Hey, there! Log in / Register
If you get charged with OUI, don't go for a jury trial
By adamg on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 11:52am
Mass. judges just love giving alleged drunks a second chance - especially in Suffolk County - the Globe reports.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Globe doing real journalism two Sundays in a row!
What happened.
And what an upsetting story/ 90+% drunk driving acquittal rates for some judges -- and 80+% on average. How does one get rid of such incompetent (or apparently lawless) judges?
People like to drink. And the
People like to drink. And the drunk driver laws in Mass. are too punitive. Most drivers stopped for drunk driving likely would not harm anyone by their actions. A more rational law would be that the police take a drunk driver home (thus assuring that neither the drunk nor anyone is harmed) and call a tow company to deliver the drunk's car. Let the drunk pay the towing cost, which would probably be more punitive than the costs currently imposed by the legal system.
However, if the drunk has caused an accident then they should be prosecuted.
You obviously didn't read the
You obviously didn't read the article, did you?
Perhaps people should be a
Perhaps people should be a little more cynical about what they read in the paper. The fact is that only a small percentage of OUI cases ever go to trial and that the ones that do are usually the weak ones - the evidence is problematic, etc. DAs are elected officials and don't want to take the risk of dropping OUI charges even when they know the case is bad. Any defense attorney worth his or her salt is going to recommend a bench trial in cases like this because a judge is more likely to be able to put aside emotion and apply the law. (That's what judges are supposed to do and in Massachusetts, that's why we have appointed judges, so that they can apply the law as they see it and not be influenced by public pressure and the desire to get re-elected.) In other words, the DAs let the courts take the heat rather than have the integrity to decline to prosecute cases they know are weak.
Lot of white, upper-middle and upper caste defendants
Hence, the "beyond any shadow of human doubt" standard applies.
Aren't you happy you're not
Aren't you happy you're not white?
Yabba dabba doo
I'm happy I'm not "NotWhitey". How's that?
Was that in the article?
Just curious where you got this from, I didn't see anything like that at all in the article.
That's his point.
That's his point. The Globe isn't pursuing the interesting story here, which is that DUI defendants (who are overwhelmingly white) are being convicted at much lower rates than defendants charged with possession crimes (who are overwhelmingly not white). A 90% acquittal rate, if it exists only for this particular kind of trial, is abhorrent.
I'm not so sure about that one.
I think everyone (white or black) gets a pretty good deal in this state when it comes to first time offenses for any crime they commit. I see a lot of people that get charged with OUI where the OUI is their first offense. The drunk driver doesn't have a criminal, malicious intent to harm another person or their property when they drink and drive, and I think the judges take that into consideration, especially if it is a first time offense.
I also see a lot of people that get arrested for first time possession crimes get a break for that possession crime. In fact, the DA won't even pursue the possession crime for first offense cases, they usually agree to drug testing, probabtion etc. On OUI offenses the DAs always go the limit no matter which offense it is.
That's my point
Where did this "fact" come from?
Strange Generalization, true ...
All things being equal, whites WOULD commit the majority of OUI offenses, being the majority of the population ...
Great work by the Globe
A smug, willfully-ignorant judiciary; they weren't even collecting the data.
Can't help but lol. Big score for the cops and prosecution, but most of all, the public.
(No coincidence, btw, that the Globe has broken two high-profile investigative pieces the week before their [cough] $4/week firewall goes up.)
Ex-judges need cooling off period before practicing
I wonder what ex-judge, now criminal defense attorney Dan O'Malley's batting average is on all jury waived trials, not just OUI's? I believe this guy was a boxing instructor, then two-bit defense attorney, donated to the right people and became a judge, then went back to defending criminals, back to judge and back again to defense attorney. His latest incarnation as defense attorney has been his most succesful. Congressman can't even lobby for two years during the "cooling off period", but this guy can put the robe on and take it off at his will, then try to "convince" judges on cases when he was working with them just prior. Good for the Globe for exposing O'Malley. They shouldn't stop there. A ten year moratorium on ex-judges practicing before their peers would be a good start.
SJC Responds to Globe Article
Hires white-shoe lawyer to review Globe data:
http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/10/tex...