A third DWI charge in New Jersey carries serious consequences, and when a driver has two prior DWI convictions that can be used for sentencing purposes, the options available to the defense can be extremely limited.
In a recent Hazlet Municipal Court case, our office represented a client facing exactly that situation. After a detailed review of the State's evidence, consultation with a DWI defense expert, and presentation of an extensive mitigation package, the case was ultimately resolved without a DWI conviction.
The client pleaded guilty to reckless driving and an open-container violation. The reckless-driving disposition included a 90-day driver's license suspension.
The Problem: A Third-Offender DWI With No Prior-Conviction Challenge
When defending a repeat DWI charge, one of the first steps should be reviewing the prior convictions.
Depending upon the circumstances, an older DWI conviction may potentially be challenged for sentencing purposes because of constitutional deficiencies in the prior proceeding. Other cases may present issues involving the reliability of breath-testing evidence or the manner in which earlier convictions are counted.
We had previously represented this client and had already thoroughly investigated those possibilities. There was no viable basis to eliminate either prior DWI conviction.
That meant the current case had to be defended on its own merits.
Identifying Litigation Issues in the State's Case
We retained an experienced DWI defense consultant to independently review the discovery.
The expert identified several issues that potentially warranted litigation, including questions concerning the Alcotest procedure, the required observation period, aspects of the breath-testing evidence, and the administration and interpretation of field sobriety testing.
Importantly, our position was not that these issues guaranteed an acquittal. DWI litigation rarely works that way.
Instead, they created legitimate areas of dispute that could require motion practice, expert testimony, and ultimately a trial. That litigation risk became an important part of our negotiations with the State.
Building a Mitigation Case Instead of Simply Asking for Leniency
The legal issues were only half of our presentation.
The client had also taken substantial steps to change his life.
He completed a 16-week outpatient substance-abuse treatment program. His treatment provider reported that he was cooperative and compliant, accepted responsibility for his conduct, remained abstinent during treatment, and developed insight into the relationship between substance abuse and the consequences it had caused in his life.
The circumstances surrounding the offenses were also significant. The client had experienced several devastating personal events within a relatively short period, including the deaths of two close family members. He described turning to alcohol as a means of coping and eventually developing a serious drinking problem.
Those circumstances did not excuse driving after drinking, and we did not present them that way.
What mattered was what happened afterward.
The client addressed his alcohol problem, completed treatment, rebuilt his career, received several promotions, assumed a management position, and became the father of a young child. We submitted treatment documentation, employment records, character letters, evidence of community-service compliance, and a detailed personal statement from the client explaining both what had gone wrong and what he had done to change it.
The goal was not simply to tell the prosecutor that our client was a good person.
It was to document rehabilitation.
Combining Legal Issues With Mitigation
In our experience, an unusual resolution is most persuasive when there is more than one reason to consider it.
Our presentation therefore had two components.
First, the expert review identified legitimate issues concerning the State's proofs that could be litigated.
Second, the mitigation materials demonstrated substantial rehabilitation and gave the prosecutor a fuller picture of the person behind the charge.
Our argument was straightforward: the State was not being asked to ignore what happened. It was being asked to consider both the litigation issues in the case and everything the client had accomplished since the underlying events.
The Result
Following negotiations, the State agreed to resolve the case without a DWI conviction.
The client pleaded guilty to reckless driving and an open-container violation. The reckless-driving disposition included a 90-day loss of driving privileges.
For a client who had been facing sentencing as a third DWI offender, avoiding the DWI conviction was an extremely significant result.
The outcome also illustrates an important point about defending serious DWI cases: the defense should not necessarily be limited to searching for one technical defect or making a generic request for leniency.
A comprehensive defense can require examining prior convictions, scrutinizing the State's scientific and observational evidence, consulting appropriate experts, understanding the client's personal circumstances, and documenting genuine rehabilitation.
Every DWI case is different, and past results cannot guarantee a particular outcome in another matter. But when the potential consequences are severe, every legitimate avenue should be investigated before a client decides whether to plead guilty or proceed to trial.
The Law Offices of Christopher G. Porreca represents individuals charged with DWI and other criminal and motor vehicle offenses throughout New Jersey. If you are facing a first, second, or third DWI charge, an experienced defense attorney can review the State's evidence, prior convictions, and potential defenses before you make decisions that may have lasting consequences.
This article discusses a prior case handled by the firm. Certain facts have been omitted or generalized to protect client confidentiality. Every case is different, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.