After a DUI (meaning Criminal) Trial, a person is either found Guilty, or Not Guilty. Occasionally, a case results in a "hung jury," meaning no verdict was reached, and the Prosecutor must then decide if they want to re-try the case, meaning do it all over again. Hung juries, while not incredibly rare, are rather uncommon; therefore, we won't waste any of our time discussing that unlikely type of outcome.

Having started our discussion at the Arraignment stage in Part 1, through Pre-Trials in Part 2 and Trials in Part 3, we have ended up at the stage where a person facing a DUI (called the "Defendant") will have either pled Guilty to some kind of charge after a Pre-Trial, or have been found Guilty, or not, after a Trial.

The next "legal" step in any Drunk Driving (or other Criminal) case is the Sentencing. This is where the Judge decides what is going to happen to the Defendant, and Orders things like classes, counseling, breath or urine testing, Probation, and, in really bad cases, like 3rd Offense Felony DUI's, Jail.

Obviously, there will be no Sentencing if a person has been found "Not Guilty" after a Trial. In that case, a person simply goes home, and the matter is ended.

In EVERY DUI, however, where there has been a either Plea, Plea-Bargain, or Sentence-Bargain (or a Verdict of Guilt, if there was a Trial), there is a step BEFORE the actual Sentencing: The PSI, or Pre-Sentence Investigation. A PSI is required by Law. We'll explore it in detail shortly (this subject is rather involved, so we'll use two installments just to cover it), but before we do that, it is important to understand that the Pre-Sentence Investigation, and the legally required alcohol assessment test that is a part of it, will determine, more than anything else, what actually happens to a person at Sentencing. To put it simply, the PSI and its accompanying recommendation is the blueprint, or script, for what will happen to a person at Sentencing.

In this 3rd installment, we'll discuss the components of a DUI Trial. The reader should note that the Library of any Lawyer who makes his or her living in Court usually contains numerous books about Trials, and Trial strategy. Since even the most abbreviated overview of Trials would result in a rather long book, our review will necessarily be rather brief. Accordingly, we will focus on the more important and relevant aspects of a DUI Trial.

To begin, it is fair to say that a DUI Trial occurs because the Prosecutor and the Defense Attorney are unable to agree upon a resolution. Beyond that rather "legal" description, it typically means that the Prosecutor has offered no kind of "deal," and the Defense Lawyer believes he or she can either beat the case at Trial, or at least get a better (always meaning less-serious, or severe) verdict than whatever plea offer (or not) is on the table.

In a Criminal Trial, a person's guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." To put it plainly, at a Trial, the Prosecutor must essentially hit a home run.

If a Trial is held before a jury, then a "Guilty" verdict can only occur if ALL of the jurors (6 in a Misdemeanor case, and 12 in a Felony case) agree that the Defendant is guilty. If even 1 of the jurors does not agree, the jury is considered "hung" and the person will not be found guilty, although they may later be re-tried. If the jury, however, returns a unanimous verdict (meaning all 6 or 12 jurors agree) of either Guilty or Not Guilty, then that is the final decision.

Which brings us to as good a place as any to talk about the end result of a Trial. Everyone knows that a Criminal Trial (and a DUI case is a Criminal case) can result in a verdict of either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty." Yet there are other outcomes that can occur, and understanding them can have a huge impact on deciding whether or not to have a Trial in the first place. Let's explore this further...

This is important. Sometimes, a person facing a DUI (or any other Criminal case) thinks that their case must go to Trial. While we'll examine Trials more fully in the next section, a Trial is what happens if no Plea, or Plea-Bargain can be worked out at the Pre-Trial stage. In other words, Trials are pretty much limited to situations where a person maintains his or her innocence ("I didn't do that...") or the Lawyer feels that the person's guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for some reason or other.

The overwhelming majority of DUI cases are resolved through a Plea agreement, and that usually occurs as the result of a Pre-Trial Conference. In most cases, the Defense Lawyer and the Prosecutor come to an agreement called a Plea-Bargain. A Plea-Bargain means the charge the person is facing is reduced to something less serious. Typically, in a 1st Offense case, a person will be charged with OWI (Operating While Intoxicated) and their Lawyer will negotiate with the Prosecutor to reduce the charge to the less severe offense of Impaired Driving (OWVI). This assumes, of course, that there is no defect in the evidence that could lead to the case being "knocked out" or that could result in a "Not Guilty" verdict if the case actually went to Trial.

Sometimes, when the Defense Lawyer and the Prosecutor meet, they find that there is other information that might help them come to an agreement, or that maybe they are unable to come to an agreement right then and there, but at least feel that there is a reasonable chance they might find some common ground later on, if they meet again. In truth, there are loads of reasons why a Pre-Trial might just result in the scheduling of another Pre-Trial. In my Practice, this happens all the time.

The more important point is that most of the time, whether there is only 1 Pre-Trial, or there are 2 or 3, a DUI charge is resolved by agreement between the Defense Lawyer and the Prosecutor. In 1st Offense cases, as noted above, this "deal" is usually a "Plea-Bargain" tht reduces the original OWI charge to Impaired Driving. Of course, there can be no "deal" unless the person facing the charge also agrees. The Client always has the final say.

As a DUI Lawyer, part of my everyday experience involves handling DUI cases. I've handled so many that I can navigate my way through the process blindfolded, so to speak. Yet even as a Drunk Driving Lawyer who has handled thousands of DWI and related cases, I need to remember that for most people, a DUI Arrest is their first experience being taken to Jail, and having to deal with a Criminal charge.

Even for those facing a 2nd Offense DUI, such a charge is often only their second time dealing with the Criminal Justice system, and they were often too nervous the first time to recall everything that occurred, beyond remembering that things weren't as bad as they feared. Now, facing a 2nd Offense, they know things are more serious.

Accordingly, we'll do a step-by-step breakdown of what a person facing a real-life DUI, whether a 1st or 2nd Offense, will be dealing with once they have been released from Jai.

To keep things clear, we'll insert 2 imaginary characters into this article, and sometimes refer to them: First-time Freddy, and Second-time Sandra. For the most part, the steps in each of their cases will be the same, but where either those procedural steps, or what they're likely to experience differs, we'll compare and contrast those differences.

One of the first things that can be different from case to case, and depends, more than anything else, on where a case occurs, is how a person gets out of Jail. In some jurisdictions, once a person's BAC (Bodily Alcohol Content) is low enough, they'll be released from Jail without having to pay a dime. In other jurisdictions, they might have to post a $100 Bond, called an "Interim Bond." In some places, they might be held until a higher amount is posted. This might mean calling someone to come and post the money.

In still other jurisdictions, before a person is released, they are actually "Arraigned" on the charge. This means they go before a Judge or Magistrate.

In the Legal world, this most often arises when Lawyers offer a "free consultation." While the consultation is, of course, "free," anyone getting it needs to remember that there is no such thing as a "free lunch."

This article will draw back the curtain on the ever-present use of that marketing tool by so many Lawyers. And if the reader is thinking I'm going to describe myself as a shining exception to that....you're right!

In the interest of fairness, I should point out that I have and will always offer a "free consultation" of sorts. By "of sorts," I specifically mean that I will do a consultation by phone, but do not make Office appointments and drag someone in on the pretense that I want to use a precious time slot just to answer their questions. Think about it for a moment; how does it advance any Lawyer's interest to line up people for "free" Office visits with no expectation of actually being hired? Where is the money going to come from to keep that Office open and pay the staff? It is, instead, the opportunity to turn that "free consultation" into a paid retainer that's really going on, not some kind hearted, altruistic opportunity to provide a cozy environment just to answer someone's questions with no hope or chance of eventually being hired, and paid.

The fact is, a "free consultation," whether it's my free phone consultation or anyone else's free Office consultation, is an opportunity to meet a potential new Client (meaning paying customer). Certainly, no Lawyer intends a free consultation to be time spent with someone who has no intention of hiring them. I'll be honest about that here; the last thing I have time to do is use up an appointment slot to answer questions and explain stuff to someone looking just for free Legal advice. Yet any number of people will admit and say, right up front, that they have another Lawyer and just want t know if he or she is on the right track, or they have no money and can't afford a Lawyer, or give some other indication that they have no ability or intention to become a Client. How many of those do you think I can carry and still pay my bills? I wonder, would these same people call up a plastic surgeon, make an appointment for a "free consultation," and go in, only to explain that they're not interested in any of the services the surgeon provides, but rather want to know what he or she thinks is the best product they an buy over-the-counter to eliminate the lines around theie eyes, or reduce the appearance of wrinkles?

Thus, the "free consultation," at least to the Lawyer, means an opportunity to interact with someone who needs and is interested in hiring an Attorney. So what, you ask, is my beef with this tactic?

An astute reader will, at this point, ask, "what do you mean, somewhat mistakenly? Either your Client is right, or he's mistaken."

I have chosen my words carefully. I mean somewhat mistakenly. Read on...

Until a few years ago, the only "Indecent Exposure" crime that existed in Michigan was simple Indecent Exposure, which is a Misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in Jail, but no more than that. And to be clear, in practice, Jail in any Indecent Exposure case can be completely avoided if things are handled properly. In fact, as a Lawyer who rather routinely handles Indecent Exposure cases in the Metro-Detroit area, I am usually able to entirely keep the whole charge off of my Client's Record, meaning the whole incident just "goes away," much less keep the Client from getting locked up.

Then, several years back, the Legislature amended the Law, and added a new charge called "Aggravated Indecent Exposure." This new addition to the Law upped the penalties in cases where, beyond just exposing himself or herself, a person was seen fondling his or her private parts.

At first, even in those cases where there was fondling, many, if not most Police agencies just reverted to bringing the charge as regular old "Indecent Exposure."

More recently, however, the tables have turned, and I see more and more cases being brought as "Aggravated Indecent Exposure." In fact, it has been a while since I've seen a garden-variety simple Indecent Exposure. Instead, almost all the cases I've handled in the last several months have been "Aggravated Indecent Exposure" charges, which are Felony Offenses.

A situation that has become far more common over the last several years starts with a cell phone call from an anonymous "tipster" alerting the Police to a suspected Drunken Driver. This article will focus on this increasingly more common situation, and will examine the evidentiary and legal requirements that must exist for such a case to proceed through the legal system, and how these things actually play out in the real world. For all the legal complexity the reader might suspect is involved, this can actually be boiled down to a rather simple and straightforward analysis.

It all begins with a tip called in by another driver. Whether that driver is an overly-zealous "do-gooder," or a decent citizen honestly concerned for the safety of others really doesn't matter. What matters is that a description of a vehicle (meaning some identifying information such as make, model, color, and/or the plate number) is given, along with enough geographic information for a Police Officer to locate it.

Legally speaking, the Police can't just pull up to the identified vehicle and pull it over. By law, the Police have to observe the driver either do something that would otherwise justify a Drunk Driving stop, or otherwise violate some traffic Law that, in and of itself, would justify a Traffic Stop. In other words, the Police need a valid reason to pull over the driver of the car that was reported, and can't just pull it over because Joe Citizen suspects the driver of being drunk.

In real life, this typically isn't a problem. Consider for a moment: how many suspected Drunk Drivers have you, the reader, ever called in? Most likely, the answer is none. Usually, it takes a pretty obvious case for Joe Citizen to dial 911. Police Officers are trained to spot Drunk Driver's; citizens are not. By the time a person is weaving or otherwise driving erratically enough for someone to call in a "tip," they are often rather clearly intoxicated.

In such a case, the Police usually don't have to wait very long for the reported Driver to give them a reason to activate the overhead lights.

One of the more common questions I am asked deals with the difference between a 1st and 2nd Offense DUI in terms of outcome, or what happens to the person facing the charge. This article will focus on those differences from the perspective of someone who has a prior DUI and is facing a 2nd Offense. Despite that focus, those facing their 1st Offense may want to read this article, as well.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a 2nd Offense DUI is going to be a lot tougher than a 1st Offense. Many Courts, especially those in Macomb and much of Wayne Counties, are understanding enough to at least consider the possibility that a 1st Offense DUI can be an out-of-character incident for someone, and not necessarily the manifestation of an alcohol problem. In other words, it can be just an instance of bad judgment. Oakland County Courts are generally more inclined to be cautious in their approach to a 1st time DUI Offender, and will seldom be as lenient as either their Macomb or Wayne County counterparts. For all of that, with the exception of 1 Judge in the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Hills, a 1st Offender can essentially count on NOT going to Jail. The kind of "leniency" we're talking about here has to do with things like classes, community service and counseling, and NOT incarceration.

There are really two ways in which a 2nd Offense differs from a 1st Offense. As noted before, the one about which I am most frequently asked has to do with what will actually happen to the person facing the charge, and, more than anything else, the most important of those concerns is "am I going to Jail?" Beyond that, the legal consequences, such as things like loss of the Driver's License, Fines, Costs, Community Service and Counseling or Treatment are very different, meaning more serious, or severe, in a 2nd Offense case.

One constant that is an inherent part of each and every 2nd Offense case is the belief and perception by just about everyone in the criminal justice system that the person facing the charge has an alcohol problem. Over 21 years ago, when I was a new Lawyer, I was often too concerned about offending my Clients to be as direct and forward as I am now. Tempered by over 21 years of experience, I have long since realized it's my job, and my obligation to help my Client, and an important part of that is to prepare them for what is really going to happen, and how they are really going to be viewed and treated by the Court system.

The whole concept of a "sober lifestyle" is more or less an inherent and necessary, if not overlooked, component of Recovery and Sobriety, much like electricity is a necessary element of watching TV. It's there, but we don't spend much time thinking about it.

However, the State, particularly the Hearing Officers of the Secretary of State's Driver Assessment and Appeal Division (DAAD), do think about it. They look for it in any License Appeal that they decide.

In other License Restoration articles, I have examined the finer points of the issues involved in a License Appeal. Here, we can simply and summarily point out that the two main issues being evaluated by those Hearing Officers are whether the person filing the License Appeal can prove, by Clear and Convincing Evidence, that:

1. Their alcohol problem is under control, and, (more importantly), that
2. Their alcohol problem is LIKELY to remain under control.

As I noted above, the whole notion of a "sober lifestyle" is, more often than not, just an inherent part of a person's Sobriety. Once a person has maintained Sobriety for any length of time, the whole "sober lifestyle" thing becomes second nature, like brushing your teeth in the morning before you leave for the day. However, that "sober lifestyle" is also one of the strongest predictors of a person's likelihood to remain alcohol-free, or to use the State's terminology, that the person's alcohol problem "is likely to remain under control."

For the reader who has undergone the transformation from drinker to non-drinker, let's rewind a bit, to right before your last drink. On that score, the majority, although not all of those who get Sober, fix their last drink as the date of their last DUI Arrest. It really doesn't matter when it was; just think back to a few weeks before you "put the plug in the jug," to use a familiar phrase.

1. Those who left Michigan with a Revoked License due to multiple DUI's, and who have been unable to obtain a License outside of Michigan, and
2. Those who were able to obtain an out-of-state License but are then unable to renew it due to a subsequently discovered Michigan "hold" on their Driving Record.

When someone who has left Michigan, and thereafter obtained a License in a different state contacts me, they often express a sense of frustration, as if there has been some mistake. After all, they had a License in their new state, and they haven't had any Arrests or problems. How can this be? Is there some mistake? Isn't' there something that can quickly be done so that they can renew?

Usually, the source of their difficulty is what's called the National Driving Register. While the details and nuances of it's operation are rather involved, and go beyond the scope of this article, what matters is that it exists, and means a person who has obtained a License in another state, and who has had their driving privileges Revoked in Michigan, will, at some point, be unable to renew that License until they clear Michigan's "hold" on their driving Record. This is like a big, comprehensive national driving Record. To be clear, most people will simply be unable to obtain a License in another state because Michigan's Revocation (seen by that other state as a "hold") will show up right away. Yet in any number of cases, it does not, for some reason, and only catches up with the person later, when they go to renew their out-of-state License.

In terms of how it works, the inability to renew an out-of-state License requires the same "Clearance" that must be obtained before the usual, Revoked because-of-multiple-DUI's driver can obtain a License anywhere. Except for the fact that an out-of-state resident will seek the ability to obtain a License in a state other than Michigan, whereas a Michigan resident will seek Restoration of his or her Michigan Driver's License, the proof required to win such an Appeal is identical.

Normally, I take the last 2 weeks of the year off, anyway. This really amounts to little more than me thinking I'm on some kind of vacation while I work from home. I take and return calls as needed, reschedule Court dates until after vacation...

Some things never change...

I will be returning to the Office, right after the New Year, as I had planned before I got sidelined almost 2 weeks ago. I never imagined how much I could miss being busy with work, but I really do.

I have noted in a recent, previous article how I truly enjoy handling License Restoration cases. It also seems that an important part of my self-identity has also become the guy who shows up in Court on DUI and other matters and makes things better. I once heard it said that a major part of a person's identity is what they do for a living. Whether it was my Dad (when he was "Joe the Mailman") or my Uncle Tom, the Truck Driver, or my Mom, the Secretary, or even Lisa the Therapist, or Tim the Carpenter, society first identifies us by what we do. And whatever you do, when you are on hold from doing it, you feel, in a way, like your own self-identity is also in a state of suspended animation.

So beyond keeping things up and running, there is a tremendous emotional and psychological boost to getting back in the saddle; you feel like your old self again.

My Office is currently setting early to mid-January appointments in Driver's License Restoration cases (I've been booked into the first week of January since about mid-December), and making appointments as needed for any other Criminal matters. I still want to squeak some kind of vacation out of this last week and a half...

Accordingly, if you have a problem and are looking to hire a Lawyer, I'm here, as always. You can either contact my Office, or drop me an email in the contact box on the right side of this page.

Oh, and before I forget....

Happy Holidays!

I was terrified.

I cried, and I begged God to let me come back. This article will not be a religious piece in any way, beyond my observing that I am convinced that my faith in God is, was, and will be important in my recovery. Others in my situation may have a very different belief system, or even no belief system to speak of, and our post surgical experiences would nevertheless be the same. This is not about how or why I came back, but rather about what to do with what can only be described as a true "second chance."

In all likelihood, this is not the article the reader came here for. Please read this one, anyway. The License Restoration and DUI stuff can be found in the "Topics" Section on the right. It's not going anywhere.

Imagine, for a moment, those people whose death would affect the most profound loss in your life.

Next, imagine that you were called and told by a distant hospital to expect the death of one of them imminently. Too soon, in fact, for you get anywhere close enough to see them and say goodbye. You are, instead, informed that you will be called shortly, once they have passed. You are told to stand by the phone.

In due course your phone rings, and you pick up to hear the dreaded news...

This article will examine Fees in a DUI case, and why some are so low, while others are so high, and what a person can expect to get for their money.

For what it's worth, I only handle charges brought in Macomb, Oakland and Wayne Counties, and I charge the following for DUI cases:

1st Offense: $2000. I begin with ½ ($1000) down, and the other ½ ($1000) must be paid prior to the conclusion of the case.

2nd Offense: $2400. I begin with ½ ($1200) down, and the other ½ ($1200) must be paid prior to the conclusion of the case.

3rd (Felony) Offense: $4000. I begin with ½ ($2000) down, and the other ½ ($2000) must be paid prior to the conclusion of the case.

I have repeated this theme throughout many of my blog articles: Looking for a Lawyer on a "low-bidder" basis is about the worst way to find quality representation. There is simply no way to not cut corners when offering a discount price. We'll come back to this later.

Let's rewind a bit. Let's go back to the Hearing Room for a moment. The Hearing has just ended. The Hearing Officer calls the case "off" the Record, announcing the time it ends, and then hits the "stop" button on the Recorder. At that point, goodbyes are said, and we leave the Hearing Room and head toward the waiting room of the DAAD Hearing Office.

After the Hearing has ended, I usually go over it with my Client, and do a sort of "post-game wrap up." Normally, this involves me explaining to the Client how and why I think we won.

That's it. The process, or at least our active part in it, is complete at that point. No decision is announced at the conclusion of the Hearing. Instead, we go home and wait.

I'm often asked about that. Standard protocol is for the Hearing Officer to tell the parties that he or she will take the Appeal under advisement, and, once a decision is reached, will thereafter forward a written copy of that decision to everyone. One of the main reasons the Hearing Officers do not announce a decision on the spot is for safety. Except for those that I handle, many, if not most Appeals, lose.

In my Practice, I win nearly 99% of mine the first time, and, as I have mentioned before, I offer a guarantee that I'll win any Appeal I accept the first time, and will go back, without further legal Fees, until I do win my Client's License back. Thankfully, I've never had to go back a 3rd time, and out of the hundreds and hundreds of cases I've handled, have only had to go back a second time on just a few occasions.

If the Hearing Officer were to announce to someone that they have just lost, it's not hard to imagine someone "going off" on them, blaming them for holding the person back with respect to their employment opportunities, or their ability to otherwise lead a normal life. BY the same token if the Hearing Officers began announcing winning decisions on the spot, while those people would be grateful, others might learn that NOT being told they've won means they lost, and that could result in the same kind of confrontation.

The big day is drawing near. For those who've been through the process before, it's no less intimidating, because their prior attempt didn't work out too well, and thus, they're going back to try again. To the person waiting to go in for a License Appeal Hearing, it seems like everything comes down to this. It feels like it's all on the line...

While it may feel that way, the truth is that the Hearing, while important, is NOT the entirety of a License Appeal. It doesn't actually "come down to this." Instead, I try and help my Clients understand that the License Appeal Hearing is just the final step, and one of several such steps, before a decision is made. In this 6th part, we will examine the actual License Hearing, and what a person can expect to encounter, and why, at least if I am their Lawyer, this is really nothing to be nervous about.

As a Driver's License Restoration Lawyer who has handled hundreds upon hundreds of License Appeal Hearings, and who has appeared in Court, quite literally, almost daily for the last 2 decades, I have to remind myself that while this is really "just another day at the Office" for me, it is a big deal for my Client. The best analogy that comes to mind is getting a root canal. For me, facing such a procedure is a bit intimidating. Will the tooth survive, or will it break apart, necessitating oral surgery and an implant? All kinds of questions whirl about in my head as that kind of "big day" approaches for me.

Yet for my Dentist, this is, in every sense of the word, "just another day at the Office." He's not worried, because he has a pretty good handle on what will happen, or at least the range of realistic possible outcomes. He'll assure me that everything will be fine, and then he'll begin talking about things like movies, sports, or whatever you might discuss with a co-worker or friend with whom you're sharing lunch.

Take me out of the Patient chair, put me in the same situation with my Client, and I'll do the same thing. I know that we're okay, but not just because I say so. Remember all that stuff back in parts 4 and 5 of this series, where we talked about how the Substance Abuse Evaluation is the foundation of a License Appeal, and that we need to make sure that it's perfect, or darn close to it, and then we examined how much time I'll put into helping with the Letters of Support? Well, if we've done all that, then by the time we file for the Hearing, we're already in EXCELLENT SHAPE. The actual Hearing is very important,of course, but much of the path toward winning (or losing) a License Appeal will have been cleared by virtue of the good evidence submitted beforehand.