How We Neutralize the State's Most Powerful Weapon in a Refusal Case Articles / Info Posted by dpakula on Dec 05, 2008 - 08:58 PM We love refusal cases. Why? Because the prosecution's case consists mostly of the unscientific and always flawed subjective observations and opinions of law enforcement officers. In a refusal case, there is never a shortage of material for us to work with in defending our client. The state's most powerful piece of evidence in a refusal case is the refusal itself. The prosecutor is permitted to argue to the jury that the mere fact that the defendant refused the breath test leads to an inference of guilt. In other words, the state may argue to the jury that the defendant refused to take the breath test because he or she knew the result would prove intoxication. During the trial of a refusal case, it is of utmost importance for the defense to disarm the prosecution by neutralizing its most important weapon. Read on to find out how we do it. The most important part of our strategy occurs during jury selection. We ask jurors to tell us legitimate reasons why a person might refuse a breath test. During the ensuing discussion, potential jurors discover that there are several legitimate reasons for refusing a breath test other than knowledge of guilt -- distrust of the breath machine, or advice from a trusted friend, relative, police officer or lawyer, just to name a couple. During the jury selection, we are able to educate jurors, create receptivity to our message and weed out potential jurors who are convinced that a person who refuses is guilty. We weave the legitimate refusal theme into the evidence phase of the trial and our closing argument. But we are convinced that most refusal cases are won during jury selection. This article is from Florida DUI Lawyer Attorney Law Firm   http://floridaduidefender.com/ The URL for this story is:   http://floridaduidefender.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4