-- In a recent podcast episode of 5 minute Legal Insights, leading DUI attorney Jonathan Dichter, managing attorney at Dichter Law Office, PLLC, revealed jury prejudice as a common issue with DUI cases.
For more information please visit DUI Defense Podcast
Dichter made this point by saying, “One of the biggest problems I confront is that most juries walk into the courtroom assuming my client is guilty, which is the opposite of what is supposed to happen.”
When asked why he thinks juries are like this when it comes to DUI cases, he explained, “For the most part, jurors assume that because the person has been drinking and the person is driving, they're guilty. What jurors think is that there's no good reason for drinking and driving."
According to Dichter, drunk drivers are the most disliked defendants in the criminal justice system, which is part of why he has needed to innovate new techniques to overcome jury discrimination.
This process begins during jury selection when Dichter – who is often told by judges that his case presentation is the best they’ve seen in their careers on or off the bench – explains that the defense attorneys job is not to prove innocence, but rather to expose holes in the prosecution's case, showing that they cannot prove guilt.
He will then ask each juror on the panel if they promise that they will find his client not guilty if the prosecutor’s case does not prove it as a fact.
"I go juror by juror and ask for a 'yes' or 'no' from every single juror. I do this for two reasons: I want the jury to get used to saying 'yes' to me because I'm going to do this to them later on. It also becomes this avalanche of each juror realizing that everyone who agrees with him is right – and it bolsters my credibility," he said.
In addition to this, Dichter breaks the tension in the room in order to "start to have a real conversation with the jury."
“In every trial, I my clients that within two minutes of me starting to talk to the jury, the entire jury as a group will laugh with me. Then their entire demeanor will change, and they’ll open up. It happens every single time.”
After easing the tension, Dichter will also correct a big misconception and will explain to the jury that the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” is really “innocent unless proven guilty.”
When asked about the difference between the two phrases, he said, “There’s a big difference between the two. If you say that you’re innocent until proven guilty, essentially it means that you are going to be proven guilty, and we’re simply waiting for it to happen. Whereas innocent unless proven guilty means that throughout a trial, the jury must be 100% on your side as the defendant.”
The only time the jury should change sides is at the end of the trial if they find that the state has brought enough evidence to “get past every single reasonable doubt in terms of each element of the prosecution's case.”
With this in mind, Dichter takes it one step further and tells the jury that if each member is able to finish the simple sentence ‘I doubt, because…,’ they are required by law to find his client not guilty.
Source: http://RecommendedExperts.biz
Contact Info:
Name: Jonathan P. Dichter
Email: Send Email
Organization: Dichter Law Office, PLLC
Address: 16708 Bothell Everett Hwy #104, Mill Creek, WA 98012
Phone: 425-296-9358
Website: https://www.dichterlawoffice.com/
Source URL: http://RecommendedExperts.biz
Release ID: 88938615
Google
RSS