DUI Defense Lawyer Strategies - Part 1

A video of excerpts from California DUI attorney Lawrence Taylor's keynote lecture at the North Carolina Trial Lawyer Academy to over 100 lawyers.
Part 1

http://www.duicentral.com/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• California
• los
• angeles
• san
• francisco
• dui
• attorney
• lawyer
• Lawrence
• Taylor
• drunk
• driving
• defense

[AMofuckinBoss]

@grapevinelane

I disagree. Doing so isn't reasonable if what you are trying to do is prevent damages from drunk drivers. Out of every drunk driver arrested in a night approximately 2,000 are out driving in the average municipality alone. Criminalizing people who have a drink or two after a dinner or gathering etc.. who are perfectly capable of driving doesn't make sense when law enforcement could be out focusing on REAL drunk reckless drivers they dont catch already. Plus, what about duress?

[grapevinelane]

California should just have zero tolerance to drink and drive, then nobody would have to second guess how much they drank before driving.

If you go to dinner and drink you'll automatically know, you cannot drive afterwards, period. We need more taxi services in this whole area, San Louis Obispo County and Santa Barbara Co., Santa Maria. This area is spread out for miles and there are no taxi's! A great business for someone to pursue here.

[awbacker]

The 40% figure wrong. But I'm sure it works in a courtroom, because no one else understands either. You can't add percentages like that. I should say that I still agree with what he is saying, and his points, but the math... it hurts!

[BiologyGuy1]

@Steelhorsecowboy Thats because that number is a percentage (%) of your blood that is alcohol. Thus no matter your size, age, medical condition, or what you ate, that is the bottom line of how much alcohol is already in your stomach.

[Steelhorsecowboy]

.1 was DUI a few years ago. Today .08 is DUI. Reality has not changed however the law has. It does not take into account size, age, medical condition or what you ate today. It is a false premise. Some say it is about safety others say it is about revenue enhancement. They do not use breathalyzer in a hospital because it is not deemed scientifically accurate.

[MrMapleleaf2006]

If you drive drunk and kill somebody, it's a totally different case. He is talking about the discretion of the police. Those guys will charge you with anything if they want to and exagerate the facts so the prosecutor will go ahead regardless. You could be innocent. But according to them you would be the worst drinker in the world.

[MrMapleleaf2006]

He is not talking about people who got drunk and killed somebody. He is talking about people like all the rest of us who had a drink and boom they were over the limit all of the sudden. Question is why?

[johndeeregreen21]

This idiot will change his mind when one of his family members is killed by a drunk driver. Or maybe just maybe a drunk driver will kill him. This is a prime example of a pond scum atterney.