Rep. Gene O’Flaherty (Chelsea), after helping water down the anti-drunk-driving "Melanie’s Bill", leaves the country for Spain? Gene-O and co., the "optics" of that leave something to be desired.
And on the substance of the bill: I can imagine there being civil liberties problems with using a refusal to take a breathalyzer test as evidence against a driver. But proving prior convictions should just not be a problem, given a good-faith effort in writing the law:
One of the provisions taken out was a proposed change in state law toallow certified court records to be used in court proceedings to show adefendant’s past drunken-driving convictions.
I mean, that would include a mug shot, right? What good reason can there be to not use those records before sentencing?
I have no sympathy for repeat DUI offenders. You’d figure that Gene-O and co. would realize how bad it looks for them to carry water for drunk drivers.
Regarding prior convictions. About 10 years ago the SJC ruled that to prove subsequent ofenses for mandatory sentencing purposes certified copies were not enough if challenged. i.e. it is not enough for “beyond reasonable doubt” purposes.The new bill asks the SJC for an opinion on that so there will not be all sorts of overturned verdicts later down the road. Legislature does this all the time.Right now, even without certified convictions, a judge will see the defendant’s record for sentencing purposes. Like all criminal cases. He will see prior oui convictions and sentence accordingly. In all criminal cases,prior to a verdict a judge or jury is not entitled to know the defendant’s prior record.It happenes all the time. Just like a person convicted of assault and battey for a 3rd time will get a stiffer sentence then the first conviction. I think O’Flahert and Creedon had the guts to stand up to the misinformatiopn and the emotional hoopla that was moving this.90% of the provisions were left in there.In fact, believe it or not, they were “carrying water” for the constitution, not drunk drivers.I just wish media types (not you Charley) would spend a little effort learning the facts and the case law involved.But then it is easier to attack and make a good story when the book cover looks great but no one reads the inside.
While it looks at first like a conflict of interest, as the above poster mentioned, it would actually benefit them to have stronger provisions. So the percieved problem is not a problem at all – it’s just that they have a perspective many people don’t – that of people who have seen and defended many innocent people accused of DUIs and believe in criminal rights.
I meant to say “as sco mentioned”, not as the above poster mentioned.
seen and defended many innocent people accused of DUIsIs there any basis for saying that a lot of people who go to trial for DUI are actually innocent of the charge? Also, this idea that lawyers who defend DUIs would benefit from tougher laws and therefore would be expected to advocate for them makes little sense to me. If I’m accused of DUI, am I really going to hire as my lawyer a guy who in his other job voted to crank up the penalties? I think not. I want a lawyer who is on “my side,” which means a lawyer who tried his best to water down the law. That’s why it’s a conflict of interest – not necessarily a disqualifying one, but one that stinks nonetheless.
Clients have no clue how a lawyer/legislator voted. Many do believe they have more pull with the judge, but voting record on OUI laws has nothing to do with it.
It’s now a crime to invoke your right not to cooperate with law enforcement? Imagine the right to not incriminate yourself being chipped away from a constitution framed by john adams, who represented a british soldier accused of shooting at the boston massacre, so a republican governor can appear tough on crime and accomplish a political “tough” on crime to take nationally. SAD!