Posts Tagged ‘trial attorney’

« Older Entries

The Trial Attorney Creed (from Don Quixote)

May 8th, 2013
“It is not the responsibility of knights errant to discover whether the afflicted, the enchained and the oppressed whom they encounter on the road are reduced to these circumstances and suffer this distress for their vices, or for their virtues: the knight’s sole responsibility is to succour them as people in need, having eyes only for their sufferings, not for their misdeeds.” 
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

1 comment »

Posted in Other Areas & Interests, Trial Quotes

Tags:

Arrested for DUI? You Are Innocent.

March 18th, 2013

If you tell your friends that you were arrested for punching someone in the face, their overwhelming reaction will be, “Wow, what happened?”  If, however, you tell them that you were arrested for DUI, those same friends will say, “Oh, I’m so sorry.”  What is the difference?  When a person is facing a DUI charge, guilt is assumed.  How in the world did this happen?  How did our presumption of innocence, so valued in the American tradition of law, become so cheapened?  Perhaps we can look to the politically charged nature of the crime of drunk driving.  We can blame the media who gleefully report on the drunk driving charge, but often treat a reduction or dismissal as “winning on a technicality.”   Should accuse advocacy groups like MADD that have lead a decades long propaganda campaign against our core values?  Whatever the source, we have seen the diminishment of our rights to the point that the public believes that anyone accused of a DUI is assumed to be guilty.

In America you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  ”Presumption of innocence” serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and that the accused bears no burden of proof.  This presumption is ancient, dating back to the Old Testament.  In Genesis 18:23-32, it states, “Abraham drew near, and said, “Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it? What if ten are found there? The Lord said, “I will not destroy it for the ten’s sake.”  Latin legal principle provided that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).  Relying on this tradition Maimonides, a twelfth-century legal theorist looked to Exodus 23:7, “the innocent and righteous slay thou not” and argued against the use of presumptive evidence, concluding, “it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.”  In the De Laudibus Legum Angliae, c. 1470, Sir John Fortescue argues that “one would much rather that twenty guilty person should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally.”  In 1678, Lord Hale says that , ”In some cases presumptive evidence goes far to prove a person guilty, though there be no express proof of the fact to be committed by him, but then it must be very warily pressed, for it is better five guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should die.” He further observes: “And thus the reasons stand on both sides, and though these seem to be stronger than the former, yet in a case of this moment it is safest to hold that in practice, which hath least doubt and danger, quod dubitas, ne faceris.”  The principle and the concomitant prosecutor’s duty was referred to in the English Common Law and the “golden thread” by Lord Sankey, who wrote in Woomington v. DPP [1935]  AC 462, “throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen – that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defense of insanity and subject to any statutory exception…”

The principle of presumed innocence was accepted in America even before we were a county.  On Ocotber 3, 1692, Increase Mather relied upon Fortescue to decry the Salem Witch Trials writing, “It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that the Innocent Person should be Condemned.” Benjamin Franklin, writing in a letter of 1785 stated it as, “it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer. The words “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” do not appear in the United States Constitution but many provisions rely upon the proposition.  The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury and the 14th Amendment.  The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. Based upon this premise, the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical but deserving of, and receiving, special constitutional protection.

In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision in the case Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432; 15 S. Ct. 394, traced the presumption of innocence, past England, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, to Deuteronomy.  The Coffin case stands for the proposition that at the request of a defendant, a court must not only instruct on the prosecution’s burden of proof–that a defendant cannot be convicted unless the government has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt–but also must instruct on the presumption of innocence–by informing the jury that a defendant is presumed innocent. The Court stated, “The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”  Much later in Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 1930, 56 L.Ed.2d 468 (1978), the United States Supreme Court described the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence. It is not considered evidence of the defendant’s innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.  The Supreme Court has required, under some circumstances, a court should issue jury instructions on the presumption of innocence in addition to instructions on the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.  A presumption of innocence instruction may be required if the jury is in danger of convicting the defendant on the basis of extraneous considerations rather than the facts of the case.

The rights associated with the presumption of innocence have become a staple of modern democratic ideals and have been included in several important international legal codes and constitutions, including:

  • In the South African Constitution, section 35(3)(h) of the Bill of Rights states: “Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings.”
  • In the 1988 Brazilian constitution, article 5, section LVII states that “no one shall be considered guilty before the issuing of a final and unappealable penal sentence”.
  • The Constitution of Russia, in article 49, states that “Everyone charged with a crime shall be considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid sentence of a court of law”. It also states that “The defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence” and “Any reasonable doubt shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant”.
  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence. (from Wikipedia, original link HERE).
In short, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” is a fundamental right recognized as one of the great gifts bestowed by democratic government on its citizens.  BUT INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY DOES NOT EXIST FOR DUI DEFENDANTS! 
THE DUI EXCEPTION TO THE CONSTITUTION
If you are stopped by law enforcement and the officer believes he has probable cause to arrest you for operating a vehicle impaired you most likely going to lose your license.  You are not innocent until proven guilty, but presumed to have broken the law.  According to Ohio Revised Code4511.191, if you are arrested on suspicion that you are operating a vehicle while impaired (commonly called a DUI) and you take a chemical test which produces a result which is over the per se limit as set by the Ohio Department of Health, your license will be suspended immediately. Depending on previous offenses or refusals, you can have your license suspended for a period of 1 year to 5 years.  The presumption of innocence is so destroyed (in the DUI context) that even a NOT GUILTY finding by a jury cannot restore it.  Verdial Lewis was found not guilty of OVI in a trial in the Hamilton County Municipal Court.  Upon finding the defendant not guilty, the court terminated the (ALS)  administrative license suspension that was imposed for the driver’s refusal to submit to achemical test.  Upon appeal, the 1st District Court of Appeals held that a not guilty verdict on a charge of OVI did not permit termination of the (ALS) automatic license suspension of a motorist’s driver’s license for having refused to submit to a chemical test.  Even though the OVI charge was not a sufficient charge under Ohio law, the harshest provisions of the OVI suspension will remain in effect.  This ruling effectively prevents a not guilty trial verdict from protecting a defendant’s driver’s license when they refuse to take the test. State v. Lewis, 187 Ohio App.3d701, 2010-Ohio-2872.  If you have a commercial driver’s license an Ohio DUI charge can have devastating effects on your career.  Often clients who hold a commercial driver’s license fail to understand that Ohio’s OVI laws can affect your livelihood even if you receive a drunk driving charge while you are not operating a commercial vehicle.  If you plead guilty, or are found guilty, of an OVI (drunk driving) offense your commercial driver’s license will be taken away for one year.  If you are a second-time OVI offender, an Ohio OVI will result in an indefinite revocation of your CDL.  What is more, a court cannot give you privileges to operate a commercial vehicle while the case is pending and that a CDL suspension is in addition to any suspension that the court may impose.  If you drive for a living these penalties can be devastating for you and your family.
In Ohio, any person who operates a vehicle within the state of Ohio is said to have given his or her consent to a chemical test of their blood, breath, or urine to determine alcohol content if arrested for OVI (drunk driving).  Pursuant to recent changes in Ohio OVI law, an OVI suspect has 3 hours to comply with the request to submit to a test, and failure to do so within the 3 hour limit will be considered a “refusal.”  Recent changes allow the police to use “whatever reasonable means are necessary to ensure that the person submits to a chemical test of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.”  In State v. Allen, 2010-Ohio-1257, 13-09-25(OHCA3), the defendant  was stopped and arrested for OVI and subsequently tested over 0.08. She was given an unsworn copy of the 2255 and then the officer submitted an unsworn copy of the 2255 to the Court and the BMV. The Tiffin Municipal Court upheld the suspension. The 3rd District Court of Appeals held that the suspension was validIMMEDIATELY upon testing over and it has nothing to do with the 2255 being sworn or not.  The Court held,
[T]o interpret the effectiveness of the ALS to be dependent on the Registrar receiving a sworn report is not only contrary to the express statutory language but would also serve to make the suspension process inefficient and impractical. If the ALS does not take effect immediately upon refusal to submit to the chemical test or upon the chemical test indicating a prohibited concentration of alcohol, then presumably a person’s driver’s license would remain effective until the Registrar processed the form.
If you ever question why an attorney would fight so hard for the accused drunk driver look no further than the decision (recently affirmed at Middleburg Hts. v. Henniger, 2006-Ohio-3715) setting forth the US Supreme Court DUI exception to the Fifth Amendment.  The United States Supreme Court has held that the admission of evidence at trial of a defendant’s refusal to take a chemical test does not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination or the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. South Dakota v. Neville (1983), 459 U.S. 553, 564-566. Following Neville, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the trier of fact may consider a defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical test as evidence in deciding whether the defendant was under the influence of alcohol. Maumee v. Anistik (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 339, syllabus; see, also, State v. Spurlock (Dec. 15, 1995), Portage App. No. 95-P-0067.  The following language was taken from the recently decided Middleburg v. Henniger, cited above:

Ohio, like South Dakota in Neville, has adopted an implied consent statute, which is outlined in R.C. 4511.191. The consent statute spells out a bargain between drivers and the state. In exchange for the use of the roads within the state ofOhio, drivers consent to have their breath tested if a police officer has reason to believe the driver is intoxicated. Because an OVI suspect is already deemed to have consented to the breath test, “no impermissible coercion is involved when the suspect refuses to submit to take the test.” Neville, 459 U.S. at 562.

In Birkemer vs. McCarty, the UnitedStates Supreme Court concluded that there was a DUI exception to the constitution. And that, “Well, we really can’t tell you when you’re supposed to give Miranda in a DUI case. We do know that it is later than in other types of criminal investigations.” So, U.S. Supreme Court has told us we don’t know when Miranda is supposed to be given in DUI cases, but it is clearly some time later.  In 1989 the United States Supreme Court in Blanton vs. North Las Vegas, a DUI case, said, “There is no constitutional right to a jury trial in a DUI case, so long as it’s not punishable by more than six months in jail.”  Furthermore, Ohio has interpreted its DUI law (at the insistence of advocacy groups such as MADD) that any test within three hours that results in a blood-alcohol reading, it shall be presumed that it was the same at the time of driving.  Even though we know absolutely, as a matter of science, fact, that that is not true.
When you hear a DUI/OVI attorney decrying “junk science” that is used in court, they are most likely referring to the fact that the air blown into the breath test machine for purposes of testing cannot be the same air that is exchanged with the deep lung alveolar sacs. It is impossible to limit the breath test to limit itself to deep lung alveolar air. The theory breaks down because: IF THE MAJORITY OF AIR BEING MEASURED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BLOOD EXCHANGE THEN THE TEST IS NOT MEASURING THE AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL IN THE BLOOD.  The machine does not and cannot discriminate in its air sample.   It will measure and analyze the 1.5 liters of breath that it is given. The problems with the theory is that the breath machine has to assume a similar lung volume amongst the population. Common sense dictates that a 21 year old, 6 foot male in perfect health blowing 7 liters of air IS DIFFERENT than an 65 year old, 5 foot 2 inch woman who may only blow 1.5 liters.  The major injustice in DUI/OVI law in Ohio is that attorneys are prevented from attacking the “junk science” of breath tests machines due to the decision in State v. Vega. As amazing as it seems, Ohio has decided that if the government says the science is good enough, then attorneys cannot challenge it. Imagine if the same philosophy were used in other areas of criminal law. What if the Ohio legislature decided that eye-witnesses were inherently reliable and an attorney could not challenge them at trial. What is to stop them from saying that police officers are inherently reliable and they too are free from cross examination.  Does this sound consistent with the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty?  Does this sound like a principle that is consistent with any other aspect of American jurisprudence?  Does this sound fundamentally fair?  A man I greatly admire, DUI defense attorney Lawrence Taylor of California, has described DUI as a political crime which is fought by extremists who have used every tactic at their disposal to overcome the fairness inherent in the American constitution.  What is worse, is that the extreme advocacy has a deleterious effect not only on our system of justice, but also on our character.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Dayton, Springfield, Kettering, Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg, Springboro,Huber Heights, Oakwood, Beavercreek, Centerville and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself the Miami Valley’s choice for DUI defense.  Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263).  For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter @DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting DaytonDUI to40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324. “All I do is DUI”

Related articles

No comments »

Posted in DUI Court Process

Tags:

Affirmative Defenses to a Driving Under Suspension Charge

December 5th, 2012

Ohio law provides two affirmative defenses to the crime of driving under suspension.  Ohio Revised Code section 4510.04, Affirmative defenses to driving under suspension or cancellation, provides in pertinent part,

It is an affirmative defense to any prosecution brought under section 4510.11, 4510.14, 4510.16, or 4510.21 of the Revised Code or under any substantially equivalent municipal ordinance that the alleged offender drove under suspension, without a valid permit or driver’s or commercial driver’s license, or in violation of a restriction because of a substantial emergency, and because no other person was reasonably available to drive in response to the emergency.

It is an affirmative defense to any prosecution brought under section 4510.16 of the Revised Code that the order of suspension resulted from the failure of the alleged offender to respond to a financial responsibility random verification request under division (A)(3)(c) of section 4509.101 of the Revised Code and that, at the time of the initial financial responsibility random verification request, the alleged offender was in compliance with division (A)(1) of section 4509.101 of the Revised Code as shown by proof of financial responsibility that was in effect at the time of that request.

Driving Under Suspension can be charged as a first degree misdemeanor or as an unclassified misdemeanor.  It is a serious crime.  It is also a crime that is treated very differently depending on the jurisdiction wherein your charge takes place.  Be sure to hire an attorney who knows the court where you will appear and is familiar with how the prosecutor and judge will approach your particular facts.  At DaytonDUS, we have been representing clients for over 16 years in courts throughout the Miami Valley.  As a former prosecutor, Charles M. Rowland II will aggressively advocate to keep you out of jail.  He will go the extra mile to get you valid.  This is not a time to gamble.  Call someone who has a track record of winning for his clients.  (937) 318-1DUS.

Related articles

No comments »

Posted in Driving Under Suspension

Tags:

Standardized Field Sobriety Tests: The One Leg Stand Test

October 11th, 2012

English: Bridget Sloan performs on the balance...

The Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST) are a battery of three tests administered and evaluated in a standardized manner to obtain validated indicators of impairment and establish probable cause for arrest. These tests were developed as a result of research sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and conducted by the Southern California Research Institute. A formal program of training was developed and is available through NHTSA to help law enforcement officers become more skillful at detecting DWI suspects, describing the behavior of these suspects, and presenting effective testimony in court. Formal administration and accreditation of the program is provided through the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). The three tests of the SFST are:

  • Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN),
  • Walk-and-Turn (WAT),
  • and One-Leg Stand (OLS).

These tests are administered systematically and are evaluated according to measured responses of the suspect.  Ohio Revised Code 4511.19(D)(4)(b) sets forth the standards for admissibility of the results of field sobriety tests in OVI (drunk driving) prosecutions.  See State v. Bozcar, 113 Ohio St. 3d 148, 2007-Ohio-1251, 863 N.E.2d 115 (2007).  In order for the tests to be admissible, the State must demonstrate:

  1. By clear and convincing evidence.
  2. The Officer administered the tests insubstantial compliance.
  3. The testing standards for any reliable, credible, and generally accepted test.
  4. Including, but not limited to, the standards set by NHTSA.

The only guidance provided for determining the meaning of “substantial compliance” has come from State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St. 3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372 (2003), wherein the court indicated that errors that are clearly “de minimus” or “minor procedural deviations” are not substantial.  Thus, the State must set forth the testing standards, offer some testimony that the testing standards have been accepted and that the officer has substantially complied.  If the State fails to introduce testimonial or documentary evidence of the standards (most likely via the NHTSA training manual), then they have not met this burden. See Village of Gates Mills v. Mace, 2005-Ohio-2191 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County), wherein the State did not meet this burden despite the Court having its own copy of the manual.

The validity of SFST results is dependent upon practitioners following the established, standardized procedures for test administration and scoring. NHTSA’s SFST Student Manualstates that the procedures demonstrated in the training program describe how SFSTs should be administered under ideal conditions, but that ideal conditions do not always exist in the field. Variations from ideal conditions, and deviations from the standardized procedures, might affect the evidentiary weight that should be given to test results.  Perhaps the most important statement about standardization can be found at VIII-19 which states:

IT IS NECESSARY TO EMPHASIZE THIS VALIDATION APPLIES ONLY WHEN:

  • THE TESTS ARE ADMINISTERED IN THE PRESCRIBED STANDARDIZED MANNER
  • THE STANDARDIZED CLUES ARE USED TO ASSESS THE SUSPECT’S PERFORMANCE
  • THE STANDARDIZED CRITERIA ARE EMPLOYED TO INTERPRET THAT PERFORMANCE

IF ANY ONE OF THE STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TEST ELEMENTS IS CHANGED THE VALIDITY IS COMPROMISED.

I have not added capitalization or bold to emphasize the importance of this warning.  The manual itself uses these indicia of importance at VIII-19.  Use this portion of the manual in conjunction with the State’s burden of proof (The State must demonstrate substantial compliance with the NHTSA manual by clear and convincing evidence) and you have some compelling arguments to make to the trier of fact.

THE ONE-LEG STAND TEST

In the One-Leg Stand test, the suspect is instructed to stand with one foot approximately six inches off the ground and count aloud by thousands (One thousand-one, one thousand-two, etc.) until told to put the foot down. The officer times the subject for 30 seconds. The officer looks for four indicators of impairment, including swaying while balancing, using arms to balance, hopping to maintain balance, and putting the foot down. NHTSA research indicates that 83 percent of individuals who exhibit two or more such indicators in the performance of the test will have a BAC of 0.08 of greater (Stuster and Burns, 1998).  As stated above, the validity One-Leg Stand results are dependent upon law enforcement officers following the established, standardized procedures for test administration and scoring.  The criteria to establish a proper One-Leg Stand test are set forth in the NHTSA manaual as follows:

  • Requirement of a reasonably dry, hard, level, and non-slippery surface.
  • Is the individual over 65 years of age? Did officer question whether individual was over 65 years of age?
  • Did officer ask the individual whether he or she has any back, leg or middle ear problems?
  • Did the officer check to see whether the suspect was overweight by 50 or more pounds?
  • Did the officer check to see whether individual is wearing heels more than 2” high and if so, did he give them the opportunity to remove their shoes?
  • “Please stand with your feet together and your arms down at the sides, like this.” (Demonstrate)
  • “Do not start to perform the test until I tell you to do so.”
  • “Do you understand the instructions so far? (Make sure suspect indicates understanding).”
  • “When I tell you to start, raise one leg, either leg, with the foot approximately 6 inches off the ground, keeping your raised foot parallel to the ground.” (Demonstrate one-leg stance.)
  • “You must keep both legs straight, arms at your side.”
  • “While holding that position, count out loud in the following manner: one thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three, until told to stop.”
  • Demonstrate a count as follows: one thousand and one, one thousand and two, one thousand and three, etc.
  • “Officer should not look at his foot when conducting the demonstration” – OFFICER SAFETY
  • “Keep you arms at your sides at all times and keep watching the raised foot.”
  • “Do you understand?” (Make sure the suspect indicates understanding.)
  • “Go ahead and perform the test.”
  • “Officer should always time the 30 seconds. Test should be discontinued after 30 seconds.”
  • Observe the suspect from a safe distance.
  • “If the suspect puts the foot down, give instructions to pick the foot up again and continue counting from the point at which the foot touched the ground.”
  • “If the suspect counts very slowly, terminate the test after 30 seconds.”
  • “Observe the suspect from a safe distance and remain as motionless as possible during the test so as not to interfere.”

Information obtained from www.nhtsa.gov and is considered public information provided at www.ohiopd.com

 SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?

Recall the one-leg stand test’s four indicators of impairment:

  1. swaying while balancing,
  2. using arms to balance,
  3. hopping to maintain balance, and
  4. putting the foot down.

The One-leg stand test requires your body to something unnatural; maintain a rigid body structure while precariously balanced.   The most natural reaction to being on one foot is to sway to find your center of gravity while lifting your arms like a tightrope walker.   Why do humans do this?  This technique provides several advantages. It distributes mass away from the pivot point and moves the center of mass out. This reduces angular velocity because her center of mass is now swinging through a longer arc. It takes longer to sweep out the same angle because the center of mass has a longer distance to go. The result is less tipping.  Millions of years of evolution have designed complex vestibular systems and wired our brains to act this way.  Unfortunately, swaying and holding your arms out will be counted as indicators of impairment according to the government.  As any skipping child will tell you, hopping is an instinctive way to quickly correct the body when attempting to locate the center of gravity. Again law enforcement uses natrual and  instinctive behavior to allege intoxication.  As documented in other articles on this blog, overweight people, older people, arthritic people and the simply uncoordinated may have trouble immediately finding and maintaining balance under ideal and fair conditions.  However law enforcement will unfairly count putting a foot down as an indicator of impairment.  It is up to your attorney to make a compelling defense against the use of this biased and unfair test to demonstrate that you were impaired.

Not only does the one-leg stand test require y0u to behave in an unnatural way, understanding its defects requires a jury to act in a unnatural way.  For example, if you see me trip over a crack in the sidewalk, you would consider me to be clumsy or uncoordinated.  If, however, you trip over a crack in the sidewalk you are much more likely to blame the crack.  The same is true for most people. This discrepancy is called the actor–observer bias.  In social psychology, thefundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) describes the tendency to over-value dispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations for those behaviors. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain the behavior of others. It does not explain interpretations of one’s own behavior—where situational factors are often taken into consideration.  This bias can be devastating in a DUI trial when jurors are asked to consider your performance on field sobriety tests.  They will view the actions with a “bias” that they do not know they have.  Furthermore, they use this error to exclude factors of vital importance to both the scientific validity of the tests and your factual innocence.  For instance, jurors may under-value situational factors such as anxiety, lack of sleep, inherent lack of coordination, passing cars, environmental factors etc.  When we look at some of the underlying assumptions of the fundamental attribution error, we see some scary stuff that we, as advocates, must point out and overcome.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield, Kettering, Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg, Springboro,Huber Heights, Oakwood, Beavercreek, Centerville and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself the Miami Valley’s choice for DUI defense.  Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263).  For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter @DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting DaytonDUI to40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324. “All I do is DUI”

Related articles

6 comments »

Posted in Field Tests (SFSTs), Illegal Police Stops

Tags: