My friends, family and even my dog know I don't have much love for gov'ment. It is my experience that people take themselves too seriously when they get a bit of authority. They forget that they are human, just like the rest of us, and behave, well, like idiots. This particular judge is a case in point. My client had been charged with a DUI, which is legalese for driving with an unlawful blood alcohol ratio. It is a serious crime, and the fact that my client got picked up for possession of wacky tobacco the next week did not help her application for the citizen of the year award. She went to court on these two charges and was given a suspended sentence on the "DUI" and a conditional discharge for the green leafy substance rap. Her suspension for the DUI was revoked, and she served the time for it. She was released, and went home thinking the whole nightmare was behind her. About a week after her release, the sheriff called her and asked her to turn herself in to finish serving her sentence. It appeared that she hadn't served the additional time called for under the conditional discharge. This kind of disposition means that if you don't get in any more trouble during your probation period, the prosecutor will dismiss the charge. If you do get caught doing something naughty, all bets are off, and your original sentence automatically comes into effect. My client hoped to decline the sheriff's continued hospitality. When she hired me, I filed what is called a "motion to modify sentence." Among the facts I cited for relief is that the reason she had been revoked originally was that she tested .001 at her pre-jail alcohol screening, when she reported for 1 of the 5 weekends she was supposed to serve as a term of her probation under her original sentence. To show you how minuscule that amount is, bear in mind that you have to register .08 to be considered too intoxicated to drive in this state. The prosecutor wasn't willing to agree to a sentence modification. He was afraid being reasonable about it would "set a bad precedent." You know, the everybody else rule that gov'ment officials find so useful when they don't want to think for themselves. Okay, that's just one person's view of the situation, but I -- I mean she's right, and she deserves the respect, nay reverence of everyone who has ever dealt with a gov'ment idiot. His Royal Honor wasn't any more reasonable. He felt that even though she had served a revoked sentence for her DUI, life wouldn't be complete unless she did the additional time for her "conditional" discharge. So, you have a situation where she was at less than 1/10 of 1% which is 7.9 points less than the amount needed to be driving illegally, and she ended up in jail for 5 months for something she didn't do which was drink. She feels it is possible that the soy sauce she used or some candy she ate may have given a reading. Frankly, I think the breathalyzer was a bit out of kilter. I made the mistake of pointing these facts out to the judge, which only honked him off. I tried to convince him that it was nothing personal. Its just that the full force of the law seemed a little much in this instance. I hoped Indiana didn't want to jail her denizens for such a petty violation of her oh so just laws. The judge yelled that he WAS the state, and if I thought differently, I was very near committing contempt. I tried again to explain that it wasn't personal. I was just asking for mercy. After all, sending the lady back to jail wasn't justified, and the judge did have jurisdiction and authority to modify her sentence. "I AM the STATE, Miss Uttermohlen!" he roared again. The poor woman ended up in jail. I am left to wonder: Does society gain anything when one of us is punished like that? Shouldn't there be room to reconsider results when they are so far out of line with what is being punished? After all, even one beer would have netted a higher reading unless the breathalyzer was way out of whack. Even if a defendant, say, took a swig of cough medicine or mouthwash, before going to jail, the reading would have been higher. It is more likely that the machine was more to blame for the reading than anything my client might have consumed. Shouldn't a judge be allowed to, nay, expected to use a little common sense? In any event, if he is, as he said, "The State," I'm moving to Illinois. At least their corrupt officials are open about it. Copyright (c) 2010 Lucille Uttermohlen
Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
