Kodiak DUI-DWI Lawyer, Alaska, page 3

Sponsored Law Firm


Richard Kelly Harris

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           

Richard Kelly Harris

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           

Kurt Michael Ledoux

General Practice
Status:  Deceased           Licensed:  46 Years

Alan Schmitt

General Practice
Status:  Inactive           

Alan L. Schmitt

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           

Steve W. Cole

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           

Melvin M. Stephens

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  47 Years

Matthew D. Jamin

General Practice
Status:  In Good Standing           

Karen L. Lambert

Family Law
Status:  In Good Standing           

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 Kodiak DUI-DWI Lawyers and Kodiak 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

IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TEST

A seldom-used test for criminal insanity that labels the person insane if he could not control his actions when committing the crime, even though he knew his ac... (more...)
A seldom-used test for criminal insanity that labels the person insane if he could not control his actions when committing the crime, even though he knew his actions were wrong.

IMPEACH

(1) To discredit. To impeach a witness' credibility, for example, is to show that the witness is not believable. A witness may be impeached by showing that he h... (more...)
(1) To discredit. To impeach a witness' credibility, for example, is to show that the witness is not believable. A witness may be impeached by showing that he has made statements that are inconsistent with his present testimony, or that he has a reputation for not being a truthful person. (2) The process of charging a public official, such as the President or a federal judge, with a crime or misconduct and removing the official from office.

ELEMENTS (OF A CRIME)

The component parts of crimes. For example, 'Robbery' is defined as the taking and carrying away of property of another by force or fear with the intent to perm... (more...)
The component parts of crimes. For example, 'Robbery' is defined as the taking and carrying away of property of another by force or fear with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Each of those four parts is an element that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

CONTINGENCY FEE

A method of paying a lawyer for legal representation by which, instead of an hourly or per job fee, the lawyer receives a percentage of the money her client obt... (more...)
A method of paying a lawyer for legal representation by which, instead of an hourly or per job fee, the lawyer receives a percentage of the money her client obtains after settling or winning the case. Often contingency fee agreements -- which are most commonly used in personal injury cases -- award the successful lawyer between 20% and 50% of the amount recovered. Lawyers representing defendants charged with crimes may not charge contingency fees. In most states, contingency fee agreements must be in writing.

WARRANT

See search warrant or arrest warrant.

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.

PROSECUTE

When a local District Attorney, state Attorney General or federal United States Attorney brings a criminal case against a defendant.

INSANITY

See criminal insanity.

DISCOVERY

A formal investigation -- governed by court rules -- that is conducted before trial. Discovery allows one party to question other parties, and sometimes witness... (more...)
A formal investigation -- governed by court rules -- that is conducted before trial. Discovery allows one party to question other parties, and sometimes witnesses. It also allows one party to force the others to produce requested documents or other physical evidence. The most common types of discovery are interrogatories, consisting of written questions the other party must answer under penalty of perjury, and depositions, which involve an in-person session at which one party to a lawsuit has the opportunity to ask oral questions of the other party or her witnesses under oath while a written transcript is made by a court reporter. Other types of pretrial discovery consist of written requests to produce documents and requests for admissions, by which one party asks the other to admit or deny key facts in the case. One major purpose of discovery is to assess the strength or weakness of an opponent's case, with the idea of opening settlement talks. Another is to gather information to use at trial. Discovery is also present in criminal cases, in which by law the prosecutor must turn over to the defense any witness statements and any evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant. Depending on the rules of the court, the defendant may also be obliged to share evidence with the prosecutor.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

Hewitt v. State

... Accordingly, the evidence presented at Hewitt's trial is sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. Hewitt's claim that a new jury venire should have been summoned after the trial judge mistakenly began to read the allegation in the indictment that Hewitt had prior convictions for DUI. ...

Bradley v. State

... This appeal followed. Why we find that Bradley has not shown that the superior court committed plain error when it refused to dismiss the DUI charge or to suppress the DataMaster test results. ... Why we find that there was sufficient evidence to support Bradley's conviction for DUI. ...

Baker v. State

... In 1999, the crime of DWI was defined in AS 28.35.030(a)(1) as follows: "A person commits the crime of driving while intoxicated if the person operates or drives a motor vehicle or operates an aircraft or a watercraft while under the influence of intoxicating liquor." [24] In 1999, the ...