Call us now:
For more than 50 years the government and police have struggled with distinguishing between drivers who have had a couple drinks and are not DUI and those who have had some number of drinks and whose normal faculties are impaired by alcohol or drugs. They have come up with driving indicators to give the police clues of impairment (swerving, speeding, etc.), they have come up with exercises (not unlike “simon says” game) to figure who is impaired and who is not, and they rely on technology to distinguish lawful vs unlawful blood alcohol levels (i.e. breathalyzer). What they can’t do is hide their frustration at trial when someone challenges the evidence and holds the State to their burden of proof.
Recently the 4th DCA reversed a DUI conviction in Sheeley v State 4D2023-2171 on August 14th 2024. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. No one is guaranteed a perfect trial, and during this one there was a big mistake by the prosecutor. They made a comment to the jury that shifted the burden of proof to the defendant and commented on the right to silence. There is an important rule during trial – that the police and state may not comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent and may not shift the burden of proof to the defense. This Court stood up for the Constitutional rights we all share, and didn’t let the State get away with an unfair trial. Defendants have a right to remain silent and don’t have to demand an exculpatory procedure. The comment at issue was cited in Shelley:
During closing argument, the prosecutor emphasized several times that the defendant did not seize the opportunity to dispel the officers’ suspicions that he was driving while impaired. The prosecutor stated that the defendant “says no” when taken to “a room safely designated for him [to perform sobriety exercises] to dispel the suspicions.” He had an “opportunity . . . to . . . dispel the suspicions.” He also “declined” to “dispel the officers’ suspicions” by submitting to a breathalyzer test.
At trial the State has the sole burden of proof. The Defense doesn’t have to say or do anything. This concept is at the heart of the American judicial system, and it guarantees that the accuser in any kind of case has to prove their allegations with evidence, and they cant concoct some charge and sit back and make you disprove it. The State has to prove the charge, and we can expect as citizens to be protected from being subjected to the humiliation and emotional trauma of a public trial without due process of law. We expect this protection but it doesn’t come easily. You have to fight for your protections against zealous overactive police and prosecutors, who sometimes bend the core concepts of our system to make their own jobs easier. You can read more about the details of this case here with this link.
This defendant went through pretrial proceedings, picked a jury, sat through an entire trial, was convicted and sentenced, and had to file an appeal of his case. Only after all that did an appellate court recognize the error and send his case back for a new trial. Not every case has struggles like this, but these experiences do illustrate how complicated and scary being prosecuted may be. If you’ve been charged with DUI or any crime your counsel needs to be on constant guard against the state and police who will push the boundaries of law and evidence to get a conviction.