The Defendant just gave up halfway through my sixth trial. It was a DUI with a refusal allegation. It’s a difficult misdemeanor because a lot of jurors want to have a chemical test to rely on when they are deliberating. Without a chemical test, some don’t feel comfortable convicting. The police didn’t see a lot of objective symptoms of intoxication which might make up for the lack of a chemical test. In fact, some of my witnesses disagreed on whether the Defendant smelled like alcohol. And the police didn’t observe bad driving, another factor that is normally used to argue that the Defendant was under the influence. All the Defendant was pulled over for was a speeding ticket.
In addition to the weak evidence of intoxication, the Defendant had an alibi. He claimed that he was the victim of a shooting which left a bullet in his body. This bullet cut off oxygen to his brain when he was under stress. Despite this alibi, the defense had not noticed any witnesses, such as doctors, nor did they intend to introduce any medical records. All they had were photos of lumps in someone’s body that I assume they were going to claim were bullets in the Defendant’s body. That’s it. I think the Defendant was intending to get up there any say, “Hey, I’m the real victim here.” “I was robbed back in the 90s and I was shot three times. One of the bullets has traveled to my heart. Because of that bullet, every time I get excited the bullet cuts off oxygen to my brain and I pass out.”
There were several problems with that theory, even if you don’t consider the total lack of independent evidentiary support. First, and most important, I had a report by an EMT on scene showing that defendant’s blood was properly oxygenated. In other words, his defense was a complete fabrication. Second, the Defendant didn’t even pass out, he just fell down. Third, the robbery part, and the bullets part are completely irrelevant. Fourth, again, there was no evidence of any of this other than Defendant’s self-serving testimony. And of course, if he really had this condition, should he be driving in the first place?
The case was won on motions in limine. I was able to exclude virtually every aspect of the other side’s defense. I successfully argued that his statements about the prior robbery were an irrelevant attempt to garner the sympathy of the jury. Then I pointed out the lack of medical records, and argued that Defendant should not be allowed to give his lay medical opinion as to his injuries, nor should he be allowed to repeat a doctor’s diagnosis, since this is hearsay. These motions were granted as Defense counsel threw a fit and cursed the name of the judge to anyone who will listen. I think he was putting on a show for his client. He made several comments to that effect.
This case taught me the value of discussing your cases with your coworkers: they suggested the motions that I used, even though I was more than capable of coming up with them myself. I knew it was valuable to write motions in limine, but they were so effective in this case that the Defendant just threw in the towel.