How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask xavierjd Your Own Question
xavierjd, Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 3400
Experience:  Over 20 yrs experience in prosecution and defense work
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
xavierjd is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I am probably going to have my DUI trial tomorrow. Can I win.

Customer Question

I am probably going to have my DUI trial tomorrow. Can I win. This is in New Jersey.
Submitted: 8 years ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  xavierjd replied 8 years ago.

Thank You for using


In order for me to better assist you, please provide the following information:


1. Is this your first offense?


2. Was there an accident?


3. Did you take field sobriety tests (eg. heel/toe, finger to nose, et.), and if so, did you pass?


4. Did you take a PBT?


5. Did you take a breathylzer at the police station? What were the results? or was there a "technical" refusal?


6. Are you charged with anything else?


7. Are you having a jury trial or a judge trial?


8. If you didn't take a breathlyzer, did you take a blood test?



Customer: replied 8 years ago.
1) yes first offense 2)no accident, routine traffic stop 3) yes, 2 field sobriety tests, only 1 was a certified test 4)i doint know what a pbt is 5) i took the alcotest breat test at the station, 0.09, 6) i was also charged with careless driving, but was pulled over for speeding, so no predicate summons exists 7) all DUI in NJ is heard in fron of a judge in municipal court, no jury 8) i requested a blood test but the officers said no .....................
Expert:  xavierjd replied 8 years ago.
Were you offered any plea bargain?
Customer: replied 8 years ago.
Not officially. Back in August of 2007, then 23 months into the case, my attorney's assiciate told me the judge was ready to put a plea deal in writting for reckless driving, 5 points. I did not actually beleive this, and asked for a trial, ... on that same night the attorney handed the judge a letter invoking my speedy trial rights. In NJ, the NJ Supreme Court has outlawed plea bargaining on DUI, .....this was in place well before August of 2007, and has been reinterated by the NJ Supreme Court and the Attorney General several times, even recently. They keep reminding local prosecutors they are not allowed to plea bargain DUI. Tomorrow will be my 20th appearance in 40 1/2 months, and have yet to even have a hearing about the charges against me.
Expert:  xavierjd replied 8 years ago.



I've not heard of being denied a jury trial for a misdemeanor/jailable offense. Are you sure that you didn't waive the jury?


Even if the judge would have allowed you to plead guilty to reckless driving (over the objection of the prosecutor) the prosecutor probably would have filed an appeal and won.


It is unacceptable that you have been waiting 40 1/2 months and have had 20 court appearances and have yet to have your trial.


As you are probably aware, the maximum penalties for a first offense DUI with a breathlyzer result of .08% but less than .10% are:


Loss of license for 30 days;


$250 to $400 in fines plus mandatory fees and surcharges;


Up to 30 days in jail;


12 to 48 hours IDRC (Intoxicated Driver Resource Center)


Failure to pay DUI surcharges

  • Indefinite suspension of driving privileges
  • Action filed in State Superior Court by MVC. This may include securing a lien against your property, garnishing your wages or other similar action.

Whether or not you are able to "win" depends on MANY factors.


1) did the police have reasonable suspicion to pull you over... The answer will most likely be "yes" because of the testimony of the officer who will say you were "speeding" or driving in a "careless manner.


2) did you pass the certified field sobriety test?


3) Were you read your Miranda rights? (applies only if you are IN CUSTODY and INTERROGATED about the offense) If you were entitled to Miranda rights and they were not given to you, your attorney should ask that any evidence, including your answers to questions, be quashed. That way, the breathlyzer would probably be out!


4) Did you read and sign your breathlyzer rights?


5) How credible is the officer's testimony?


6) Because you blew a .09, could the results be challenged because of a malfunction in the machine? Was the breathlyzer callibrated by the police? If so, when? Your attorney is entitled to see the log sheets as to such callibration.


7) Did anything skew the breathlyzer results? Were you watched for a period of time before given the test? Did you swallow anything, vomit, belch, etc. before taking the test? If you did, then the officers would have to wait another period of time to administer the test. If they didn't your attorney could ask that the results be supressed.


These are just some of the issues that your attorney could raise either before trial at a special hearing, or at trial. If anything, the lack of the police to properly perform their duties with respect to a DUI can raise "reasonable doubt" in the mind of the judge/jury.


Can you win? MAYBE....IT DEPENDS.....nothing is ever guaranteed. Heck, maybe the officer won't show up for trial, and your attorney can ask for a dismissal! Unfortunately, this is unlikely. Also, it depends on the testimony and credibility of the officer, the reliability of the breathlyzer machine, and whether you were properly watched before blowing. It also depends on any other evidence that is allowed under the court rules and rules of evidence. It also depends on the answers to the issues raised above...Remember, the questions that are asked of witnesses are NOT evidenced, only the ANSWERS are evidenced.


Just Remember...YOU ARE PRESUMED INNOCENT until proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. It is the prosecutor who has to prove each and every element of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a high burden. You do not have to prove anything. If the prosecutor fails to prove EACH and EVERY element of the crimes BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, then the judge/jury must find you "not guilty"


If you are found guilty, or somehow plead guilty, you will be receive a presentence investigation, including an alcohol screening--whether you show signs of substance abuse. You will be able to go over you personal history, your version of the events, etc. If you believe that you were drunk at the time of the arrest, it is VERY important that you tell the screener that you take responsibility for your actions, and that you are remorseful. Judges appreciate that. Because, if you plead guilty or are found guilty, it is all about DAMAGE CONTROL, and putting your best foot forward. Your attorney and you may speak at sentencing. Again, it will be very important to stress the POSITIVES about you. All of the positives may influence the discretionary portion of a judge's sentence. For example, jail is NOT could get probation instead, etc.


I don't mean to presume that you will be found guilty, I'm just giving you a head's up! You really need to have a SERIOUS discussion with your attorney about your chances of winning. YOU and your attorney should know the evidence that will most likely be presented and whether the prosecutor can prove his/her case. If you proceed with a trial, what are your defenses? These are all things that you and your attorney should have talked about by now, or need to do so prior to any trial.


Customer: replied 8 years ago.
NJ does not allow jury trials in DUI cases. This has been upheld by the NJ Supreme Court and law division and appellate division thousands of times. There is no right to a jury trial in NJ for DUI. I do'nt know if I can win, but I want to fight it out in court, all the way, to the point of asking the police officers the meaning of the word is if you get my drift.
Customer: replied 8 years ago.
how is the officer going to say he thought i was speeding by eye, when the report only indicates by radar, and it it 40 1/2 months later, and the officer has probably executed over 4000 traffic stops since he stopped my car? and failed to issue a speeding ticket. On thgis line of questioning we can ask the officer if he writes speeding tickets for cars he pulls over for speeding. Why wasn't a speeding ticked issued to the defendant, was he speeding or not? Then we say , really, where is the radar discovery, , your own report says you used radar, says nothing you clocked him by eye. Just keep going and going on this til the officer gets so screwed up in the head, his head in spinning, so we can raise reasonable doubt on this point. This is just one of hundreds of lines of questioning I want my attorney to undertake tomorrow. I fully expect each of the 2 opfficers to be on the witness stand 4-5 hours each.
Customer: replied 8 years ago.
The biggest thing tomorrow will be my attorney submitting the 36 page motion to dismiss , based on speedy trial, that i have been painstakingly writting and revising since May 1st. I am not going down in flames without this motion brief being submitted to the court. This is key it gets on record as an affidavit by me, descibing in detail what happened that caused the long delay, what I went through because of the delay, and how no one has the right to disobey a court order from the NJ Supreme Court, except themselves or a higher court. The defense will attack the traffic stop on cross examination, the field sobriety on cross examination, which only 1 certified test was performed, the CAD report which has the officer at the station before he left the scene of the stop, lol, and other time line discrepencies, raising doubt to the 20 minute rule, ..... a full cross examination on the alcotest, as the NJ Supreme Court ruled in the final decision in state v chun, that the officer who administered the test is the only person that will testify for the State as to all the foundational documents---- about half of the 168 page decision talked about Crawford. So I get my day in court, then I ask for a stay on sentence pending appeal. My speedy trial arguement is very strong, citing Barker v Wingo in detail to my case, State v Farrell ( a dui overtuned on speedy trial for a 23 month 13 appearance case), the US and NJ constitutions, the NJ Supreme Court directive of the 60 day rule, and of course , the Ace in Hole, the NJ Supreme Court Order of Jan 10, 2006, which lifted the stay on alcotest DUI Atrials in middlesex county, and ORDERED the cases to proceed to trial at that time, with details on how to do so, pending State v Chun,....which was disobeyed in the first municipal court , for the first 33 months and 14 appearances, until the case cwas transferred to another jurisdiction, simply because they do not hold DUI A TRIALS. They were ordered to by the NJ Supreme Court, ... on this I cite State v Masculine, which says no one has the right to disobey a court order.
Expert:  xavierjd replied 8 years ago.

I don't know what happened, I tried to update my post and dont know if it went through. If not, I answered your question before you posted your second reply.


Unfortunately, it was in the officer's discretion as to whether you should receive a speeding ticket. He instead, wrote you for careless, meaning that your driving put property/people at risk.


Regarding the radar, any radar results SHOULD be in his report. Your'e right, if they are not, how can he remember the stop 401/2 months later! Also, if there was a radar used, you need to find out if it was calibrated before and after his shift. If not, how can he prove that it was working when he pulled you over.


Also, if there was any video of the stop, if it is in your favor, use it. If not, your attorney should try to minimize the tape. And....if there was a video taken, does the prosecutor have it now? If not, why not?


Your thought process is correct in trying to attack the officer's credibility. But be careful, some of your questions may be objected to by the prosecutor and deemed irrelevant by the judge. You want to avoid too many "irrelevant" questions.. It only angers the judge.


You can't "clock by eye". The officer can only visually estimate your speed if there is no radar. can ask how he visually estimated your speed... Again, attack the credibility of the officer.


Also, the amount of time that has passed is definitely in your favor. Memories fade. Your attorney needs to really hit hard on this.


Your motion to dismiss tomorrow may be ruled untimely.....that it should have been brought long before the trial date. Also, it is your attorney who must ask for the hearing on your motion.....unless you decide to represent yourself. I wouldn't advise that. But, it's always worth a shot.


And if things do go south, you can always appeal and ask for a stay.


Again BEST OF LUCK.....It sounds like you have been preparing. Good for you!


You should definitely take notes during your trial and if your attorney misses a question that you want asked, ask him to address it. If the attorney doesn't think that the question will be allowed under the court rules, he will tell you and it shouldn't be asked.



xavierjd and 2 other Criminal Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 8 years ago.

There is no video of the stop nor at the police station, this town does not have video. Also, as the the speedy trial arguement, well, the arguement speaks for itself, and weather or not the judge thinks it is untimely or not, I want it on the record, all 36 pages. The NJ Supreme Court Ordered my case to proceed to trial on January 10, 2006, and i invoked my speedy trial rights several times. I have the right to submitt the 36 page affidavit on what occured.

To answer you 1) I did not want to plea bargain my case, ever, you must have misunderstood what I wrote. 2) the 20 appearances over 40 1/2 months has yet to even yeild a hearing on the charges or miranda. 3) I was not driving in a careless manner, the report does not say this. The report says I was pulled over for speeding by radar, and says nothing of visual estimate of speed. I say I was not the car that was speeding. I was pulled over 2 miles down the highway from where the officer was running radar. I think we cross hard on this. 4)There was only one certified field sobriety test given, standing on one leg, and that can be overcome because I am more than 50 pounds overweight. Three tests are suppose to be given to determine intoxication. The one leg test is only 65% accurate on its own, ... so 35% doubt, and that is reasionable doubt . I think we cross hard on this too. 5) I did read and sign my mirada and breathalyzer rights sheets, were they the right sheets, I do not know, this is for my attorney to handle. 6) The credibility of both the officer's is going to be attacked based on memory of every event. After 40 1/2 months, and they each having thousands of cases since then, should be a good start for us to attack their memories. 7) We have calibratioon sheets, not sure we have everything the NJ Supreme Court says we should in the final decision of State v Chun. This is for my attorney's expert witness to tackle. I know we do not have the work sheet the State was instructed to conplete by the NJ Supreme Court. I want to testify as an expert witness myself as to the Alcotest, in as far as general rules for chemical analysis data requirements, as an expert in the field of analytical chemnistry for 20 years, and this is something not adressed in State v Chun, so as the final decision in that said, I can raise any challange not adressed in Chun. 8) As far as burping or anything before the test, I think we can cross hard on this, as the officer certainly is not going to remember for this long ago. Cross hard on this. 9) The last thing I guess is the Speedy Trial motion to dismiss, .... actually it is the first thing, and most important aspect of this entire case. Regardless of what I am being accused of doing, the civil rights violations, especially with regards XXXXX XXXXX court order, are far more serious , because it goes to the integrity of our government.

Customer: replied 8 years ago.
Actually, you can clock speed by eye in NJ. The police officers are trained on this at the academey, and have to pass this test. I am not sure if ongoing certification is required to clock by eye. But in this case, the officer's report says nothing of this. I do remember the events of that night in great edetail, not only do I naturally have a great memory, .. the events of being arrested are traumatic and in my mind completely, whereas the offices go through this everyday for the past 1236 days. I remember passing the site where the officer was, St Thomas Church, and a vehicle speeding past me in the left lane, and by the time I was pulled over by the officer, I had already waited for one light to turn green, and was 2 miles down the highway, with the speeding vehicle having blown through the stop light, while I had stopped. We should ask the officer was I in the right or left lane when he clocked me by radar. Was I in the right or left lane when he put his lights on to pull me over 2 miles down the road? This to me seems to raise reasonable doubt. While maybe not one thing on its own raises enough doubt, I feel that everything combined, as there is doubt to every aspect, will bring reasonable doubt, that is why both of the attorneys I hired never wanted me to plead guilty.
Expert:  xavierjd replied 8 years ago.

You have certainly done your homework!


As far as your motion to dismiss, so long as your attorney makes the motion, even if it is denied, it may be a matter for appeal. The fact that the motion is made is the important thing. You may not be able to read it into the record. If not, again, it may be a matter for appeal, and possibly used as an exhibit in the appeal.


I doubt (although it isn't impossible) that the judge will qualify you, as a defendant, as an expert...even though you may be one. Hopefully you have an independent expert who will testify.


I agree with you that the integrity of our government is foremost. That's why we have trials and appeals. That's also why there is a judicial tenure commission (if there is judicial misconduct) and an attorney grievance board.


I'm truly at a loss as to the delay in your trial if the Supreme Court ordered it to proceed in 2006. You REALLY need to discuss this with your attorney.


It sound like YOU are prepared. Let your attorney do his/her job...but remember, take notes about issues and questions that you want your attorney to answer. Remember the officer's credibility is ALWAYS at issue!


Go Get 'Em!




Customer: replied 8 years ago.

my attorney and I have discussed the court order of jan 10, 2006 several times, .. many times, .... he understands it, I understand it. But the problem is alot of the nj municipal courts didnt want to obey it, because they would be sentencing some defendants who would come back for post conviction relief after being foun d guilty at a trial, and many defendants who would be bringing up asp[ects after their sentece was stayed under the order , after a trial, until such time state v chun weas decided by the bj supreme court. That is not a valid excuse not to obey the court otder. There is no reasonable excuse to not obey a court order, especially one from the nj supreme court, ..... below is a copy of it, keep in muind when reading it, this particular municipal court i am in piled up 92 dui cases without one trial, all pending by the time the order became moot on march 17, 2008, 26 months after the order.....

September Term 2005



v. O R D E R

JANE H. CHUN, et al.,


The Court having previously certified the within matter directly pursuant to Rule 2:12-1 and having contemporaneously appointed retired Appellate Division Presiding Judge Michael XXXXX XXXXX as Special Master,
And the Court having remanded the matter to Judge King to develop a record, conduct hearings, and report his findings and conclusions on an accelerated basis,
And the Court having concluded that it should expand on its prior Order by addressing issues that affect the prosecution of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 offenses statewide,
And good cause appearing;
IT IS ORDERED that this Order shall apply to all N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 prosecutions in Municipal Courts and appeals in the Law Division and Appellate Division of Superior Court; and it is further
ORDERED that N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 prosecutions and appeals that do not involve the use of an Alcotest device are to proceed in the normal course; and it is further
ORDERED that the prosecution and appeal of cases involving repeat offenders under the statute shall proceed in the normal course, and sentences imposed on such defendants shall not be stayed unless the conviction is based solely on Alcotest device readings; and it is further
ORDERED that first offender prosecutions involving the use of an Alcotest device shall proceed to trial based on clinical evidence when available, including but not limited to objective observational evidence, as well as the relevant Alcotest readings; and it is further
ORDERED that at the conclusion of each such first offender trial, if the court determines that the defendant is guilty of an N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 offense, it shall include, whenever applicable, an articulation of the alternative bases for that finding when imposing a sentence pursuant to the statute, see State v. Sisti, 209 N.J.Super. 148, 151 (App.Div. 1986), State v. Kashi, 360 N.J.Super. 538, 544 (App.Div. 2003); and it is further
ORDERED that the execution of sentences imposed on first offenders shall be stayed pending disposition of the within appeal unless the court determines, after considering the severity of the incident and the prior record of the defendant, that the public interest requires the immediate execution of the sentence; and it is furtherORDERED that any and all requests for a reliability hearing in respect of Alcotest devices are stayed pending the filing of the Court's final decision herein, at which time all pending challenges to an Alcotest device's reliability shall be decided consistent with the Court's disposition; and it is further
ORDERED that any and all orders of municipal courts and the Superior Court, including but not limited to the December 12, 2005, orders of Judge Walter R. Barisonek, A.J.S.C., (State v. Casey L. Grogan) and Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis, A.J.S.C. (State v. Michael Dilger, et al.) are vacated to the extent that they conflict with this Court's Order of December 14, 2005, as modified and supplemented by the within Order; and it is further
ORDERED that consistent with the Court's prior reminder in its December 14, 2005, Order that
all Superior Court and Municipal Court judges before whom N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 proceedings are pending, or before whom such proceedings are brought during the pendency of this appeal, must ensure that the Court's Guidelines for Operation of Plea Agreements in the Municipal Courts of New Jersey are strictly enforced,

a defendant who challenges the use of Alcotest-related evidence may enter a conditional guilty plea pursuant to Rule 7:6-2(c), reserving the right to apply for relief from the municipal court should the appeal before the Court result in a determination that the Alcotest devices are not reliable; and it is further
ORDERED that the Acting Administrative Director of the Courts shall circulate this Order forthwith to all judges of the municipal courts and the Superior Court, Law Division and Appellate Division.

WITNESS, the Honorable Deborah T. Poritz, Chief Justice, at Trenton, this 10th day of January, 2006.

/s/ Stephen W. Townsend
Clerk of the Supreme Court


Expert:  xavierjd replied 8 years ago.



It seems, based on the facts as you presented them, and the SC Order, that you may have a shot at an appeal, if necessary. But remember, there are unfortunately, no guarantees. Just give it your best shot!




Customer: replied 8 years ago.

Notice, at the end of the Order, the supreme court is telling the acting admistrative director of the courts to circulate this Order. That person is XXXXX XXXXX. ...... In Nov of this year I emailed my United States Congressman, XXXXX XXXXX (r) (20 years in service) about the delay. Smith sent it to a NJ State Senator, who sent it to my State Senator, Jennifer Beck (r). Beck's office than tried to contact the municipal court several times about the delay, were stonewalled, so they called XXXXX XXXXX, and sent Anderson everything I wrote to Beck. Now all of a sudden my case is important. The case should have been important on September 17, 2005!

Expert:  xavierjd replied 8 years ago.
Interesting what happens when you grease the wheels!
Customer: replied 8 years ago.
Well, in NJ MUNICIPAL COURTS, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO WHO HAS TIME TO ACTUALLY DO THEIR JOBS UNDER THE LAW, THE RIGHT WAY, ....not just the judges and prosecutors, but it is on the system itself, the towns, the budgets, .. the logistics of handling not guilty cases. By law all of this is on the State, even the courts is on the State, because the courts are part of the tripartate system of government, which is the STATE. I did not ask for ANDERSON TO BE INVOLVED, I ONLY ASKED BECK WHAT SHE THOUGHT ABOUT SUCH A DELAY, NOT SUPRISINGLY NO EMAIL RESPONSE WAS MADE, ONLY PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH HER AIDE, and i asked how they , the senator, can help me. Instead of replying how they can help, they went ahead and contacted Anderson, .... i guess that was OK, cause , if you read my barkewr v wingo arguement, you would understand why........Now, THE AIDE TOLD ME A STORY, OF A 17 YEAR OLD KID, THAT VIOLATED PROBATION FOR MARIJUANA POSSESSION, AND WAS PUT IN COUNTY JAIL, FOR 30 DAYS, IN A CELL WITH A MAN THAT WAS WAITING A MURDER TRIAL FOR CHOPPING HIS GRANDMOTHERS HEAD OFF and using it as a basketball. The accused murdered wanted to kid to write his book on it, and told him everything,... when he found out the kid was going to trstify, the kid got beaten to an inch of his life in jail, and put put in protective custody, ..... the only problem was, no judge in the state knew where he was in the jail system, and couldnt release him at the time of release, because no one knew where he was, ........ the family contacted senator Beck, who in turn contacted Anderson, who had the kid out within hours of hearinbg what happened, ...... that case and my case are the only 2 time Beck's office had to contact Anderson.
Expert:  xavierjd replied 8 years ago.
Again, Good Luck!
Customer: replied 8 years ago.
Now, the judge and prosecutor in question, in the first court, may try to explain away the delay, .. but in doing so, they are going to wind up having to explain away 92 cases they piled up during the 26 month life of the court order. Now, some of those cases were conditional guilty pleaee under the Order, which are OK, but a number are cases of not guilty, which were not tried under the order. I talked to several attorneys with cases in this court who all told me that trials were stayed by this court, pending state v chun. Well. that is obstruction of justice, in violation of my rights, your rights, their rights, my neighbors rights, and every citizen's rights, that court orders are obeyed. It is reversable error, because this violation is what directly caused the speedy trial violation. Again, you read my barker v wingo arguement, you would understand my losses. And yet, State v Farrell says i do not even have to show prejudice, .... but i will , ....because this is prevealant to what happened to me. Now, one point, i was sitting court court on April 30, and saw a pro se defendant that had entered a conditional guilty pleas yerars earlier, under Chun, being told this was the day of sentence now, ....this man was a foreinger, and had no idea his rights were being violated by the prosecutor, by the prosecutor not giving him the required calulation sheet in the final decision in state v chun, and not offering the foundational documents, which are required, regardless of anything! On that date I also observed 6 defendants in a row going up to the bench and having their cases dismissed by the judge who simply said, the reading is 0,00 bac, case dismissed, not even articulating why. some of these must have been to the calcultion sheet being out of tolerance ( 1 in 12 are ) , and also the 20 minute rule , which i did hear the judge say 3 times i guess to these defendantsa as rthe reason the case was dismissed. On that date, april 30th 2008, the 14th appearance of now 20, I sdat in court for 4 hours, finally being sent home being told, discovery not complete, at then 31 1/2 months into the case.
Customer: replied 8 years ago.
heck, the State still has yet to do the required calcultions of the 4 BAC readings, and have the Court verify it, in my case. What is the problem here? I did the calculations within 10 minutes of reading the final decision in March, ..... but the burden is not on me or my attorney to do the calcultions to determine if the tolerance range is OK, as put forth in the final decision of State of v chun, suffice it to say, my readings were bearly in range, and probably show some problem with my breath test. .....I think we go to trial tomorrow and after my written motion/brief. affidavit is handed to the court, my defense handle everything under cross, and when the officer/state does not have the calculation sheet, we immediatley orally motion to have the BAC thrown out, .... and we use the same type of defense all the way through, because there are holes in the States case everywhere. , ... i have the right to make the defense based on everything and anything, not just limited to one or 2 things, and in this case, it is hundreds of aspects that are out of whack, .....
Expert:  xavierjd replied 8 years ago.

Let your attorney (that's what s/he's being paid for) do his/her job at trial. Your job is to be able to assist in your defense, and not allow the prosecutor or judge SEE YOU SWEAT.

Hang in there!

Customer: replied 8 years ago.

my ARGUEMENT FOR PREJUDICE IS TO LET IT ALL HANG OUT AS TO STRESS ANXIETY, AND DEPRESSION, i should not , nor will not., put on a show that i am ok..... I must be real, I have to show any way i can what the delay has done to me, ...... it is not contrived, or set up, it is real, and i will not hide it, .... it is a foundation of the predjudice argument, that the delay has driven me crazy, .. and i will not put on a facade that everything is ok when it is not! I SEEM TO BE THE ONLY PARY WILLING TIO BE HONEST IN THIS CASE,L BUT BELEIVE YOU ME, I WILL CONTINUE TO WEAR MY HEART ON MY SLEEVE, NO MATTER WHAT.

Expert:  xavierjd replied 8 years ago.
Again, the only other thing I can do for you is wish you the best with your trial.