Ucon DUI-DWI Lawyer, Idaho


Rocky Wixom

Divorce & Family Law, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           

FREE CONSULTATION 

CONTACT

John Michael Ohman

Employment, Divorce, Criminal, Accident & Injury
Status:  In Good Standing           

Kelly D. Mallard

Criminal, Felony
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  31 Years

Tyson Nyle Raymond

Criminal, Divorce & Family Law, Estate, Lawsuit & Dispute
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  9 Years

John E. Cutler

DUI-DWI, Criminal, Personal Injury
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  35 Years

James Andrew Pendlebury

Landlord-Tenant, Estate, Divorce & Family Law, Criminal, Accident & Injury
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  24 Years

Dale P Thomson

Family Law, Criminal, Contract, Credit & Debt
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  44 Years

Greg Gaffney

Credit & Debt, Criminal, Legal Malpractice, Personal Injury, Workers' Compensation
Status:  In Good Standing           

Rocky Lawrence Wixom

Traffic, DUI-DWI, Criminal, Bankruptcy & Debt
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  24 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 Ucon DUI-DWI Lawyers and Ucon 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

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.

DIRECTED VERDICT

A ruling by a judge, typically made after the plaintiff has presented all of her evidence but before the defendant puts on his case, that awards judgment to the... (more...)
A ruling by a judge, typically made after the plaintiff has presented all of her evidence but before the defendant puts on his case, that awards judgment to the defendant. A directed verdict is usually made because the judge concludes the plaintiff has failed to offer the minimum amount of evidence to prove her case even if there were no opposition. In other words, the judge is saying that, as a matter of law, no reasonable jury could decide in the plaintiff's favor. In a criminal case, a directed verdict is a judgement of acquittal for the defendant.

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.

CHARGE

A formal accusation of criminal activity. The prosecuting attorney decides on the charges, after reviewing police reports, witness statements and any other evid... (more...)
A formal accusation of criminal activity. The prosecuting attorney decides on the charges, after reviewing police reports, witness statements and any other evidence of wrongdoing. Formal charges are announced at an arrested person's arraignment.

CAPITAL CASE

A prosecution for murder in which the jury is also asked to decide if the defendant is guilty and, if he is, whether he should be put to death. When a prosecuto... (more...)
A prosecution for murder in which the jury is also asked to decide if the defendant is guilty and, if he is, whether he should be put to death. When a prosecutor brings a capital case (also called a death penalty case), she must charge one or more 'special circumstances' that the jury must find to be true in order to sentence the defendant to death. Each state (and the federal government) has its own list of special circumstances, but common ones include multiple murders, use of a bomb or a finding that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence that proves a fact by means of an inference. For example, from the evidence that a person was seen running away from the scene of a crime, a judge or j... (more...)
Evidence that proves a fact by means of an inference. For example, from the evidence that a person was seen running away from the scene of a crime, a judge or jury may infer that the person committed the crime.

WARRANT

See search warrant or arrest warrant.

ACQUITTAL

A decision by a judge or jury that a defendant in a criminal case is not guilty of a crime. An acquittal is not a finding of innocence; it is simply a conclusio... (more...)
A decision by a judge or jury that a defendant in a criminal case is not guilty of a crime. An acquittal is not a finding of innocence; it is simply a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

JURY NULLIFICATION

A decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. Jury nullification has always been an option for ... (more...)
A decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. Jury nullification has always been an option for juries in England and the United States, although judges will prevent a defense lawyer from urging the jury to acquit on this basis. Nullification was evident during the Vietnam war (when selective service protesters were acquitted by juries opposed to the war) and currently appears in criminal cases when the jury disagrees with the punishment--for example, in 'three strikes' cases when the jury realizes that conviction of a relatively minor offense will result in lifetime imprisonment.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

State v. Cantrell

... officer smelled alcohol and suspected the defendant of DWI, performed field sobriety tests, and ultimately arrested the defendant on DWI, the subsequent ... July 1, 2009) (distinguishing the arrest for a routine traffic violation in Gant from an arrest for DUI, particularly noting that the ...

State v. DeWitt

... DeWitt was charged with misdemeanor second-time DUI. ... 2001). DeWitt argues that the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement does not apply because he was charged with misdemeanor DUI rather than a felony. This is not a persuasive argument. ...

State v. Leslie

... PERRY, Judge. Kent Jay Leslie appeals from his judgment of conviction for felony driving under the influence (DUI). ... I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE. Leslie was stopped for driving erratically and failed several field sobriety tests. He was charged with misdemeanor DUI. ...