Why I Defend People Accused of DUI
A 12-year-old girl once wrote me a letter asking me to “stop
defending drunk drivers.” I sometimes hear other people complain, either
publicly or to me specifically, that someone charged with drunk driving
isn’t entitled to a proper defense. I obviously don’t agree with this
opinion, and wanted to take the time to explain the reasons why.
I strongly believe that every single person is entitled to a proper
defense, no matter what they are charged with and no matter what the
evidence against them seems to be at first glance. The law agrees with
this idea, as our legal system is designed to err on the side of mercy
by putting the burden of proof on the prosecutors.
The founding fathers
created a government that would rather let a guilty person go free than
put an innocent person in jail. Some people vocally disagree with this
until they are the innocent one facing jail time. Part of my job is
ensuring that not one innocent person is convicted.
To do this, I must
defend all defendants, even the potentially guilty ones. It is my
responsibility to force the prosecution to work diligently to prove that
my client is guilty.
The American Civil Liberties Union points out that DNA evidence has
cleared hundreds of inmates who were wrongfully convicted. I am not
comfortable with innocent men and women being jailed when proper
defensive counsel could have prevented it, so I work very hard to keep
this from happening. Police officers often make mistakes, and field
sobriety tests are inherently subjective.
These drivers are scared,
usually facing a police officer for the first time, and it may be dark.
One example of the subjective nature of these tests is the “walk the
line” test. Walking a straight line seems easy in the comfort of your
home, but walking a perfectly straight line at night, on the side of a
busy highway, with cars flying past, when you are nervous about your
first encounter with an officer of the law can be almost impossible. How
much loss of balance is enough for the police officer to decide you are
intoxicated, even if you haven’t had anything to drink?
In addition, police officers may make mistakes because of
carelessness, poor training, prejudice,
fatigue, or outright corruption. Putting restrictions on defense
attorneys gives the government free reign to arrest and jail anyone,
anytime, for any reason.
Even for those of my clients who are guilty of driving under the
influence, most are not involved in accidents where any other driver or
pedestrian is hurt. Making it impossible for them to get to work and
support their family by confiscating their license for an indefinite
period of time does no one any good, least of all society.
This is why I
work very hard to help my clients get their license back. It is
expensive and can be a frightening experience for my clients to go
through an arrest and a trial. It is not an easy process for them to get
their license back, and most never drive under the influence again. The
process has scared them into changing their ways, exactly as it should.
I make no apologies for what I do and for working so hard for my
clients.
There is a common misconception that defense attorneys attempt to
free guilty defendants, while prosecutors and police officers try to
find “The Truth.” In reality, the police officer’s job is just to find
potential lawbreakers. It is the prosecutor’s responsibility to get
convictions and the defense attorney’s responsibility to get acquittals.
Each side is legally and morally compelled to zealously argue their
side. The truth is found within this process of trial and appeal, not by
blindly agreeing with one side or the other.
Russell J Matson, Attorney at Law
Home
| About the Attorney |
Contact Us
|