Griggsville DUI-DWI Lawyer, Illinois, page 2


David Eugene Leefers

Traffic, DUI-DWI, Divorce, Family Law
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  48 Years

David Leefers

Traffic, DUI-DWI, Divorce, Family Law
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  48 Years

Jonathan Hurst

Family Law, Estate Planning, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  36 Years

Elliott Lee Turpin

Traffic, Estate Planning, Divorce & Family Law, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  34 Years

Elliott Turpin

Divorce & Family Law, Criminal, Estate Planning, Traffic, Estate
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  35 Years

Randall P. Bower

Divorce & Family Law, Criminal, Federal Appellate Practice, Transactions
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  45 Years

Nick Graham

Divorce & Family Law, Criminal, Banking & Finance, Bankruptcy
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  12 Years

Nick William Graham

Divorce & Family Law, Criminal, Banking & Finance, Bankruptcy
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  12 Years

Craig M. Grummel

Agriculture, Child Custody, Adoption, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  17 Years

Gerald Timmerwilke

Traffic, Divorce & Family Law, Criminal, Civil Rights
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  48 Years

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-620-0900

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Messages from all messaging and voice technologies including Email, Text, Phone, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.


Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-943-8690

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Messages from all messaging and voice technologies including Email, Text, Phone, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.

TIPS

Easily find Griggsville DUI-DWI Lawyers and Griggsville DUI-DWI Law Firms. For more attorneys, search all Criminal areas including Expungement, Felony, Misdemeanor, RICO Act, White Collar Crime, Traffic and Juvenile Law attorneys.

LEGAL TERMS

ACCOMPLICE

Someone who helps another person (known as the principal) commit a crime. Unlike an accessory, an accomplice is usually present when the crime is committed. An ... (more...)
Someone who helps another person (known as the principal) commit a crime. Unlike an accessory, an accomplice is usually present when the crime is committed. An accomplice is guilty of the same offense and usually receives the same sentence as the principal. For instance, the driver of the getaway car for a burglary is an accomplice and will be guilty of the burglary even though he may not have entered the building.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecu... (more...)
One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each element of the crime charged.

NOLO CONTENDERE

A plea entered by the defendant in response to being charged with a crime. If a defendant pleads nolo contendere, she neither admits nor denies that she committ... (more...)
A plea entered by the defendant in response to being charged with a crime. If a defendant pleads nolo contendere, she neither admits nor denies that she committed the crime, but agrees to a punishment (usually a fine or jail time) as if guilty. Usually, this type of plea is entered because it can't be used as an admission of guilt if a civil case is held after the criminal trial.

SPECIFIC INTENT

An intent to produce the precise consequences of the crime, including the intent to do the physical act that causes the consequences. For example, the crime of ... (more...)
An intent to produce the precise consequences of the crime, including the intent to do the physical act that causes the consequences. For example, the crime of larceny is the taking of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the other person of the property. A person is not guilty of larceny just because he took someone else's property; it must be proven that he took it with the purpose of keeping it permanently.

INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

Testimony or other evidence that fails to meet state or federal court rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented to a judge or jury. The main r... (more...)
Testimony or other evidence that fails to meet state or federal court rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented to a judge or jury. The main reason why evidence is ruled inadmissible is because it falls into a category deemed so unreliable that a court should not consider it as part of a deciding a case --for example, hearsay evidence, or an expert's opinion that is not based on facts generally accepted in the field. Evidence will also be declared inadmissible if it suffers from some other defect--for example, as compared to its value, it will take too long to present or risks enflaming the jury, as might be the case with graphic pictures of a homicide victim. In addition, in criminal cases, evidence that is gathered using illegal methods is commonly ruled inadmissible. Because the rules of evidence are so complicated (and because contesting lawyers waste so much time arguing over them) there is a strong trend towards using mediation or arbitration to resolve civil disputes. In mediation and arbitration, virtually all evidence can be considered. See evidence, admissible evidence.

MCNAGHTEN RULE

The earliest and most common test for criminal insanity, in which a criminal defendant is judged legally insane only if he could not distinguish right from wron... (more...)
The earliest and most common test for criminal insanity, in which a criminal defendant is judged legally insane only if he could not distinguish right from wrong at the time he committed the crime. For example, a delusional psychotic who believed that his assaultive acts were in response to the will of God would not be criminally responsible for his acts.

ARREST

A situation in which the police detain a person in a manner that, to any reasonable person, makes it clear she is not free to leave. A person can be 'under arre... (more...)
A situation in which the police detain a person in a manner that, to any reasonable person, makes it clear she is not free to leave. A person can be 'under arrest' even though the police have not announced it; nor are handcuffs or physical restraint necessary. Questioning an arrested person about her involvement in or knowledge of a crime must be preceded by the Miranda warnings if the police intend to use the answers against the person in a criminal case. If the arrested person chooses to remain silent, the questioning must stop.

INSANITY

See criminal insanity.

ARREST WARRANT

A document issued by a judge or magistrate that authorizes the police to arrest someone. Warrants are issued when law enforcement personnel present evidence to ... (more...)
A document issued by a judge or magistrate that authorizes the police to arrest someone. Warrants are issued when law enforcement personnel present evidence to the judge or magistrate that convinces her that it is reasonably likely that a crime has taken place and that the person to be named in the warrant is criminally responsible for that crime.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

People v. Van Schoyck

... objection, dismissed the three citations and recharged defendant, in an information, with driving with a blood-alcohol content over 0.08, noting in the charge the existence of the sentence-enhancing factor (driving on a revoked license), which elevated the DUI offense to ...

People v. Gonzalez

... begin there. Prior to January 1, 2006, section 11-501 provided that driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) constituted aggravated DUI in six instances, none of which are relevant to further discussion. However, section ...

People v. Prouty

... After a bench trial, defendant, Edmund T. Prouty, was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (625 ILCS 5/11 — 501(d)(1)(A) (West 2006)). ... The indictment stated that aggravated DUI was a Class 2 felony. ...