Jul 10, 2012 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized
News channel Action 9 continued the media onslaught on the independence and fairness of the judges yesterday by openly questioning the judgment of Judge Kimberly Best-Staton. Characteristic of attacks on judges, the story focuses on simple results, rather than fair application of the law.
Apparently, police officers and state troopers had come to the Action 9 Investigative team to complain that a local judge was being partial to defendants accused of DWI. The Action 9 Investigative reporter Mark Becker then aired a story based on these ill-defined complaints, some inflammatory statistics, and two pieces of anecdotal evidence. DWI prosecution is like all criminal prosecution complicated. When a person’s liberty and rights are at stake, Americans should and do take due process of law seriously. This supposed investigative journalism failed to do that by ignoring the complex, interrelated issues at hand.
True “drunk driving” is a problem in Mecklenburg County, but that is no reason to sidestep the law and individual rights.
The story showed a fundamental lack of respect for the law and individual liberty with opinion questioning Judge Best-Staton’s “judgment,” instead of whether she was applying the law fairly to each case. The story never attempts to give the public an explanation of why the judge’s judgment was being questioned, and the story failed to give an example of where the judge did not apply the law.
The evidence presented that was supposed to be so fatal to the “judgment” of Judge Best-Staton was that so far this year she found only 33% of those accused of DWI brought in front of her guilty. The story ignores the innumerable reasons why defendants are found not guilty and the individual cases brought to her.
The public might have rightly wondered whether Judge Best-Staton was fairly applying the law, but Action 9 certainly didn’t tell them.
What we really have here is a mind set where principles of “innocent until proven guilty,” “adherence to the law,” and “liberty” are being disregarded in favor of crass embrace of judicial activism when it would allow more individuals to be found guilty, especially of pet crimes like DWI.
For what it’s worth, let’s remember that it is not a crime to merely be charged with DWI, nor is it a crime to merely have a wisp of alcohol in your system when stopped. When a judge finds an individual not guilty of DWI, she may just be doing justice.
The DWI Lawyers of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you have been charged with a DWI or any other crime, contact the attorneys at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower. Review our credentials, make sure that we are right for you, and call us at 877-374-5999, or contact us here, for a private consultation.
Jul 9, 2012 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized
On July 1, Circuit Court Judge Michael Nettles included in Cassandra Tolley’s sentence an unusual task: the defendant must do some bible study, a report on the Book of Job. Tolley had pled guilty to Felony DUI. She was heavily drunk (0.33% Blood Alcohol Content) back in November when she crossed the yellow and seriously injured two men in York County.
In addition to writing a report on the Book of Job, Tolley is sentenced to 8 years in prison followed by 5 years probation.
The unusual part of this all around tragic story, the fact that a York County judge would include in a criminal sentence a religious task, apparently is not unconstitutional. As it turns out, since the task of penitence was included in a plea deal, and thus Tolley consented to it, it is not an unconstitutional religious imposition.
According to the Rock Hill Herald, the idea for the report on Job came not from the bench, but rather from New Vision Free Will Baptist pastor Daggett Duncan.
Rock Hill DUI Attorneys
If you have been charged with a DUI or any other crime, contact the attorneys at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower. Browse our website, and compare our credentials with those of attorneys at any other firm. Then, call us at 877-374-5999 or contact us at this link for a private consultation.
Jul 9, 2012 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized
In the recent Williams v. Illinois case, the US Supreme Court cut back against the line of cases that gave criminal defendants broad confrontation clause rights against expert testimony. The Court held that criminal defendants have no right to cross examine experts giving certain forms of affidavits. That ruling has the potential to make it much harder to defend against any criminal charge where expert testimony is relevant: anything from rape to DUI.
In the Williams case, the prosecution produced, and the trial court partially admitted, expert witness testimony detailing the forensics testing on a rape victim. While the confrontation clause usually requires a criminal defendant be able to cross examine witnesses testifying against them, it has been unclear for some time to what extent expert testimony is affected. Expert testimony that relies other expert statements is not inadmissible as hearsay, but it has traditionally been inadmissible under the confrontation clause.
The practical problem is that experts will always have to rely on the statements of other experts in formulating their own expert opinions.
The constitutional problem is that criminal defendants have traditionally had, and probably should have, the right to haul their accusers in front of a jury, to allow the jury to assess their credibility.
The plurality opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Alito, basically ignores the constitutional problem on the basis that experts do not ordinarily conduct witch hunts. He reasons that lab experts are just doing their jobs and are not concerned as the police or other witnesses might be in seeing a criminal defendant convicted.
Given this ruling, let’s hope he’s right.
The Criminal Lawyers of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you have been charged with DUI or any other crime, contact the attorneys at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower. Browse our website, and compare our credentials with those of attorneys at any other firm. Then, call us at 877-374-5999 or contact us at this link for a private consultation.
Jun 28, 2012 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized
Two SC felony offenses are somewhat confusingly similar. Felony DUI and reckless homicide are almost interchangeably chargeable, i.e. if the accused has allegedly killed someone in an automobile accident, in a lot of factual scenarios either Felony DUI or reckless homicide can be charged. If a reckless homicide involves alcohol it could almost always be charged as a Felony DUI.
What is the difference though between a Felony DUI and a Reckless Homicide?
Felony DUI requires that the accused:
- Operated a vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol or both, and
- Did something else against the law, whether traffic law or duties imposed by the court, for example, failed to maintain lane or acted negligently, and
- Proximately caused great bodily injury or death to a person other than himself, including passengers, pedestrians, and other motorists (proximate causation is limited in time to 3 years)
For more information see What is a Felony DUI?
Reckless Homicide, a different felony, on the other hand requires:
- the accused drove in reckless disregard for the safety of others, and
- death ensues within three years as a proximate result of injury received by the above reckless driving.
Basically, all that means is the accused must have proximately caused a death by his or her reckless driving.
So, what are the differences in the offense:
- Reckless Homicide doesn’t require alcohol or drugs
- Reckless Homicide requires the accused to have acted recklessly, breaking a traffic law may not be enough.
- Reckless Homicide requires the accused to have proximately caused a death, although Felony DUI can also be charged to an accused who caused a death.
The main difference though lies in the penalties:
| Felony DUI |
Reckless Homicide |
For causing great bodily injury:
- 30 days to 15 years mandatory imprisonment, in state or federal prison, not local jail,
- $5,000 to $10,100 mandatory fine,
- driver’s license is suspended for the term of imprisonment plus three years.
|
Not applicable to causing great injury |
For causing death:
- 1 year to 25 years mandatory imprisonment, in state or federal prison, not local jail,
- $10,100 to $25,100 mandatory fine, and
- driver’s license is suspended for the term of imprisonment plus five years.
|
For causing death:either or both:
- $1,000 to $5,000
- up to 10 years in prison,
and a 5 year driver’s license suspension, but reducible to 1 year if certain conditions are met |
SC DUI Attorney
If you have been charged with felony DUI or any other crime, contact the attorneys at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower. Browse our website, and compare our credentials with those of attorneys at any other firm. Then, call us at 877-374-5999 or contact us at this link for a private consultation.
Jun 28, 2012 | Criminal Defense, DUI & DWI, Felony DUI, Uncategorized
Last week a Rock Hill woman, Cassandra Tolley, age 28, plead guilty to Felony DUI. Back in November of 2011, Tolley drove down the wrong side of Porter Rd. striking an oncoming car. Both passengers in the car struck by Tolley suffered serious injuries. At the time of her arrest, Tolley’s blood alcohol concentration was .33, nearly 3 times the legal limit. Tolley also tested positive for prescription drugs.
In South Carolina Felony DUI carries a maximum sentence of 15 years. Tolley received an 8 year prison sentence as well as 5 years probation.
Serious DUI/DUAC Attorneys
If you have been charged with any drunk driving offense, contact the attorneys at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower. Browse our website, and compare our credentials with those of attorneys at any other firm. Then, call us at 877-374-5999 or contact us at this link for a private consultation.
Jun 27, 2012 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized
Yesterday, 3 years after the accident, Jabari Harding, a 30-year old Army staff sergeant, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for killing two college girls, in Columbia.
He was drinking when it happened. What might have been just a DUI or a tragic traffic accident became reckless homicide.
It happened in August 2009 at the corner of Gervais and Harden Street. Harding’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.08% as he was leaving a bar, and his truck crashed into another car killing two college girls, ages 20 and 18.
The 10 year sentence was part of the second plea deal worked out for Harding. In the first plea agreement, the sentence was 7 years, but a judge rejected 7 years as too lenient for two counts of reckless homicide.
DUI Lawyer
If you have been charged with any drunk driving offense, it is important to retain a lawyer as soon as possible to protect your freedom. The experienced DUI lawyers at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower are ready to fight for you. Browse our website, and compare our credentials with those of attorneys at any other firm. Then, call us at 877-374-5999 or contact us at this link for a private consultation.
