I did not tell Bailey the true story.

I told him the adulterated version. One time I started to go down that road and he cut me off in such a way that made it clear that he didn't want to know/wouldn't do the case if he knew.

I did not take the stand. It's not a good idea. Lawyers are professionals and they will make you look stupid. Plus you don't want to pit yourself against police officers. You will lose in the minds of average Americans (who will always believe the guy in uniform). You want to pit the Police Officers against contrary evidence.


1. Tell Bailey you want to go to Trial from the get go.
2. Stick to your adulterated story.
3. Do not take the stand.
4. Do not take a deal or be intimidated by the judge or prosecution.

All those pre trials are just a way of delaying to break you and make you cop a deal. It's like when they put a prisoner in jail until he rats out his homies. Because in trial the prosecution and the court always loses on DUI. ESPECIALLY without a breathalyzer.

Some things in your favor:
1. They cannot mention (to the jury) that you are a repeat offender.
2. They cannot say that you refused the breathalyzer test. They just lose that piece of evidence.
3. Their ONLY evidence is that you failed the road-side test.

It sounds like you have extenuating circumstances already for failing. Get a Drs. note saying you have a foot problem and you're all but guaranteed a not guilty.

That's reasonable doubt right there. You'd be surprised about how the judge changes from being an asshole who is against you to someone who is just following procedures (which helps the defendents) when the trial begins.

All the instructions he gives the jury (about what to listen to/what to consider favor the defendant)...


Some facts about my case:

I called Arnold a week before the trial and left a message telling him to absolutely not go and that he was scum for going etc.

He told the prosecutor and the police on trial day that I left him "threatening messages" and that he had proof. The prosecutor tried to play it up like it was the nail in the coffin but I didn't budge because I knew Arnold wasn't organized enough to be able to get evidence. The judge dismissed his claim outright, asking him to produce it in which he produced some internet photocopied piece of paper which the judge practically laughed at. None of this was in front of the jury, mind you.

So none of it matters. That's the key--you get a jury of regular schmoes who don't give a shit. And they don't hear everything or know everything. What they hear and are exposed to is very controlled. It's so much easier for them to say "not guilty" than it is to say "guilty." The judges instructions, demeanor, everything, favor a not guilty verdict.

The hardest part is staying strong in the months leading up to trial and dealing with the uncertainty.


Post a Comment

<< Home