Part Four -- Attornies, DUIs and Cash
Printed Anonymously by Jonko.com
View page one of this article

EDITOR'S NOTE: Unlike most articles that appear here on the pages of Jonko.com, this piece doesn't involve auto repair. Quite simply, it is a firsthand account of a DUI arrest and subsequent "punishments" meted out by the State of California. Our contributor asked that his name be withheld, and we have obliged. Nevertheless, this story is an accurate account of why you should do everything in your power to avoid getting behind the wheel when you've had a few to drink.

After returning to the hotel and hugging my fiancee repeatedly I began to consider what my next step should be. I was due to appear in court in Monterey in 10 days and I couldn't get the time off work to come back for that.

I went to bed and slept on it.

After a few hours sleep we walked down to the pier and talked a bit about our options. I thought an attorney would be the best idea. First off, it was "practical." I could have the attorney appear for me in court or for hearings and I wouldn't have to haul myself back up to Northern California again. I wanted to get back "life" and put this thing behind me ASAP so having an attorney to take care of the issues seemed ideal.

Further, I had the faint glimmer of hope tha a good attorney could get the DUI plead down to a reckless operation or something less horrible where I wouldn't have to pay as huge a fine or do additional jail time or community service.

After our walk around Monterey we came back to the hotel and I got online to search for potential attornies. There were hundreds available, so I did as much research and reading as I could online and decided to call an attorney whose website boasted that he was a Certified Criminal Law Specialist, a Certified Criminal Trial Advocate, Board Certified by the National College for DUI Defense, and a Fellow on the American Board of Criminal Lawyers. At minimum, it all sounded impressive. And if this is the one time in my life I'm going to be charged with a crime, I want a "good attorney" not some clown that will take my cash and do nothing.

We had an initial phone conversation, and discussed the potential defenses and the general protocols of a DUI case. We discusses some of the potential penalties, and whether I would need to be present at the pre-trial hearings and so forth. The conversation was frank, and he presented a litany of options available for my defense. He also mentioned the possibility that the case could get thrown out altogether if the officer didn't have a reaon to stop me in the first place. After convincing me of the merits of having a qualified attorney to represent me to both the court and the DMV (to handle my license suspension) he told me his fee. $5,500 for everything up until the trial. Another $3,000 minimum if we go to trial. The $3,000 will secure a younger attorney in the firm. If I wanted him to represent me it would be $6,000 more.

Damn. I was kinda hoping for something around $2000 or so. But if you're going to get the best, you have to pay for it. And he seemed confident that it wouldn't go to trial so I should be fine with just the $5,500. We negiotiated two monthly payments of $2,750 and I was represented.

I wouldn't have to head back to NorCal and I could watch the events unfold as my attorney got me off (or at least got my sentence down) from my place in Los Angeles.

I wasn't in attendance at the first court hearing 10 days after my arrest. My attorney sent me a letter that indicated that an attorney from his firm was in attendance and that the case was continued for a later date. There were a number of continuations and random hearings that I know nothing about save the letters my attorney sent indicating that one of the attornies from the firm attended.

The first substantive item that my attorney handled was the matter with the DMV. Again, I had nothing to do with it but from the letter I received my attorney conversed with the DMV hearing officer and argued my side. I would receive a decision on my license suspension in a few weeks.

The decision came back, and my license was suspended for 30 days and until I could enroll in a first time offenders program, obtain an SR-22 from my insurance company, and pay a $135 re-issue fee. The 30 days wouldn't have been too terrible an inconvenience, but to come up with the cash for the FOP ($420), the new more costly insurance plus an SR-22 fee ($50 fee plus premium increase of nearly $70/month), and the DMV re-issue fee, I wan't actually able to get my license back for nearly 4 months. (If my attorney hadn't cost $5,500 this might not have been a problem either, but since he did I was ungodly poor at that point.)

So without a license I was again like a 16 year old relying on others to take me too and from work, to the grocery store, and on and on. I rode my bike several places, including work trying to act like I was on a health kick rather than telling other employees that I got hit for a DUI. And the bike worked well at times. But in rain, and late in the evenings, a bike is not ideal for transportation. There is also a very small amount of grocery bags one can carry while riding a bike.

My attorney called me late in October and let me know that a hearing was scheduled to suppress the evidence the police had gathered in my case. In a nutshell, the attorney was going to argue that the officer had no reason to pull me over in the first place and that as such, any evidence they collected -- my breathalyzer, the field sobriety tests, or any other evidence they could use to prosecute the DUI was inadmissible.

I would have to fly back to Monterey for this hearing. And it is in about 10 days. I would also have to bring my finacee as she will be needed to testify.

Great.

So after finding flights ($400 total for both of us) and a rental car to get to the court ($40) we both called in sick on the day of the hearing and appeared in Court.

I had yet to ever meet my attorney, so I wasn't sure quite who from the firm would show up. It was actually another attorney (not the one I had spoken with who was a member of the elite and prestigious boards that the website mentioned) who was roughly 27 by my guess and couldn't have been more than a few years from law school.

She told us briefly what to expect and we headed into the courtroom. Our case was the first of the morning and my fiancee was lead from the room after opening statements while the officer in the case testified (as to not hear his testimony ths insuring she only offered her own memories.) The District Attorney questioned the officer and he gave testimony stating I had weaved across double yellow lines and was speeding at roughly 55-60 in a 40 zone.

When my attorney crossed him, he admitted he checked the speed by following behind me and had no radar. She did not ask him why he said I crossed a double yellow in his testimony, but that his police report indicated "weaving within the lane." My attorney was not a good communicator and frequently stumbled around her questions. Regardless, all she would need to do is to offer an opportunity for my fiancee to tell the story and we could likely have a great shot at having the evidence suppressed.

My fiancee entered to testify once the officer was through. She was supposed to indicate that we were driving the speed limit because we were new to the area, and driving exceptionally cautiously, and that cars were passing us by. That would refute the one reason that the officer had pulled us over. She was also going to indicate that I never crossed a double yellow, and that in fact, the lines on the street there in the lane we were traveling in were white.

So that is what was supposed to happen. Unfortunately, what occurred was so pathetic as I cannot truly bear to rewrite everything. Basically, my attorney was inept at asking the necessary questions to solicit my fiancee's story and she further hampered our chances by asking my fiance under oath if she knew her blood alcohol content. I can only assume that she though my fiancee did not, but nevertheless, my fiancee knew she blew a .12 that evening and once she stated that her credibility was immediately called into question.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge found that I had not been speeding, but that I may have crossed the non existant double yellow. As such, the motion to suppress evidence in the DUI case was denied and we moved another step closer to trial.

We returned to the LA area and after a month or so I heard from my attorney again. The DA was not willing to plead down any of the harges so I had a few options:

1. Pay my attorney more cash and head to trial. ($3,000 for the incompetence I saw at the first hearing, or $6,000 for some yet unseen quantity.)

2. Plead No Contest (read: guilty) and accept the punishment.

I chose number 2.

Continue to page five -- The Joy of Punishment