Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Prosecutor Challenges One-Year Jail Sentence for Drunk Driving Causing Death Case

Published on: September 29, 2016 | by Patrick Barone

In Michigan, a charge of drunk driving causing death is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. This possible sentence is set forth in Michigan Complied Laws 257.625(4)(a). In determining exactly what sentence to impose for an individual case a judge will be looking at many factors, including the Michigan Sentencing Guidelines.

A recent case dealing with this issue is People v. Taylor. In this particular case the defendant Taylor was found guilty of drunk driving causing death. The facts were that Taylor admitted drinking, then while driving a car killed a person on a bicycle. He failed field sobriety tests and was over the legal limit.

The sentencing guideline range was 29 – 57 months. Taylor’s defense attorney filed a sentencing memorandum where he requested a downward departure from these guidelines. He argued that there were substantial and compelling reasons to do so, including his lack of criminal history, education, employment history, remorse and many other factors. The prosecutor, of course, argued that none of this mattered.

Michigan Court Rules Preliminary Breath Test Results Admissible For Crimes Other Than DUIs

Published on: September 27, 2016 | by Patrick Barone

Even before you are arrested, the police in Michigan can often conduct a search of your breath using a portable or preliminary breath test device. The purpose of these tests is to determine how much alcohol is in your body. However, these portable breath testers have significant limitations relative to the reliability of the results reported. This is because of the way these portable breath testers measure alcohol. Because these limitations are well recognized in the scientific community, the law usually precludes them from being entered into evidence.

For example, in drunk driving cases, results from breath tests taken at the roadside are generally inadmissible. There are exceptions making preliminary breath test results admissible into evidence, and these are set for in Michigan Compiled Laws sec. 257.625a(2)(b).

However, these exceptions may not apply to other types of criminal activity in Michigan. For example, preliminary breath tests would be admissible on the charge of Possession of a Firearm Under the Influence, a crime set forth in Michigan Compiled Laws sec. 750.237.

Delay in Prosecution Leads to Dismissal of Wayne County DUI

Published on: September 19, 2016 | by Patrick Barone

Prosecutors are loath to dismiss or reduce drunk driving cases in Michigan. This is because so many people watch DUI cases so closely, everyone from MADD to the Michigan State Police watch and track what happens to each and every person arrested for intoxicated driving in Michigan. If a prosecutor gives a non-alcohol reduction or even dismisses a case, they usually will have a pretty darn good reason for doing it.

That’s where good lawyering comes into play. A case we handled recently at the Barone Defense Firm had a significant delay in prosecution, and this eventually lead to us being able to make a deal whereby the accused drunk driver plead guilty to a careless driving as well as a disorderly person, which was taken under advisement and will be removed from this client’s record after probation. The original charge of OWI was dismissed.

The facts of this case were not good. The accused was involved in a two car accident. The dispatch indicated that she was trying to leave the area. When police arrived they noted (in the written report) a “strong odor of intoxicatingly liquor emanating from her person.”

Facebook Posting Admissible as Evidence in Michigan Criminal Case

Published on: September 16, 2016 | by Patrick Barone

According to the Michigan Court of Appeals, Facebook postings are admissible as evidence against a person accused of a crime in Michigan. In a recent case involving assault with intent to commit murder, felony firearm and other charges, the prosecutor found and presented to the jury evidence obtained from the defendant’s Facebook page. The defendant objected, and the Court of Appeals opinion says this:

Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted a Facebook posting into evidence without sufficient foundation. At issue is a page purportedly from defendant’s Facebook page on which is a picture of McKinley, the initials “RIP,” and a post reading, “Shuldd I let em kill me or turn myself ndd. I’m facing life nd da gtt dam pin…rest -6- in peace Ne-Ne, catch me nd traffic.”

The defendant also objected to admission of gang-related photographs also obtained from Facebook.

Drunk Driving Operation Can be Proven by Driver’s Admission to Police

Published on: September 15, 2016 | by Patrick Barone

The Michigan Court of Appeals has recently held that a driver’s admission to drinking too much and trying to drive from the bar were admissible against her to establish the element of operation.

As prosecutors often say in their opening/closing arguments, a crime is made up of parts called elements. In order to prove a case, a prosecutor must be able to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In a drunk driving case, one of those necessary elements is operation. Usually, an element can’t be proved just by the defendant’s admission. This is called the “corpus delicti rule.”

According to David Moritz, an assistant professor at Wayne State University Law School: the common law corpus delicti rule prohibits the introduction of an extrajudicial confession in a criminal case unless the prosecution introduces independent evidence of the “corpus delicti.” That is, the prosecution must introduce some evidence independent of the confession to establish that the crime described in the confession actually occurred.

48th District Court Judge in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan Finds Prejudice when Drunk Driving Case Set for Trial Then Dismissed

Published on: September 12, 2016 | by Patrick Barone

The Barone Defense Firm recently handled a drunk driving case in Bloomfield Hills 48^th District Court. The case involved a person who was stopped for weaving and running a red light. According to the police officer, this driver failed the field sobriety tests, and was arrested. He later had his blood drawn, and the result of the blood test suggested a bodily alcohol level of .136 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. The driver had been arrested for DUI previously, so this was his second offense.

This second offense drunk driving was prosecuted by the Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney’s office. As is typical for this prosecutor, no deals were offered so the matter was set for trial. A few days before the trial date the prosecutor filed a “Daubert” motion, arguing that the defendant’s expert was unqualified and should not be able to offer his opinion at trial that the blood test result was flawed, inaccurate and unreliable. The motion was scheduled for the first day of trial.

On the first day of trial, the assistant prosecutor handling the case indicated to the judge that she had no witnesses and could not proceed. Accordingly, she asked the judge to dismiss the case. We had no objection to the dismissal, so long as it was “with prejudice.” The assistant prosecutor asked that it be without prejudice. In this context, legal “prejudice” essentially means “final determination.” Said differently, we were arguing that jeopardy should attach so that the case could not be tried at a later date. Jeopardy arises out of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which indicates “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy.”

Barone Featured in September Super Lawyer’s Magazine

Published on: September 10, 2016 | by Patrick Barone

Michigan DUI lawyer Patrick T. Barone was recently featured in an article appearing on page 5 of the September 2016 Michigan Edition of Super Lawyers. This edition of the Super Lawyer’s magazine was sent to all of Michigan’s more than 33,000 lawyers and judges. For the general public searching for a Super Lawyer, there is also a digital version on line, and even an app that includes the featured list that is searchable by location.

Super Lawyers is a rating service, and each year Super Lawyer’s Magazine uses their “patented selection process” to find and report on Michigan’s outstanding lawyers and rising stars. The selected lawyers are then compiled, and the results of their research are published in a Super Lawyer’s Magazine.

In addition to the lawyer listings, the Editors of Super Lawyers Magazine also looks to write about lawyers on their Super Lawyer list who have, for example, have handled landmark cases, have innovated their firm or practice in some way or have compelling personal stories about their lives/careers. Specifically, the September Super Lawyer’s article addresses Mr. Barone’s journey toward psychodrama certification as well as his incorporation and trial use of action methods borrowed from psychodrama.

How to Avoid a False Positive on Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices

Published on: September 8, 2016 | by Patrick Barone

Michigan drivers arrested or convicted of drunk driving might be ordered to have a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID) installed on their car. Some judges will require a BAIID to be installed as a condition of bond. Other times, a BAIID can be a condition of probation. With a high BAC case (test result at or above .17) a BAIID will be a condition of obtaining a license. Repeat offenders suffering from license revocation will be required to have a BAIID installed as a condition of later obtaining driving privileges. Sobriety courts also use BAIIDs as part of their programs.

In each of these instances, a positive alcohol test on the BAIID will result in serious consequences, ranging anywhere from jail time to additional license sanctions. A frequent question then is how does one avoid a false positive. That is, if you have a BAIID on your car, how can you avoid having a false positive reported to the court?

The best and most obvious way to avoid a “false” positive is to not drink. Sometimes a person who is ordered to stop using alcohol, but who knows when they will be tested, tries to outsmart the system by drinking only a little and hoping that when they are testing, the alcohol will have left their body. This idea is not only wrong; it’s doomed to fail.

History Repeated: The Resemblance Between Medical Marijuana and Alcohol Prescriptions During Prohibition

Published on: September 8, 2016 | by Patrick Barone

In history there’s an adage that what’s old is new again. This certainly seems to be the case with Michigan’s Medical Marijuana act which allows a caregiver to legally sell marijuana to a patient bearing a valid prescription. Otherwise, it is illegal to sell, use or possess marijuana.

During prohibition it was similarly illegal to sell, use or possess alcohol. One exception to this prohibition was the alcohol prescription. According to the Smithsonian Institution’s web site, during prohibition your doctor could write you a prescription for booze. This would allow “patients” to purchase a pint of booze every ten days!

History buffs will be interested to know that during prohibition a particularly creative lawyer by the name of George Remus took full advantage of this “loophole.” First, he used his contacts in Washington to pass laws that he could take advantage of to build a mostly legal business empire. To do this, he purchased all the standing liquor, meaning that already produced by distillers around the country. He used his connections to get “withdraw permits” and he arranged to have this withdrawn booze sold to drug companies that he also owned. This booze would then be sold to pharmacies that would fill the alcohol prescriptions. In this way Remus became both buyer and seller, thereby assuring the uninterrupted availability of alcohol to anyone who wanted it. To learn more, watch Ken Burns documentary about Prohibition.

Does Michigan’s New Law Require Police to Properly Administer Roadside Sobriety Tests?

Published on: September 8, 2016 | by Patrick Barone

Nearly all drunk driving arrests in Michigan consist of four parts; (1) some sort of bad driving leading to a traffic stop, (2) roadside or “field sobriety tests,” (3) roadside breath test for alcohol, or saliva test for drugs, and; (4) second breath or blood test to confirm roadside test.

Regarding roadside field sobriety testing, Michigan law has been moving toward requiring that field sobriety tests be administered according to the standardized protocol. For example, prior Michigan cases have indicated that the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) must be administered properly and that the officer administering the test must be qualified to perform it. (Berger). Another Michigan drunk driving case indicates that an officer’s incorrect administration of the HGN test will lead to an inaccurate interpretation of the results. (Mullen). So far, however, no published Michigan drunk driving case has defined “standardized field sobriety test” or required either strict or substantial compliance.

A newly amended Michigan drunk driving law changes that, at least temporarily. This new law is part of the broader package of laws creating a pilot program pilot that aims to test the use of saliva testing to screen potential drugged drivers on the road side.[i]

Michigan Criminal Defense Law Blog