As
discussed in a prior blog post,
on July 9, 2012, an amendment to the DUI law became effective that increased
both the grading and the penalties for a DUI charge if a “minor under 18 years
of age was an occupant in the vehicle when the violation occurred.” Basically, if a person charged with a DUI has
a juvenile in the vehicle, then the district attorney has to make a decision
whether or not to seek the increased penalties for the DUI offense. People probably assume that a district
attorney would always seek the maximum penalty possible in such a situation,
but, as with almost any decision, there are benefits but also costs that must
be considered.
What Are the Costs?
The
increased DUI penalties come with the cost of giving the DUI defendant the
right to a jury trial. Generally, most
first and second offense DUI defendants do not have the right to have
the case heard by a jury but instead are only entitled to a trial before a
judge. Most experienced DUI defense attorneys would prefer to have a trial by jury as opposed to a trial by
judge. A jury trial increases the amount
of time and thereby increases the expense of prosecution of a DUI case for the
district attorney. One could respond
that the possibility of a jury trial is not much of a cost since the majority
of criminal cases do not make it to a trial as they are resolved via a plea
agreement between the prosecution and the defense. However, when the district attorney seeks
increased penalties, a defendant is more likely to proceed to a trial to avoid
those penalties, and the DUI defendant would prefer to “roll the dice” at a
trial before a jury. The jury trial
issue would not have an impact on second offense DUI defendants charged with
having the highest rate of alcohol or three time DUI offenders as those persons
are already entitled to a jury trial.
What Are the Benefits?
Simply
stated, the amendment to the DUI law gives the district attorney more power to
control a sentence that is imposed on a DUI defendant. The problem with the amendment is that the
power given to the district attorney is relatively minor as the amendment does
not impose sentences that are much greater than the mandatory minimum sentences
already required for DUI offenses. For
example, if the enhancement is imposed on a first offense of DUI, the mandatory
fine is $1,000.00 and completion of 100 hours of community service is
required. A first offense DUI in the
third or highest range of penalties already requires a mandatory minimum fine
of $1,000.00. If the juvenile passenger enhancement
is imposed on a second offense, the mandatory sentence includes a $2,500.00
fine and not less than 1 month nor more than 6 months incarceration. Without seeking the sentencing enhancement, a
two-time DUI offender in the middle range of penalties already faces a mandatory
minimum of 1 month incarceration, and a two- time DUI offender in the highest
range of penalties faces a 3 month minimum period of incarceration. In some situations, the penalties imposed
after invoking the juvenile passenger enhancement would result in increased
mandatory penalties, but, in many other situations, the penalties are the same
and sometimes even less than the mandatory minimum penalties already
imposed. Therefore, the district
attorney would only receive a benefit when invoking the enhancement in certain
DUI cases.
Will It Be Used?
I
believe that the DUI sentencing enhancement for having a minor passenger in the
vehicle was created more by Pennsylvania politicians to appease constituents
than actually punish violators of the law and deter such conduct. As discussed above, the amendment does not
substantially increase the penalties for DUI offenses. Also, district attorneys routinely already use
other charges, such as Endangering the Welfare of a Child or Reckless
Endangerment, in DUI cases in a minor was an occupant. Therefore, the current DUI enhancement was
not needed to give the district attorney another way to punish DUI offenders. The district attorney will have to consider
the costs and benefits associated with invoking the DUI sentencing
enhancement. Generally speaking, an
experienced DUI defense attorney would much rather proceed to a jury trial
rather than a bench trial.
Hi there! I will be looking forward to visit your page again and for your other posts as well. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about lawyer in your area. I am glad to stop by your site and know more about the lawyers. Keep it up! This is a good read. You have such an interesting and informative page.
ReplyDeleteIn England, only solicitors were traditionally in direct contact with the client. The solicitor retained a barrister if one was necessary and acted as an intermediary between the barrister and the client. In most cases a barrister would be obliged, under what is known as the "cab rank rule", to accept instructions for a case in an area in which they held themselves out as practising, at a court at which they normally appeared and at their usual rates.
When hiring a lawyer, many people think only of the cost and often make the mistake of hiring the cheapest lawyer they can find. This certainly does not mean that hiring the most expensive lawyer is the best thing to do, either.
Lawyers Lowell, ma