Winning a DUI motion then losing at trial--How?
People v. KZ
KZ was charged with an illegal left turn, negligent driving, violation of a solid red signal, driving with no insurance, failure to keep in lanes and DUI (a2). Our firm prevailed in lifting his DUI suspension and also prevailed at a motion to quash. At the motion to quash the judge found that there was not enough evidence to support a finding of probable cause when KZ was transported back to the station so that all of the evidence (mainly Standardized Field Sobriety Tests) at the station was suppressed at trial. Generally, this is the fatal blow to the State's case and they dismiss the charges at that point. In this case, the State indicated it would still be proceeding on the charges so our firm filed a demand for speedy trial. On the final day that the State was able to proceed they answered ready and we went to trial. Bear in mind, this trial was going to include even less evidence than what was presented at the motion to quash. But here's the problem: at the Daley Center, the judges change each day so this judge had no idea what the other judge heard at the motion to quash. Prior to the trial beginning we made sure to point out that the motion had been granted and have the judge review the prior judge's ruling so that it was clear that the State could put on no evidence after the point in time that KZ was placed in the squad car. The judge herself pointed out to the State, pre-trial, that it would seem impossible for her to find a Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when a prior judge had made a ruling that there wasn't even enough evidence to form probable cause for the arrest. But I digress...
We proceeded to trial on all of the counts and the judge made the follwoing ruling: (1) illegal left turn--not guilty; (2) negligent driving--not guilty; (3) violation of a solid red signal--not guilty; (4) failure to keep in lanes--guilty; (5) no insurance--guilty; (6) driving under the influence (a2)--GUILTY.
Needless to say we have a motion to reconsider pending with the following arguments:
(1) The State failed to prove the Defendant guilty of driving under the influence beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge based her ruling on a strong odor of alcoholic beverage, a loud voice, shifting weight, and the Defendant being uncooperative.
(2) Because the Court previously found that the same evidence was not enough for probable cause, it could not now find that the same evidence rose to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a situation that would not occur at any other courthouse. I think that the judge believed that the State's case at trial included another witness who was not present at the motion to quash, but it didn't. The State put on the exact same testimony, knowing the court had found no probable cause in the hopes that it could convince a judge that this was something new and different and rose to the level of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
(3) The court's ruling was logically inconsistent. If the court found the Defendant not guilty on minor movers where the burden is a preponderance of the evidence, they cannot then find a Defendant guilty of a charge based on the same officer's testimony that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You either believe the officers or you don't for all of the charges.