Having been knocked out in an auto accident and scrambling your brain. This guy should have had medical care. They should fire that officer. The officer showed a total lack of interest in proper investigative procedure, a total lack of compassion towards not just this man but other people he comes in contact with.
The prosecutor should have taken 1 look at the video evidence and said "No way I'm taking that to court... But I might prosecute the cop for an unlawful arrest."
Just think that this police officer didn't even call medical services, he could be sue if he is found innocent any way, so he got 17 year in service, sound like he shot himself in the foot...
@@victorforzani3433 I agree. As I commented in a previous video in this series, the cop arrived at the scene in a bad mood and took it out on the defendant.
@@lint8391 I have to say that police officer should not bring their garbage to work and I saw that he didn't wanted to spend time on that traffic stop and by the way he spoke to other officer it must be close to the end of his shift, I hope he sue that officer of 15+ years
The one thing the prosecutor refuses to admit is his officers gave the defendant the option of a "blood test" but they refused to do it and came up with excuses as to why they didn't want to do it.
I don’t understand how a man can wake up, Come to work and casually try to ruin someone’s life KNOWING there is no evidence to actually back it up. Imagine only caring about “Winning” your case instead of siding with justice and truth… You have to be an evil man to casually do something like that without any guilty conscious.
I have no idea why that nurse didnt say "He needs a hospital, now." but if I knew someone I cared about was knocked unconscious, split their lip and broke their teeth, I would get them to a hospital right away to get help. When you have a seizure or a concussion, and then minutes later are accosted by a VERY aggressive cop, I don't think they would be themselves. Slick of the prosecutor to call a blood alcohol content a "breath alcohol level" lmao. Dirty pool...
There is one small point that the defense missed, the officer asked " CAN " you do the tests, not " WILL " you do the tests, the reply was no, the next question should have been why in that case. He did NOT refuse, he answered a question. The prosecutor is as big a liar as the officer.
In every step of the way, cops should learn to ask why, and then clearly state the result of a refusal. They didn't do that when he was brought to the correctional facility either. Horrible police work, just as I expect for US cops.
I think the cop included. He was under the influence immediately and didn't care to investigate any further. The cop was lazy and didn't want to do his job
When the prosecutor presented his non evidence evidence and said just Ignore the defendants evidence completely. What a sick joke , the commonwealth had no business trying this terrible case with more doubt and holes than Swiss cheese .
He honestly tried to claim that there lack of evidence should prove to the jury that the decendant is guilty because THEY were not able to get the evidence they wanted.
This prosecutor wants the jury to convict a guy of a serious charge of DUI not from breath or blood test or even roadside that they didn’t do any of those test but just by their experience with drunk people. What a joke
I agree. She seems like she'd be a lovely person to spend time with outside the court. And in this trial she behaved in an impeccably professional way. Can't ask for more than that from a judge.
"The defense wants to point out all the stuff we don't have... but what about the question I asked earlier about seeing drunk people? None of you had to breathalyze them to know" Totally missing the point of evidence. They need to recall that DA
I think if a defendant is found not guilty in a state criminal case, the prosecutor's office should have to pay the legal costs to the defendant. It's one way to cut down on weak cases
What "EVIDENCE" did the prosecutor provide? All he showed was the arresting officer FAILING to investigate, refused to listen to defendant,slapped the cuffs on the defendant & arrested him for DUI, while admitting he didn't smell alcohol. Personally, I think the only alcohol officer Payne smelled was on herself. She was the one that was refusing to give him the blood test. WHY DON'T YOU HAVE BLOOD TEST EVIDENCE? He was in an accident. How do you know he wasn't suffering from a concussion? Is the officer qualify to make that determination? Is he a medical professional? The fact that nothing was seriously wrong with him per se has absolutely nothing to do with it Basically the prosecutors asking them to overlook the fact that there was absolutely no physical evidence to support the fact that he was intoxicated.
She said she smelled alcohol and that he was flushed because they ALL say that. It's standard for all of the officers involved, I'm honestly surprised that Purcell didn't testify to it as well, but he is obviously not a DUI enforcement officer. His usual job is obviously much more preferable to him.
The judge should've directed a verdict. I'm amazed she didn't. I thought she was great throughout, but the motion for a directed verdict was valid and probably the best case for it that I've witnessed. She should've taken it and acquitted the defendent.
I know someone who was arrested for a DUI following a one car accident -- she apparently hit a curb and blew out two tires out. On the body cam, the officer claimed he smelled alcohol, but her breathalyzer reading was 0.0%. He arrested her for driving under the influence of drugs and she had blood drawn at the jail. She continued to deny taking any drugs, except for her high blood pressure prescription medication. She couldn't remember the name of the drug. She spent about 18 hours in jail because she couldn't remember anyone's phone number to call. One of the officers seemed to take a bit of pity on her and did an online search for one of her relatives (me) and was able to get my home phone number and allowed her to use his desk phone to call. She sounded strange on the phone, but I assumed it was because of the stress of being in jail, and I arranged bail. After I picked her up, I could tell something was wrong with her and drove to the ER. Her MRI showed she recently had a small stroke. Her blood test came back with no mind altering substances, but the district atty changed the charge from DUI to reckless driving... Why? Because on the body cam, the officer asked what happened to tear up her tires, and she said she couldn't remember. He asked her if she was using her cell phone while she was driving, and her response was, "I don't know. Maybe.". She got an attorney and opted for a trial. The judge looked at her blood test and her ER report and dismissed the charge but not before scolding the district attorney. I can understand the officer thinking she may have been taking drugs, but the DA going forward shocked me. Between the 10% bail bond fee, the court fees and the attorney, she was out $5586.
I have never understood why the case was prosecuted. Very poor judgment on the part of the prosecution. About as poor as the responding police officer. I am also not impressed by the technician who I do not believe when she said he reeked of alcohol. The officer had to admit he did not even smell it so it is hard to believe he smelled strongly ½ to 1½ hours later. Perjury on the part of a police officer is terrifying to most of us.
😂Well yeah we do need some test to Prove beyond reasonable doubt the man was impaired! You're charging him with a crime! What a Moron & embarrassment to the dept.
Scumbag, low rate, low budget prosecution.. Well mannered, CONSTITUTIONAL 💪, Gifted Larry for the defense.. Im seeing a clear win for the defense! Good luck
retrained? with all the "authority" WE THE PEOPLE gave him.... you want "retraining"? How about fired, blacklisted from ever working for We The People again.
I'm so hooked on this case good job putting this together. The system at work and a look at the dishonest work of the police and prosecutor. The judge is so good we need more like her.
The prosecutor goes last because he has the burden of proof. trump complained about the same thing. It's just how it works, going last balances out the prosecutor's burden by giving them the last word.
I wish they would have asked her, why do you think you smelled the order of alcohol and the officer didn't. OR something very similar but worded correctly.
As a nurse I can’t believe this man was not taken to the hospital to be evaluated for possible head trauma/concussion (especially since the airbag did not deploy) - the bleeding from the mouth, the broken teeth, the speech impediment & his unsteadiness on his feet, these are all indications that there is an anomaly. If alcohol was in question a warrant could or would have been obtained for draw, while in the emergency room. If he had gone to the ER a draw would most like be done as part of the evaluation in making a proper diagnosis, doctors would need & utilize the results in coming to the proper course of treatment. I’m not sure if KY would/could utilize those results or if a different draw would have to be utilized & then processed in the state lab. Regarding the blood not being drawn while in custody. The policy needs to changed allowing the blood draw to occur when requested by the one in custody. The “it’s not policy” or “it’s not practice” does not hold water when the prisoner is told that the blow test “or” blood test could be done. If the blood test is not an option for the one in custody, then don’t bring it into the picture. It seemed an arbitrary decision to not allow the blood draw, even though the one in custody clearly stated multiple times his willingness to submit to the draw. Why are officers so quick to listen to a third party evaluation - the 911 caller statement - via dispatch, had him already decided that the man was intoxicated. As an officer you have to arrive on scene with a clean slate, the evidence will present itself.
I have no confidence whatsoever in the jury.. They are only too happy to lick the state boot. I wouldn't have any confidence if the guy could prove he's never been to KY, and never driven a car.
Huge flaw with all DUI charges: IF I have the right to refuse to perform a FST, then how can a refusal automatically give me a license suspension and arrest? Plus, blood testing regularly takes about 4 months for results. So how does a person get suspended while awaiting the results? That’s using Guilty until You Prove Innocence. The exact opposite of how the law reads, Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty. How can you receive a Punishment without the evidence that Proves you’re Guilty? *I do not condone drunk driving, but… I so strongly support our rights that I hate the hypocrisy used against us by the courts and law enforcement.
The new associate is passionate, and that is great. I look forward to seeing him in the future as he matures. When the prosecutor says we don't need evidence to convict just our personal judgment, I almost fell out.
Never ever take any test, give blood, breathalyzer, etc. Help your attorney and your case by doing nothing and saying nothing. Losing your license for a year is better than losing your ability to enter a country or having a DUI on your record.
Thank you Larry! He said your common sense so many times he implied they’d be stupid if they found him not guilty. Facts and proof only. I wish you’d have thought to bring up how many accidents happen because of being distracted by our pets ! I haven’t heard the verdict yet but this man is NOT guilty in MY opinion. You guys are awesome to watch work. Hope I never ever need you put glad you’re there if I ever do!
When he has a legal right to give either breath or blood and a government official restricts his choice that he has a right to and then claims because they refused to take blood as he chose based on his choices that he somehow is the one refusing. I'm sorry the staff on shift are the ones that refused to do the test that they told him he had the option of doing
Prosecution is a joke. The way he says the cop made the right decision not providing medical attention. So why not save lots of money and send this cop to the scene of accident to pre-screen if an ambulance is even necessary.
I don’t understand how that DA can spew that nonsense with a straight face. I guess “beyond a reasonable doubt” means different things to different people.
the da in his closing basically telling the jury "ignore the fact that we had no evidence and that per your instructions you must make your determination by the evidence alone and just take our word for it"
DA's definitely give all lawyers a bad name because they always do everything in their power not to drop charges because their to worried about their cop buddies being happy and furthering their careers. They are never worried about the effects on the lives of the people they prosecute even when they know they're innocent and or have no evidence. This is why all immunities for cops,DAs and judges need to be removed. They will think twice about doing the wrong thing if they knew their actions have consequences just like everyone else that has to live within the law and not above it.
Ya know, at least with this defense you can actually believe in your case and your client! Talk about 'common sense' 🙄 My flabbers are all gasted wondering how the prosecution could believe a word they were saying. The possibility of a man going to jail over this BS is just fine and just another day. How do they sleep at night 😳 I know you're going to win this, Tyler.
His argument that "we all know what a drunk person looks like" is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard in a court. I've felt that I've known when my friends are drunk but I've not known "beyond reasonable doubt" as a legal standard. If I were to testify in court as to their state of intoxication I'd only be avle to say that I *believe* that they were drunk, not that I *know* beyond reasonable doubt that they were.
Their closing was truly disgusting. Trying to beat around the bush and claim thay because he wanted a blood test that that means he would have failed a field sobriety test and would have failed a breath test.
The young lawyer with you. It's a crazy great one. Learning but he is going to be one of the best. He wants to let go out his potential. Net to hold him a little. Because his brain it's going fast. He going to be great. Love him for a criminal lawyer.
Been watching the case from the jump. I’m like come on Larry upload the full story. lol no no no Larry is definitely showing us a true lesson. Let us learn. Thank you Larry I predict not guilty
He had dip in his mouth. Dip smells like alcohol. When she said he had dip in his mouth, that's when I knew why she claimed to smell alcohol. That's probably why he was asking for blood test. Untrained people don't have any business having these jobs.
So... the prosecutor was saying the jury should give them a freebie because they presented absolutely no evidence & to apply their own "I know it when I see it" standard that could just as easily get things like autobrewery syndrome and any number of injuries and illnesses misinterpreted as being drunk? Feels like an appeal slam dunk if they come up with a conviction, because the prosecution clearly hasn't met any burden of proof at all. I don't see why this was submitted to the jury at all, should've been a judgment of acquittal from the judge.
This prosecutor has no clue what an accident can do to you when you smack your head on the steering wheel ca. do to you!! I was just recently in an accident and was smacked in the face with the air bag and the police NEVER SPOKE TO ME!!No one ever asked if I was drinking or the driver was drinking!! This guy is crazy!!!
Is there an opportunity for the defendant to find suit against the officer, the prosecutor and the agency that arrested him? The prosecutor, from what it sounds like, fired charges with zero evidence and asked the jury to ignore any lack of evidence. Would that be prosecutorial misconduct?
Hey, @The DUI Guy (et al): I'm originally from Kentucky and am a legslly blind student of criminal defense, yet somehow I never knew the jury was responsibe for assigning sentencing except in capital cases where the state seeks the death penalty and a second jury is conveined to determine whether the now-guilty convict will have that penalty evoked in lieu of a life sentence without the possability of parole. Oh well; I learn something new every day, especially on channels like yours. Also, I apologize for any misspellings and/or punctuation errors that arose likely due to my aforementioned vision impairment.
_"We don't need numbers, all we need is to look at how he was driving. He hit a car, making it hit the car in front of it, which ruined the day of 2 people"._ Does that mean that everyone who caused a car accident was automatically drunk? Also, he started by saying that this wasn't about whether or not the jury liked the cop or if they felt bad for the defendant because of his injuries...but they're supposed to feel bad for the 2 people whose day was ruined? Why even mention that? I thought this was about whether or not the defendant was driving under the influence.
You gotta love that during the whole trial, the commonwealthless kept trying to make it seem that the defendant was wrong because he didn't do their job for them. What a joke. at least the judge seemed to be very fair with both sides unlike Auntie Bev
I am only a little bit into the prosecutors final statements and it sounds to me like he's trying to get the jury to make a decision based on their feelings and ignore the fact that he has no actual evidence to back his case up instead of doing what they're supposed to do which is based their decision solely on the evidence as the jury instruction told them to do
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
If they don't use a blood kit, you must acquit.
This should have never made it past a prosecutor’s desk, much less to a jury.
Exactly right
Having been knocked out in an auto accident and scrambling your brain. This guy should have had medical care. They should fire that officer. The officer showed a total lack of interest in proper investigative procedure, a total lack of compassion towards not just this man but other people he comes in contact with.
They refused medical care because that would have given the defendant Access to a Blood Test.
The prosecutor should have taken 1 look at the video evidence and said "No way I'm taking that to court... But I might prosecute the cop for an unlawful arrest."
that would never happen with the good buddy system
Just think that this police officer didn't even call medical services, he could be sue if he is found innocent any way, so he got 17 year in service, sound like he shot himself in the foot...
@@victorforzani3433 I agree. As I commented in a previous video in this series, the cop arrived at the scene in a bad mood and took it out on the defendant.
@@lint8391 I have to say that police officer should not bring their garbage to work and I saw that he didn't wanted to spend time on that traffic stop and by the way he spoke to other officer it must be close to the end of his shift, I hope he sue that officer of 15+ years
I like the attorney that works for you Larry. He’s really good. You did good. You trained him well.
I think he needs to tone down the dramatics.
@@paul-u2y9yGolden! lol. it was his first case, I believe, and he was nervous. The only way is up!
Noooo! I need a not guilty verdict now. Keep us all waiting anxiously till tomorrow 😅 I better be not guilty! Excellent closing 👏🏻
The one thing the prosecutor refuses to admit is his officers gave the defendant the option of a "blood test" but they refused to do it and came up with excuses as to why they didn't want to do it.
Agree👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🇺🇸
Prosecutors can care less about anyone, they are devil worshipers with no souls what so ever
Speculation and "common sense" is NOT evidence. This prosecutor should be ashamed for bringing this case.
There was clearly no common sense used by cop or the prosecutor in this case
I don’t understand how a man can wake up, Come to work and casually try to ruin someone’s life KNOWING there is no evidence to actually back it up. Imagine only caring about “Winning” your case instead of siding with justice and truth…
You have to be an evil man to casually do something like that without any guilty conscious.
I have no idea why that nurse didnt say "He needs a hospital, now." but if I knew someone I cared about was knocked unconscious, split their lip and broke their teeth, I would get them to a hospital right away to get help.
When you have a seizure or a concussion, and then minutes later are accosted by a VERY aggressive cop, I don't think they would be themselves.
Slick of the prosecutor to call a blood alcohol content a "breath alcohol level" lmao. Dirty pool...
The new attorney will be amazing. Tyler really improved as he went along and got into the rhythm of his closing.
Larry - such suspense.
The prosecutor did a crappy job presenting his case, partly because it was a crappy case thanks to the incompetence of the cops.
There is one small point that the defense missed, the officer asked " CAN " you do the tests, not " WILL " you do the tests, the reply was no, the next question should have been why in that case.
He did NOT refuse, he answered a question.
The prosecutor is as big a liar as the officer.
In every step of the way, cops should learn to ask why, and then clearly state the result of a refusal. They didn't do that when he was brought to the correctional facility either. Horrible police work, just as I expect for US cops.
The defendant said three times, "This is NOT a refusal."
I think the cop included. He was under the influence immediately and didn't care to investigate any further. The cop was lazy and didn't want to do his job
He asked 10 times for a blood test!!
When the prosecutor presented his non evidence evidence and said just Ignore the defendants evidence completely.
What a sick joke , the commonwealth had no business trying this terrible case with more doubt and holes than Swiss cheese .
He honestly tried to claim that there lack of evidence should prove to the jury that the decendant is guilty because THEY were not able to get the evidence they wanted.
@@devonmarr9872
Great point ,
the prosecutor seemed like he waved the white flag of surrender ,he had no passion or fight in him .
This prosecutor wants the jury to convict a guy of a serious charge of DUI not from breath or blood test or even roadside that they didn’t do any of those test but just by their experience with drunk people. What a joke
This should NEVER have gone to trial.
This judge is a diamond
I agree. She seems like she'd be a lovely person to spend time with outside the court. And in this trial she behaved in an impeccably professional way. Can't ask for more than that from a judge.
I’ve watched many vids and she is so professional,approachable, and very knowledgeable
I agree she's awesome.
Calm, organized, efficient, fair and clear. Everything you would want in a judge.
Nice human!!!👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻🇺🇸
If I was on the Jury, The first day I would already have found him not guilty
"The defense wants to point out all the stuff we don't have... but what about the question I asked earlier about seeing drunk people? None of you had to breathalyze them to know"
Totally missing the point of evidence.
They need to recall that DA
Bro i absolutely love watching you two work. So cool. Thx for content buddy
That prosecutor is nutty as squirrel poo how on earth did that pass the bar ???
Why did you not call him out for saying "he refused everything "
If the accused found "Not Guilty" can he turn around an slap the Clown 🤡 (s) with a lawsuit for illegal arrest an charges?..
I think if a defendant is found not guilty in a state criminal case, the prosecutor's office should have to pay the legal costs to the defendant. It's one way to cut down on weak cases
Wild! What a gross person. He shouldn’t be a prosecutor.
What "EVIDENCE" did the prosecutor provide?
All he showed was the arresting officer FAILING to investigate, refused to listen to defendant,slapped the cuffs on the defendant & arrested him for DUI, while admitting he didn't smell alcohol.
Personally, I think the only alcohol officer Payne smelled was on herself.
She was the one that was refusing to give him the blood test.
WHY DON'T YOU HAVE BLOOD TEST EVIDENCE?
He was in an accident. How do you know he wasn't suffering from a concussion?
Is the officer qualify to make that determination? Is he a medical professional? The fact that nothing was seriously wrong with him per se has absolutely nothing to do with it
Basically the prosecutors asking them to overlook the fact that there was absolutely no physical evidence to support the fact that he was intoxicated.
She said she smelled alcohol and that he was flushed because they ALL say that. It's standard for all of the officers involved, I'm honestly surprised that Purcell didn't testify to it as well, but he is obviously not a DUI enforcement officer. His usual job is obviously much more preferable to him.
The judge should've directed a verdict. I'm amazed she didn't. I thought she was great throughout, but the motion for a directed verdict was valid and probably the best case for it that I've witnessed. She should've taken it and acquitted the defendent.
@@jameskirk3 she "magically" smelled alcohol.
She refused to do the blood test even though it was a option
@@jameskirk3 agreed
I know someone who was arrested for a DUI following a one car accident -- she apparently hit a curb and blew out two tires out. On the body cam, the officer claimed he smelled alcohol, but her breathalyzer reading was 0.0%. He arrested her for driving under the influence of drugs and she had blood drawn at the jail. She continued to deny taking any drugs, except for her high blood pressure prescription medication. She couldn't remember the name of the drug. She spent about 18 hours in jail because she couldn't remember anyone's phone number to call. One of the officers seemed to take a bit of pity on her and did an online search for one of her relatives (me) and was able to get my home phone number and allowed her to use his desk phone to call. She sounded strange on the phone, but I assumed it was because of the stress of being in jail, and I arranged bail. After I picked her up, I could tell something was wrong with her and drove to the ER. Her MRI showed she recently had a small stroke. Her blood test came back with no mind altering substances, but the district atty changed the charge from DUI to reckless driving... Why? Because on the body cam, the officer asked what happened to tear up her tires, and she said she couldn't remember. He asked her if she was using her cell phone while she was driving, and her response was, "I don't know. Maybe.". She got an attorney and opted for a trial. The judge looked at her blood test and her ER report and dismissed the charge but not before scolding the district attorney. I can understand the officer thinking she may have been taking drugs, but the DA going forward shocked me. Between the 10% bail bond fee, the court fees and the attorney, she was out $5586.
I have never understood why the case was prosecuted. Very poor judgment on the part of the prosecution. About as poor as the responding police officer. I am also not impressed by the technician who I do not believe when she said he reeked of alcohol. The officer had to admit he did not even smell it so it is hard to believe he smelled strongly ½ to 1½ hours later. Perjury on the part of a police officer is terrifying to most of us.
they commit Perjury all the time yet are almost never if ever charged for it. yet if we do it then all hell breaks loose for us
😂Well yeah we do need some test to Prove beyond reasonable doubt the man was impaired! You're charging him with a crime! What a Moron & embarrassment to the dept.
Oh the cliffhangers!
Scumbag, low rate, low budget prosecution..
Well mannered, CONSTITUTIONAL 💪, Gifted Larry for the defense..
Im seeing a clear win for the defense! Good luck
Prosecutors always like to walk around and tell people they're wrong. ☹️
That nasty judgemental cop needs to be retrained , his attitude towards the accused should have been handled with respect and dignity
Yea, just like they never do. 😡
retrained? with all the "authority" WE THE PEOPLE gave him.... you want "retraining"? How about fired, blacklisted from ever working for We The People again.
retraining is BS. He was just a fool with a badge.
@@Linghunt2 as many are
Ahh. The ole "training" excuse. You can train someone not to be a lying douchebag?
I'm so hooked on this case good job putting this together. The system at work and a look at the dishonest work of the police and prosecutor. The judge is so good we need more like her.
I don't get why the defense goes first. The prosecutors words are the most fresh in their minds.
The prosecutor goes last because he has the burden of proof. trump complained about the same thing. It's just how it works, going last balances out the prosecutor's burden by giving them the last word.
The only thing they had was that the female officer said she could smell alcohol. That's not proof
After the officer who took him in could not
I wish they would have asked her, why do you think you smelled the order of alcohol and the officer didn't. OR something very similar but worded correctly.
As a nurse I can’t believe this man was not taken to the hospital to be evaluated for possible head trauma/concussion (especially since the airbag did not deploy) - the bleeding from the mouth, the broken teeth, the speech impediment & his unsteadiness on his feet, these are all indications that there is an anomaly. If alcohol was in question a warrant could or would have been obtained for draw, while in the emergency room. If he had gone to the ER a draw would most like be done as part of the evaluation in making a proper diagnosis, doctors would need & utilize the results in coming to the proper course of treatment. I’m not sure if KY would/could utilize those results or if a different draw would have to be utilized & then processed in the state lab.
Regarding the blood not being drawn while in custody. The policy needs to changed allowing the blood draw to occur when requested by the one in custody. The “it’s not policy” or “it’s not practice” does not hold water when the prisoner is told that the blow test “or” blood test could be done. If the blood test is not an option for the one in custody, then don’t bring it into the picture. It seemed an arbitrary decision to not allow the blood draw, even though the one in custody clearly stated multiple times his willingness to submit to the draw.
Why are officers so quick to listen to a third party evaluation - the 911 caller statement - via dispatch, had him already decided that the man was intoxicated. As an officer you have to arrive on scene with a clean slate, the evidence will present itself.
I have no confidence whatsoever in the jury.. They are only too happy to lick the state boot. I wouldn't have any confidence if the guy could prove he's never been to KY, and never driven a car.
This to me personally is cut and dry. Not Guilty. If he's found guilty id truley give up any faith in our justice system.
Huge flaw with all DUI charges:
IF I have the right to refuse to perform a FST, then how can a refusal automatically give me a license suspension and arrest?
Plus, blood testing regularly takes about 4 months for results. So how does a person get suspended while awaiting the results? That’s using Guilty until You Prove Innocence. The exact opposite of how the law reads, Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty. How can you receive a Punishment without the evidence that Proves you’re Guilty?
*I do not condone drunk driving, but… I so strongly support our rights that I hate the hypocrisy used against us by the courts and law enforcement.
They shouldnt be in trial if there is no tests like a blood test to prove he was under the influence.
Larry, you’re killing me! I need a not guilty verdict now!
The new associate is passionate, and that is great. I look forward to seeing him in the future as he matures. When the prosecutor says we don't need evidence to convict just our personal judgment, I almost fell out.
OMG, @24:00, prosecutor is breaking the 5th amendment. Refusal to breath test shouldn’t be used against defendant. SMH
Never ever take any test, give blood, breathalyzer, etc.
Help your attorney and your case by doing nothing and saying nothing.
Losing your license for a year is better than losing your ability to enter a country or having a DUI on your record.
Worst summation by a prosecutor I’ve ever heard. Why did this case even go to trial?
I appreciate that you include the sidebar dialogue in your videos.
The prosecutor is so unbelieveable.
Thank you Larry! He said your common sense so many times he implied they’d be stupid if they found him not guilty. Facts and proof only. I wish you’d have thought to bring up how many accidents happen because of being distracted by our pets ! I haven’t heard the verdict yet but this man is NOT guilty in MY opinion. You guys are awesome to watch work. Hope I never ever need you put glad you’re there if I ever do!
In this case, I think the defense choosing to go first was a smart move. No way the prosecutor is going to address all 17 points the defense made
When he has a legal right to give either breath or blood and a government official restricts his choice that he has a right to and then claims because they refused to take blood as he chose based on his choices that he somehow is the one refusing. I'm sorry the staff on shift are the ones that refused to do the test that they told him he had the option of doing
Defense kinda reminds me of Marty's young dad from Back to The Future....
Come on george....... MCFLYYYYY ... OHH MCFLYYYYY
Crispin Glover. You're right.
Yesssss I thought the same! 😅
@@gsdogsmom I'm glad I'm not alone! Both in looks, the voice... I almost didn't say something cause I thought I might be the only one, lol!
@@Secret_Squirrel_Scottishgamer Yes!! I couldn't recall his 'name' in the movie and all I could remember of the quote was "McFlyyyy" Haha, lol!
"trust your instincts, trust your common sense" literally the opposite of what you're supposed to do....! Holy crap!
Imagine being on jury and then become the alternate right at the end. Like, yo I'm invested now!
Prosecution is a joke. The way he says the cop made the right decision not providing medical attention. So why not save lots of money and send this cop to the scene of accident to pre-screen if an ambulance is even necessary.
The "Nurse" and the "Prosecuter" need`s a real job!
Courts dont like to dismiss cases they see what ones they can get the most money out of ,we are numbers !
I don’t understand how that DA can spew that nonsense with a straight face. I guess “beyond a reasonable doubt” means different things to different people.
the da in his closing basically telling the jury "ignore the fact that we had no evidence and that per your instructions you must make your determination by the evidence alone and just take our word for it"
DA's definitely give all lawyers a bad name because they always do everything in their power not to drop charges because their to worried about their cop buddies being happy and furthering their careers. They are never worried about the effects on the lives of the people they prosecute even when they know they're innocent and or have no evidence. This is why all immunities for cops,DAs and judges need to be removed. They will think twice about doing the wrong thing if they knew their actions have consequences just like everyone else that has to live within the law and not above it.
The both of them are ridiculous! They tried, but couldn't get past the studious mind of Larry!!
💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪 💪
I'm hooked on your channel.. good stuff. Wicked smart dude
Ya know, at least with this defense you can actually believe in your case and your client! Talk about 'common sense' 🙄 My flabbers are all gasted wondering how the prosecution could believe a word they were saying. The possibility of a man going to jail over this BS is just fine and just another day. How do they sleep at night 😳 I know you're going to win this, Tyler.
His argument that "we all know what a drunk person looks like" is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard in a court. I've felt that I've known when my friends are drunk but I've not known "beyond reasonable doubt" as a legal standard. If I were to testify in court as to their state of intoxication I'd only be avle to say that I *believe* that they were drunk, not that I *know* beyond reasonable doubt that they were.
Their closing was truly disgusting.
Trying to beat around the bush and claim thay because he wanted a blood test that that means he would have failed a field sobriety test and would have failed a breath test.
The young lawyer with you. It's a crazy great one. Learning but he is going to be one of the best. He wants to let go out his potential. Net to hold him a little. Because his brain it's going fast. He going to be great. Love him for a criminal lawyer.
Been watching the case from the jump. I’m like come on Larry upload the full story. lol no no no Larry is definitely showing us a true lesson. Let us learn.
Thank you Larry
I predict not guilty
Prosecutor just wants his Stat. He knows his case is CRAP.
Is it common practice in KY for DAs to bring charges when they have zero evidence? I think this is the second such I’ve seen on this channel.
How is he allowed to claim that exercising his rights is evidence of guilt?
The prosecutor is making me really, really mad.
He had dip in his mouth. Dip smells like alcohol. When she said he had dip in his mouth, that's when I knew why she claimed to smell alcohol. That's probably why he was asking for blood test. Untrained people don't have any business having these jobs.
So... the prosecutor was saying the jury should give them a freebie because they presented absolutely no evidence & to apply their own "I know it when I see it" standard that could just as easily get things like autobrewery syndrome and any number of injuries and illnesses misinterpreted as being drunk? Feels like an appeal slam dunk if they come up with a conviction, because the prosecution clearly hasn't met any burden of proof at all. I don't see why this was submitted to the jury at all, should've been a judgment of acquittal from the judge.
Seems like an easy day on the job today.
I always wondered what happened to Crispin Glover. Turns out he is a defense attorney in Kentucky
I love your new guy he's awesome your showing him how to do it right . And I love his hair too!❤
What a slimy prosecutor
Looks and sounds as though someone in the department, or a "fiend" of theirs, family member... had a vendetta against the defendant.
Can't wait for the verdict!!
It should have been mentioned that field sobriety tests are optional and should always be denied.
I really enjoyed this defense attorney's closing argument. As well as his accent.
disgusting??? no i thing we can put that away and upgrade to skunk, or snake, or useless like a fart in a space suit
WTF? A jail nurse is just that a NURSE , not a DOCTOR. Furthermore , a jails infirmary would not have an MRI machine. TY, I'll see myself out
Why cant the prosecutor tell the jury what reasonable doubt means?
This prosecutor has no clue what an accident can do to you when you smack your head on the steering wheel ca. do to you!! I was just recently in an accident and was smacked in the face with the air bag and the police NEVER SPOKE TO ME!!No one ever asked if I was drinking or the driver was drinking!! This guy is crazy!!!
STILL NO VERDICT? GOD HAVE MERCY!!! WHEN WILL IT END?!?!?!
This is another case that never should have made it to court.
When they said the nurse checked his lip, did the nurse also check to see if he might have a concussion
Yep that was a low blow form the prosecutor..😡
Is there an opportunity for the defendant to find suit against the officer, the prosecutor and the agency that arrested him? The prosecutor, from what it sounds like, fired charges with zero evidence and asked the jury to ignore any lack of evidence. Would that be prosecutorial misconduct?
When will we have the VERDICT?
FTP! Abolish Qualified, and Absolute Immunity, Civil Asset Forfeiture, and The Gun Control Act of 1968 NOW!!!
Hey, @The DUI Guy (et al): I'm originally from Kentucky and am a legslly blind student of criminal defense, yet somehow I never knew the jury was responsibe for assigning sentencing except in capital cases where the state seeks the death penalty and a second jury is conveined to determine whether the now-guilty convict will have that penalty evoked in lieu of a life sentence without the possability of parole. Oh well; I learn something new every day, especially on channels like yours.
Also, I apologize for any misspellings and/or punctuation errors that arose likely due to my aforementioned vision impairment.
Abolish qualified immunity ASAP!
Prosecutor defo has a thin blue line phone cover and sticker on his car 😮😂
This case should have never made it to trial. Our justice system is messed up. This and other cases currently happening is proof of that
_"We don't need numbers, all we need is to look at how he was driving. He hit a car, making it hit the car in front of it, which ruined the day of 2 people"._
Does that mean that everyone who caused a car accident was automatically drunk?
Also, he started by saying that this wasn't about whether or not the jury liked the cop or if they felt bad for the defendant because of his injuries...but they're supposed to feel bad for the 2 people whose day was ruined? Why even mention that? I thought this was about whether or not the defendant was driving under the influence.
You gotta love that during the whole trial, the commonwealthless kept trying to make it seem that the defendant was wrong because he didn't do their job for them. What a joke. at least the judge seemed to be very fair with both sides unlike Auntie Bev
We can all drink then drive... We just cant drink impaired. So it doesn't matter if he smelled like alcohol
"The defense wants you to focus on the fact we have no evidence. "
Great job
🦇 Same bat time, same bat channel 🦇
Penalties for drunk driving are shockingly minor there. No wonder everyone drives drunk.
I am only a little bit into the prosecutors final statements and it sounds to me like he's trying to get the jury to make a decision based on their feelings and ignore the fact that he has no actual evidence to back his case up instead of doing what they're supposed to do which is based their decision solely on the evidence as the jury instruction told them to do