Below is a response to an email I received from an angry parent at the local high school where an advertisement was taken out in the school newspaper. It is ashame that people have such a knee jerk reaction but indicative of the problems all DWI attorneys face when talking to potential jurors. It sums up why it is so important to hire a DWI attorney that is experienced and familiar with the law.

"Dear Steven,

Thank you for your swift response. From the tone of your email, I sense that you are upset so permit me to respond. Sorry for the length of this email but you raised several misconceptions that I frequently run into and I though it would be a good idea to discuss those with you.

There is no simple solution to the DWI problem. I have personally witnessed tragedy from every conceivable angle however, I have also seen young people's lives irrevocably ruined because of a false DWI charge. My best friend in college was accused of DWI and did not think a lawyer would help, even though he had not been drinking. I watched him go through the next ten years of his life explaining the conviction and losing countless job opportunities because of a wrongful conviction. That was 20 years ago and the penalties are much more severe today. Now, he is a deacon in his church and counsels young people based on his experiences.

I do not condone Driving While Intoxicated or driving under any sort of impairment. You remarked about me having children at an age similar to yours who are in high school. I don't mind telling you that I have shepherded 2 daughters through that age and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. A friend of mine claims kids that age are like astronauts going around the dark side of the moon. We lose communication with them for a while and then finally they come back around. Hopefully, there aren't too many problems when communication is reestablished.

Even though I represent people accused of DWI, I had no reservation whatsoever about having my youngest daughter arrested when she came home intoxicated, after driving our family car. She was attending The Woodlands High School at that time. At the same time, the lack of qualified attorneys in Montgomery County forced me to represent her, myself. Even though I support laws against driving while intoxicated and think the law is very good, I do believe that every person is entitled to qualified representation and no one should be over-punished. My job is not "to get people off." My job is to make sure the government does it's job fairly and honestly and I could not stand to see my youngest daughter's future ruined because of a lapse in judgment or bad decisions on her part. I felt that the punishment should be appropriate and the only way to guarantee that is to make sure she was adequately represented.

Most parents know that children that age make a series of bad decisions, usually one after another, and we hope that they can gain a sense of responsibility before doing themselves too much damage. My wife and I were forced to send our youngest daughter to a wilderness camp for troubled kids because of her drinking and drug problem stemming from an abusive family situation from living with her biological father. When she fled his house and we were granted custody, she had a lot of anger about the abuse she had suffered at his hands. Would it have been right to throw her away and cast her out? Some people might say yes, and would have missed the opportunity to turn a troubled young girl into a wonderful adult. We just celebrated her 20th birthday, and I recently adopted her. Now, she is now a straight A student attending college and wants to be a lawyer to help other families and children finding themselves in the same situation. As a step-parent to this wonderful young lady, I could have given up on her and washed my hands of her and sent her back to live with her dad. But she would have been a completely lost little soul. At the same time, I didn't feel it did her any good to completely "get off" and not be punished for her mistakes, so I represented her to the best of my ability and made sure that she was treated fairly.

Our system can be a meat grinder for those people that have made a mistake and decide to either represent themselves or use the wrong attorney, unqualified attorney to represent them. It's something that causes a lifetime of harm and we are on the point of losing a whole generation of our young kids to drugs and violence. Once they have passed the age where they can recover and gain that sense of responsibility, they will never have the opportunity to recover. They will never graduate, get a decent job and live respectable, productive lives. Do we just write them off, too? We can't. Otherwise, we'll see more and more robberies, burglaries, car-jackings and more serious crimes as desperation and hopelessness sets in within that age range. Most of these kids are not inherently bad and some of them are your and my neighbors, whose parents were unfamiliar with the resources available to help them get their children through this difficult age. I was fortunate that I was familiar with good therapists and counselors in our area to get my daughter the help she needed. Other kids, our neighbors, aren't so lucky. Ultimately, we all pay for these crimes, victimless or not.

To give you an idea of the difference, my oldest daughter also got into trouble as a juvenile and her "father" refused to help her. Her biological father refused to hire a competent criminal attorney and decided to save the money and use his real estate lawyer who was completely unfamiliar with criminal law or even what a "fair offer" was for the alleged crime. She was not afforded a competent attorney. She spent the next 5 years of her life, during which she also moved down here with us, going to probation and proving herself to us and her probation officer. Fortunately, she was a juvenile when this occurred and her record is sealed, but it would have ruined her life had she been one year older. Now, she is a straight A student, but she will go through the same problems that my college friend did. She was not afforded competent counsel and the government gave her more severe punishment for theft, than some murderer's receive. Her future has been seriously compromised because she did not get a qualified attorney. Her punishment was much more severe and excessive than necessary. That's not fair and she didn't deserve "to get off", but neither did she deserve to be treated and subjected to more severe punishment than a person accused of murder. She deserve to be represented by a competent criminal defense attorney familiar with the laws, Code of Criminal Procedure, court's rules and the adequate range of punishment for that offense.

When people go to their family doctor, they don't go to ask for heart surgery. Similarly, going to just "any attorney" has the same effect. Unless a person is regularly practicing in that area of law, they are incompetent to accept business in any other area, unless they can so become competent. It takes years to develop the ability to fully and adequately represent someone in any field of law. I am sure that in your job, it took years for you to become competent. Things that used to take all day or hours to complete can now be done very swiftly. You sense what needs to be done and do it quickly. It's the same for attorneys. I am a criminal attorney and my practice is almost exclusively devoted to defending persons accused of DWI. I hope that it never happens to you or anyone in your family, but people do get falsely arrested and they need a very good lawyer. I have represented several Woodlands residents that were stopped because they were swerving and arrested for suspicion of DWI. Many, many times, they had not had anything to drink and were simply talking on their cell phone when they came into contact with the police officer. Officer's are trained to arrest and charge someone with DWI at the slightest instance of bad driving. Many times, there is an innocent explanation. Unfortunately, many times, people are driving while intoxicated. Both types deserve a good, competent attorney, not to "get them off", but to make absolutely sure that every stone is turned over and we make absolutely sure than no innocent person is convicted. We all like to think that locking people up, even 1 innocent for 9 guilty ones, is OK - until you are the one wrongfully accused.

I feel it is more important for young kids to receive counseling and the proper punishment if they are convicted of a crime. Someone that young cannot understand how severely their future will be impacted or possibly ruined. As a parent, I know that you would not want your children to be accused of something so serious, but if they are, I know that you would want to help them at any cost. I did with my daughters and they have outgrown that rebellious age as all children will, when given the opportunity.

I am sure that if you could spend a day with me visiting the jail that you would see some of the devastation that can be wrought to kids this age or people any age. I know that as a parent you would want your child to be appropriately punished if they did commit a crime. But without a competent person to speak for and represent your child, they have no chance of receiving fair treatment. Keep in mind, I am not talking about those people who have lived in and out of prison. While I believe they need help and could use help, they usually are too far gone to accept help and we have lost them. It is sad, but I also see people like that every day, too. The people I am referring to are people who live in our neighborhoods, live good productive lives and who, for some reason, have come into contact with law enforcement which resulted in a criminal charge. Everyone thinks it cannot happen to them, but we all know that is a form of self delusion.

I am sure that you would come to understand my point of view once you had the opportunity to see the damage that can be wrought by a conviction and overly aggressive punishment or in some instances, being falsely accused. Police do make mistakes and not everyone arrested is guilty. That's why we are guaranteed the presumption of innocence. It is one of the reasons that our country is the envy of the free world. A fair and impartial criminal justice system cannot be found where the accused is not given the opportunity to confront their accuser and being arrested means you are automatically guilty. There is a cute little saying that is absolutely true; "got rights? Thank a defense lawyer" You see, without all of our rights being protected they will slowly be eroded and taken away. Does anyone think the government will make sure that we are protected from . . . the government? Is there anyone out there who can decide that some of our citizens have rights, and some don't deserve them? Who could possibly make that decision. Who would want to?

However, even if you disagree with my point of view, I fully respect your right to express yourself as guaranteed by our governing document, and I would defend your right to disagree with me the same as our soldiers are defending those innocents in Iraq.

I do not encourage kids to drink and drive. But I feel it is my duty to make sure that if they do and are accused of a crime, that I am in the best position to represent them and help them receive fair treatment. As a parent, that's what we all want.

Thank you for taking the time to review this. I apologize for the length, but thought that your email was important enough to give you a thoughtful answer that it deserved. Best wishes to you."

Kelly

Kelly W. Case
SBN 03954070
Case Law, PLLC
2203 Timberloch Place
Suite 100
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
281-296-5752
281-419-3599 (fax)
kwcase@caselawpllc.com
www.caselawpllc.com

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone, and delete the original message immediately. Thank you.

Treasury Circular 230 Disclosure - To comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this written communication (including any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the person. If this written communication contains any tax advice that is used or referred to in connection with the promoting, marketing or recommending of any transaction(s) or matter(s), this written communication should be construed as written to support the promoting, marketing or recommending of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed by this written communication, and the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. No limitation has been imposed by Case Law, PLLC on disclosure of the tax treatment or tax structure of the transaction(s) or matter(s).

On 4/22/08 10:44 AM, "Steven Treistman" wrote:

Regardless of their policies, should you be
advertising your DWI services to 16-18 year old
drivers?

I hope you don't wonder from this day on, why lawyers
get bad mouthed all of the time in our society today.

I have showed this ad to many Woodlands High School
parents,and to be perfectly honest they all questioned
your intelligence. Can you just admit to poor
judgement and place a new ad asking underage drivers
not to drink at all? When your children become high
school age like mine, maybe you will understand.

Steve

--- Kelly W Case wrote:

> Thank you for your email.
>
> I would suggest you contact the paper regarding
> their advertisement policies as I am not familiar
> with them.
>
> Kelly W. Case
> Case Law, PLLC
> 2203 Timberloch Place
> Suite 100
> The Woodlands, TX 77380
> 281-296-5752 tel
> 281-419-3599 fax
> www.caselawpllc.com

It takes almost 2 years to get a misdemeanor DWI to trial in Montgomery County, Texas. If you're in jail, it takes a little more than a month.

Do you sit in jail to wait to go to trial, or do you get out and take your chances for the next 2 years?

A recent client waited for 6 months to get a trial on a felony evading charge. On the day of trial, the case was dismissed in felony court. I immediately set it for trial on the misdemeanor DWI and within a week, was scheduled for trial.

On the day of trial, again, the misdemeanor prosecutor decides to dismiss the case. So now my client has waited 6 months to get to trial and we got both cases dismissed.

How can this happen?

When an Assistant District Attorney refuses to look at all of the evidence until a few days before trial, they are criminally remiss. I think they need to be reminded that these are people's lives that they are being so cavalier with. Innocent people should not have to sit in jail any length of time at all.

But in Montgomery County, Texas, if you are arrested and ACCUSED of a crime, then you better have a lawyer, because you will be sitting in jail for a long time waiting to get to trial.

If someone walked up to you at a street corner and told you that they thought they saw you stealing a soda from the corner store and that you were going to jail, wouldn't you expect there to be some proof of the crime? Unfortunately, in DWI cases, this happens all the time. A police officer "suspects" that a person has been driving while intoxicated and makes an arrest. But what does the police officer rely on to form his suspicion? Does he have hard scientific evidence? Does he have observable driving facts? Does he witness the person's walk and demeanor to form an opinion as to intoxication?

When a police officer suspects a crime has been committed, then an investigation is begun, unless it is for DWI. For example, an officer can stop you, pull you out of your car, claim he suspects you to be intoxicated and without any hard scientific evidence, arrest you. Then it becomes the police officer's word against yours - and who do you think wins?

When a police officer makes an arrest for a crime, there should be SOME PROOF that a crime has actually been committed. Without that proof, no person should be arrested and potentially have their life ruined by a false charge. I routinely see police officers arresting people in parked cars with the engine off and without observing any driving facts. They don't obtain any scientifically valid test such a s breath or blood tests, yet they arrest this person, because they "suspect" DWI.

A blood test is the surest means of proving or disproving whether a person is driving while intoxicated. An officer should be required to develop some sort of hard evidence or proof before being allowed to allege someone has committed a crime and arresting that person. That's not to say that blood tests are infallible. They can be wrong, but that is another issue. Without the bare minimum of scientific evidence, how is it possible for an officer to make an arrest based on a perception that an individual has suffered "loss of normal use of their mental or physical faculties", especially when that person does not know how that person acts "normally?"

It should not be able to happen!

If you are ever in this situation, demand your right, under Texas Law to contact your attorney prior to any questioning or interview by the police. Refuse to participate in any physical exercises and absolutely do NOT take the breath test.

Attorney Kelly W. Case has launched his blog.