Superior Court Of Arizona - Phoenix Police Looking for an attorney with "GUTS" for state law suit perjury by Phoenix police liars Phoenix Arizona

You should have a taken a plea offer.

Tim,
Please read carefully. All the facts are in the report. Two other officers testified "Not Intoxicated". One being a DUI ask forces member. Refused to testify to the arresting officers testamony. This showing that he did not want to perjur himself.
I did have a DUI 5 years prior, but everything was resolved. There was no wreck or misconduct....AND THERE WERE NO BREATH OR BLOOD TEST TAKEN!!! It's sad that that, with out eveidence, police can lie to achive a conviction. It's even more sad that a jury belives that lie, simply becouse he wears a badge.

YES! I need an attorney with both brains and guts to take on the state of Arizona.

An attorney, unlike the others involved in this case, that basically took my $$$ and left me hung out to dry.

I have a three issues with your report.

First, you were convicted by a jury of your "piers." Not by a judge, not by the cop, not by any individual, but a body of several (probably 12) people that came to a unanimous decision that, beyond a reasonable doubt, you were guilty of felony DUI.

Unless you put on ABSOLUTELY NO defense, then there is no way that you were convicted solely because of one officer's fart science.

Second, you make no mention of a breathylizer score. I'm pretty sure you were given a breath test, and maybe even a blood test.

There are two, and only two, elements to a DUI charge: 1) you were driving; 2) you had a blood alcohol level greater than that allowed by state law (usually .08).

You can pass all the sobriety tests in the world, but if your B/A is greater than .08 (or whatever it is in your state), and you were behind the wheel of a car, then you are guilty of the offense.

Third, you were convicted of a felony. DUI is usually a misdemeanor, unless you've had a prior conviction or caused an accident. Would you care to tell us why you were convicted of FELONY DUI?

If a witness bends the truth on the stand, or even if the record is altered, your conviction still stands unless the decision of the jury was seriously affected by the transgression.

The bottom line is that a JURY was convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were driving a car with an illegally high blood/alcohol content.

Was the prosecution able to prove that you were driving a car?

Was the prosecution able to prove that you had a high b/a level?

Unless you have some suppression of evidence concerns, or some other constitutional violation was at work in the investigation, the above questions are all that matters. Take the advice of the lawyers who tell you that you have no case. It's not that they lack guts, it's that you lack a valid argument.

I have a three issues with your report.

First, you were convicted by a jury of your "piers." Not by a judge, not by the cop, not by any individual, but a body of several (probably 12) people that came to a unanimous decision that, beyond a reasonable doubt, you were guilty of felony DUI.

Unless you put on ABSOLUTELY NO defense, then there is no way that you were convicted solely because of one officer's fart science.

Second, you make no mention of a breathylizer score. I'm pretty sure you were given a breath test, and maybe even a blood test.

There are two, and only two, elements to a DUI charge: 1) you were driving; 2) you had a blood alcohol level greater than that allowed by state law (usually .08).

You can pass all the sobriety tests in the world, but if your B/A is greater than .08 (or whatever it is in your state), and you were behind the wheel of a car, then you are guilty of the offense.

Third, you were convicted of a felony. DUI is usually a misdemeanor, unless you've had a prior conviction or caused an accident. Would you care to tell us why you were convicted of FELONY DUI?

If a witness bends the truth on the stand, or even if the record is altered, your conviction still stands unless the decision of the jury was seriously affected by the transgression.

The bottom line is that a JURY was convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were driving a car with an illegally high blood/alcohol content.

Was the prosecution able to prove that you were driving a car?

Was the prosecution able to prove that you had a high b/a level?

Unless you have some suppression of evidence concerns, or some other constitutional violation was at work in the investigation, the above questions are all that matters. Take the advice of the lawyers who tell you that you have no case. It's not that they lack guts, it's that you lack a valid argument.

I have a three issues with your report.

First, you were convicted by a jury of your "piers." Not by a judge, not by the cop, not by any individual, but a body of several (probably 12) people that came to a unanimous decision that, beyond a reasonable doubt, you were guilty of felony DUI.

Unless you put on ABSOLUTELY NO defense, then there is no way that you were convicted solely because of one officer's fart science.

Second, you make no mention of a breathylizer score. I'm pretty sure you were given a breath test, and maybe even a blood test.

There are two, and only two, elements to a DUI charge: 1) you were driving; 2) you had a blood alcohol level greater than that allowed by state law (usually .08).

You can pass all the sobriety tests in the world, but if your B/A is greater than .08 (or whatever it is in your state), and you were behind the wheel of a car, then you are guilty of the offense.

Third, you were convicted of a felony. DUI is usually a misdemeanor, unless you've had a prior conviction or caused an accident. Would you care to tell us why you were convicted of FELONY DUI?

If a witness bends the truth on the stand, or even if the record is altered, your conviction still stands unless the decision of the jury was seriously affected by the transgression.

The bottom line is that a JURY was convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were driving a car with an illegally high blood/alcohol content.

Was the prosecution able to prove that you were driving a car?

Was the prosecution able to prove that you had a high b/a level?

Unless you have some suppression of evidence concerns, or some other constitutional violation was at work in the investigation, the above questions are all that matters. Take the advice of the lawyers who tell you that you have no case. It's not that they lack guts, it's that you lack a valid argument.