re: Jury trial vs only a judge

In Louisiana, if it is a 1st or 2nd offense with nothing else involved, it will be in misdemeanor court where there are no jury trials.

Id assume the trial means the video they have of you is bad and you will be guilty, vs the judge just giving you reckless driving.

In most states there is a presumption of intoxication at .08 and above. At .0-.04 there is no presumption of intoxication unless you are underage. The .04-.079 range is hard to get a conviction. Takes bombing the field sobriety tests or if your manner of driving shows impairment. Texas may be different though, the DWI laws there are strict

Consider the jury audience. Anywhere in rural Texas where there are a majority of English speakers, he's farked. In Louisiana you'd have a pool, say, in Lake Charles, that have been arrested repeatedly. Somewhere in the Hill Country near faggie land, or between Conroe and Dallas, you have another population of people. I wouldn't want either to be in my jury pool, if I needed it. I'm not saying a judge would be a whole lot better, but damn. I assume the judge can read, which goes above and beyond what I expect out of gen pop.

Plead down to reckless driving or something that doesn't involve intoxication, and take the L.

.07? Did he take and fail a field sobriety test?

Nope

As stated earlier, you can easily test over in a hour

quote:

---

That was at the jail. Likely over a hour later. He was def over the limit and a jury will not be friendly to that

---

Hmmmm. This is where prove it comes in.

Judges are extremely reluctant to make a deal on cases like this. They are monitored by local groups. Talk to the prosecutor. Try to get a diversion or expungement program. If you go to trial, prepare for the worst.