch them with my clients. There are several different ways to analyze a field sobriety test. Number 1, there’s the video. So, we’re all used to watching videos and things on screens so we can be our own judges. What will the jury see? There’s a couple ways of looking at it. If you’re just standing there waiting for a test to be performed, the judge or the jury or both can certainly analyze how you look, do you look fairly steady and sure or you slumping over and can barely keep your balance. I’ve seen videos on both ends of the spectrum.
Ordinarily, it’s a person somewhat in-between that is fairly steady but then, there is the video that depicts the field sobriety tests. So, we can analyze the instructions given by the police officer to the motorists, to the defendant, to the client to see whether or not those instructions were given properly even before the field sobriety tests are performed. So, we can even attack the way the officer explained and demonstrated the test even if the video isn’t great, you might be able to use that to your advantage because maybe perhaps the officer didn’t give the proper instruction and demonstration for the field sobriety tests.
I think the misconception here is that you might have somebody that blows over the legal limit, you know, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 or higher but they do really well on the field sobriety tests so they feel that their case can’t be proven against them beyond a reasonable doubt. And certainly, I think that’s a misconception because just being able to perform well on a field sobriety test doesn’t mean that the prosecutor is not going to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your breath test reading is accurate. Furthermore, if you flip it over, just because you do poorly doesn’t mean you’re going to lose. It really must be looked at in great detail to determine the value for either side in presenting the video at the trial.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”I Refused The Breathalyzer And The Standardized Field Sobriety Tests; I Should Be Home Free, Right?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: Let’s just break down the field sobriety tests refusal for one moment. Since this is mostly done on video, something else you have to know is that the police officer has to fill out reports as to their performance of the field sobriety tests. So, the performance of the field sobriety tests will not only be on the video but will be memorialized in a police report. A refusal to do field sobriety tests will also be on a video and will be memorialized in a report. If it’s on the video, then the judge or jury and myself and my client can analyze why the person refused to take or what the demeanor of the motorist was when they refused to take the test.
In other words, were they simply saying, “I prefer not to”, or they basically had their heads in their hands and can barely keep their eyes open because they were so either drunk or tired that they didn’t want to be bothered. Sometimes on a video, you could see that the person is simply making a conscious choice, otherwise somewhat sober and saying, “I don’t want to provide you with the field sobriety test”, and therefore, they don’t have additional evidence or it’s looked at as kind of a belligerence that might work against you. Clearly, not having field sobriety tests that would otherwise be poor when the person looks fairly sober in the video could work to their advantage.
[bc_collapse title=”The Police Officer Didn’t Read Me My Miranda Rights, So The Case Will Be Dismissed?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: The Miranda Rights, in some states, actually do invalidate a DWI arrest. In the state of New York, that does not occur. The Miranda Rights in the state of New York are required to the extent where someone is interrogated after they’re in custody and then a statement is given to the police that might incriminate them and therefore, the motorist would be entitled to a pretrial hearing in front of the judge for a judge to decide whether the statement given by the individual is voluntary despite the fact that they weren’t given their Miranda warnings. So, the shorter answer is the lack of Miranda warnings might have a positive effect on the motorist’s case but it does not invalidate an arrest.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”The Officer Was Rude To Me And I Felt Like I Was Forced To Say Or Do Things Because I Was Intimidated. However, That’s Always On Camera, Right?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: Not necessarily. Sometimes you can see belligerence in a way an officer fills out their reports because much of it is narrative, not just a checkbox that they’ll have to do. It certainly might bleed over through somebody, to their defense in that they might have given a statement that they might not ordinary have given in violation of Miranda especially if the officer is somewhat intimidating and nasty but it doesn’t also give them Miranda because he doesn’t feel like it or he was rude or arrogant or belligerent. So, that might work in the motorist’s favor.
Being intimidated is a very important factor in trying to suppress evidence especially if Miranda warnings are not given and it might be a factor in the way that the officer instructs the person to do the field sobriety tests bearing in mind that the motorist is already nervous and it could be lack of sleep, it could be very late at night. And being intimidated could be a factor that a judge can consider especially if it bleeds through or comes through in a video. So, I wouldn’t say that the rudeness of a police officer would lead to a dismissal but it certainly could be a factor in considering how to analyze somebody’s case.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”I’m Not Too Worried. The Police Officer Was Super Nice And Assured Me That I Wouldn’t Have To Worry Even Though I Was Arrested. He Said It Was Just All Part Of Procedure.” open=”y/n”]Rectification: It’s always more pleasant, especially when you’re in an unpleasant situation such as being under arrest and having to go to the court system, that the police officer treats you with respect. Being super nice and telling the motorists that they don’t have to worry is comforting and usually what police officers do is they try to tell the truth to a person that they’re arresting but more importantly, they want to avoid any further complications with regard to any undue violence that could be brought upon them by the person that they’re arresting, so they try to keep a calm demeanor themselves and they try to keep the person that’s under arrest calm.
So, there’s no harm done being polite by the police officer but the worrisome part of the statement is that the motorist wouldn’t have to worry, that the police officer’s trying to lead them to believe that just because the officer is nice that the case might be dismissed. I don’t think that there is any reality in that. In the city of New York, having a police officer treat you well makes a very negative experience less negative but I don’t think it necessarily has any effect on the outcome of the case.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”I’m Not An Alcoholic. The Court Should Understand That, Right?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: There’s a part of the law in the state of New York is that anyone that’s arrested for a DWI has to go through an assessment or an evaluation with regard to their alcohol use and potential alcohol abuse and their potential to have to do treatment or at the recommendation of a certified individual who does assessments in recommending whether or not someone has to do treatment or not. It could go a long way where the assessment benefits the motorist, where the results of the assessment indicate that the person does not need any treatment. Therefore, that is presented to the court in a document or formal document prepared by the person who does the assessment, usually a social worker or a psychologist after a thorough assessment or evaluation of the motorist. That result of that assessment can also be used to try to negotiate a better plea bargain. In certain boroughs, it’s looked at quite a bit and in certain boroughs, it’s hardly ever looked at but I have certainly used the result of the assessment or the evaluation to indicate to the prosecutor’s office that the person is not an alcoholic and does not need further treatment and it’s been memorialized in an assessment that it was ordered by the court and done by an independent assessor. [/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”My Tolerance Level For Alcohol Is Really High. It Takes A Lot For Me To Get Intoxicated. I Can Maybe Just Do The Standardized Field Sobriety Tests To Prove That I’m Doing Fine.” open=”y/n”]Rectification: I think what people need to understand and they don’t is that the standard field sobriety tests are voluntary; you can’t be forced to do them. If you decide to do them because
- You think that you’ll do well on them
- You’re intimidated into doing it
It doesn’t really matter why you do it, okay. So, if you decide to take them because you think you’re going to do well on them, then you best do well on them because that will be memorialized not only in a police report but also in a video. So, it’s important that if you’re going to do the field sobriety tests that you do well on them, otherwise I would otherwise reject doing them because that is evidence one way or the other against you.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”I Literally Only Had 3 Drinks And I Told The Officer That I Had 3 Drinks. I Can Even Show The Receipt From The Place That I Bought Them At. Shouldn’t That Be Enough?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: Everybody’s metabolism is different, everybody’s tolerance is different. Depending on how long ago those drinks were consumed, how much you weigh, how tall you are, how fast your metabolism otherwise is or all factors that go into whether or not your blood alcohol content is above the legal limit. Very few people know what their blood alcohol content is at any one point in the day, in the night, whenever you’re drinking. People might weigh themselves on a daily or weekly or even monthly basis and have a pretty good idea how much they weigh at any particular day or week of the month and they certainly don’t routinize or any routine, take a breath test as they’re drinking.
They would not really know unless they did that, which is something that I’ve never heard people doing, they would not know what their blood alcohol content is with 1, 2 or 3 drinks and of course it all depends on their metabolism, their height, their weight, how much food they drank, how much water they drank and their overall metabolism as human being. Having only three drinks is not necessarily an indicator of being intoxicated or not being intoxicated, it a lot has to do with when those drinks were. So, if you drank them at noon and this is now 1 o’clock, an hour later, it’s going to be wholly different than if you drank them in noon and now this is 9 o’clock at night, 9 hours later.
[bc_collapse title=”I’m A Professional In The Educational Field Or I’m A Professional In The Healthcare Field, The Courts Will And Should Go Easy On Me, Right?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: The state of New York or the city of New York where I practice mostly and the five boroughs, Bronx, Brooklyn King’s County, Richmond which is Staten Island, Queens and New York county, they all have different policies and their prosecutor’s offices will have different policies with regard to how they plea bargain. While in certain boroughs, they may strongly consider the background of the person and what they do for living; in other counties, they don’t considered as persuasively as one would think. So, for the people who are stockbrokers, healthcare professionals, they have professional licenses.
A lot will have to do with the blood alcohol content and a lot will have to do with the way the prosecutor’s office responds to the information. What I like to do is I like to present a package to the prosecutor with regards to my client’s background in cases that I think it would be helpful in reaching a more agreeable disposition in any particular case. At any one time, I’m in the middle of preparing several letters for several different clients with regard to their background in order to let the prosecutor know and try to reach a more agreeable disposition with regard to my client’s individual backgrounds but it’s, in no way, a guarantee that the prosecutor’s office will agree to a better deal simply because someone’s background requires a license or a certification.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”I’m A Single Mother And The Courts Will Be Lenient With Me.” open=”y/n”]Rectification: I try to present each of my clients to the prosecutor’s office individually and I think everyone has their own story and the effects of DWI on each person are different. While I don’t believe that that ending in itself is going to provide for a more lenient disposition, it’s certainly a factor that can be raised in trying to reach a more reasonable disposition.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”I’m New To New York And I Think That The DUI Laws Are Pretty Much The Same From Where I Used To Live In. Now, If I Had A DUI From The State That I Used To Live In, It Shouldn’t Be A Problem In New York, Right, Or If I Went Out Of New York And Came Back To My Old State?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: If someone comes to me with a DWI in the state of New York, one of the key questions I ask them is whether or not they have a prior DWI or DUI from any other state. The answer is yes, it very well can have an extraordinarily bad consequence especially if the prior DWI is very similar to the DWI laws of this state because then, there is a real possibility that the prosecutor in New York could use that old DWI from out of state against them and consider this a second offense. So, what’s important is how long ago that prior DWI was and whether the laws in that state are substantially similar to the New York laws and if it’s less than 10 years ago, the old conviction, and if the laws are substantially similar, then you’ll have a situation where the prosecution in New York is permitted to try to use that old DWI to elevate the case here in New York, not only the consequence or the penalty but maybe even elevate it to a felony DWI, which we have in New York.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”If I Was Convicted For A DUI In New York Or Just Charged With The DUI In New York, I Can Just Expunge It Right Away, Right?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: People have a misconception of what an expungement is. Expungements are common in certain states and don’t exist in the state of New York. There is no expungement process and procedure in the state of New York, so if someone was convicted on January 1 2014 and they wanted to try to get an immediate expungement,
- They can’t do it,
- There’s no waiting period that would be permitted for them to wait to get the expungement because there is no expungement available in the state of New York.
There are two things that can be talked about with regard to cases. If someone is charged with the DWI in the state of New York and their case is dismissed, then it’s important that the attorney ask the court to seal the conviction. A case that’s been dismissed and sealed is essentially like an expungement which most people think about it’s a case that’s over and should not be able to be seen by anybody including a future employer. But if someone pleads guilty to a DWI or driving while ability impaired, it’s not expungeable in the state of New York.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”When I Got A Breathalyzer Test, I Blew Under 0.08, So I Should Be Fine, Right?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: 0.08 is legal limit for a misdemeanor in the state of New York. I’ve seen many cases like this in New York. Ordinarily, what the prosecutors do is they’ll charge you with a DWI as a misdemeanor based on observations of the police officer and they’ll also charge you with driving while ability impaired. Often times, those cases can be resolved if they’re driving while ability impaired but it still requires court appearances, it still should be analyzed to see whether or not the case should go to trial and someone should not automatically just plead guilty to driving while ability impaired, it does carry a 90-day driver’s license suspension and there are other consequences that will remain with them for their entire life. Simply blowing up below 0.08 doesn’t mean that they have nothing to worry about or nothing to talk to an attorney about, they should, by all means, have an attorney reviewed that case before deciding what to do with the case.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”This Is The First Time That This Has Happened To Me, So The Courts Will Go Easy On Me And Maybe Even Let It Slide, Right?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: Certainly not having any prior offenses puts you in a category where you’re not considered as second DWI or a second driving while impaired which would be an aggravating factor but I tend to disagree with the fact presented in the question that they might just let it slide. Each DWI case is prosecuted on its merits by the prosecutor’s offices, so just because it’s your first one doesn’t mean that the case is being dismissed or that they’re not going to prosecute it. They would certainly take into consideration the lack of prior charges but that’s not a reason for a case to be dismissed in the state of New York.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”Let’s Say I Was In A Situation Where I Was Drinking, So I Pulled Over To The Side Of The Road To Wait It Off But The Police Insisted On Arresting Me Even Though I Wasn’t Even Driving. I Should Have An Easy Case With That, Right?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: There is a legal term which is confused by people, which is, it has to be proven for someone to be found guilty of the DWI, and that’s the term “Operation”. Obviously when someone’s driving down the street and the police officer pulls them over, everyone understands that they’re operating the motor vehicle. So, when somebody pulls to the side, they think that they’re not operating the motor vehicle any longer. But the legal definition is much more complicated and much more comprehensive than simply pulling off to the side of the road. One can argue that someone that’s pulled off to the side of the road is no longer operating the motor vehicle, however the legal definition does not allow for that relief.
It will depend on whether the car’s running or not, it’ll depend on whether it’s cooled out or not and the person just pulled over to keep warm and to sleep it off. There’s a lot of factors that would have to be flushed out in order for the motorist to decide whether or not that’s the case that they would want to take to trial or not because prosecutors would certainly prosecute a case like that because it’s hard to know when that person pulled over, it’s hard to know whether — and the definition of operation includes the car running or just the keys in the ignition, so it’s not an easy case for the motorists.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”I Wouldn’t Do Any Harm If I Talk About This On Social Video Sites Like Facebook And Twitter, Right?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: Probably not a good idea to get legal advice or to seek out any legal advice from people on Facebook or Twitter. It’s also certainly not a good idea to make admissions or just talk about your case or to write anything about your case on social media just like most people, social media sites could be visited by prosecutors and that information might wind up in the hands of a prosecutor and that can certainly be bad for your case or embarrassing for your case or certainly make your case more difficult. So, I would stay away from that, any conversations I would have about my case would be confidential and between myself and my attorney or myself and my family in person not on social media.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”I Should Just Come Clean To The Court, Tell Them About My Habits And They Will Understand My Honesty.” open=”y/n”]Rectification: In the state of New York, there is a court ordered assessment or evaluation of a person which is not going to be used as evidence against them for the DWI case but the court, based on that assessment or evaluation, will have an idea of a professional’s opinion as to the person’s habits and the person’s reliance upon alcohol in their daily lives. But more than that, I would not do, I wouldn’t show up in court and let the judge know that I drink socially or no pronouncements should be made to the court about somebody’s habits alcohol or drug related. There’ll be nothing good that would come from that.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”A DUI Is An Impossible Battle That I Am Doomed To Lose.” open=”y/n”]Rectification: Every call that I get about a DWI case, I try to provide education. And I think that the more a prescriptive client understands about the criminal justice system, about DWIs the more they understand that it’s more hopeful than they think and that they have more power and leverage than they may think, and that while the system is difficult and uncomfortable, it’s certainly not impossible, and that having proper representation not only is good for legal reasons but it’s also good for someone’s psyche, and that they can then realize that there is more hope in their situation than they have originally thought.
I take the position that any criminal case including a DWI case, traffic case for that matter, is a case that must be evaluated on its merit, must be evaluated based on the person’s background and that there is hope in any case where the presumptions are on behalf of the motorists meaning presumption of innocence and that they are innocent unless and until the prosecutor has proven beyond the reasonable doubt each and every element of the crime. So, I don’t think that DWIs are impossible; I think that they’re very manageable and that’s what I try to provide to my clients.
[bc_collapse title=”I Would Be Facing A Great Deal Of Jail Time For My DUI.” open=”y/n”]Rectification: I think that is a common misconception. In the state of New York, in the city of New York, first offense DWIs or DUIs often do not involve any jail time. In fact, it’s probably one of the most rare occasions; I don’t know that I can think of one DWI that involved jail time. None of my clients have ever got to jail on a first offense DWI or DUI in New York. Technically, a person is facing up to a year in jail on unclassified misdemeanor or in the DWI or DUI in the state of New York but it’s hardly the rule and extraordinarily uncommon and I can’t even think of one case that I’ve even seen anybody get jail time on a DWI that I’ve either represented or even seen.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”If I Have Researched Enough On The Internet And Through Friends Experiences, I Can Probably Beat This Case On My Own.” open=”y/n”]Rectification: I think the internet has a very real place not only in researching for other areas but is a good thing for people to find goods and services including lawyers, including information about lawyers and including information about the law because I do believe that there’s quite a bit of reliable, credible information out there with regard to this area of the law. But I don’t think that makes somebody into an advocate, I don’t think it makes somebody into an attorney, I don’t think it provides them with enough information to negotiate, I don’t think it provides them with enough information to speak to prosecutors, I don’t think it provides them with enough experience to realize whether or not they’re saying something against their own interest, which might be used against them. So, while I think it’s important to be educated and I have no problem with people discussing with me what they find on the internet because very often, people find me on the internet, I don’t think that it makes somebody into an effective advocate to represent themselves for a DWI or a DUI in New York.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”My Friend Had A DUI And They Were Intoxicated. However, They Got A Successful Case. If I Do And Say The Same Things, I’ll Get The Same Results, Right?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: Very often people will say to me, they’ll tell me about their case and then, they’ll say, “Well, I have a friend or I heard about a guy and his case got dismissed because of a technicality or because of a particular reason”, and well, I do believe that those theories are true and I do believe that those things exist and in fact, I’ve been the recipients of cases where I was able to successfully represent people and get their cases dismissed. I think that every case rises and falls on its own, every set of facts are different, every client is different, every client’s background is different, every police officer’s different, every prosecutor’s different, every judge is different. So, while some of the tactics or laws certainly apply to each case, it’s very hard to compare cases and say that just because you’re charged with the same offense that the result is going to be the same.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”I Have A Relative Or I Have A Friend Who Has A Relative Who Practices Law, I Am Not Sure What Kinds, I Think It’s General Law But They Can Help Me Out On This, Right?” open=”y/n”]Rectification: A lot of people fine me through friends and relatives, former clients, any network, appropriate networks. I think it’s fine that you use your network of people to find an attorney. I find that DWI law is not a general practice area; it’s a very specific practice area that requires knowledge of the law, requires knowledge of the constitutional law that surrounds it, requires knowledge of the breath test devices, requires knowledge of refusals, requires knowledge of the way police officers act and testify.
I don’t think that a general practitioner would necessarily be a bad attorney, they might be a very good attorney of a DWI case if especially they’ve done many but I think in the end, you’re better off with someone who spends more of their time with DWI cases, as I do, than spends on, let’s say, other areas of law, it could be anything else. I spend my days essentially preparing for and practicing in the area of DWI, so I’m immersed in it just like being immersed in a language. I speak the language of DWI cases on a regular basis, so I understand the law, what I don’t know I’ve learned. I think someone who’s immersed in it probably has a better rapport with the new answers of the area than someone who kind of spreads themselves out among many areas or practices in another area. While a general practitioner probably could do a fine job, the question is whether the person wants fine or they want the best.
[bc_collapse title=”I Should Only Go With A Lawyer That Guarantees Me Success.” open=”y/n”]Rectification: I guess the question here is how do you define success. If that’s the statement that would be used for somebody to hire me, I would consider establishing a workable rapport with my client. If someone else would define successes in guaranteeing that the case gets dismissed, that’s something I cannot work with because I don’t have control over certain things. However, I can properly prepare a case and most importantly, properly prepare a client for what’s come ahead because I’ve represented so many people over so many years with similar circumstances. So, if success means that you will understand, because you’re my client, of what’s going to happen next and what’s happening now and what to expect and how to make proper decisions, then that’s fine but if success means that I’m guaranteeing some particular result, that I will not do.[/bc_collapse]
[bc_collapse title=”A Lawyer Is A Lawyer. I Should Just Shop Around And Find The Best Deal.” open=”y/n”]Rectification: I have no problem with people trying to find the best deal in anything that they do, they’re spending their hard-earned money and they should certainly get their value out of what they’re spending their money on and certainly fighting and defending a DWI case is not an expensive proposition. But there are people that spend more time on DWI cases as I do then other people and some of those other people might be just as competent or even more competent but I don’t think you can shop for a doctor that way. If you need a cardiologist, you’re not going to go to a podiatrist just because they’re cheaper.
I think that there’s an analogy at least to be made where you probably don’t want me doing a bankruptcy and I’ll tell you right now I don’t do bankruptcy. So, even if I were the cheapest guy in town doing bankruptcy, I wouldn’t be the guy that you want to go to. On the other hand, if it’s a DWI, you might want to consider someone who does quite a few of them on a weekly basis, monthly basis and yearly basis because there’s value even if they’re more expensive, there’s value in their advice and there’s value in their explanations and there’s value in helping you make decisions.
[bc_collapse title=”I’ve Already Had A DUI Before. The Result Wasn’t Really What I Was Hoping For At The Time, So I Don’t Think Hiring An Attorney Would Be Beneficial To Me This Time Around And I Should Just Throw Myself To The Mercy Of The Court And See What Happens.” open=”y/n”]Rectification: Having a prior DWI complicates things quite a bit. The first question would be whether you pled guilty on last case to a misdemeanor or to a traffic infraction, and how long ago that event occurred because that would certainly complicate the potential penalties that you would get on the new case. Perhaps you should look for an attorney that’s different than the attorney that you used the first time, especially if that experience left you without proper satisfaction but I certainly would seek out the assistance of an attorney for the second case because as you accumulate cases, you accumulate and elevate the potential penalties that you’re facing and just because you had a poor experience the first time doesn’t mean that you should go without an attorney’s advice. In most courts, they’re going to require you to get an attorney in New York, you might as well choose what you want.[/bc_collapse]