Copy and paste DUI reports
Lawrence Taylor expounds on the practice of police officers using pre-written arrest reports in drunk driving cases - writing out "driving symptoms, slurred speech, failed sobriety tests, and admissions of drinking - and then just filling in the names, dates, etc., when they actually make an arrest."
Taylor points to a news channel investigation in Orlando Florida which uncovered evidence of the use of "DUI templates" by officers. Horry County officers may or may not use "templates," but the exact same language does appear in most reports and I do not doubt that many officers copy and paste their DUI symptoms from one report to the next. When the officers testify they often read from their reports because they cannot remember one DUI stop from another months after the fact, and although judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys hear the same testimony every time, the jury does not know the difference because this is probably the one and only DUI trial that they will ever sit through.
Comments
Who cares? Aren't defense councils cross examination questions from a template?
Posted by: Anonymous | September 23, 2008 12:39 AM
I'll treat this as a serious question. Cross examinations are fluid depending on what comes from the witness stand. There are portions of my cross examinations in DUI cases that are fairly repetitive from case to case, because the testimony of the officers is fairly repetitive from case to case.
However, defense counsel does not testify. Every person should care if our police officers take the stand and lie under oath during a proceeding the end of which could result in a person losing their freedom and/or their driver's license.
Posted by: Bfrederick | September 23, 2008 9:44 AM
Your response to this question
"Who cares? Aren't defense councils cross examination questions from a template?"
was double talk. You defended yourself by stating that "Cross examinations are fluid depending on what comes from the witness stand. There are portions of my cross examinations in DUI cases that are fairly repetitive from case to case, because the testimony of the officers is fairly repetitive from case to case."
As you stated officers testimony is fairly repetitive. I wonder what reasons that might be beyond and you saying officers copy and paste. Most DUI's are similar in nature. That could possibly be the reason terms like “classic signs” are thrown around. I agree that a person’s freedom and personal wealth are worth protecting, but at what point would a DUI lawyer consider a person guilty of DUI. I ask this hypothetical because I know all persons are innocent until proven guilty. I just want to hear you describe an example of a DUI drunk that should be punished?
Posted by: Michael Wood | November 27, 2008 4:25 PM
If you'll go back to the original post and the news story that was linked to, what we are talking about is officer's reports that are written before the arrest is ever made. I am talking specifically about police officers who are lying under oath to juries.
A person should not be convicted of DUI based on perjured testimony, that much is clear. When the state proves their case against any defendant beyond any reasonable doubt, respecting the defendant's constitutional rights throughout the process, and without perjured testimony, that is a fair conviction which is justified in our justice system.
DUI prosecutions pose a particular problem with respect to the fairness of the process, because the public in general, as well as law enforcement, are more likely to have extreme prejudices and preconceived notions going into the case.
MADD and law enforcement saturate communities with propaganda which is misleading and false. MADD cites statistics, which are then repeated by the news media, about "alcohol related accidents," or "alcohol related deaths," which are greatly inflated, including everything from the drunk who causes an accident to the completely sober person who was in an accident but a beer can was found nearby.
Our government spends obscene amounts of money on television commercials and billboards that misstate the law, telling the public that "zero tolerance is the law," and that "buzzed driving is drunk driving," neither of which is the law in any state.
A "DUI drunk that should be punished," to use your language, in S.C., is a person who is proven to have been under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the person's faculties to drive are materially and appreciably impaired, and who has been given a fair trial.
Posted by: BFrederick | November 27, 2008 7:42 PM