In criminal cases, “win” has various definitions. From one perspective, any outcome that results in less than the maximum punishment is a win. DUI cases offer a great deal of flexibility here. If the state’s evidence is strong, a St. Paul criminal defense attorney can often arrange a penalty offset. For example, the state might reduce the drivers’ licenses suspension period if the defendant pays a larger fine.

If the state’s evidence is weak, the defendant has even more negotiating leverage. Many times, a St. Paul DUI attorney might engineer a plea to reckless driving or another lesser-included offense. Although it is still a misdemeanor, reckless driving does not have the same collateral consequences as DUI.

However, to most people, “winning” a DUI usually means a not-guilty verdict at trial. While every case is different, there are some statistics which offer insight into this question. The numbers vary according to the type of DUI.

Blood Test

In DUI arrests, officers may obtain search warrants and extract blood samples from defendants. Statistically, blood test DUIs are not quite legal slam dunks, but they are close. The state wins over 95 percent of these cases.

The limited defenses often involve either procedural issues or different re-test outcomes.

From an evidentiary standpoint, DUI blood sample cases have lots of moving parts. The sample usually goes from a remote clinic to a police lab to the police station to the courthouse. Along the way, people often forget to log the evidence properly, or they may make other handling mistakes.

Since the blood test preserves the sample, a St. Paul criminal defense attorney can demand a re-test. Many times, the results of this examination are different from the results that the police technician claimed to have found.

Breath Test

These cases are also hard to win, from an absolute standpoint. The state prevails in about 85 percent of the DUI trials which involve Breathalyzer test results.

There are several reasons that the breath test conviction rate is lower than the blood test conviction rate, even though they are both chemical tests. Today’s Breathalyzer uses basically the same technology as a 1950s Drunk-o-Meter. If you wanted to watch the Super Bowl, would you rather watch it on a cutting-edge flatscreen TV or one of those black-and-white tube sets from the I Love Lucy days?

Moreover, the Breathalyzer does not measure Blood Alcohol Content, which is the legal standard in Minnesota. Instead, Breathalyzers measure breath alcohol content and use that figure to estimate BAC. That extra step is troublesome, especially if there is a specific flaw in that particular case.

• Unabsorbed Alcohol: If the defendant consumed any alcohol in the hour or so before the test, that alcohol will register in the breath, but it has not yet entered the bloodstream and affected the defendant’s mental or physical capacities.
• Mouth Alcohol: If the defendant vomited, belched, or burped in the half-hour before the test, alcohol particles from the stomach flooded the mouth. The inflated breath alcohol level may not accurately reflect the amount of alcohol in the defendant’s blood.

To highlight these general and specific flaws, St. Paul criminal defense attorneys often call chemists to the witness stand. These witnesses have much more clout with a Ramsey County jury than the Breathalyzer technicians which prosecutors rely on.

Partial Refusal

If the defendant refuses to provide a chemical sample but performs field sobriety tests, the conviction rate plummets by almost half, to roughly 45 percent.

It is almost always harder to win criminal cases with circumstantial evidence, and that’s certainly true with regard to the DUI field sobriety tests. The three approved FSTs are:

• Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus: If the subject’s pupil moves involuntarily at certain angles, the subject probably has nystagmus. But alcohol intoxication is not the only cause of nystagmus. In fact, it’s not even the leading cause. Additionally, these tests are only accurate if they take place under controlled conditions.
• Heel to Toe Walk: The test environment also affects the HTW test, which is also known as the walking-a-straight-line test. For example, it’s almost impossible for drunk or sober people to walk heel-to-toe along an imaginary line in the dark.
• One-Leg Stand: Officers often testify that the subject “failed” this test because of minor technicalities, like holding a leg at slightly the wrong angle or balancing on the incorrect leg.

Officers may also administer unapproved tests, like the Romberg balance test. But these unapproved tests have no scientific basis, so a good St. Paul criminal defense attorney can often exclude their results.

Complete Refusal

Many Ramsey County prosecutors do not even try to take complete refusal tests to trial. The conviction rate is only about 35 percent. That’s because the prosecutor must rely on even weaker circumstantial evidence of intoxications, like:

• Erratic driving,
• Bloodshot eyes,
• Slurred speech, and
• Odor of alcohol.

At best, this evidence only establishes alcohol consumption. In criminal court, there is a big difference between consumption and intoxication. And, the prosecutor must use this evidence to prove intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt. Lots of luck with that.

Connect with Experienced Lawyers

There are a number of ways to win a DUI case. For a free consultation with an experienced St. Paul criminal defense attorney, contact Capitol City Law Group, LLC. Go online now, call us at 651-705-8580, or stop by 287 6th St E, Suite 20, St Paul, MN 55101.