DHB’s lawyer sees procedural problems with DUI arrest

AP

The case against Raiders receiver Darrius Heyward-Bey continues to work its way through the California court system.  And his lawyer thinks that there may be a way to avoid a conviction.

Arrested for DUI on April 7, Heyward-Bey was arraigned on May 31.  Now, a pre-trial conference will be conducted.

The fourth-year receiver wasn’t required to attend the arraignment.  He has been ordered by Judge Donna Little to appear in court on Thursday.

According to the Bay City News Service, lawyer Ivan Golde believes that there could be procedural issues with the traffic stop and eventual arrest, which came after a pair of breath tests should DHB’s blood-alcohol content at 0.12 percent and 0.13 percent.  (The legal limit is 0.08 percent.)

“After investigating all the procedures and all the chain of events it appears not everything was done according to the rule of law, and there may be some questions that need to go before a jury,” Golde said.

That’s a common approach in DUI cases.  With a laundry list of technical requirements, lawyers for persons accused of drunk driving have plenty of potential questions to raise.

It doesn’t mean the defendant wasn’t driving drunk.  It means that the defendant may get away with doing so, thanks to mistakes made by the arresting officer.

13 responses to “DHB’s lawyer sees procedural problems with DUI arrest

  1. If the players wonder why Goodell wants full power, its because he doesnt have to let guys go free because of some fast talkin lawyer tryin to poke holes with stupid technicalities in a case where comon sense tells you he’s guilty.

    This is exactly what lawyers do, spend all day tryin to poke holes in evidence to simply raise the possibility that something wasn’t right, and let guilty men walk…. I.e. OJ Simpson, Rodger Clemens, and now bountygate…

  2. LOL. All good Defense lawyers see some procedural issues, as well as anything else with which they can muddy the water. 🙂

  3. of course he does…I have a feeling his lawyer is lying…all together now …”BECAUSE HIS LIPS WERE MOVING”

  4. “It doesn’t mean the defendant wasn’t driving drunk. It means that the defendant may get away with doing so, thanks to mistakes made by the arresting officer.” —–

    Or it could mean that there was actually something done incorrectly and he wasn’t drunk driving, but was accused of it anyway.

    Too often, folks are of the opinion that a police officer only arrests the guilty…

  5. What’s his lawyer supposed to say?

    “Well, my client is a guilty idiot and should hang, but you never know what an uneducated, gullible jury will decide, so we should be able to get him off on”reasonable doubt”.
    But before we do that, we’ll try to get it thrown out of court on a technicality or I could be disbarred for not trying to do my job. Besides, this is an hourly gig at $500 per. See ya, my meters running.”

  6. There’s usually a loophole and if you have enough money you can hire somebody to find it.

Leave a Reply