According to local reports, a judge in Northampton County Pennsylvania has suspended the driver’s license of some of those suspected for DUI, even before the matter has been resolved in court:
Suspending a driver's license in a DUI case before a court ruling is unconstitutional.
Policy of taking licenses before a DUI conviction draws critics
The Salisbury Township woman insisted she was innocent of allegations she had driven drunk, and she wanted her day in court. Fine, the Northampton County judge told her, but until your trial in February, I’m taking your driver’s license.
If convicted, 25-year-old Jessica D. Trump would lose her privilege to drive. But that she would lose it before, without being found guilty, bothers her attorney and other defense lawyers, and even county prosecutors are distancing themselves from the strategy.
“Isn’t taking the license a presumption of guilt?” asked Trump’s attorney, Jason Jenkins of Allentown. “Because it sure feels like it.”
To speed along DUI cases and protect other drivers on the road, Judge Leonard Zito, who oversees the criminal court docket in Easton, has been taking the licenses of defendants he believes are dragging their feet in resolving the charges against them.
Zito’s move aims to encourage them to plead guilty or apply for court diversionary programs that avoid a trial. It is part of an effort to get a handle on DUI cases, which make up nearly 35 percent of the court’s docket. But it raises constitutional questions about whether the judge is truly treating defendants as innocent until proven otherwise.
As a citizen of Pennsylvania I believe the actions of this judge, as described in this news report are wrong for the following reasons:
- The purpose of bail is to insure appearance and to protect the community and not to “move cases along.” The purpose of bail is not supposed to be punitive.
- A license suspension is a major form of punishment. In Central Pennsylvania there is a complete lack of public transportation infrastructure. So taking an accused driver’s license is punishment. It can affect the ability of the citizen to get to and from their place of work which may result in a loss of employment or other long-term consequences. This type of punishment should not be put upon anyone until the matter is resolved in a court of law. I still believe that we live in a time of the presumption of innocence.
- The right to a trial is a basic fundamental right. Any effort that is made to curtail a person’s right to trial is unAmerican. The loss of license is a major incentive to just “give up.” Otherwise, legitimate cases that should be tried will not be tried or negotiated to a proper resolution.
- The rationale behind this action, “to encourage them to plead guilty or apply for court diversionary programs that avoid a trial” is strong arm tactic that forces citizens to choose another option under duress rather than opting for a trial which is their constitutional right. It is a form of pre-trial tax.
- If the State is overwhelmed with the number of DUI cases, then punishing the accused prematurely is not the answer. The State should hire extra judges to ensure that every citizen receives a fair trial and is not pressured through unconstitutional tactics.
If you are involved in a DUI case where the judge has suspended or has threatened to suspend your license before the matter has been ruled upon, please call 1-866-MCSHANE. We are ready to fight for your constitutional rights!
In my years of defending DUI cases in Pennsylvania, one of the most common misconceptions I come across is people questioning why I support DUI. The fact of the matter is, I don’t support drunk driving. It is dangerous and many lives are needlessly lost because of DUI each year. Asking a DUI defense attorney “why they support DUI” is akin to asking The Innocence Project “why they support murders.” Criminal defense attorneys do not support or encourage crime, they support and encourage justice.
PA DUI Attorney fights against injustice.
As a DUI defense attorney, I call for reform in the justice system because too many people are being falsely arrested and falsely convicted of DUI. They are too many problems that are going unchecked that undermine the justice system and put all of us at risk of a false conviction. Some of these problems include:
- Police officers who have very little training in DUI detection
- Faulty and inaccurate breath testing equipment
- Lack of oversight to ensure DUI testing equipment is working properly
- Field sobriety tests that are not scientifically validated
- Field sobriety tests do not tell whether the suspect is intoxicated- there are many people who may stumble when asked to stand on one leg for 30 seconds for reasons other than being drunk
- Blood testing is inaccurate
- Crime lab technicians are overworked, under-trained and many lack education in science to begin with
- Rampant lack of oversight in crime labs
- Corrupt police officers try to inflate DUI arrests for their own personal gain
- Prosecutors have been known to conceal evidence
On top of all of these uncertainties, the penalties for DUI are extremely harsh and will affect those convicted for the rest of their lives even if it is the only blemish on their criminal record. They may end losing job opportunities and will be humiliated when anyone searches their criminal record for the rest of their lives.
As a professional Pennsylvania DUI attorney I fight for justice so that innocent people are not convicted of a DUI under such unreliable circumstances.
At The McShane Firm, we pride ourselves on having the the hardest working, most dedicated DUI Attorneys in Pennsylvania. Recently, Attorney Shawn Dorward secured a total not guilty verdict in a DUI case for a client he had been defending for almost two years. Most importantly, Attorney Dorward was able to secure a “not guilty” verdict by highlight the truth of the matter.
The Facts
Attorney Dorward Brilliantly Defends PA DUI Case Based on the Truth
Mr. H was charged with a fourth offense Pennsylvania DUI: Refusal within the last ten years. He was observed by the arresting officer to have violated numerous traffic offenses including almost striking another vehicle. A vehicle stop was made and when requested, Mr. H performed several field sobriety tests. The officer noted that Mr. H performed unsatisfactorily on all tests and was non-compliant. Back-up was called to the scene. The officer also testified that Mr. H was hard to understand and seemed confused throughout his investigation. Mr. H was placed under arrest and taken to the hospital for a blood draw. The O’Connell Warnings and Implied Consent form was read to Mr. H and given to him to review. Due to Mr. H’s continued non-compliance with the officer he noted him as a refusal.
At trial Mr. H was called to the stand and informed the Court that he was in special education classes and had a hard time reading and writing. He was then given the O’Connell Warnings and Implied Consent form to read to the jury, which he could not. A friend of Mr. H’s also testified to Mr. H’s level of education and the need for Mr. H to have assistance in several areas of his everyday life Therefore, there was no way Mr. H could understand the charges against him and should not be charged with a DUI refusal.
After three and a half hours the jury came back with a not guilty verdict.
This case highlights the need for an experienced DUI attorney who can defend you based on the truth. Juries today are very knowledgeable about the issues and cannot be tricked by “smoke and mirrors” games. The truth wins cases.
If you are looking for an aggressive PA DUI attorney to defend your case, call 1-866-MCSHANE.
We previously took a look at numbers 10 through 6 in the list of our top ten DUI articles of 2010. Today we take a look at the very best posts of the last year.
 |
: The Pennsylvania DUI Lawyer Challenge: Pennsylvania DUI Penalties |
Average every day citizens who I meet all over PA frequently ask me “How can we compare between all the DUI lawyers out there?” To answer that question we started the series: The PA DUI Attorney Challenge. In this series we have proposed a number of criteria the average citizen with no legal background can use to weigh their options.
In this post, we start this series by answering the question: Do I really need the best very best lawyer to defend my Pennsylvania DUI case?” Once you examine the severe legal penalties of a Pennsylvania DUI, the fact that DUI cases are very technical and that DUI requires an expert attorney, you will also arrive at the conclusion that you really need the very best DUI lawyer in PA.
 |
: DUI Witch Hunting |
If it weren't for DUI Lawyers, it would turn into a DUI witch hunt
I am a criminal defense attorney, not a criminal. However, frequently people look at me with disdain when they find out what I do. They treat me as if am helping people commit crimes. I have never in my life told anyone, “Go ahead and drive drunk. I’ve got you covered.”
Unfortunately, people have disdain for DUI attorneys but really haven’t given thought to what we actually do. The central question in this discussion is “Should a person accused of a DUI be allowed a truthful and honest defense in a court of law?” Considering the high number of false arrests for DUI in PA it would turn into a DUI witch hunt if it wasn’t for us defense attorneys.
 |
: Dear Pennsylvania DUI Lawyer: CDL Driver DUI |
Pennsylvania CDL truck drivers face the harshest penalties if convicted for a DUI. Not only do they face higher fines and more jail time than an average citizen, they are also in danger of losing their CDL license and hence their livelihood. This post is full of important information for CDL drivers and truly is a must read even if you have not been charged with a PA DUI.
 |
: What to Do if pulled over for DUI in PA |
One of the best ways of avoiding a false DUI arrest is to know your rights. Being pulled over is a high pressure and scary situation and that is why this post is important so you can make informed decisions if you ever find yourself in an unfortunate situation. By following these simple strategies, you will be exercising your rights while minimizing the potential for being wrongly charged with a PA DUI.
 |
: The McShane Firm: A Commitment to Excellence in Pennsylvania DUI Defense |
Our top post from 2010 really embodies what this blog and our firm is all about. If you are charged with a Pennsylvania DUI, The McShane Firm promises to do everything it can to offer you the best defense possible. That is why we spend so much time and effort in advanced legal training honing our skills and expanding our knowledge.
- Nobody invests in training like we do
- Nobody understands the science involved in DUI evidence like we do
- Nobody is willing to put in the long hours of work into your case like we do
- Nobody can fight toe-to-toe in a DUI trial like we do
In fact Nobody can defend your DUI case like we do.
We hope you have enjoyed this look back at the past year and would love to hear from you about what topics you would like to know about in the coming year.
Every Friday we take a look at some of the most commonly asked questions about Pennsylvania DUI so we can clear up any misconceptions and provide you with the most up-to-date and accurate information about PA DUI laws and related topics. Today:
Dear Justin,
I have read a number of posts on your blog and I am frankly appalled by the way you are helping keep drunk drivers on the road. Don’t you have a conscious? How do you sleep at night knowing that you are endangering the public?
Sincerely,
A Concerned Mother
York, PA
DUI Suspects Have the Right to a Fair Trial
Before I answer your question, I would like to thank you for taking the time out to air your concerns because this give me a chance to clear up some of the confusion that many people have about DUI and criminal defense attorneys.
Please keep in mind this important fact, I do not make the decisions about who is guilty and not guilty of a crime. Judges and juries make these decisions. My only job is to present the facts of the case and ensure that the prosecution has met its burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I have tried many DUI cases and not once has a judge dismissed a case just because they liked me. Every single case that has been dismissed, withdrawn or the accused found not guilty, because of a legal, factual or scientific issue that warrants that action.
Without defense attorneys, fair trials and due process, our society would step back into the days of the Salem Witch Trials. People would be guilty of a DUI just because they have been accused (Please see my post DUI Witch Hunting).
In reality, defense attorneys work hard to protect their clients from false prosecution. If you doubt the dark reality of false prosecutions, please take a look at the Innocence Project and see how many people have been exonerated. The nature of DUI cases and the heavy reliance on intangible evidence that is truly subjective in nature makes these cases especially prone to mistakes. There are many sources of error which can include:
- Faulty breath machines
- Contamination of blood samples
- Sloppy work at criminal labs
- Medical conditions being misinterpreted as DUI (i.e. diabetes, cyclic vomiting syndrome, cerebral palsy)
- Corrupt police officers
- DUI Tunnel Vision
- Improper administration of field sobriety tests
Many people are falsely arrested and falsely charged with DUI offenses in Pennsylvania. These are people like you and I whose lives, freedom, dignity and careers are being jeopardized by a false DUI charge. My question is, if you were falsely arrested for a DUI, wouldn’t you want a qualified DUI lawyer to defend your rights?
A lot of people don’t realize how mistake-prone the legal system really is. I have been defending Pennsylvania DUI and criminal cases for many years and can tell you that there are many mistakes made. People are mistakenly identified, falsely charged and wrongfully convicted. If you don’t believe me take a look at the innocenceproject.org . To date they have helped exonerate 258 people who were convicted of crimes they did not commit.
I am currently defending Tyshaunt Love of Harrisburg who was convicted of the 1996 murder of his ex-girlfriend Iris Belcher. Love has spent the last five years in jail after he was convicted of third-degree murder in 2005. Dauphin County Judge Bruce Bratton sentenced Love to 15 to 30 years in prison.
Matthew Kemeny of The Patriot-News, did a piece on this case:
Harrisburg man convicted of murder claims innocence, says another man confessed to the slaying
If Tyshaunt Love killed his ex-girlfriend, why did someone else reportedly confess to the slaying?
And why didn’t the Dauphin County jury that convicted Love know this?
An attorney for the Harrisburg man convicted of the 1996 murder of Iris Fennell Belcher will ask for a new trial today, based on what he believes was insufficient evidence presented to the jury at trial.
“I don’t know if he did it or didn’t do it,” said Justin McShane, who is representing Love in his appeal. “But I know this: That jury didn’t get all the information. All he and I are asking for is to make it fair.”
The major point of contention here is that two men heard a confessions made by La-Qun Williams admitting that he killed Belcher. However, the Dauphin County jury never got to hear evidence about the confessions because the public defenders representing Love at the time were not able to get Williams to appear in court. Williams at the time was incarcerated in New York and the public defenders were unaware of the legal options available to compel him to appear in their case.
My argument here is that William’s confessions when examined along with:
- forensic evidence connecting him to the crime scene – Belcher’s blood on his boots and
- a very good motive- he blames Belcher for snitching on him in a 1995 rape case that got him a 25 year sentence
This is major evidence in this case. This evidence needs to be carefully examined in a trial. This is why I am pushing for a new trial, so the jury can make a determination based on all of the evidence available.
This is what defense attorneys all across the country do every day. We push to have all of the evidence fully and properly examined so juries can make their determinations based on the truth. Whether its DUI, homicide, assault or any other charge, every one of us is carrying out our own innocence project.
Aside from burgers and fireworks, the Fourth of July is a time to reflect on how fortunate we are to be free and have rights.
Freedom of Speech.
The Right to Bear Arms.
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. (Does not apply to Texas DUI suspects.)
Right to a Trial by Jury.
The Presumption of Innocence before Proven Guilty. (Again, some would argue that it in reality does not apply to DUI.)
It’s unfortunate but true that these rights that we all enjoy and hold in high regard are being compromised in the name of "DUI prevention". Politicians in some states have passed laws that allow police to forcibly draw blood from a DUI suspect. They can beat him up and stick a needle in him all under the law.
Right here in Pennsylvania, legislators are working on laws that ASSUME GUILT in a first DUI even before it has reached a court of law. In fact, these tougher penalties are really a shell game made to hide the fact the police and the state are sloppy and careless. They let the guilty walk free and prosecute the innocent on a regular basis.
Look, we all want to protect ourselves and our families from drunk drivers but should we be stepping on rights as citizens to do so while they police and their crime labs act in a totally inept manner? Please see the following posts to decide:
-
DUI Hypocrisy: Guilty Before Being Proven Innocent
-
There is no such thing as the presumption of innocence in DUI cases
-
Faulty Forensics in DUI Cases
-
Are the Police being unfair in regards to DUI
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
Drunk driving is a serious problem in Pennsylvania and across the country. Like most of us, I also wish that people would not make the choice of getting behind the wheel while they are drunk. To battle this, many people are willing to adopt "any means necessary" to eliminate the DUI problem. However, sometimes these means include infringing on our basic civil rights.
One of our basic and most fundamental rights is the presumption of innocence or innocent before proven guilty. When someone is charged with a crime, it must be proven in a court of law. No matter who the person is or what the alleged crime is, everyone is to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
I wish someone would explain that to some of our Pennsylvania State Representatives.
Here is a recent article from York dispatch
Grove DUI legislation gets thumbs up in committee
A local lawmaker’s effort to close a loophole that changed the way DUI offenders can be sentenced recently earned approval from a state House of Representatives committee.
State Rep. Seth Grove, R-Dover, in mid-February introduced legislation that would allow people arrested for a second DUI to be sentenced as repeat offenders even if they haven’t yet been convicted of the first offense.
Here is a classic example of an over zealous politician compromising our civil rights in an attempt to get tough on DUI (and get votes and pacify the powerful DUI lobbies). To illustrate let’s look at the penalties for a Pennsylvania DUI conviction:
First DUI offense, Highest Rate:
- three (3) day mandatory minimum jail time
- six (6) months maximum jail time
- $1000-$5000 fine
- twelve (12) month loss of license
Second DUI offense, Highest Rate:
- ninety (90) days mandatory minimum jail time
- sixty (60) months prison sentence which means possibly serving it in a State Correctional Institute where you may not be locally housed and there is no work release
- $1500-$10000 fine
- 18 month license suspension and after that is fully served then 12 month interlock license must be served before getting an unrestricted license
As you can see, the penalties for a second offense are much worse than the first. Under the proposed law a person charged for a second DUI before the conclusion of the first case would be charged as repeat offenders EVEN IF THEY ARE ACQUITTED AND EXONERATED OF THE FIRST ACCUSATION. This law assumes that the person was guilty of the first offense before a court has had time to review the evidence and pass a judgment on it. A person could be acquitted of the first charge and still be convicted as a repeat offender even though they only committed one crime. Seriously, you can be convicted as a repeat offender on your first offense?!
Is that fair? Is that constitutional? Is that what we are supposed to do- assume guilt?
Drug dealers, rapist of children, and murderers do not get treated like this.
To all Pennsylvania Lawmakers: Stop trying to take away our rights for your own political gain!
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
In my travels around the country and around Pennsylvania, I run into a number of people. One of the most common questions I get is, "You get them off on technicalities but they’re really guilty, aren’t they?"
Here’s a question: Have you ever been accused of something you didn’t do?
Of course, at one time or another all of us have been accused of something we did not do. Suspicion, malice, and sheer coincidence can all lead to wrongful accusations.
So does this happen in courts of law? Absolutely. There are thousands of people in prisons across the country who were not only accused but convicted of crimes they were completely innocent of. All one has to do is visit The Innocence Project to see the extent of this problem.
Does this happen with DUI? Right Here in Pennsylvania?
I have represented thousands of DUI cases in Pennsylvania and this happens much more often then you might expect, most often, because of the highly technical nature of a DUI. For example, in a robbery the police may find physical evidence (e.g. the victim’s handbag) in the suspect’s possession. In a DUI, you are taking about blood and breath tests, and the opinion of an officer (who usually aren’t properly trained) about whether a person is substantially impaired. Needless to say, there is a lot of room for error.
A breath machine can give a faulty reading if not used properly. Blood samples can become tainted due to improper storage or something as simple as the lab technician not cleaning the equipment properly (see the Carry Over Effect). Someone might be downright clumsy and fall over during the roadside DUI test.
Now imagine for a second that the victim is you. You are falsely accused by an officer and your tests produce a false positive. Should you go directly to jail or would you want a chance to examine the evidence and have someone actually prove that accusation against your good name? Let’s not rush to judgment or play guessing games. If someone has been cleared by a court of law, whether the issue was technical in nature or not, they deserve the right to be respected and be given the benefit of the doubt.
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
There’s no such thing as the presumption of innocence in modern day United States and Pennsylvania jury trials.
It’s a sad fact that it seems as if a person, especially accused of a DUI, has to prove themselves to be innocent through the course of trial proceedings rather than the proper burden being applied both in terms of production and persuasion in that the Government must provide sufficient proof that rises to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order for anyone to be convicted of any crime.
It seems as if, in DUI cases, it is totally rejected in favor of a person accused has to prove that he/she wasn’t driving drunk before a not guilty verdict is returned.
It’s simply illustrated by the everyday common sense fact that occurs when we are driving in our cars to and from wherever we are going. You might see a police car with a person in the back seemingly handcuffed behind the officer. When we take a look at that situation, for example when we are stopped at a stop light and the police car is next to us we look over at that person.
Don’t we think to ourselves: "I wonder what he/she did", instead of asking ourselves: "Boy, I wonder if he/she did anything wrong."
That is a pretty sharp and useful illustration of how the presumption of innocence doesn’t necessarily apply and isn’t the default position. When we go to trial at The McShane Firm, which is quite frequently, we take a very hard stance and challenge jurors to apply the principles of not only the presumption of innocence but also that the Commonwealth has its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt along with all of the other Constitutional protections such as the right to remain silent and not to be forced to provide testimony against one’s self as granted to us by our wise forefathers both in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
-Justin J. McShane, Esquire, Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
I am the highest rated DUI Attorney in PA as Rated by Avvo.com
You can follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Linkedin
Board Certified Criminal Trial Advocate
By the National Board of Trial Advocacy
A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Approved Agency
Connect with us:
Connect with Attorney McShane
Attorney Profile on TheMcShaneFirm.com
Justin McShane on Avvo
Justin McShane on FaceBook
Justin McShane on Google+
Justin McShane on JustiaJustin McShane on LinkedIn
Justin McShane on Super Lawyers
Justin McShane on Twitter
National College for DUI Defense- The Truth About Forensic Science
Videos by Justin McShane
