Even without the witness, they can try to achieve a time of driving based on the witnesses statements, and estimate impairment level with field sobriety test performance and BAC level.
Get an attorney. They can certainly try to convict with circumstantial evidence, especially if you admitted to driving. Direct proof is not needed.
Any information provided through Avvo.com in response to a question is not, and cannot be considered a formation of any Attorney-Client relationship. Questioner understands that the nature of this system allows only for a cursory review of case information, and more detailed information should not be divulged in this public forum. As such, Questioner is recommended to contact an Attorney in order to discuss the full details of their case and a more specific advisement of potential rights and liabilities.
Sure they can charge you. They can hope to find that witness prior to trial.
They might have other circumstantial evidence of driving so they might be able to make the case without the witness.
You need to discuss the case with your lawyer and see what your options are. You might want to not waive time and rush towards trial. Then again, you might not. Your attorney is the only lawyer who will be adequately informed to answer the question.
The content on this Web site is intended for informational purposes only. No part of this site is intended to provide legal advice. Nothing on this site is intended to nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The information contained herein does not constitute any type of guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of any specific case. Each case is unique and depends on the specific facts of that case. Never solely rely on the internet to determine your legal actions.
The level of proof needed in any case is enough to convince a jury to convict. Really. That's it. There is no line beyond which evidence must cross other than that. Would you convict a person on the facts you expect the prosecution to be able to prove? Jurors aren't lawyers. The way they will vote, however, quite often will depends on how the case is explained to them. That is what lawyers are for.
They have whatever admissions and statements that you made to the police. That in itself may be sufficient for a conviction. Lawyer up.
The response above is not intended as legal advice since it’s impracticable to provide thorough, accurate advice based upon the query without additional details. It is highly recommended that one should seek advice from a criminal defense attorney licensed in your jurisdiction by setting up a confidential meeting. Moreover, this response does not constitute the creation of an attorney-client relationship since this message is not a confidential communication because it was posted on a public website, thereby publicly disclosing the information, which is another reason to setup a confidential meeting with an attorney.
The prosecution must show driving. Without that, the case falls apart. There are a number of ways to prove driving of course. That said, no one here can provide you with anything meaningful as you have failed to state all relevant facts. A qualified attorney can advise upon your providing him with additional information.
you have given to scan fax for anyone to give a answer to your question. They may have enough to initially contact you. However there may not be enough evidence to convict you unless they do have the witness. Without other facts it's impossible to give you advice. You should contact an attorney in your area and go over the complete case with him that would include all the facts the police report the alcohol level and your prior DUI
It's tough to speculate about what their case may be based on. Contact an attorney who can advise you on how to defend the case properly. Many of us on Avvo provide a free consultation.
Coming from an attorney who's office in in the OC, I promise you, the DA's will charge you and do everything in your power to convicted you.
This is Orange County, CA. I handle DUIs all over California, and I honestly believe the OC to be the most conservative aggressive jurisdiction.
I've seen DA's use priors on defendants from when they where 16 years old (illegal).
I have seen the DA's office file charges on a .06% DUI with no bad driving.
I am licensed attorney who focuses on Serious DUI Cases such a 2nd DUIs, 3rd DUIs, 4th DUIs, and Felony DUIs and DMV hearings. I also have much experience handling car accident cases. Although the information I provide is helpful, it is not legal advice. If your case is in California or Washington, you can call me for specific legal advice on your case free of charge. Although Avvo makes it clear to consumers that attorney answers to questions are for general purposes only and do not establish an attorney-client relationship, some attorneys prefer to add their own disclaimers to answers. You can set your custom disclaimer here and it will be automatically added to your answers. Do NOT include any direct solicitations or contact information.
Snitch or cell phone cop cases as we call them are common and unfortunately the "cal SUPREMES" have ruled cops can come into your house even without a warrant in some cases based on such hearsay witho;ut reliability of witness shown. But good ammunition for EXPERIENCED dui lawyer. GET cALL DMV WITHIN 10 CALENDAR days or walk for a year starting 30 days fro m arrest even if case not filed or is dismissed. NOT fooling . and 18 mo dui school and and...maybe prior can be attacked. Are you on probation for the "prior" badder so to say news
I am not a "civil" lawyer and donot rely on me for advice except to go get a lawyer