Posts Tagged ‘dui jury trial’

Ohio DUI Attorney: Is It A Just World?

April 10th, 2014

ohio dui attorneyAs an Ohio DUI attorney, I often observe a bias that people carry toward those accused of drunk driving.  Psychologists call this phenomena the “Just World Hypothesis.”

The belief that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get, which was first theorized by Melvin Lerner in 1977.  Lerner, M.J. & Miller, D.T. (1977). Just-world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin85, 1030-1051.  Attributing failures to dispositional causes rather than situational causes, which are unchangeable and uncontrollable, satisfies our need to believe that the world is fair and we have control over our life. We are motivated to see a just world because this reduces our perceived threats,Burger, J.M. (1981). Motivational biases in the attribution of responsibility for an accident: A meta-analysis of the defensive-attribution hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin90, 496-512, Walster, E. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social31, 73-79, gives us a sense of security, helps us find meaning in difficult and unsettling circumstances, and benefits us psychologically.  Gilbert, D.T., & Malone, P.S. (1995).The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin117, 21–38.

Unfortunately, the just-world hypothesis also results in a tendency for people to blame and disparage victims of a tragedy or an accident, such as victims of rape (See Abrams, D., Viki, G.T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology84, 111-125;Bell, S.T., Kuriloff, P.J., & Lottes, I. (1994). Understanding attributions of blame in stranger-rape and date-rape situations: An examinations of gender, race, identification, and students’ social perceptions of rape victims. Journal of Applied Social Psychology24, 1719-1734) and domestic abuse (See Summers, G., & Feldman, N.S. (1984).Blaming the victim versus blaming the perpetrator: An attributional analysis of spouse abuse.Journal of Applied Social and Clinical Psychology2, 339-347) to reassure themselves of their insusceptibility to such events. People may even go to such extremes as the victim’s faults in “past life” to pursue justification for their bad outcome.(Woogler, R.J. (1988). Other lives, other selves: A Jungian psychotherapist discovers past lives. New York: Bantam.)

The just world phenomena is observed in DUI trials as a bias that can cause a jury to overlook the evidence and blame the accused driver for putting himself or herself in a position where an officer could arrest them.  When you combine this inherent bias with a society that stigmatizes drinking drivers (Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk, Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over), you are left with a turbulent trial scenario for your attorney to face.  An experienced Ohio DUI attorney will make allowances for the juries unknown bias by addressing it in the void dire and in a closing argument.  Often, simply addressing the bias is enough of an inoculation to allow the jurors to focus on the evidence.

Ohio DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

Find information on Ohio DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II on this blog, or check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

 

 

Ohio OVI Law – a definition

June 13th, 2010
Sample version of Ohio's DUI plate mandated on...
Image via Wikipedia

The term OVI (Operating a Vehicle while Impaired) is the latest acronym for the universally understood DUI; they mean the same thing.  Often you will find yourself charged with OVI offenses in two ways: the first is for testing over the per se limit, and the second charge for operating a vehicle while impaired. In Ohio driving under the influence includes driving while intoxicated with too much alcohol, or driving under the influence of a drug of abuse. The traditional offense is “driving under the influence of alcohol” (DUI). Ohio has also enacted a second, so-called “per se” offense: driving with an excessive blood-alcohol concentration (.08%). In Ohio, BOTH OVI offenses are usually charged just to allow the prosecutor some discretion in pursuing his or her case.

A jury instruction which is given at every Ohio DUI trial states,

  • UNDER THE INFLUENCE. “Under the influence means that the defendant consumed some (alcohol)(drug of abuse)(alcohol and a drug of abuse), whether mild or potent, in such a quantity, whether small or great, that it adversely affected and appreciably impaired the defendant’s actions, reactions, or mental processes under the circumstances then existing and deprived him of that clearness of intellect and control of himself which he would otherwise have possessed. The question is not how much (alcohol)(drug of abuse)(alcohol and a drug of abuse) would affect an ordinary person. The question is what effect did any (alcohol)(drug of abuse)(alcohol and a drug of abuse), consumed by the defendant, have on him at the time and place involved. If the consumption of (alcohol)(drug of abuse)(alcohol and a drug of abuse) so affected the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the defendant so as to impair, to an appreciable degree, his ability to operate the vehicle, then the defendant was under the influence.

Driving with a prohibited concentration of alcohol in your blood breath or urine is a separate offense under Ohio OVI law. If you have ever heard anyone refer to “blowing above a .08” they are referring to the most common test administered by law enforcement today, the breath test. Ohio Revised Code section 4511.19 sets forth the elements of Ohio’s tough OVI law. The Ohio legal limit for persons 21 and over is any of the following:

  • .08 or more by weight of alcohol in blood;
  • .08 of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath;
  • .11 of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of urine;
  • .17 of one per cent or more by weight of alcohol in the person’s blood:
  • .17 of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of the person’s breath:
  • .238 of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of the person’s urine.

The .17 threshold is used to enhance the penalties for “higher test” offenders, doubling the mandatory OVI jail time at each tier of the sentencing.  You may hear these high tier OVI cases referred to as “SUPER OVIs” or as OVIs requiring mandatory minimum jail time on a first offense.

As can be seen from the definition provided to the jury, some subjectivity does come into play. A skillful prosecutor will attempt to narrow this definition. It will be up to your attorney to demonstrate to the jury that your ability to drive was not impaired at the time of you OVI arrest. It is important to understand that you can be in violation of the law by simply being under the influence. The officer does not need to test your blood breath or urine if he/she believes that sufficient evidence exists for your arrest. Current Ohio OVI law makes driving with above a .08% concentration of alcohol a separate offense for which you can be convicted. The law prevents “operation” of a “vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley” “anywhere in the state.” “Operation” of the vehicle can include pulling over to the side of the road to “sleep it off” while the car is running and can include simply sitting behind the wheel of the vehicle with the motor off and the key in the ignition. Besides a car, truck or van a person can be found guilty of OVI in Ohio by “operating” a bicycle, a snowmobile, or a golf cart. Unlike other laws which require operation of the vehicle on public highways or areas open to the public, DUI. convictions can come “anywhere in the state.” Convictions have been upheld for operation on a private shopping center parking lot, a private driveway or your own property.

Charles M. Rowland II has worked hard to amass the skills, credentials and experience necessary to fight and win your Ohio OVI case.  He provides this information so that you will feel empowered and will be informed enough to make the best decision in hiring competent OVI counsel.  If you have been arrested in Ohio on charges of OVI, it is important that you consult an attorney right away.  Charles M. Rowland is available 24/7 at 937-776-2671 (DUI Hotline); during business hours at 937-218-1DUI (318-1384) or 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263); text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500 for immediate help on your cell phone; or you can follow DaytonDUI on Twitter or Dayton DUI/OVI defense on Facebook.  Charles M. Rowland II limits his practice to the representation of the accused drunk driver.  “All I Do Is DUI Defense.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

OVI Jury Trial Instructions

May 31st, 2010

Xenia Municipal Court Jury Box

A jury instruction which is given at every OVI (formerly DUI) trial states,

  • UNDER THE INFLUENCE. “Under the influence means that the defendant consumed some (alcohol)(drug of abuse)(alcohol and a drug of abuse), whether mild or potent, in such a quantity, whether small or great, that it adversely affected and appreciably impaired the defendant’s actions, reactions, or mental processes under the circumstances then existing and deprived him of that clearness of intellect and control of himself which he would otherwise have possessed. The question is not how much (alcohol)(drug of abuse)(alcohol and a drug of abuse) would affect an ordinary person. The question is what effect did any (alcohol)(drug of abuse)(alcohol and a drug of abuse), consumed by the defendant, have on him at the time and place involved. If the consumption of (alcohol)(drug of abuse)(alcohol and a drug of abuse) so affected the nervous system, brain, or muscles of the defendant so as to impair, to an appreciable degree, his ability to operate the vehicle, then the defendant was under the influence.

This instruction is derived from State v. Hardy (1971), 28 Ohio St.2d 89, 276 N.E.2d 247.

It is the job of your DUI defense attorney to significantly narrow this definition through the use of science, knowledge of the standardized field sobriety tests, exacting cross-examination techniques and over-all trial skill.  If you find yourself in need of an Ohio OVI attorney who has dedicated his practice to honing the skills to win your Ohio DUI case, contact attorney Charles M. Rowland II at 937-879-9542 or 1-888-ROWLAND.