We'll help you find the right solution for your needs
Does this sound like your topic?
The jury deliberated for 2 .5 hrs. just after 2 hrs the jury had a question that they wrote on a piece of paper and the judge read it to counsel on record. The question was:
" can we find the defendant not guilty for DUI but find him guilty for refusing the chemical test?"
The judge wrote back "NO" and sent it with the balif to deliver it to the jury.
5 minuets later the came back with a guilty verdict for driving and for the refusal.
I believe that the jury miss understood the judges answer and that is why they ruled Guilty.
I believe that the judge should have called the jury back into court and explained to them that if you find the defendant not guilty of driving then the refusal is a mute point.Is this a reason for a motion for new trial? or should I take it strait to appeal? I was not the driver of the car. There was a lot of evidence " eye witnesses " that saw me as the passenger of the car. The driver of the car came to testify that he was the driver. Eye witness came to testify that I was the passenger and the other guy was the driver. The prosecution only had circumstantial evidence.