The 23-year old drunk driver was in a car that recklessly turned in front of the motorcycle at the last minute. The motorcyclist did not have time to react and hit the car, resulting in the accident. The motorcyclist was not killed instantly, but died a short time later. Rather than stop to help the victim of the accident, the drunk driver of the other vehicle drove away, leaving the injured man to suffer alone in the street.

The driver of the vehicle was later apprehended by police officers, and it became apparent why he had fled the scene of his crime. The man was not a licensed driver and was determined to have been drunk at the time of the accident. To the disappointment of the family members of the fatal victim, the drunk driver has only been sentenced to one year in jail for the accident he caused. Following his stay in jail, the man will be required to pay for and attend a substance abuse treatment program and will not be allowed to leave the state of California for a certain period of time. This, however, still leaves the family of the victim feeling unjustified in the death of their loved one.

Perhaps the most significant and distressing aspect of this accident is that the man who died was not doing anything wrong. He was driving safely and according to all traffic laws, and it was only by the reckless behavior and negligence of another person that he was injured and killed. The drunk driver in the vehicle that caused the accident, in contrast, was going too fast and driving completely recklessly while under the influence, yet he sustained no serious injuries of any kind and received a proverbial slap on the wrist in court with a mere one year sentence in jail. His stay in jail will also not satisfy the financial demands that have likely been placed on the victim's family as they've faced the heavy expenses that are unavoidable in funeral arrangements.

If you have a family member that has been seriously injured or killed by a drunk driver, you should get a personal injury attorney. Los Angeles Personal injury attorneys help the family members of victims receive monetary compensation for the pain and suffering they've been forced to endure. In this instance, the 48-year old man had a wife and children that relied on him to be the breadwinner of their family. He also left behind parents and siblings that are likely helping to pay for his funeral expenses. The loss of income that his family is likely experiencing and the expensive funeral arrangements that they've already been required to pay were the direct fault of the Los Angeles car accident lawyer who caused his death, and should therefore be paid by him.

An El Cajon, California man will stand trial in a drunk driving accident case that occurred in July of this year. 35-year-old Shannon Shimp is charged with two counts each of murder, as well as gross vehicular manslaughter in the deaths of Ian Kinney and Joseph Warren Edwards.

The accident took place on Highway 78 on July 22nd. 19-year-old Tessa Medearis was in a Lexus with her boyfriend, 19-year-old Ian Kinney. A pickup driven by Shimp attempting to pass three vehicles skidded out of control, and into the westbound lanes. It crashed into the Lexus, which was also westbound, ending up on top of the car. Ian was killed instantly. Also killed was Shimp's passenger, 58-year-old Joseph Warren Edwards. Both men died at the scene. Ian left behind his parents, while Edwards is survived by his wife.

Tessa suffered moderate injuries, and had to be extricated from the wreckage. After the accident, Shimp, who had suffered injuries in the car accident, was taken to the hospital for treatment of his injuries, and then arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. He was found to have been driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.19 when tests were conducted two hours after the car accident.

On Wednesday, Tessa appeared in court to testify about the car accident that killed her boyfriend. The Superior Court Judge ruled that there were grounds for a trial. There will be a hearing on December 3rd to decide on a date for the trial.

For the two families that lost the most in this tragedy, it seems like justice gets nearer every day. They have had to face the pain of losing their loved ones though no fault of their own.

California has a multi-pronged approach to dealing with the DUI menace. Not only does it have some of the most severe drunk driving laws in the country, but it has also had a significant amount of success in bringing down accident rates in the state, through better awareness programs for motorists, stronger checks and monitoring of drivers, as well as graduated licensing programs for teens that encourage them to be fully educated before they are allowed to drive on their own. The stringency of these laws has led to criticism from groups who believe that license suspensions and the focus on passing breath tests, are unfair. When we continue to have drivers like Shimp who think nothing of tanking up with alcohol that's more than twice over the legal limit, it's clear that these criticisms are baseless.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DALE BUREN WREN, Defendant and Appellant
Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District
April 14, 1969

Defendant, while driving his automobile upon a public highway, veered across the center line and collided with another automobile driven by Lieutenant Colonel James Willett causing injuries to be suffered by the driver and the passenger. The evidence at the trial established that defendant was intoxicated; his speech was incoherent and unintelligible, and a blood sample taken from defendant showed a .23 percent alcohol content. A partially filled bottle containing bourbon whiskey was lying on the right front floor board of defendant's auto with the bottle cap off. Defendant admitted two prior felony convictions. Defendant was found guilty by a jury of a violation of section 23101 of the Vehicle Code and of a violation of section 23123 of the Vehicle Code. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.

Issues:

• Whether the punishment and sentence imposed on the defendant violates   section 654 of the Penal Code?
• Whether the nonconsensual withdrawal of a blood sample from the defendant deprived him of certain statutory and constitutional rights?
• Whether the trial court's instructions were erroneous?

Discussion:

This court held that the acts made punishable which defendant committed, i.e., felony drunk driving and driving with an open container of alcoholic beverage, are two separate and distinct criminal acts. Defendant's punishment for both crimes does not conflict with Penal Code section 654.  This court held that defendant was fully conscious and in possession of his mental faculties at the time of the blood-alcohol test and that defendant did not object to the removal of the blood sample. Assuming that defendant did object as he so testified, no force or violence was used. The doctor, on voir dire, stated that defendant did not object to the test, which was administered in a medically acceptable manner. Section 13353 complements rather than supersedes section 23101, and that the enactment of the implied consent law in no way affected the admissibility of blood alcohol tests under established case law."

This court held that it is the duty of the trial court to instruct on the general principles of law which are necessary for the jury's understanding of the case, whether such instructions are requested or not. Furthermore, the instruction given by the court adequately covers defendant's theory of the accident. The jury did not believe defendant's testimony and properly so in view of defendant's condition, the physical evidence left by the Willetts' car and the fact that defendant was impeached by his admission of two prior felonies. Thus, even assuming that a specific instruction should have been given on imminent peril, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, and therefore such an alleged error would not have been prejudicial to defendant.

Conclusion:

This court affirmed defendant's convictions for felony drunk driving and keeping open container with alcoholic beverage in vehicle on a highway

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Thousands of people are injured in automobile accidents in Los Angeles, California each year, and a majority of the most serious of these accidents can be attributed to drunk drivers. Drunk drivers cause a multitude of damage to others when they decide to step out of the bar or club and into their car to drive away. The damages most often reported are physical, but emotional trauma is not uncommon among those who are involved in an accident with an intoxicated driver. Property is another, often overlooked victim of drunk drivers, and many vehicles are rendered immobile and even irreparable following these types of accidents. If you've been the victim of an intoxicated driver and have incurred physical injuries, emotional trauma, or property damages as a result, you should contact a drunk driving injury lawyer immediately.

There are many people who experience a variety of physical injuries following their involvement in Los Angeles drunk driving accidents. Some of these injuries can easily include severe whiplash, broken bones, serious fractures, and even brain or spinal injury. A majority of these injuries can heal with time and proper medical attention. The emotional trauma that one may experience following their injuries, however, can be more lasting and even more detrimental. Although the court system will find ways to punish those individuals who cause drunk driving accidents and injuries, they often do not provide any sort of reparation to those who are the victims of these crimes. This is why it's so important to contact a drunk driving injury law firm immediately following your accident. Your lawyer will fight for you to receive the compensation you need to care for the physical and emotional damages you've likely suffered.

In some cases, vehicular damage is the only inconvenience one may incur from a drunk driving accident. This in itself, however, can be an incredibly costly nuisance for one to handle. Insurance companies are infamously hard to deal with, especially when they are in circumstances that require them to compensate their customers for damages or injuries. Your insurance company may argue that they are unwillingly to pay for the cost of damages to your vehicle because of the high cost or because they supposedly don't financially cover certain aspects of your accident. This is just another reason you should contact a California drunk driving injury lawyer. He or she can speak directly with your insurance company and may be able to legally require them to cover the costs of your accident without giving you grief. This action alone can save you from the headache and hassle that seems to be a natural side effect of dealing with insurance companies.

Your drunk driving injury lawyer will also be able to help you determine a just amount to pursue for your settlement. This amount will vary in accordance with the injuries and damages you've incurred, so you'll need the help of your lawyer to decide how much your claim is worth. Pursuing too much or too little can mean the difference between winning what you deserve or losing your settlement opportunity altogether.

TY STOCKMAN ©. BOARD OF APPEAL ON MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY POLICIES AND BONDS & another.

APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

September 30, 2004

Facts:

The plaintiff, Ty Stockman, was convicted in 1990 of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Subsequently he was prosecuted for an accident that occurred in February, 1992, wherein one Shannon Parker was killed. In that prosecution, the jury returned verdicts of guilty of involuntary manslaughter and of motor vehicle homicide an offense that includes as an element a finding of driving while intoxicated. The trial judge dismissed the charge of motor vehicle homicide as duplicative for double jeopardy purposes, and sentenced Stockman on the manslaughter conviction. Noting that a consequence of the Jones procedure was to leave standing only a conviction (i.e., manslaughter) that on its face did not suggest the death was caused by Stockman's drunk driving, the judge, cognizant that drunk driving convictions are the predicate for license revocations under G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)©(4).  Upon receiving the court abstract, the registrar of motor vehicles suspended Stockman's license for ten years pursuant to § 24G©. When the registrar later discovered Stockman's prior conviction of driving while intoxicated in 1990, the registrar, acting in accordance with his understanding of G. L. c. 90, § 24(1)©(4), revoked for life Stockman's license to operate. On appeal, the defendant board of appeal on motor vehicle liability policies and bonds (board) upheld the suspension, as did the judge who reviewed the board's decision under G. L. c. 30A, § 14.  Plaintiff licensee sought review of a decision of the Hampshire Superior Court Department Massachusetts.

Issue:

• Whether the registrar properly treated the involuntary manslaughter conviction as a conviction of motor vehicle homicide?

Conclusion:

The Court finds that where a conviction of motor vehicle homicide is dismissed for the reason that the jury also convicted the defendant of manslaughter for the same conduct, the registrar properly treats the manslaughter conviction as a conviction of motor vehicle homicide, and thus of driving while intoxicated, for purposes of applying the ten-year and lifetime revocation provisions of § 24(1)©(4) and § 24G©. For another instance where revocation of a license is mandated upon a conviction under § 24, despite the fact that sentence was not imposed thereon. It would make little sense, as the judge who reviewed the board's decision observed, for "an offender who is found guilty of negligent homicide under a theory of operating under the influence to benefit from the additional, albeit more serious . . . conviction of involuntary manslaughter.  Section 24(1)©(4) did not require two separate DWI accidents involving two deaths. Rather, the licensee was subject to lifetime revocation of his license based on the original DWI conviction and the subsequent DWI accident resulting in a death. Further, based on the facts of the case, the registrar properly treated the involuntary manslaughter conviction as a conviction of motor vehicle homicide.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Numerous persons are arrested each day in Bronx, New York, and charged with the criminal offense of Driving While Intoxicated. Driving While Intoxicated is a Class A misdemeanor, and carries significant penalties. A person convicted of  DWI faces a prison term of up to one year incarceration, a three year probationary sentence, a six month to one year license suspension, mandatory attendence in a Drunk Drivers Program, including attendence at a Victims Impact Seminar, high fines, court surcharges, attorney fees, forfeiture of their car, and a criminal record. In fact, few other criminal convictions carry so many requirements-or in some cases, burdens-as a conviction for DWI. Criminal defense lawyers representing DWI offenders in the Bronx must be familiar with all aspects of DWI law, as well as criminal procedure.

An arrest for DWI in the Bronx most often occurs after a law enforcement officer observes a car being driven in an "erratic manner, swerving from side to side, or recklessly crossing lanes". Typically, the officer will follow the suspected driver for a few moments to confirm his, or her suspicions, and then issue a demand that the driver pull over. Once pulled over, the officer will approach the driver's side of the car to conduct an up close examination. This usually involves questioning the driver, and searching for signs of intoxication. After this cursory examination, the officer will demand that the driver exit the car. The officer will take note of any signs of alcohol on the breath of the individual, redness of eyes, and signs of unsteadyness.

An arresting officer in Bronx County will offer the suspected DWI violator a field test. This field test provides a preliminary finding as to the degree of intoxication of the suspect. This results of this test, however, are inadmissable at subsequent court proceedings. The officer may also offer the suspect a coordination test. This test involves walking in a straight line, and touching of the nose upon command with a specified hand. In Bronx County, some police cars now carry video -tape equipment which records each and every moment of the stop, and arrest of the individual. If arrested, the suspect is handcuffed, and brought to specific police stations within the Bronx that have rooms filled with equipment needed to process a DWI case. This includes a breathalyzer test machine, a coordination test line, and video-tape machines. Many residents of the Bronx only speak spanish. If a suspect only speaks spanish, a video-taped recording reads the suspect his rights in spanish, before any further tests are administered.

Criminal defense attorneys must be familiar with each and every stage of a DWI arrest. If the criminal matter is to be contested, the defense lawyer must be prepared to challenge the initial stop of the car as violative of the defendant's Constitutional rights. Any and all improprieties-intentional or not-must be brought to the Court's attention by way of legal motion, or application. The chemical analysis of the suspect's breath must be reviewed by a chemist specializing in the area of DWI, who can read the reports, and spot inaccuracies. The video-tape, if damaging to the defense, must be challenged as having been taken in violation of the defendant's rights-such as the right to have an attorney present if requested.

In addition to all the above, the defense attorney must be prepared to argue the matter before a jury. This involves jury selection, opening statements, direct and cross examination of witnesses, the presentation of evidence, such as expert witnesses, closing statements, and legal applications. In short, the defense of persons charged with a DWI offense is a complex, detailed,  time consuming, and costly event-which is exactly why persons charged with DWI would be wise to hire an experienced criminal lawyer to handle their matter.

______________________________

*Alexander Sanchez is a Bronx Criminal Lawyer. Mr. Sanchez has over 30 years experience handling major criminal matters, and has tried hundreds of  cases. If arrested, facing charges, or have a date in court, call Mr. Sanchez at 718-665-0112 for imediate legal assistance. See http://www.Bronx-Criminal-lawyers.net

Getting arrested with a DUI isn't the end of the world, although it can sure feel like it. What you really need right now is a great drunk driving attorney to clean up the big mess you made.

Now, you may feel as if you were caught red-handed and that you're going to get a stiff sentence no matter what, but the fact is that the law in the U.S. goes above and beyond to protect all of our citizens from wrongful arrest, in other words we have an amazing amount of rights.

The way U.S. law is written, especially with regard to laws surrounding arrests, puts a huge amount of pressure on the prosecution (the district attorneys) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has committed a crime. A good drunk driving attorney knows this and they know all the different ways in which cases might be dismissed or sentences might be reduced if certain rights were violated. These specialized lawyers are highly skilled and cangenerally get almost anyone out of a very tight space.

For example, a misdemeanor first offense in the state of California, somebody convicted of a DUI will receive a maximum of one year in prison and fines into the thousands of dollars. A felony DUI or a DUI in which a minor is involved will include much more severe penalties. Felony DUI generally occurs when there is bodily injury involved in an accident, property damage, aggravating behavior, or the accused has a prior felony conviction. These are general outlines, but that should help you to realize the initial score if you're in doubt about the charges against you.

It's important that you consult an expert DUI lawyer right away and without delay, as these skilled professionals will work within this system for your benefit and will begin implementing a prudent procedural strategy right from the get go.

In fact, if you speak to a lawyer within 10 days of your arrest they will probably be able to intervene in your Administrative Per Se (A.P.S.) from the DMV and save your driver's license from being automatically suspended. It's things like this and more that a great drunk driving attorney can do for you. But, you've got to act fast.

Act fast, but be diligent, of course. Don't hire the very first attorney that you speak with, interview at least three attorneys and see which one has the most experience and knowledge. After asking a few questions, it should be pretty obvious which one is the best. Then, and only then, should you pull the trigger.

The attorney you hire, if you hire a great one, will give you the best chances of getting your case thrown out or dramatically reducing your sentence. When it's all said and done, you'll thank your lucky stars that you hired a knowledgeable professional. These attorneys aren?t inexpensive, but they will generally save their clients thousands of dollars in fines and obviously keep them from seeing any jail time. So, their services are worth every penny, wouldn't you agree?

Always hire a local drunk driving attorney, someone that knows the local laws and someone who has been around the local system, knows the judges and prosecutors, etc. These attorneys will maximize your ability to get your case dismissed, avoid jail time, and save you thousands in fines.

If you or someone you know has been pulled over and accused of a DUI, you are probably wondering what to do next, and what will happen next.

You are not guilty just because you have been charged.

Many people assume the police always do their job, and always do it well. This is no effort to insult law enforcement generally, but things do happen, and the benefit of the doubt never legally falls in favor of the state. The evidence can sometimes be insufficient to convict you, for instance, if the officer did something outside the rules, or if he stopped you without reasonable suspicion. Tennessee law holds that the officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed to pull you over. An officer cannot pull you over merely because he believes you might be drinking - he needs an articulatable (sp) reason. Swerving out of your lane, disobeying traffic laws, and speeding are just a few examples of legitimate reasons to pull you over. You cannot be legally pulled over on a hunch or for even swerving within your own lane.

The Constitution in the Fourth Amendment guarantees you certain protections from unreasonable searches and seizures. Often times, if the facts are otherwise indicative of intoxication, it is the protections of the Fourth Amendment that can result in your charges being dismissed or reduced.

In addition, if you submitted to a breathalyzer test, there are certain protocols that must be followed or the evidence obtained would be considered tainted. The unit used to conduct the test must regularly maintained. You must have been monitored for a period of time prior to the conduction of the test. As well, the test must be validly consented to. If any of these are not satisfied, it is possible that the results of the blood alcohol content (BAC) test could be deemed invalid. Often, this is the state's key piece of evidence against a defendant. A good DUI lawyer familiar with Tennessee law will be sure to inspect, investigate and research every ounce of evidence against you in an effort to defend your rights and keep unconstitutional evidence from being used against you.

Once you are pulled over, remember: there is no moral or legal rule that you ought to give the state any evidence they can use to convict you. No matter how nice he might seem to be, the officer isn't your friend. He's doing his job, and his job is to find law breakers and arrest them. He can often only do this when alleged lawbreakers essentially "turn themselves in" by offering evidence for the state to use against them. You don't need to do the officer's job for him!

Tennessee's second largest jurisdiction is Nashville. DUI Lawyers are plentiful, but finding the right lawyer for your case is an extraordinarily difficult process. You must find someone who is experienced, knowledgeable and aggressive. Your rights, and your freedom, depend on it.

Like many topics and issues in the health and weight loss industry I believe drinking coffee for health and weight loss has been left unsettled with a growing controversy every day. People having all kinds of views whether bias or unbiased, has really made this topic difficult to come to a conclusion. So from all my research, studying, and experimenting I believe I have been able to come up with the unbiased truth on the topic drinking coffee for health and weight loss.

I would like to start off and put to rest some myths you might of heard that just seem to be used against coffee that have been proven wrong. So let me just quickly clear up these myths.

First, the caffeine in coffee does not increase the risk of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, liver injury, pancreatic cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, breast cancer incidence, or certain types of cancers. The truth is coffee actually decreases the risks or has absolutely no effect on these health conditions when coffee consumption is taken in moderation.

Second, the argument that declares coffee as a drug because of its drug like qualities like addiction, a stimulant, and mood altering. These things can become a problem without moderation a discipline but coffee being one of the healthiest beverages out there, I would rather have people drinking coffee than soda pops or sugar drinks.

Third, an excess of coffee increases urinary secretion of important minerals such as magnesium, potassium and sodium and uses up a fair amount of vitamin B1. These minerals and vitamins are very important to our body's health but that is why I like to bring up several tests that have been conducted which should clarify a few things. These test proved that people that drink coffee consume an average of 8 to 14% more minerals and vitamins than people that don't drink coffee. I don't know if coffee drinkers eat healthier or what but there mineral and vitamin loss is made up by consumption of food and daily multi-vitamins.

These myths have had an impact on the questions and controversy against coffee being benefial or not for healthy living and weight loss. I must point out that anything in excess is bad for you so when people say coffee is unhealthy, I can most of the time point out ten unhealthier things they do instead of drinking coffee.

Now that we are pasted that, let us focus on the advantages and disadvantages of coffee.

Advantages:

Coffee is actually one of the healthiest beverages billions of people consume regularly.

Coffee containing with bitter orange, hydroxycitric acid, and chromium can encourage an increase up to 30% in metabolic rate.

Coffee with exercise when taking 300mg averages a 20% increase in energy and fatigue while burning fat increased 107% greater than without caffeine.

Caffeine in coffee keeps our brains alert and receptive of new information.

Regular consumption of coffee decreases the risk of type II diabetes and many other health risks.

Disadvantages:

Coffee when consumed in excess can be addictive, stimulate, and a mood charger.

A large amount of coffee or caffeine consumed all at once can have a negative affect on blood sugar levels that influences fat burning that could change into storing fat.

Too much coffee over time can stain your teeth.

With so many benefits of coffee for health and weight loss it is hard to be worried about the few disadvantages when moderation can solve it all.

Step 1 Coffee Clean Up

Coffee when consumed straight and by itself it perfect. Having zero calories, zero carbs, and zero fats one can see that it would not hinder weight loss. When adding all that extra sugars, sweeteners, syrups, alcohol and so on just make it a high calorie dessert.

Sticking with regular or straight shots of coffee with limiting extras like milk and sweeteners is necessary for achieving healthy living and weight loss.

Step 2 - Coffee in Moderation

Too much coffee at one time can affect blood sugar levels so the easy fix is reducing your in take at one time. Spacing out your coffee in take throughout the day would be something to consider and would benefit as an appetite suppressant while reducing chances of increasing blood sugar.

Reducing your coffee in take might be a struggle and can possibly cause headaches and constipation but in the end is worth it.

Step 3 Limit Simple Carbs with Coffee

Avoiding or at least limiting simple carbs while drinking coffee would be wise as coffee can affect blood sugar negatively and adding simple carbs will just encourage an insulin spike.

Step 4 - Exercise

Exercise has so many benefits besides burning calories and suppressing your appetite. Exercise can also help regulate your body's use of insulin to keep blood sugar down and making coffee have little affect on your body. So make sure you participate in aerobic activities, lift some weights, and keep drinking that coffee and you should achieve weight loss in no time.

Don't let people tell you coffee is a bad drug and should be avoided at all costs. You know the truth that coffee actually has more benefits than negatives, so enjoy your coffee worry free about hindering for diet and weight loss goals.

Have a great day and God bless!