Drunk Driving as an Element of a California DUI / DWI Case
In the American system of justice, the defendant is supposed to be considered to be innocent until they have been proven guilty in a court of law. This requires that a jury of one’s peers find that the prosecutor has proven all elements of a particular case beyond a reasonable doubt. In DUI / DWI cases, as in all criminal court cases, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The standard of requiring a prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt applies in DUI / DWI cases and in all criminal cases in California. Often it is difficult for the state to achieve this very high standard when faced by an able DUI / DWI attorney who has what it takes to make it difficult for the prosecutor to prove each and every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a California DUI / DWI criminal trial, a prosecutor must prove the element of driving as well as all other elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in all criminal trials in the United States. The prosecutor can use circumstantial evidence such as a hot or warm engine or keys in the ignition to try to prove to a jury that the individual was in fact driving the car. Circumstantial evidence are those factors that do not alone amount to guilt, but if considered together, may establish guilt. However, an experienced DUI / DWI defense attorney will be prepared to cast doubt upon the case of the prosecution by challenging the possible flaws in the evidence. If the jury finds the evidence flawed, under the reasonable doubt standard, they must return a verdict of not guilty.
Remember, in order to obtain a conviction in a drinking and driving case, a prosecutor must prove each element of the offense. A defense attorney with experience in drunk driving cases will know how to attack both direct and circumstantial evidence of the “driving” element of DUI / DWI.
The driving element is good example of the very nuanced differences that exists between the California criminal case and the California DMV hearing and a good example of why it is important to hire an experienced DUI / DWI attorney who won’t miss the differences. While circumstantial evidence is admissible in a California criminal court hearing, it is not admissible at the DMV hearing. Therefore, a police officer must actually have witnessed a person driving the vehicle in order for the evidence to be heard by a judge at the administrative DMV hearing. Circumstantial evidence that the police officer might have witnessed will not be considered but the official in charge of the DMV hearing.