Virginia DWI attorney Jonathan Oates completely exonerated his client of all DUI charges at trial. Police found his client sleeping in the driver’s seat at a gas station with a truck cabin full of empty beer cans. He was coming back from Lake Anna and still had his boat and jet-skis hooked up to the trailer of his trailer. Things were looking difficult for the client, and the prosecutor refused to offer anything other than a plea to the DUI.
With nowhere to go but up, Oates refused to accept the prosecutor’s plea bargain and took the case to trial. At trial, he cross-examined the police officer about the beer cans found in the car. Were they empty? Full? Halfway full? Cold? Warm? The police officer was unable to answer these important facts – and had difficulty establishing any time frame from when his client was driving the truck on a public road.
During the DUI stop, the officer had Oates’ client perform field sobriety tests, including the One-Leg-Stand and the Walk and Turn test. On cross-examination, Oates grilled down into the details of how his client performed on these tests, and the instructions that the officer gave to his client. Rather than emphasizing what the client did wrong on the tests, Oates effectively emphasized what his client did right. He also drilled down into the officer’s instructions and what “clues” the officer used when he decided to make the arrest.
Oates was able to effectively argue to the court that his client did very well on the field sobriety tests just through his questions – and pointing out things that the officer did wrong or could not remember. The judge was persuaded that the Commonwealth had not proven their case. The judge granted Oates’ “motion to strike,” meaning that even in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, they did not come close to proving the DUI case against the client.
His client walked out of court with a huge victory – no DUI conviction, mandatory alcohol class, and without a mandatory one-year suspension of his license. He dodged a huge bullet and will make sure that he throws away the empty beer cans on his way back from a day on Lake Anna.
He also had a truck cabin full of empty beer cans coming back from Lake AnnaAfter the prosecutor refused to offer anything but a DUI conviction, Oates fought the case at trial. at attorney blood alcohol level of 0.23. Any alcohol level above a .20 that results in a conviction requires a mandatory minimum of 10 days in jail. That was what Virginia DUI attorney Jon Oates’ client was facing, with a history of two prior DUIs.
Not wanting to take any jail, Oates challenged the case at trial.
Oates’ client was arrested under the suspicion of DUI, refused a breath test, and was required to take a blood test that resulted in a BAC of 0.23. With all the witnesses present to prove the case for the Commonwealth, Oates challenged the blood test, arguing that the police had failed to follow proper procedures and the prosecutor could not use the result in court.
During his cross-examination of the officer, Oates uncovered problems with the officer that the prosecutor was unaware of. Not only was the officer not certified to administer the refused breath test, but without the correct witness to testify that the client refused the breath test, Oates argued that the blood test could not be used at all.
The judge agreed with Oates’ arguments, ruling that the blood test results were inadmissible and dismissing the case. Oates’ client was spared a sentence of at least 10 days in jail, and probably more if the judge learned about the record of prior DUI charges.