Visit Bob Battle's Website

Get my banner code or create your own banner

Marlins' Willis Arrested for DUI and Refusal

Florida Marlins pitcher Dontrelle Willis was arrested Friday on a drunken driving charge along a Miami Beach street lined with nightclubs, police said. A police officer saw Willis get out of his Bentley and urinate in the street arounf 4:30 a.m. The officer noted that Willis failed a sobriety test, could not keep his balance, and had a "strong smell of alcohol." (Note- alcohol has no odor.)
Willis later refused a breath test.
To read more click here.

If "The Night Before Christmas" was Written by a Lawyer

I hope you enjoy this version of "The Night Before Christmas" in Legalese. Merry Christmas. If I can leave you with my Christmas wish, it is that we will teach and develop religious tolerance. In my opinion and belief, religious intolerance is not a Christian way of viewing others. I wish this belief were shared by Mel Gibson and fellow Virginian Virgil Goode. I will pray for them on Christmas Eve. (I gave up on Jerry Falwell a long time ago!) Have a happy, healthy and safe holiday.

THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS in Legalese

Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter "the House") a general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to a mouse.

A variety of foot apparel, e.g., stocking, socks, etc., had been affixed by and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick a/k/a St. Nicholas a/k/a Santa Claus (hereinafter "Claus") would arrive at sometime thereafter.

The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House were located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein vision of confectionery treats, including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums, did dance, cavort and otherwise appear in said dreams.

Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to as ("I"), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with the party of the second part (hereinafter "Mamma"), and said Mamma had retired for a sustained period of sleep. (At such time, the parties were clad in various forms of headgear, e.g., kerchief and cap.)

Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the unimproved real property adjacent and appurtenant to said House, i.e., the lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause and/or circumstance. The party of the first part did immediately rush to a window in the House to investigate the cause of such disturbance.

At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter "the Vehicle") being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by approximately eight (8) reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be and in fact was, the previously referenced Claus. Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and guidance to the approximately eight (8) reindeer and specifically identified the animal co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzen (hereinafter "the Deer"). (Upon information and belief, it is further asserted that an additional co- conspirator named "Rudolph" may have been involved.)

The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the Deer intentionally and willfully trespass upon the roofs of several residences located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys and other items of unknown origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered said House via the chimney.

Said Claus was clad in a red fur suit, which was partially covered with residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant violation of local ordinances and health regulations.

Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the stocking of the minor children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other small gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute "gifts" to said minor pursuant to the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code.)

Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew, rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as "lookouts." Claus immediately departed for an unknown destination.

However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer and Claus from said House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim: "Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!" Or words to that effect.

Marijuana Top U.S. Cash Crop, Policy Analyst Says

A study released Monday by an advocate of medical marijuana use said that U.S. growers produced nearly $35 billion worth of marijuana annually, making the illegal drug the country's largest cash crop. This figure is larger than that for corn and wheat combined.

The report, conducted by Jon Gettman, a public policy analyst and former head of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, also concluded that five United States states produce more than $1 billion worth of marijuana apiece: California, Tennessee, Kentucky, Hawaii and Washington.

Gettman, who waged an unsuccessful six-year battle to force the government to remove marijuana from a list of drugs deemed to have no medical value, based his figures on several government reports between 2002 and 2005 estimating the United States produced more than 10,000 metric tons of marijuana annually.

To read more, click here.

MADD Uses Donations to Buy Beer for Virginia DUI Defense Lawyer!

Yesterday, I received a fundraising letter from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Richmond Area Annual Fund Campaign. The letter was sent from their headquarters in Irving, Texas. The letter was filled with lots of hyperbole and exclamation points and urged me to join the fight against "America's drunk driving nightmare." (Despite what the letter implicates, I have previously posted that drunk driving deaths have decreased in Virginia.)

The letter included a real check for $2.50 with the following advertising copy, "You can cash it if you choose, but I'm counting on you not to. To be honest I needed to get your attention and I felt the check was a good way to do that. It may not seem like much- $2.50- but you wouldn't simply overlook that sum, would you?" The letter went on to state that MADD is going to send a petition to Governor Kaine asking for "increased sobriety checkpoints, stiffer penalties for providing alcohol to minors, and prosecuting repeat offenders to the extent provided by law." I believe the well-paid copywriter meant to say, "prosecuting repeat offenders to the full extent provided by law."

The letter then states: "You see, we've seen a serious decline in contributions and were worried that some of our life-saving programs will suffer in the months ahead." There may be a very good reason for the decline in contributions. The public is becoming increasingly aware that MADD has a very poor rating for its extremely high costs of administration and fund raising versus the amount of money that actually goes to charity. California DUI guru Lawrence Taylor, a long-time critic of MADD, was kind enough to let me share with you his post on this issue, originally reported in his blog- www.duiblog.com.

As I've posted repeatedly in the past, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a self-serving beaurocracy focused equally on Prohibition and cash. According to their own IRS statements, the U.S. organization alone brings in over $50 million a year in contributions -- and, according to watchdog Charity Navigator, has a low 2-star efficiency rating out of 4 (the Director of Program and Development, for example, is paid $152,408 a year).
It would appear that MADD's sister organization to the north is similarly oriented:

MADD Rejects 'Disgruntled' Critics

Charity's CEO dismisses volunteers' complaints that so little of donations go to programs

Toronto, Dec. 10 -- MADD Canada's top official has called a group of relatives of drunk driving victims who complained about his charity "disgruntled" and lashed out at the Star for exposing its high fundraising and administrative costs...

A story published in the Saturday Star revealed that Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada has such high costs that only about 19 cents of every dollar goes to victim services and the fight against drunk driving.

In addition to a detailed analysis of MADD's financial records, the story was based on interviews with leading volunteers of MADD who all work with the charity because they lost a loved one to a drunk driver.
The volunteers believe in the counselling and public awareness work of their local chapters but agreed to speak out against the charity's administration to force a change and restore confidence in what was once a low-cost, grassroots charity.
In his news release, (MADD CEO Andrew) Murie dismissed their complaints and said they are "obviously disgruntled with the organization."...

Yesterday, more than 100 MADD donors contacted the Star to say they had been suspicious of MADD's fundraising practices due to the high volume of telemarketing calls and other fundraising contacts they receive, sometimes monthly. MADD has numerous paid fundraising campaigns, using paid telemarketers, a company that sends people knocking on doors, a direct mail company and a company that distributes chocolate mint boxes around the province.
"I am absolutely furious at reading what MADD is doing with donors' dollars," said Joyce Williamson, 77, a widow who has made frequent $25 donations to MADD for many years.
When she learned from the Star article that so little of her cheque was going to charitable works, she decided not to give to MADD again.
She said MADD's paid door and phone canvassers used "emotional blackmail" by pressing her on the phone or at the door with numerous stories of drunk driving fatalities. The Star's story revealed that telemarketers work off a script that encourages them to press prospective donors three successive times after the person has said "no."

The Star's investigation found the paid fundraisers take most of the money, and send the remainder to head office.

And the "War on Drunk Driving" goes on...

-Lawrence Taylor

So, I know you are wondering-what did I do with the check for $2.50? Of course, I cashed it and used it to buy a beer at 7-11 and raised a toast to people like Larry Taylor who are willing to tell the truth and are willing to request that the public and legislatures use a little more common sense and a lot more Constitution in examining what is an extremely complicated issue.

I would never contribute a dime to a charity that doesn't rate at least 3 stars on Charity Navigator. For those of you who may have contributed to MADD- you know that $2.50 went to whet my whistle, now you should demand an explanation why so much of the remaining $49,999,997.50 was spent on salaries and fundraising.

Henrico County Police Officer Receives Slap on the Wrist for Stealing and Dealing Marijuana

An ex-Henrico County, VA, police officer who was caught stealing marijuana from the Henrico County police evidence room and providing some of it to his wife, received no jail time and a $100 fine pursuant to a plea bargain. The officer, Charles Harpster, was originally charged with felony charges of drug distribution and obtaining drugs by fraud. Harpster initially came under suspicion of being involved with the "hippy lettuce" when he was constantly telling his fellow officers that he was tired of doughnuts and would prefer picking up a bag of Doritos at the local 7-11! (Sorry, that line was just too easy!)

In one of the more bizarre (and useless and unnecessary) special conditions of a sentence I have ever seen, Harpster agreed that he would not serve as a police officer for at least 10 years. Harpster, age 51, had been an officer in Henrico County for 30 years and was preparing to retire at the time he was caught stealing the marijuana. Unless he was considering applying for a job in the Henry County Sheriff's Department (see "Grand Jury Indicts Virginia Sheriff, Deputies") there probably aren't a lot of openings in law enforcement for 51-year-olds who have been fired for stealing drugs from the police evidence room and distributing the drugs to others!

To read more on this topic, click here

Virginia DUI-Related Deaths Down for Third Straight Year

The 2005 Virginia Traffic Crash Facts report shows a decrease in alcohol-related traffic fatalities for the third straight year. Additionally, fatalities and injuries resulting from teen alcohol-related crashes both saw double digit decreases in the past year. The document is the result of cooperative efforts of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the Virginia Department of State Police (VSP), and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).

The DMV press release also points out that "(n)ew legislation over the past several years makes Virginia home to some of the toughest DUI laws in the country. Increased DUI checkpoints, higher fines and mandatory jail terms have helped heighten awareness of drunk-driving enforcement in the Commonwealth."

To read more about this report, click here.

New Prison Comedy Movie No Laughing Matter

In addition to his law practice, Richmond DUI and traffic lawyer Bob Battle has gained international attention for what he does when he is not practicing law- as a professional comedian and actor, as the press box announcer for the Washington Redskins, and even as a model for the tabloid Weekly World News. ("Woman Has Twins by Different Fathers!") As a result, he is in great demand as a speaker- both as a comedian and as an expert on the art of persuasion. Bob is converting his popular lecture "Winning Your Trial With Style: Teaching Lawyers the Untaught Art of Persuasion" into a book. Here he comments on a new movie about prison which is being marketed with the phrase "Don't Drop the Soap."

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports that prisoner advocates are protesting a new film that makes light of what an expert has called one of the major untreated human-rights abuses in America today.


"Let's Go to Prison," a comedy released by Universal Pictures this month, is being marketed with the phrase: "Don't drop the soap."
That has angered Keith DeBlasio, founder of AdvoCare Inc., a nonprofit organization promoting criminal-justice reform, prompting him to write a Nov. 19 letter to Vivendi Universal Entertainment's president and CEO, Ron Meyer.
DeBlasio asked: "Would you promote a comedy that makes fun of women being raped? I hope the answer is, 'No.' Would you use the sexual molestation of a child as a way to gain a few laughs? I don't think so. So why is it so easy for you to chuckle at something that is so devastating to the actual victims?"

"I am one of those victims," wrote DeBlasio, who has also called the company's public relations offices. Other groups, including Virginia Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants and Stop Prisoner Rape, are upset by the movie.
Universal representatives did not return calls yesterday.

The movie's Web site, http://www.letsgotoprison.com/, notes that there are about 2.2 million inmates in U.S. jails and prisons and then states that, "While a sad statement on poverty, crime and our legal system . . . it also provides a few writers with very twisted senses of humor one undeniable thing: fodder for dark comedy."

In a statement released Monday, Lovisa Stannow, co-executive director of Stop Prisoner Rape, complained, "Sexual violence in detention shatters human dignity and derails justice, but as long as late-night television shows, sitcoms, and movies deem this type of abuse amusing, there will be no public outcry to end it"

In 1996, two years after DeBlasio entered the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Mich., the leader of a gang started making passes at him. DeBlasio was convicted of interstate trafficking of forged securities and embezzlement.
The 6-foot, 2-inch, 210-pound DeBlasio, who would later serve time in a Virginia prison, was forcibly raped more than 30 times over two months by the inmate, who was armed with a knife and had AIDS.

As someone who has performed as a professional comedian and represented clients who have been raped in prison, I am absolutely amazed at the marketing of this movie and comments about "dont' drop the soap", "dark comedy" and "twisted" comedy. Most of my favorite comics are constantly on the edge and far from clean. I am thinking of Richard Pryor and Bill Hicks. There is a fine line between edgy comedy and tasteless comedy. The subject of prison rape is not close to that fine line- it is just not funny.

This issue brings back several random thoughts. As a comic, I have performed for the Retired FBI Special Agents National Convention and for the DC Rape Crisis Event. Prior to each I got bizarre phone calls from the persons who hired me. Before the FBI gig, I was reminded not to do any J. Edgar Hoover jokes. I assured the gentleman who hired me that there were no J. Edgar in a dress jokes in my set for the evening. Even stranger, before the DC Rape Crisis Event, I was reminded not to do any jokes about rape. I told the woman that there was nothing funny about rape and I do not have any jokes about rape. I thought it was strange that I was asked, but I guess after reading about this movie, there are producers in Hollywood who have now "greenlighted" such a project with jokes about prison rape and call it twisted and dark!

As a grade schooler, Mike Morrison and I would often ask Wakefield High School janitor David Vasquez to let us into the gym to play basketball when the weather was bad outside. Vasquez (as he was known) would say very little and mumble what he did say, but he was nice enough to always let us in. It was well known that Vasquez was slow mentally. Fast forward about a decade and a woman is murdered in the house she purchased from the Morrisons. A police officer sees Vasquez walking by. He badgers him and badgers him in a police interview room. He screams at Vasquez that he knows he killed the woman. Confused, Vasquez says it must have happened in a dream. He asks Vasquez how he killed her. He is wrong several times and the detective yells, "No, you strangled her with the blinds." Vasquez begins telling this version of the story. At trial, the jury never hears of how the entire "confession" occured, just that Vasquez admitted he strangled this woman with the blinds. He is convicted of murder and spends many years behind bars. He is raped and abused in prison. Eventually, the real killer is found and Vasquez is released. (Note: false confessions and the push to require all interrogations to be recorded are fascinating topics. But that, Little Adam, is another blog post!)

There is no accounting for taste, but public opinion can make a difference. Just look at O.J. Simpson's new book. So please don't go to see "Let's Go to Prison." Go see something less offensive- like Borat! Or maybe you can catch Michael "Kramer" Richards at a comedy club near you. I am sure he has a lot of open dates on his calendar these days.




to read entire article, click here

Ex-Prosecutor Bob Battle Reveals: 8 Secrets Your Prosecutor Doesn't Want You To Know About Your Virginia DUI

1. If everyone insists on their constitutional right to go to trial, the prosecutor will be in court all day.

2. In most cases, the mandatory minimum sentences for DUI are so harsh that a defendant in a DUI trial risks absolutely nothing by going to trial. Many clients ask me if a judge will penalize them with a harsher sentence if they assert their right to trial. The Virginia legislature has now raised the minimum sentence for all DUI cases to such a high level, that, if you decide to go to trial on your case, in most instances, as a practical matter, you are going to get the same sentence as the person who pleads guilty.

3. The prosecutor doesn’t want to be there. No one takes a job at a prosecutor’s office because they fantasized about prosecuting in traffic court! In most jurisdictions, the prosecutors would rather be prosecuting their felony cases than handling a traffic court docket. Furthermore, the prosecutor has 20 to 30 other cases with attorneys on the traffic court docket that they must handle that day. When I was a prosecutor in Fairfax County, there would be at least five traffic courts with five different prosecutors going on every day. The first prosecutor to arrive would get to pick which courtroom they would be in. The only consideration on every prosecutor’s mind was to pick the judge that was known to be the fastest, so they could be through with court as soon as possible.

4. The prosecutor is unprepared. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in Virginia, prosecutors do not look into traffic cases ahead of time. Most of my clients are shocked when I tell them that it is impossible for me to contact a prosecutor with knowledge about their case prior to the court date to discuss their case, because the prosecutors do not look into the cases ahead of time. In most jurisdictions, if someone shows up without an attorney, the prosecutor does not get involved. Thus, it is impossible for someone attempting to represent himself in these jurisdictions to discuss a possible plea bargain with the prosecutor, because the prosecutor will not speak to them. In some jurisdictions, such as Virginia Beach, there is not even a prosecutor for any traffic case, even a DUI with an attorney!

5. The police officer is unprepared.Your case is just one of an entire docket full of cases that the officer has on that date. It is not unusual for an officer to have 5 to 10 DUI cases on one date in addition to dozens of other traffic tickets. The officer often has little if any recollection of your arrest. That becomes apparent time and time again in court when I object to an officer testifying by reading from his notes and, after my objection is sustained by the judge, the officer clearly has no independent recollection of the arrest.

6. Most prosecutors know very little about the science (or lack thereof) behind field sobriety testing. At no time during law school does the professor ever say, “Today we’re going to learn about standardized field sobriety testing.” A thorough knowledge of these tests would actually hurt their cases and prevent them from making arguments that I routinely hear prosecutors make to judges while trying to argue that the results of these tests should be given more weight than they were ever intended to. For example, the three standardized field sobriety tests were only used to predict a BAC of .10 or above. Since the legal limit is now .08, there is almost no weight that a judge could give to these tests on someone with a BAC of .08 or .09.

7. The police officer did not follow proper procedures for the field sobriety tests. If a police officer receives proper training about field sobriety tests, they will be told the proper standards and procedures according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”). However, for example, on the “follow the pen with your eyes” test (the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, or HGN), the manual says that if the suspect moves his head during the test, the officer should use his flashlight or his free hand as a chin rest of the suspect. In 22 years of practicing law, I have never seen an officer use anything as a chin rest for a suspect, even though in the vast majority of those cases the officer testifies that the suspect was swaying and unsteady on his feet! The manual also states that the walk-and-turn and one-leg stand test should not be done if the suspect is over 50 pounds overweight or has physical impairments that could affect his balance. The manual also states that the walk-and-turn test “requires a line that the suspect can see.” This is rarely done.

8. The breath testing equipment is inaccurate. The breath testing machine is just that- a machine. The machine uses an assumption to calculate the amount of alcohol in a person's blood based on the amount of alcohol that is released into a person's breath. The amount can vary from between 1100 and 3200. However, the machine uses a standard ratio of 2200, the average between the two. If you exchange alcohol at the 1100 rate, the machine gives a reading twice as high as it should. On the other hand, if you exchange at the 3200 rate, it gives a reading half as high as it should. In any event, the principle is flawed and readings can vary up to 50% from the actual breath content. The manufacturers of the Intoxilyzer 5000 have flat out refused to reveal their source codes to defense attorneys. The source codes are basically the mathematical formula that the machine uses to convert a small sample of breath to a blood alcohol content number. Courts in Florida have already ruled that this refusal is a basis to dismiss DUI prosecutions. Virginia appeals courts have yet to rule on this issue.