Did it Work? DUI Verdict
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 07. 2024
- DUI defense attorney Larry Forman puts his client and the client's friend who was there the night of the arrest on the witness stand and puts them to the test. Do you think the jury believed them? What do you think of their verdict?
March 9, 2016
Hardin County, KY
The The DUI Guy's Motion for Directed Verdict: 0:00
The The DUI Guy's Direct Examination of Chaz Brown: 4:04
The Prosecutor's Cross Examination of Chaz Brown: 10:52
The The DUI Guy's Direct Examination of the Client: 14:07
The Prosecutor's Cross Examination of the Client: 29:26
Renewed Defense Motion for Directed Verdict and Ruling: 34:53
Judge Reads Jury Instructions to the Jury: 37:12
The DUI Guy's Closing: 42:17
The Prosecutor's Closing: 49:33
The Jury's Verdict: 1:02:42
The Jury's Sentence: 1:15:42
The Prosecutor's Unhappy with The DUI Guy: 1:30:18
Judge: Honorable Kimberly Ann Winkenhofer Shumate, Hardin County District Court Division II
Defense attorney: Larry Forman, a.k.a. the DUI Guy
Prosecutor: Philip Moore
Arresting Officer: Lt. Branson McLeod, Radcliff Police Department
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theduiguyplus
NEED TO BEAT A DUI? I CAN BE YOUR LAWYER, TOO.
Call 502-931-6788 OR
Schedule an appointment with me: http:/www.meetme.so/larryforman
Let's work to get your DUI case resolved!
Connect With the DUI Guy:
Website: www.FormanAndAssociatesLaw.com/
Facebook: / theduiguyplus
Twitter: / theduiguyplus
Linkedin: / formanlarry
#criminaldefenseattorney #duidefenselawyer #duiattorney
The verdict sucks, but it was to be expected if only because jurors don't understand their role any longer. "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." Harlan F. Stone
I would have voted not guilty. The judge herself told the jurors that they could vote "not guilty" on the turn signal violation, yet if there is no turn signal violation, then there is no reason for the stop, thus invalidating everything!
Thanks, Larry, for all you do.
They also shouldn't answer doors at midnight. Let them come back with a warrant.
What right do the cops have to order people to leave someone's residence? I would guess they committed criminal act plus violation of civil rights.
Not only a civil-rights endangering the public is there is 30 people at the party and let's say ten of them drove that's 10 vehicles that have alcohol in there system. But yet only one person was followed all the way home not prevented from driving after being told to Leave a safe Haven by Force got a DWI that night
That what make me believe that you canceled system is a money scheme in the government has a company on behalf of people they keep the money
They apparently didn't, the owner did. We have drunk word, against, cops word. Both equally, worth F all.
Besides, nobody made him drive, HE CHOSE TO, AFTER DRINKING.......
IT'S REALLY SIMPLE....
They don't have the right
This was entrapment all the way. The cop should have pulled him over while driving NOT after he pulled into his driveway. Should have been just given a stupid ticket for not signaling. Yet how many cops does a person see that do NOT signal for a turn or lane change. Happens all the time.
I know it’s really random Larry, and I’ve been following you for a few years now, but it’s literally just hit me that with your last name, when she calls on you, I thought she was calling on the Foreman of the jury! Random thought 😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
So were these cops drunk because to tell people that have been drinking they can't sober up before leaving and letting them get behind the wheel isn't using rational thinking so it's possible the cops were intoxicated they weren't thinking rational in my opinion
1:12:01 I noticed the option of placing blame on the officers telling then to leave was not an option for the jury.
The malice and contempt coming from the prosecutor is downright scary. He wanted to argue more about the defendant's arrogance more than the law. 100% spiteful, and I hate that this behavior is allowed. Not to mention the fact that this whole thing felt like a fishing expedition just to arrest somebody that night because they were pissy that they got called out twice.
I think the defendant didn’t help his case by bragging how well he knew how well to drink, and bringing up the fact that he failed the preliminary breath test
Yeah that was not good, especially when he said me and another jailmate were joking around while waiting for the breath test. I think he may be autistic from the way he speaks and I know that autistic people see things and speak very factual so in his mind these things are part of the story, so to be truthful he has to add it all. That’s also why he said I would demonstrate it if I could.
This whole this was in retaliation for him telling people that they didn't have to answer the door and that the were not required to leave a private home which both are true there is no law that say's you must answer your door to police and no law that say's they can order you to leave someone's house. They were just mad that he was opposing there order's and made is so that they couldn't go after anyone they choose to get for DUI. I would guess that while they were outside talking to the person living there they probably told them that if they don't break up the party and tell everyone to leave they would charge him/her with a crime. Cop's lie all the time to people and the court's and also on there report's then they tell people everything they say is a lawful order and that if you fail to follow it you will be arrested for interfering or obstruction so they can intimidate people into doing what they want you to do.
Great work Larry, tough hill to climb once the client freely submits to the initializer test and having to bank on a jury recognizing but for the "hidden officer" or clearly present officer commanding them all to be set out on the public knowing they had been consuming alcohol.
This court is straight garbage in terms of individual rights. The statist policies are strong with this one.
2:10 "The officer observed slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, odor of an alcoholic beverage." The is the same 💩 copied and pasted in every DUI arrest report. Every cop testifies to the exact same thing, thanks to standardized training on how to write "effective" reports and be an "effective" witness on the stand, "effective" meaning how to elicit a guilty plea from the defendant or a guilty verdict from the judge or jury. Why not let the facts speak for themselves? A cop isn't being an effective cop or doing anything useful for society by purposely constructing his testimony in a contrived way to suggest guilt when the defendant was not in fact guilty. Arresting someone for DUI who isn't genuinely impaired is no more legitimate than falsely arresting someone at a park as a precaution to prevent child abduction when the person wasn't actually going to abduct a child to begin with. That's what cops do with DUI: they make precautionary arrests (if not outright false) of many people who weren't actually impaired and posed no danger.
Here, we have someone who successfully drove home, and they arrest him in his driveway?! He obviously wasn't impaired if the first violation of any kind happened when the defendant pulled into his driveway, a violation the cop may very well have completely invented.
Police are predators.
On top of this they let persons that were drinking drive so if anything the police should be charged with endangering the public
There needs to be a mechanism to hold the court accountable for the misdeeds (whether intentional or unintentional) of the officers of that court and any enforcement officer that comes before the court. I propose something along the following lines:
In any case before any court under the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution on presentation by any party of evidence or allegation of violation of any statute by the officers party to the case before the court, or allegation or presentment of evidence of any officer of the court of misconduct or violation of any statute, the case shall be dismissed with prejudice and jeopardy shall attach thereto.
Any violation alleged or for which evidence exists by any officer respondent to the case before the court shall be investigated immediately by officers of the court and shall, if evidence so considered is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the offending officer's violation shall be considered a capital or infamous crime and shall be punishable by not less than 20 years imprisonment, regardless of the severity of the crime
All evidence in any case before any court under the jurisdiction of the state wherein the crime shall have been committed or under the jurisdiction of the United States where such action must be taken by a court as directed by this amendment, the presiding officer shall be considered as having committed the offense themselves and shall be immediately removed from that position and arraigned and bound over for trial to ascertain culpability and any such presiding officer of that court shall be held both criminally and civilly liable for the errors committed during the proceedings of that case.
To sum up, Larry swings for the fences and whiffs it. A drunk (or at least someone with a lot of liquor on board in the stomach waiting to be absorbed) partygoer who lives about a quarter mile away leaves a party by driving home rather than walking or calling an Uber and gets stopped by police for DUI. Larry says cops forced everyone to leave and claims this is a case of entrapment. According to the cops, it was the resident who told everyone to leave. Larry's mistake was he tried to make this case bigger than it was. This was a simple rising defense case. With an adequately established timeline a rising defense may have stuck. But instead, he went big and made this a case about police entrapment. As in, the cops intentionally force everyone to leave, and knowing everyone is drunk, they are compelled to leave by the quickest means possible (i.e., driving) for fear of being hooked up for public intoxication. So, the cops gave the defendant no choice but to drive home drunk leaving him vulnerable to a DUI arrest. The problem is (even if you believe it was the cops who said everyone had to leave), in his own words, the defendant said he was sober at the time he left the party and got into his car, which means there was no Catch 22 because there was no trap because there was no danger in the mind of the defendant of being arrested for public intoxication...even if he did feel drunk he could have easily walked the quarter mile home rather than loiter in front of the apartment waiting to be arrested for public intoxication. It's hard to establish a timeline because not many times were presented in testimony. The brandy showed up at around 2:45 am, the cops showed up for the second time around 3 am, and the Defendant states he consumed 4-5 shots back-to-back with the last shot of brandy consumed just as the cops showed up. According to the Defendant the DUI stop occurs 10 minutes after consumption and the evidential breath test is 45 minutes after that; that's a solid rising defense any toxicologist would gladly testify to (unless the PAS/PBT administered at the time of the stop has a mouth alcohol sensor, which it may not have had). But Larry swung for the fences by accusing the cops of entrapment and whiffed it hard. That may have soured the jury. In my opinion, Larry had a solid case here, it just wasn't the case he presented in court. Sometimes Larry deserves praise, sometimes he does not...in this case, I am leaning towards the latter.
44:34 i love Foreman's animation. Very theatrically passionate.
Dirty stalking cops. So crooked.
this can't end well. driving away under the influence of alcohol when the police are waiting outside is not smart. but we'll see, there's an hour left in the video
The fact the cop followed him all the way to his house, didn’t swerve, cross lane, go slow, go fast, and made it home safe and sound!!! This is why that 0.08 needs to be revised or removed completely because that is very subjective depending on person…. I blew a 0.18 at my job stone cold sober but tore one off the night before… I lost my job over that bull crap!
Heres the guestion...... how much did this guy pay you to go to jail😂
Where I'm from, indicating your intent to turn isn't mandatory by law.
People might curse at you and call you a douchebag, but it ain't breaking any laws.
Is this different in the U.S.?
@neetscholar4149 Yes, in New York State it’s law - 100 feet was the distance I was taught. Each state may have a different distance - shorter more often than longer. This hopefully prevents your car getting hit from the rear as you turn.
Consequences need to be spelled out. It’s ridiculous that they say no one can say that. 🙄
I live in Texas and don't know this state's laws. But these youngens need to learn not to 1: Not drink and drive, and 2: Not answer questions, and plead the 5th. I think it's possible they got set up. But they messed up.
Man that cloing statement from the prosecutors had a lot of liberties. 'Its a fact he failed the on site breathilizer (within 15 minutes of drinking)' 'its a fact he was impaired, the breathilizers showed that (not the field and balance tests, nor his driving, he passed all those).
The defense motions were very well stated, and the cops allowing endangering of the public to get a dui is atrocious.
Oh and prosecutor closing staatement, said both witnesses claimed they were "extremely drunk"
On top of that the prosecutor attacked the defense council not the defense
I certainly hope you've gotten better since this 2016 case!! That cocky lil punk got off lightly. He should really shut his mouth about having served in the military, as clearly he learned nothing from his service. A lil humility and some serious altruistic behavior would have gone a long way. He will otherwise be doomed to a life of failure and incarceration...all the while blaming others for his failings.
He should've known while on the stand to answer yes or no and give short to the point answers. He ran off at the head and didn't help his case in the slightest. I'm wandering why body cams weren't used in court to prove/disprove what the cops said?
thinking back...seven years as this was...IF the client had not taken the stand...he may have gotten a lesser penalty and there have been many national cases exposing LE not all being honest.
was good this client got to hear the judge say what the law/statue was in that county ...he learned a hard lesson
Judge was VERY respectful to each counsel and especially to Mr. Forman at the end when she gave instructions.
Great vid Larry! Btw do you ever follow any current celeb court issue(s) such as Meghan Markle vs Samantha Markle case/oral argument which is now, per Judge Honeywell who has ordered today, that it WILL be in person in Tampa, florida on November 2:14 8th, 2023? Meghan had wanted it to be done on Zoom but the Judge said no, you will show up.
He said kinda intoxicated not heavily
Do not interfere with the Government Conviction Factory!
Imagine if rent ws due and your court date as the same date and you got evicted! You lost it all!
This guy would’ve beat this if he refused any breath test.
Probably not, they were targeting him. They followed him looking for a reason, if he would have refused they would have found another.
I’ve watched your trials for a while. It seems you were not at the top of your game with this one though it could be due to what you had to work with.
Did you appeal?
Had he walked away instead driving away...he would not have lost his freedom, his money, and his clean record. A taxi ride would have been penny's compared to this violation. Everyone who read this...please learn from this. Here is a fact: Over 100 people a day are killed on the American highways...over 100 people daily. A cab ride costs nothing compared to this. I would have voted not guilty, and not been persuaded differently. Blue Sky's.
Set up for failure
The witness mike is not working
Entrapment
May I ask a question, generally police are protected from liability for mistakes they make while on the job. But, I am assuming that if they rob a bank while on duty, then they will be held liable. Then where is the line. If they violate my civil rights aren't they no longer acting as a government official and would then be liable ? If they are immune to all prosecution, then how far can they go to break the law before they are no longer immune ????? It appears they have killed people unlawfully and faced no penalty, so I guess it extends pretty far, but how far. How do they determine what causes an officer to loose his immunity d
10:35 is that public intoxication charge possible just standing outside? The second part of that statute states possibly putting themselves or others in danger? Just standing in a yard waiting on taxi shouldn’t arise to that level unless the cops are being petty! Of course they definitely are all the time. Am I wrong tho?
Too bad the client torpedoed the great work you did. SMH
Damn, they F'd this guy undee all questionable events. I dont see a without a doubt result. I feel clearely targeted from leaving the party someone was going to jail like most calls a arrest will be made if anything can be sniffed out or made up to do so. Bad situation so many issues but one guy pay dearly for too close to call evidences. 😢
10 days in jail, are you friggin kidding me??? That is hands down one of the most disgusting things I've ever witnessed in a court room and, that entire jury is Straight dog sh!t!!! Your client needs to pack up and get right out that trash county for the rest of his life. Just WOW!!!
Your name says you’re a felon you “opinion” doesn’t matter we just JAIL you
Losing his job too??? No!
Please solve this ears telling party goers that they have to leave. The party does not mean that you have to get out of jail. Free pass on drunk driving.... That's a Ridiculous retarded position... No reasonable person would imagine. "Hey, I'm drunk, the cops told me I have to go so that means I can legally drive drunk." A reasonable answer to that situation would have been to call an uber
Did you get sanctions?
Ah no sanctions. I appreciate you risking yourself to save your client, though. You're exactly the kind of lawyer I'd want.
You can tell Mr. Foreman has a big heart and cares about his clients.
Judge is horrible! She’s so robotic, she is without emotion.
Not sure how else to complement a judge
It is better that she rather that, giving her 2cent words. That can go wrong in the worst way. And she has a obligation to remain impartial and not show her feelings.
Off topic question for Larry: does YT not legally have to tell you what your violation is?
It’s like a woman who’s mad at you and then says you have to figure out why. That’s ridiculous!
Larry, love your videos..
Sadly this client Taking the stand was a mistake..
Sadly personality plays a stance with jury deliberation decisions..
The prosecutor took great advantage of that decision..
34:26 I'm a little confused as the judge just said the evidence is completed... ??? What? Prosecution didn't even have testimony explaining how long it takes for alcohol to get one drunk. This leaves a jury to guess, or believe wives tales
Hmh, he looked so much younger back then. Still the same vigour though.
the inherent logic of the law tends to be alien to common sense of the average reasonable joe public. hence the biased verdicts.
Could have kept the Military stuff to himself 🤦🏾
EXTORTION
Here's how to stop a DUI. Make the court show where they get their standing? No plaintiff no standing no jurisdiction no crime. It really is that simple
try that strat and lmk how it works out for you!
@@squanto3952 So you like having your rights violated
I will miss your videos, but you supporting a frauditor is just a bridge too far. Chille's bad legal advice is going to get someone hurt ... or worse ... and you're there making him seem credible. Wishing you the best, but I just can't support the support of a frauditor.
It's not an airport and you don't need to announce your departure.
But I did need to make my point. Bad legal advice can get a person ... Real lawyers should not empower fake lawyers.@@kylenielsen5341
Is this lawyer still practising? If he has not vastly improved he shouldn't be.
It was obvious from the evidence that his client was guilty and by contesting the charge this lawyer has cost his client his freedom and a much harsher sentence. He should have pled guilty and obtained a much lighter sentence at considerable less cost. The lawyer's ignorance of the laws of evidence and especially on what can and cannot be said to the jury is frightening.
The did the max cause his black and acted like a fool
Youve neem gewrured on another YT channel CREEP CAUGHT
So thankful you made it through and back safely. Very sorrowful for all the innocent victims and their families.💜💙🤎🤍