640AM TORONTO RADIO INTERVIEW – AUGUST 04/16
Topic Is Ontario Government Allowing Alcohol Delivery From LCBO.
Lawyer Brian Starkman DUI/DWI (Ontario)
Sometimes an accused person will have an explanation as to why they may have appeared under the influence of alcohol when they really were not. For example, after a significant motor vehicle accident, a driver will often exhibit many of the same symptoms they might if they were impaired i.e. slurred speech, unsteadiness on feet. Again, a skilled lawyer can effectively bring out these alternative explanations with an eye towards creating reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge.
An experienced cross examiner will know what questions to ask and just as importantly what questions not to ask, so as to avoid bringing out information that is harmful to the case. A competent cross examiner will know what questions to ask and just as importantly what questions not to ask.
If you want to maintain your driving privileges after being charged with a drinking and driving offence, you must dispute the charge. Unlike most other criminal charges, a plea bargain is usually out of the question for a drinking and driving charge. Crown Attorneys are directed by their superiors to prosecute drinking and driving offences to their fullest extent. Therefore, if you expect to have any realistic chance of saving your licence, you will need to hire a lawyer to challenge the charges at trial.
- Impaired Driving
- Refuse Breathalyzer
- Over 80
This is the most common drinking and driving allegation. If the prosecution can prove that at the time of driving your blood alcohol level was in excess of that legal limit, you will be found guilty.
The defendant was charged with Over 80. The breath readings were so close to the legal limit that the prosecutor ultimately conceded that he may not be able to prove that the defendant was above the legal limit at the time of driving. As a result, the prosecutor withdrew the charge.
The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample into a breathalyzer. Negotiations with the prosecutor resulted in the defendant being allowed to plead guilty to Careless Driving under the Highway Traffic Act for a fine and a period of probation where the defendant must have an ignition interlock device installed in his car. The criminal charges were withdrawn.
The defendant was charged with Impaired Driving and Over 80. Negotiations with the prosecutor reached a successful conclusion. The defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offence of Careless Driving. He was required to pay a fine and to drive with an ignition interlock device in his car for a period of time. The prosecutor withdrew both criminal charges.
Please note that past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
Although not all questions may apply to your case, we do ask that you complete as many of the fields as possible to better help us understand your situation. (Fields marked with * indicated required information)
Once submitted, our office will contact you to setup a no obligation, confidential, no fee interview.
Contact Brian Starkman Today
In order to assess your chances of success at trial, please complete the following confidential questionnaire.