I defend DUI charges in Riverside County, and as I was waiting for my client’s DUI case to be called, I overheard another defendant discussing her DUI charge with the judge at her pretrial hearing. This defendant stated that she was in fact not under the influence while driving. The D.A. looked at the defendant’s file and allegedly found a record of a blood test, which revealed cocaine particulates in the defendant’s blood stream. The defendant, in rebuttal, claims she never even took a blood test.
If we pause here for a moment, it appears the defendant is doing a good job of at least creating some reasonable doubt concerning the evidence, i.e., that she never took a blood test even though an alleged blood test revealed she was under the influence of drugs. But if you want to learn how this defendant royally screwed up, keep reading.
The judge looked from the defendant to the D.A. for an explanation – was the D.A. looking at the wrong file? Did another defendant’s blood test accidentally end up in the wrong file? How can you have record of a blood test if this defendant claimed she never took a blood test? Oddly, as the D.A. perused the defendant’s file, she didn’t say anything more about the blood test. What the D.A. did do was read a statement by the defendant which was recorded by the officer in the arrest report. The defendant’s statement read as follows, “Yes officer, I was smoking a joint laced with cocaine.”
What!!!??? Yes, that’s right, this defendant told the officer she was smoking drugs. So the judge looks from the D.A. back to the defendant for an explanation, and the defendant says, “Yeah, yeah, I smoke some trees now and then, but I didn’t take a blood test.”
The moral of the story is, DON’T TALK TO THE COPS. 90% of the time, the bulk of the D.A.’s evidence is from the very mouth of the defendant. You have a 5th Amendment right to remain silent. Use it. Tell your criminal defense attorney instead.
If you need help with your criminal defense issue, you can email me at paul.socaldefense@gmail.com, call me at 310-200-4519, or contact me through my website.
Thanks for this important advice Paul. The police have ways of manipulating suspects into talking (e.g.- the old “this will be alot easier on you if you cooperate and are honest with us). My understanding (though of course, you would know better than I) is that this kind of interrogation has to stop if the suspect asks to have a lawyer present. Invoking the right to counsel is a safeguard against being manipulated into unknowingly incriminating oneself.
Tucker, you are correct! Once you have invoked your 5th amendment right to remain silent, if you are 1) in “custody,” 2) are being “interrogated,” and 3) have made it clear that you are invoking your 5th amendment right and don’t want to speak to anyone but your attorney, then the law enforcement must stop the questioning. “Custody” and “interrogation” both have legal definitions. “Custody” is an environment dominated by law enforcement, but not necessarily handcuffs or being at the police station. “Interrogation” means questions or statements that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Often times people don’t know they don’t have to respond because a statement is made to them, rather than an explicit question. Statements, e.g. “Your friend said you did it,” can also invoke your privilege.