I am happy to report the good news that Atlanta DUI attorney Richard Lawson won a not-guilty verdict in a Cherokee County DUI trial on a case that many Georgia DUI lawyers would have advised their clients was impossible to win.
The victory goes to show that, for DUI attorneys and their clients, good things happen when the defense declares that they are ready for trial.
To sum up the case, Mr. Lawson's client had a prior DUI charge from about 4 years earlier in Cobb County.
Once question that arises in Georgia DUI trials, and in drunk driving trials around the country, is whether it is appropriate for the jury to hear and consider the existence of prior DUI arrests or convictions.
In this case, the trial judge rules that the prior DUI was a similar transaction, and therefore was admissible into evidence. In Georgia all DUI's are considered similar in nature and are admitted into evidence to show the bent of mind of the defendant. Then the prosecutor gets to argue to the jury that once the person's bent of mind is towards getting a DUI, then it is always that way, making the current charge more likely (this type of argument is not allowed in most courts in other states, but is in Georgia, making the GA DUI lawyer's job that much more difficult).
To make matters worse, in the prior case, Mr. Lawson's client had run off the road and hit a tree, and remained in a coma for two months thereafter. The Cherokee county jury heard all of this.
Like most great trial attorneys, Mr. Lawson believes that cases can be won or lost in jury selection. During this case, he was able to have 4 adverse jurors removed (including one for cause). Two of those jurors were EMTs that had "seen the effects of drunk drivers." One was the wife of an EMT who likes to follow drunk drivers and report them to police. The person removed for cause stated that his client would automatically be guilty if she had a prior offense.
Mr. Lawson used the jury selection process to educate them and prepare them for the fact that his client's prior DUI would be in evidence in the case. Before the facts stage of the trial even began, he made the jury agree with him that they would try the case on the facts of what happened in this case, not the other case from Cobb County four years earlier.
In the current case, Mr. Lawson's client has a .188 alcohol level (the legal limit in Georgia is .08, so she was over twice). She went to a convenience store to buy more beer. After buying the beer, she went to her car, where she tripped and fell, hitting her head on the car. She finally got her self up and into the car and started the ignition.
A store clerk and another customer had called 911, and a deputy arrived on the scene. Mr. Lawson's client's car was on, but she had not moved.
At trial, Mr. Lawson argued that there was no driving (and therefore no DUI), and that the fact that the deputy and the 911 callers prevented her from committing a crime does not equate to a crime.
The client testified at trial. She took the stand and said that she arrived at the store and bought vodka and drank a fifth in the parking lot. The vodka bottle was never found by the officer. The prosecutor made a circumstantial case that she in fact drove to the store drunk. The car was parked terribly. The client claimed to be coming from home and was on video being questioned by the officer.
That his client was very drunk was not an issue in the case. Mr. Lawson is an excellent trail attorney and conceded a fact that he couldn't possibly have won on, thereby gaining credibility with the jury. Not only that, he even gave the jury something to pin on her that would amount to much less than a DUI. In opening and closing, he told the jury to find her guilty of public drunk, but not DUI. That is what they did.
The "Perry Mason" moment of the trial came when Mr. Lawson questioned the officer who came to testify about the prior DUI. He asked the cop three simple questions, and destroyed any impact that the prior may have had with the jury. They were:
Question: Did you case have anything to do with a women sitting in a parking lot drunk before driving there?
Answer: No.
Question: Does your case have anything to do with a case pending in Cherokee County?
Answer: No.
Question: Why are you even here?
Answer: No Idea.
During deliberations, the jury gave the prior DUI case no consideration. It looked silly to them since it was so dissimilar.
In his closing argument, Mr. Lawson emphasized to the jury that the case was all about circumstantial evidence. He explained that the state had to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt as well as to disprove his client's case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Lawson won this victory despite the fact that tape recorded evidence revealed that his client spent 30 minutes in the back of the police car berating the officer. She called the officer the "F" word many times, called him a "little boy," and even said he couldn't get it up, that his wife was a lesbian, that his mother hated him and that he was evil.
Mr. Lawson argued that this video did not prove anything since they already conceded the fact that his client was drunk. He used the fact that the prior event was allowed into evidence to convince the judge not to introduce the tape into evidence.
In the end the jury found Mr. Lawson's client NOT GUILTY of DUI per se and less safe, and, as Mr. Lawson advised, GUILTY only of the public drunk.
The client was sentenced to no jail time, and will have to pay a $300 fine, do 40 hours of community service, get an alcohol evaluation and treatment and be on probation for a year. This was an excellent and light sentence for a second alcohol offense.
Congratulations to Georgia DUI lawyer Richard Lawson on a battle well-fought. You are a credit to the profession and an example of what can happen when you fight for unpopular clients in seemingly impossible cases.
