Joseph P. Welch

We’ve all seen the countless episodes of NBC’s Law and Order where there’s always some surprise witness or piece of evidence that shows up at trial, but in the real world the lawyers on both sides of a case try to minimize surprises. If you have a strong case, it is often in your best interest to let the other side see your winning cards before committing to the time, expense, and uncertainty of a trial. Your opponent will often be more than happy to offer you a better deal if they can see that you have a strong case. If your evidence isn’t as good as you thought it was, your opponent will often tell you just how much and why your case sucks in order to force you into accepting a deal more favorable to them. Of course, if you’re totally oblivious to holes in your case the other side won’t always point them out to you, but ultimately it’s your job (or your lawyer’s job) to thoroughly investigate your case to prevent this from happening.

In recent years Missouri courts have adopted fairly liberal rules regarding the disclosure of evidence before a criminal trial. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 25 lists the specific things that must be disclosed to the other side before a trial, and sets out the guidelines for requesting this information, the timelines for making and responding to the requests, and the penalties for non compliance.

When you’ve been charged with a felony or misdemeanor in Missouri, the most important rule is Supreme Court Rule 25.03, which lists out the specific things that the prosecuting attorney must disclose to you if you file the proper request.

Items the prosecution must disclose to the defense:

• Identities of any witnesses the prosecutor will use against you
• Any statements made by those witnesses or recordings or notes regarding those statements
• Any statements made by you or any other defendant whether or not the prosecutor is going to use them
• Any reports made by any experts in connection with the case
• Any books, papers, documents, photographs, etc., that the prosecutor intends to use at trial
• Any books, papers, documents, photographs, etc., that were taken from you (the defendant) whether or not the prosecutor intends to use them
• The criminal records of any witnesses the prosecutor intends to use
• If there has been any electronic or photographic surveillance of you, the prosecutor must disclose a statement of who did it, and when and where it was done
• Any information the prosecutor or police have that tends to help the defense of your case or reduce the severity of the charge against you or the punishment

Of course, this isn’t intended to be legal advice, so if you’ve been charged with a criminal offense please contact an attorney in your area before you go and do anything that could jeopardize your rights.

joe :: Sep.10.2006 :: Criminal Law :: No Comments »

These are the factors taken from the form that I made up, which I copied off of the form in the MoBarCLE DWI Defense deskbook, which probably came from the NHTSA training manuals in the first place.  These 65 separate clues are what officers are trained to look for before they decide whether or not to make you take a field sobriety test… how many of these do you think you could pass while completely sober?
1. Officer’s Initial Observations

• Slowed reactions
• Willingness to take risks
• Impaired vision
• Poor coordination

2. Driving Factors

• Turning with a wide radius
• Straddling center or lane marker
• Appearing to be impaired (they mean drunk, right?)
• Eye fixation
• Gripping the steering wheel too tightly
• Slouching in the seat
• Gesturing erratically… or obscenely
• Face too close to windshield
• Drinking in vehicle
• Sticking your damn head out the window
• Near collisions
• Weaving
• Driving on something other than the road
• Swerving
• Driving less than 10 MPH
• Stopping in a lane for no apparent reason
• Following another vehicle too closely
• Drifting in your lane
• Tires on or crossing the center line
• Braking erractically… or obscenely!
• Drifting into another lane
• Slow response to traffic signals
• Signaling inconistently with your actual driving
• Stopping inappropriately
• Turning abrubtly or illegaly
• Accelerating or decelerating rapidly
• Headlights off

3. When they start to pull you over

• Attempts to flee
• No response
• Slow response
• Abrupt swerve
• Sudden stop
• Striking the curb or anything else

4. Personal Contact

• Bloodshot eyes
• Soiled clothes (dirty socks?)
• Fumbling fingers
• Alcohol containers in vehicle
• Drugs and/or drug paraphernelia
• Bruises, bumps, or scratches
• Unusual actions

• Slurred speech
• Admissions of drinking
• Inconsistent responses
• Abusive language
• Unusual statements

• Odor of alcohol
• Odor of marijuana
• Breath sprays, mints, gum, cologne, or other coverups
• Unusual odors

5. Pre-exit Interrogation

• Driver forgets to produce both license and insurance when requested
• Driver produces documents other than requested
• Driver fails to see documents in his own wallet
• Driver fumbles with or drops wallet
• Can’t retrieve documents using fingertips

6. Exiting the Vehicle

• Shows angry or unusual actions
• Cannot follow instructions
• Cannot open door
• Leaves vehicle in gear
• Has to climb out of vehicle
• Leans on vehicle
• Keeps hands on vehicle for balance

joe :: Sep.10.2006 :: DWI, Criminal Law :: No Comments »

Police officers in Missouri and most other states are trained in DWI detection methods based on standards created by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a federal government agency that helps reduce accidents and fatalities on the nation’s highways.

The NHTSA guidlines break DWI detection down into 3 phases, before the driver pulls over, when the officer makes first personal contact, and when the officer gives the field sobriety tests.

• Phase 1

The first phase involves the officer observing the driver and vehicle in motion before being pulled over. The NHTSA mandates that officers should consider such factors as the driver weaving in his or her lane, failing to pull over in a timely manner, or slumping over the steering wheel when deciding whether or not someone might be intoxicated.

• Phase 2

The second phase involves the officer makig personal contact with the alleged intoxicated driver. The NHTSA guidlines state that the officer should observe the suspect as he or she gets out of the car, and considers factors such as odor (alcohol, breath mints, tobacco, marijuana), stability (i.e., leaning on the car, falling over, etc.), and ability to follow directions. Many people are surprised to find that officers are specifically trained to observe the ‘cover up’ odors of breath mints or gum and use them as evidence that someone is intoxicated.

• Phase 3

The third phase involves the standardized field sobriety tests such as the Walk and Turn, One Leg Stand, and Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test.

If you get arrested for Driving While Intoxicated in St. Louis, Missouri you need an attorney to fight for your rights. If you or someone you know is arrested please call me at 314-367-HURT to get a free confidential consultation on your case.

joe :: Sep.10.2006 :: DWI, Criminal Law :: No Comments »

News-Leader.com reports that the Missouri Highway Patrol and the Special Operations section of the Greene County Sheriff’s Department used helicopters to capture 900 marijuana plants last month.

joe :: Sep.07.2006 :: Drug Laws, Criminal Law :: No Comments »

Charges against 16 year old Clayton Smith for driving under the influence of marijuana were finally dropped when a blood test showed that he had no traces of marijuana in his system after an accident. A charge for driving too fast for conditions was not dismissed, though.

Why the hell was Smith even charged in the first place? What evidence did they have of intoxication? That he was driving too fast? In my experience most people who get pulled over while under the influence of marijuana are driving too slowly and are charged with impeding the flow of traffic or similar charges.

I’ve never met Smith, but I suppose he’s probably some scruffy stoner-looking kid who police just figured had to be high because he didn’t smell like booze. He probably never should have been charged in the first place, but in the war on drugs overzealous police and prosecutors are often tempted to shoot first and think later.

Gazetteextra.com- Marijuana driving case dismissed

joe :: May.26.2006 :: Drug Laws, DWI, Criminal Law :: No Comments »