The Burden of Proof for a Texas DWI

What's a solid test for an effective DWI Attorney ? For starters, they had better be able to clearly demonstrate how high the Burden of Proof is to a jury. So lets talk about the state's burden of proof in a Texas DWI (also known as DUI) and see what that could mean to you.

The simple fact is that the burden of proof is a subjective concept. If a lawyer is ineffective at educating a jury what "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" really means, then it will take less evidence (and less convincing from the prosecutor) to convict you. It is not necessarily what the lawyer says; rather, it is the manner in which he says it that is most important. I attribute my success to my ability to help jurors realize just how high a burden "beyond a reasonable doubt" is.

The following is an example how I demonstrate what "beyond a reasonable doubt: means to jurors, and as you can tell, it is a very high burden.

The State of Texas must prove your guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the highest burden of proof in the justice system. By comparison, the lowest burden of proof is called probable cause. This level of proof is less then a 50-50 chance that you violated the law, but is all the officer needs to write you a ticket, or to arrest you

The next highest burden of proof is called a preponderance of the evidence. This amount of proof occurs in civil courtrooms where people are suing each other for money. A preponderance of the evidence is proof amounting to you being 51% correct.

The next highest burden of proof is called clear and convincing evidence. This burden applies to child custody cases. This amount of proof will cause a juror to have a "firm belief" in the matter to be proved. To let the jury understand just how high this burden is, I find two women on the jury panel. I then will ask: "Ms. Jones, I want you to look over at Ms. Smith sitting next to you. She has children. How much evidence do you think the government would have to have before they could take Ms. Smiths' children away from her?" I ask several other jurors the same question. I then ask "Ms. Jones, how much evidence would the government have to have to take your kids away from you?" I record their answers and will use them in my final argument. Jurors have told me that the amount of evidence the government would need to take children away would have ranged from "a whole lot," "tons," "beyond a shadow of a doubt," to "I don't think the government could ever have enough to take my kids away!"

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the highest burden of proof. Although not defined, it is a much higher burden than clear and convincing evidence. Why? Your freedom is on the line! A jury must have more then "tons" of evidence that you were intoxicated before they could find you guilty. This is a very simple, yet extremely convincing manner of making a jury understand just how much evidence is required before they can convict a person, thus branding them a criminal for the rest of their life.

Simply put, if a juror has a single doubt, based on reason, as to a person being intoxicated, they must follow the law and find them not guilty.

If, after meeting with the lawyer, you do not have a comfortable feeling with their ability to listen and communicate with you, do you think the jury would feel comfortable with them? If you do not, I would suggest you search for a different DWI lawyer .

Know you rights! Whether searching for a Texas DWI Lawyer in Houston or Dallas, be sure you know the right questions to ask.