Author: Aaron Wolff (4 Articles)
For those people who are arrested for DUI by a Seattle Police Officer, they will be facing charges by the Seattle City Attorney’s office. While that person’s case may be in the magnificent Seattle Justice Center (600 5th Avenue) with powering views of the skyline and Elliott bay, they will face a significant battle in getting a favorable resolution of their DUI charge in Seattle. Recently, the City Attorney’s office has established strict guidelines as to when and how a prosecutor may agree to reduce the charge to a lesser offense.
Seattle DUI Cases Require Caution
In the past, the Seattle City Attorney’s office would commonly offer reductions of DUI’s to lesser offenses should the accused have no prior offenses and there were no aggravating facts in the case. Today, that is simply not the case. There are strict rules as to whether a DUI can be reduced to a lesser offense in Seattle. Even if the person has no prior history, a lower breath test and no aggravating factors in their DUI case, the Seattle prosecutor will likely not be willing to reduce the DUI charge. And every DUI reduction in Seattle Municipal Court that is not offered by the initial filing attorney must be approved by a supervising attorney. Even if breath or blood results do not exist or are suppressed, there will not be any reductions for a DUI should the Seattle prosecutor believe that there is substantial evidence to proceed under the “affected by” prong of the DUI statute.
With that being said, one who has a DUI charge in Seattle Municipal Court should not assume they are automatically doomed from the onset. It is even more critical that person speak with an experienced DUI attorney immediately after their arrest. The City of Seattle has a specific DUI task force, with almost every officer having an in-car video in their vehicle. This video may be helpful in preparing the case for trial and ultimately finding issues to present the best possible defense and possibly, achieving a good outcome by negotiations to a lesser offense.
Tags: seattle dui
“preparing the case for trial………..achieving a good outcome by negotiations to a lesser offense.”
A lesser offense is agood outcome? How? in most states a DUI is traeated almost rhe same a child molestation case…and don’t think MADD hasn’t made the comparison. Even pleading to a lesser charge, when it is on record as having been redused from a DUI..is almost as bad as having a DUI Guilty finding, wuth or without a plea? Besides….how are “preparing a case for trial” and “negotiation to a lesser offense” related, anyway? Negotiating to a lesser offense; ie; plea bargaining is a way to get OUT of a trial..not preparing for one.
DanR57,
I think what Mr. Wolff means is that better plea bargains need to be leveraged, and that the best way to leverage them is by being prepared for a DUI trial. If a prosecutor is not willing to give a good deal “just because,” then it is the DUI lawyer’s job to give the prosecutor something to think about. If the prosecutor thinks that they might lose the case, then the danger of litigation goes up. If the prosecutor knows that he is in for a fight if he doesn’t reduce the charge to something reasonable, then he is more likely to think twice about engaging the lawyer. It is for the clients of lawyers who fail to prepare for trials that good deals rarely come.
A DUI reduced to a lesser charge is better than a DUI, right? So no matter how well prepared for trial a lawyer might be, no matter how much skill the DUI lawyer possesses, and no matter how much charisma he possesses, a good lawyer knows that the best looking and most well prepared case is a case that on any given day he could lose. Therefore, in advising the client in the client’s best interest, taking a reduced charge may be sound advice.
Your characterization of DUI being treated nearly on par with child molestation sounds melodramatic, but is, unfortunately realistic at the same time. The MADD propaganda machine certainly makes analogies that are out of line at times, but the argument that a dead victim of an impaired driver can never recover, while at least a victim of child molestation is still alive has a certain logic to it. The difference is one of intent. Most people can agree that molesting a child is evil. I also think that most people would agree that drunk driving is an evil, but rarely if ever is the intent of the impaired driver evil in quite the same way.
Child molestation in most states requires lifetime registration, and in most cases it probably should to protect other innocent children. Each year we inch closer to having lifetime probation, or lifetime AA meetings, or lifetime ignition interlock devices for people convicted of DUI.
I appreciate your comments and would like to hear more of your views.