I am representing myself on a DUI matter, what is the most effective argument to assert in court?

Question

Juridiction: Ontario, Canada

Answer 1

"He who represents himself has a fool for a client."

Answer 2

I agree with the first answer - you're a fool to represent yourself. I specialize in DUI cases, but you need to give us more specifics in order to effectively answer your question. A number of factors are involved. What was your BAC if you took a blood test? If you did the breathalyzer, what did you blow? Was there an accident involved? Was there a refusal? Do you have any priors? What did you have to eat prior to drinking? How long before? How much did you have to drink? Over what period of time had you been drinking? What is your height and weight? How old are you? In addition to that, you are in Canada. I am in California. I am sure the laws are different in your jurisdiction than they are in mine. You would be wise and it would be money well spent if you were to consult with a lawyer in your jurisdiction to find out exactly what you are looking at in terms of a punishment. I highly recommend you consult a lawyer.

Answer 3

There's no easy way to defend a DUI. You should request the breathalyzer/blood test records from the Crown counsel and hope that there is a technical defect. Otherwise, you could argue that the police lacked probable cause to stop you or breathalyze you. Both these defenses are technical, you should consult/retain a lawyer.

Answer 4

Hmm, Canadian laws. You really need a lawyer. Isn't a DUI a felony in Canada?
I did hear in the news about a lawyer who got his client off because the company that made the breath analyzer machine would not give him the program code because the manufacturer considered it proprietary.
Dude, don't drink and drive.

Answer 5

Get a lawyer. Unless you're F. Lee Bailey, someone who represents himself in court is said to have a fool for a client. It's too easy to get tripped up by rules of procedure, rules for handling evidence, and so on that a competent lawyer should easily know.

Look at it this way - would you try to take your kid's appendix out yourself? I doubt it. Why not hire a professional in this case, too?

Oh - and stop drinking and driving.

Answer 6

I'm unfamiliar with Canadain law but in the US it would be to first disprove jurisdiction of the court, this may prove difficult for a novice though. Secondly, driving is the commercial operation of a motor vehicle, unless you were transporting goods for commerce or providing some type of taxi service technically, legally your not "driving"!

You might consider checking out http://www.outlawslegal.com and even though its based on US laws it is still the basis of all legal jurisdiction check out http://www.worldnewsstand.net/law/person.htm a true must read!

Answer 7

"Your honor, as you can clearly see, I'm born-again stupid. So it should not surprise the court that not only did I drink and drive, AND decided to represent myself in this court, but I also got my legal advice from anonymous people on a website on the internet. Therefore, I ask the court to dismiss all charges and declare me a moron."

Answer 8

uhhhhhh, had you been drinking and driving? Did you take a breathalizer test? Did you refuse a test? Did you flunk the dexterity test?

Have you heared the phrase: Any man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client?

Answer 9

An argument made by a lawyer. People who represent themselves have a 98% failure rate.

Answer 10

This is why you never represent yourself in court:

"Did you get a good look at my face when I took your purse?"

-Asked by an accused thief who undertook his own defense at his trial to his alleged victim. He got ten years.

Answer 11

STUPIDITY- All the way around: 1. Drinking and driving,; 2. Representint yourself.