If you’re into TMZ, and other gossip sites you undoubtedly will hear of some famous athlete or celebrity get arrested for a DUI.  In many cases it always seems like they just end up pleading guilty as charged to the DUI.  A recent example is Michael Phelps, the greatest Olympian of all time.  Why is that?  Why would someone like Michael Phelps who seemingly has endless resources just decide to plead guilty as charged when if they wanted they could fight the DUI charge.

In my opinion as a DUI Attorney here in Seattle there are typically several reasons why these individuals decide to resolve their case that way.

First it is a PR move.  Think about it.  If you’re famous then any bad publicity or public mistake can damage your reputation.  I’m willing to be these famous people have publicists who say let’s just resolve this rather than drag it on for several years.  Take responsibility and move on.  The sooner it is over with the sooner the public will forget.

Secondly they don’t have the time to fight the case.  If you follow this blog at all then you may be familiar with how long it takes to resolve a DUI.  In Seattle for example if everything goes smoothly then a DUI can last anywhere from 4-6 months.  However if things end up going to trial that process can take up to 2 years.  Obviously with a trial there are many more court dates.  I just finished a DUI trial in Seattle a few weeks ago and I bet my client and myself showed up to Court at least 30 times.  If you’re a celebrity or a professional athlete you simply cannot do that if you’re on the road.

Lastly a DUI conviction may not have the negative impact for a celebrity or athlete.  What will a DUI conviction really do for a movie star.  It’s not like they will lose their license to act in movies or an athlete will lose their license to play football.  A DUI conviction simply does not affect them like it does for the rest of us.  Normal people need their license to drive too and from work or pick up their kids.  Normal people will lose their job with a criminal conviction.  Additionally normal people simply cannot afford the fines and penalties a DUI carries.

Now these are just my opinions.  Obviously everybody’s situation is different.  Whether you’re famous, or a regular guy every DUI case is different.

_
About the author:  Matthew Leyba is a DUI lawyer in Seattle, WA.  He has been named one of the best Seattle DUI Attorneys by the Seattle Met Magazine.  He is also rated a perfect 10 out of 10 by Avvo.com, a lawyer rating service.

On December 18, 2014 the Washington State Supreme Court finally issued a ruling in State v. Quaale. I apologize for my late review of this case, as it is very important to DUI case law here in Washington State. But I was out of town. Here is a quick run down of the case and how it impacts Seattle DUI arrests.

The Washington State Court found “the arresting trooper in this DUI (driving under the influence) trial testified that he had “no doubt” that the defendant was impaired based solely on a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. We hold that the testimony was an improper opinion on guilt and affirm the Court of Appeals.”

Here are the facts that led to this ruling.

Quaale was charged with attempting to elude a police vehicle and with felony DUI. The DUI was charged as a felony because Quaale had been previously convicted of vehicular homicide while under the influence. RCW 46.61.502(6)(b)(i).

Quaale was tried twice. At the first trial, the jury convicted him of attempting to elude but could not agree on a verdict for the DUI charge. During a second trial on the DUI charge, the State concluded its direct examination of Trooper Stone with the following questions:

Q. In this case, based on the HGN test alone, did you form an opinion based on your training and experience as to whether or not Mr. Quaale’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired.

Q. ․ Did you form an opinion?

A. Absolutely. There was no doubt he was impaired.

In closing, the State argued that the odor of intoxicants and Quaale’s erratic driving supported its theory of driving while impaired by alcohol, but the State primarily relied on the HGN test. During its rebuttal, in response to the defense explanation for the odor of intoxicants, the State said, “The horizontal gaze nystagmus is not caused by alcohol that he may have spilled on his clothes; it is what is inside your body. The eyes in this case are more than the window to the soul; they are the window to his intoxication level.”

In its holding the Court held this testimony was improper for two reasons. First, the trooper cast his testimony in a way that gave it an aura of scientific certainty. By testifying that he had “no doubt,” the trooper implied that the HGN test may reveal that someone is intoxicated and “impaired” on alcohol when the test simply shows physical signs consistent with alcohol consumption. Although an officer may testify that the test revealed signs consistent with alcohol consumption, the officer here cast his conclusion in absolute terms and improperly gave the appearance that the HGN test may produce scientifically certain results. Secondly, the trooper testified to a specific level of intoxication when he testified that the defendant was “impaired.” Thus implying the defendant was actually over the legal limit.

As a practicing Seattle DUI Attorney this was an important case that many fellow Attorneys had been watching closely. More and more it seems our constitutional rights are being eroded especially when it comes to DUI related cases. It almost seems some of the higher courts are making DUI related issues more prosecution and law enforcement friendly in an effort to curb drinking and driving. Which in my opinion is a slippery slope. On one hand drinking and driving should not be condoned, but taking away rights and creating more prosecutor friendly issues to increase DUI convictions is not the way to go.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Lawyer in Seattle. He is the owner of Leyba Defense PLLC, a DUI law firm located in Seattle, WA.

Recently I tried a DUI case in King County. It resulted in a hung jury. Meaning the jury could not reach a unanimous decision whether my client was guilty or not guilty of the DUI. So today I wanted to discuss what a hung jury is and what happens afterwards to the criminal case.

Blacks law dictionary has a pretty good definition of what a hung jury is. It states a hung jury or a deadlocked jury that cannot be the voting threshold agree upon a verdict. In other words some of the jurors want to find the defendant guilty while other jurors believe the defendant is not guilty.

Often times when a jury is deadlocked like this a Judge can do three things:

First call the jury into the courtroom and ask them to continue to deliberate and attempt to reach a verdict. This is usually the first step rather than just accepting the hung jury.

Second the Judge can call the foreman in and ask whether they believe a verdict can be reached. The Judge can also poll each individual juror and ask whether they believe a verdict can be obtained in a reasonable amount of time. There is no set time that is considered reasonable that would be up to the individual juror to decide.

Lastly the Judge can declare a mistrial. A mistrial is just like a sounds. It’s a courtroom trial that has been terminated prior to reaching a verdict. So what happens following a hung jury if the Judge declares a mistrial.

When a mistrial occurs then one of three things can happen:

First the Prosecution can elect retry the case. There is no set precedent on when this happens. It varies depending on the type of case, the Prosecutions policy, etc. The second option is to dismiss the case. The last option is to offer some sort of plea deal that was not offered before just to prevent the case from going to trial again.

As a Seattle DUI defense attorney a hung jury is a pretty good outcome on a DUI case. It means there were some proof problems with the case and the Prosecution ultimately could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt. What happens next is anybody’s guess, but nevertheless anytime a client is not found outright guilty is a good day for the client.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a Seattle DUI Attorney. He is the owner of Leyba Defense PLLC a DUI law firm located in downtown Seattle.

I was out of town last week for Thanksgiving so I apologize for the late blog on this. But starting 11/25/14 law enforcement agencies throughout Washington State are conducting DUI emphasis patrols through the beginning of the new year. So please be careful out there and try to avoid having a single drink and then drive during this Holiday season.

As a Seattle DUI Attorney I see people get charged with DUI everyday for simply consuming a single drink and then driving. Heck I say it almost weekly on this blog. There is no such thing as a legal limit anymore in King County, WA when it comes to DUI cases. If you have a single drink and then drive you will get arrested if you get stopped by a law enforcement officer. It is that simple.

The cops don’t care whether your alcohol level if below the legal limit of 0.08. The Prosecutors don’t care whether your alcohol level is below 0.08. And in most cases the Judge’s don’t care either. This is a sign of the times here in King County. So the best advice I can provide as someone who is in court every single day here in Seattle watching these DUI cases happen is very simple. Just don’t take the risk.

_
About the author: Matthew Leyba is a DUI Attorney in Seattle. He has been repeatedly recognized as a Rising Star in the area of DUI defense by both the Seattle Met Magazine, and the Super Lawyers Magazine, an honor less than 2.5% of all lawyers receive. He is also rated a perfect 10 out of 10 by Avvo.com, a lawyer rating service.