Arresting officer database.  “When I was a public defender in the Bronx, we started a database on undercover cops to see how unique their reports were.  It turns out, not so much.  I used this idea in DUI cases to start my own database.  It led to finding one officer who did in fact cut and paste part of his report.  Three cases were dismissed.  What you can find is not only cut and pasted reports, but you will find out just how accurate an officer is in field sobriety tests.  Suppose you find that the officer gave FST’s, arrested 10 people, but only 2 were actually over .08.  Then this officer is only 20% accurate in FST’s.  This database is so simple you will need less than an hour to build it.  I set up the headers as follows….”  §1:90

Voir dire slides.  “The following power point slides were developed to deal with limited time for voir dire.  Simply put one up on a screen or poster board and ask each juror to give his or her numerical position.  After every three or four jurors, re-read the question out loud to stop an avalanche of following the answer given by the preceding person.  Either you, or even better your client, can input the score for each juror.  The higher the score, the better the juror.  This can be done so quickly that the prosecutor is not able to keep up.  They then will not necessarily know that the low score are the jurors they want.  The beauty of this system is by creating a simple score card to record the number of the answer chosen by each juror, you can tell who you do and who you do not like.”  §2:80

Opening statements.  “Play the emotion card first.  Let’s face it, DUI trials are emotional.  DUI is the only political crime in the country.  Name another criminal offense that can be prosecuted with no harm to property or person.  There is none.  The emotion/bias/prejudice card will be played; if you have a chance to lay it down first do so.  For example….”  §3:05

Pattern cross examination questions.  “Cross examination is testimony by the attorney for as long as necessary, broken in to individual points that are consistently affirmed by the witness.  Each sentence, (and I do mean sentence, as cross should almost never be an actual question) should contain as few words as necessary to make the point.  Only one point should be made in each sentence.  The point should be phrased in the affirmative.  After several points have been established, the thrust should be reiterated.  Here is a group of questions that should provide 80% of what you need….”  §4:01

How to start your cross.  “The stage is set.  All eyes are upon you and what you do.  Nothing.  Play it cool.  Become the officer’s friend and supporter.  Set the trap and wait.  Start by offering the most disarming array of questions you can: officer safety.  The witness is totally unprepared for this.  It is not only obviously true, it is solicitous.  You are the enemy, yet you care, you know, you help.  In one simple question you have disarmed the officer.  How can he or she respond with “deadly force” when you have not shown any weapon?”  §4:02

A radical approach to SFST’s.  “Let’s look at this approach with the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests.  There are as many ways to approach these as there are attorneys, but I suggest a rather radical approach: have the officer perform them. I know we are taught never to ask a question, or conduct an experiment, in court to which we do not know the answer or outcome.  But I submit, you cannot lose by having the officer perform the SFST’s.  …  I always start with this test as it is the easiest to explain so it leaves the officer with little time to prepare.  It is the hardest to do when you are tired, and the officer “cheat” is easy to spot.  By ‘cheat’ I mean that officers know if….”  §4:03

SFST expert’s direct examination advice.  “By not asking me each little detail on how the officer administered the standardized field sobriety tests it will make us look good.  By not belaboring the tests (other than we flat cannot trust them) we will not look like we are flailing away.  Let the prosecutor ask about the details.  My experience is that the prosecutor will ask me for those details and it’s a double edge sword for her. By asking for the specifics of what was done wrong she is admitting there may be mistakes and that they matter. When she asks, I’ll drive it home.”  §5:25   

Airblank fallacy.  “Breath machines perform an air blank between tests.  This is where the machine purges the sample chamber by bringing in air from the room through the breath hose, and pushing it through the sample chamber to “clean” it out.  In order to prove this worked, the machine then allegedly measures the sample chamber and prints a result of “0.00” to show no alcohol.  Sounds great.  We learned that it was all a lie.  The machine was not in fact cleaning out the chamber and ensuring no alcohol remained.  Instead, it was measuring what alcohol was left, and resetting itself to consider that residual a zero.  Supposedly the software then deducted this number from the next result.  Of course, since the manufacturers hid this from everyone, no one ever had the chance to test to see if the math was actually being carried out.”  §5:52 

Rising alcohol defense.  “This last step is greatly aided by the disconnect theory. The disconnect theory is the concept that any outward manifestations showing a lack of impairment, such as good field sobriety test performance, do not agree with subsequent alcohol levels. In other words, if the guy looks sober, how can he be so drunk?  The disconnect theory requires either good performance on SFST’s, refusal to submit to SFST’s, or explainable failure on SFST’s, and relatively few or explainable “objective symptoms.”  For more on these concepts see the subdivision below.”  §5:61 

Springing the medical condition trap.  “Now the DA will comeback with questions pertaining to that night.  The DA will attempt to show that the doctor has no knowledge of whether or not the condition was “active” at the time in question to compromise the test.  This is a gold mine waiting to be tapped.  Prepare your expert to answer as follows….”  §5:82  

Huser’s totality chart.  “Troy Huser from Kansas spent untold hours going through all of the SFST manuals for all of the “circumstances” an officer could use in his or her totality formula.  The following chart is what he came up with.  Try to get a few answers from the officer before you unveil the chart.  Put up your chart and start questioning the officer going right down the line.  Put a mark in one of the two columns.  If the officer is not sure, give it to him.  There are so many impairment clues that will not be observed that giving the officer the benefit will make you look good and have no real effect.”  §8:25 

Demonstrating witness unresponsiveness.  “So your client can not afford much more than your fee.  You are new and have no access to print shops, power point pros or major exhibits.  There is still a lot of good demonstrative evidence you can use to drive home critical points in your trials.  Let’s start with the simple concept of the prosecution witnesses not answering you as well as they did the DA.  Merely pointing this out to the jury is good, but a visual aid is better.  Take a look at the following chart based on an idea from Gary Trichter of Texas.”  §8:40