Not Guilty Verdict for 2nd DUI at Rolling Meadows Courthouse

Client Avoids Permanent License Revocation After DUI Trial

At the Rolling Meadows Courthouse, I recently represented a client charged with DUI under serious circumstances. The client was accused of sideswiping another vehicle while driving at a high rate of speed and then fleeing the scene. The driver of the vehicle he hit followed my client and called the police, who then pursued my client as he continued driving at a high rate of speed. When finally stopped, my client began performing field sobriety tests but became agitated with the officers and refused to complete them. He was subsequently arrested and taken to the police station, where he refused a Breathalyzer test. Given that this was my client’s second DUI offense, a conviction would have resulted in the permanent revocation of his driver’s license. Despite the severity of the allegations, we took the case to trial and won.

The Facts of the Case

The incident began when my client allegedly sideswiped another vehicle while traveling at an excessive speed. Instead of stopping, my client continued driving, prompting the other driver to call the police and follow him. Police dispatch alerted nearby units, and officers spotted my client’s vehicle, observing that he was still traveling at a high speed. Once he was eventually stopped, the police ordered him out of the vehicle. The officers noted that my client appeared agitated and had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. His speech was allegedly slurred, and his eyes were reported as glassy and bloodshot.

When asked where he was coming from, my client stated that he was coming from a computer store but admitted to being at a local sports bar after the officer told him that the computer store’s location did not explain why he was driving on that street. The client denied that he anything to drink. The officers requested that he perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs), which he initially agreed to. However, partway through the tests, my client became frustrated, arguing with the officers and refusing to continue. He was subsequently placed under arrest for DUI and taken to the station, where he refused to submit to a Breathalyzer test.

The Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of the officers, the driver of the other vehicle, and squad and bodycam videos. They argued that my client’s refusal to complete the SFSTs and his refusal to take the Breathalyzer test were clear indications of guilt. Furthermore, they emphasized his erratic behavior, the strong odor of alcohol on his breath, and his high-speed driving as evidence that he was impaired at the time of the accident.

Because this was my client’s second DUI charge, the prosecutor was unwilling to negotiate a reduction of the charge, despite the serious consequences of a conviction. The state sought to prove that my client was driving under the influence and that his refusal to comply with testing demonstrated a consciousness of guilt.

The Defense Strategy

From the beginning, I knew this would be a challenging case. However, I also recognized significant weaknesses in the state’s evidence. The key points in our defense were:

1. Lack of Direct Evidence of Impairment – The state had no Breathalyzer or blood test results to prove intoxication. While the officers claimed my client smelled of alcohol, no scientific evidence corroborated their allegations.
2. Unreliable Field Sobriety Test Interpretation – My client began the field sobriety tests but refused to continue due to frustration with the officers. The state attempted to argue that his refusal was an admission of guilt, but we countered that he was simply agitated due to the circumstances of his stop.
3. Erratic Driving Does Not Equal DUI – While my client was accused of speeding and fleeing the scene of an accident, we argued that this behavior, though reckless, did not prove intoxication. Speeding alone is not evidence of impairment.
4. Unreliability of Witness Testimony – The driver of the other vehicle claimed my client was intoxicated, but he had no way of knowing whether my client was actually under the influence of alcohol or simply driving recklessly. Eyewitness testimony, particularly from someone involved in the incident, is often unreliable and biased.

The Trial

During the trial, I cross-examined the arresting officers, challenging their conclusions about my client’s supposed intoxication. I pointed out inconsistencies in their testimony, particularly regarding how they conducted and interpreted the field sobriety tests. I also emphasized the lack of video evidence proving that my client exhibited signs of severe impairment.

I further argued that my client’s refusal to submit to the Breathalyzer test was not an admission of guilt but rather a personal decision influenced by his frustration and prior experiences with law enforcement. The law does not require a defendant to prove their innocence, and in this case, the burden was on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client was intoxicated at the time of the incident.

Finally, I demonstrated that while my client may have been speeding and left the scene of the accident, those actions were not proof that he was impaired. Without a Breathalyzer result or clear video evidence showing my client was stumbling, incoherent, or otherwise visibly intoxicated, the prosecution’s case was weak.

The Verdict: Not Guilty

After reviewing all the evidence and considering the weaknesses in the state’s case, the judge ruled in favor of my client and found him not guilty of DUI. This verdict was a huge victory, as a conviction would have resulted in the permanent revocation of his driver’s license, significantly impacting his ability to work and support his family.

This case highlights the importance of experienced legal representation when facing DUI charges. Just because someone is accused of driving under the influence does not mean they are guilty. The law requires the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this instance, they failed to do so. My client was able to avoid severe consequences, and justice was served.

Experienced DUI Defense in Rolling Meadows

As a seasoned DUI defense attorney, I understand the complexities of these cases and the impact they can have on my clients’ lives. I have successfully defended individuals facing serious DUI charges throughout Cook County and beyond. If you or a loved one has been charged with DUI, I encourage you to contact me immediately. The sooner we begin working on your defense, the better your chances of achieving a favorable outcome.

For a free and confidential consultation, call 847-807-7405. Let’s discuss your case and explore the best options for your defense.

James Dimeas
Award-Winning DUI Defense Attorney
Serving Chicago, Cook County, DuPage County, Kane County, and Lake County