Wednesday, February 06, 2008

The Jim Breuer Defense

The spell check isn't working and I am aware my spelling is not... good. : )

I love Jim Breuer. He always plays stoners in movies, and funny ones at that. I always kind of figured it was half acting combined with some ...method enhancers. Then I saw one of his comedy preformances and he spoke about looking like a stoner his whole life. The circles under his saggy eyes, the squint, the grin... he just looked like a stoner. This makes him a lot of money now, but was quite a problem back in the day, because of course, people always thought he was stoned even when he was dead sober.

So, my client--- this is what I'm going to call my defense of him, the Jim Breuer Defense. In other words, he received his controled substances DUI because he just sounds like he's on something ALL.the.time. Its just how he is.

What really kept ticking me off was that he has watched tooooooo much Law&Order. At one point he actually said, "Well, if you're not capable of making the arguments I think you need to make you can just sit there and I'll do the arguing."

This was in response to my attempt to explain the Prosecutor's burden of proof in Countroled substance DUIs and that Controled Substance DUIs can be "Any substance that has impaired the driver's ability to operate a motor vehicle safely." (That's a paraphrase but I read him the actual law verbatim)

He wants his defense to be: 1. You can't write a DUI for Controled substances because controled substances aren't alcohol. (? no, really.) 2. They can't prove he was on something. (Which is why I was trying to explain about the burden of proof and that they didn't have to prove what he was on, but that he had failed the motor function tests and the cop's testimony concerning his (and I haven't see it but, I know how they read...) Red glassy eyes, slurred speach, and difficulty following dirctions.)

He had difficulty with the concept that once the cop had given his testimony, the burden would then be his to prove what the cop said was NOT true. A hair test showing no narcotics or other drugs would be a great place to start. I even explained why the police did not give him such a test (a third part of his defense) due to false positives and other dificulties like drugs being in your system even when they were not presently intoxicating.

When he said, "I'm a grown man, I ain't gotta prove nothin' to them, they got to prove it on me so I ain't going to take that hair test you're telling me to do cause it ain't my job." I told him that "grown men" don't have to tell people they're grown men, and that it was my job to advise him on how best to defend himself. Then, I told him I was through telling him what I thought he should do and that I was going to write him a letter about what I said to protect myself when he got mad at me because he lost his case.

I spent waaaay to much time trying to explain "trial 101" to him,

Blonde Justice has a great post... visit from the side blog : )

No comments: