Friday, April 25, 2014
Federal DUI In Virginia Lawyers Driving Influence 36 CFR 4.23
If you have been
charged with DUI / DWI which took place on a road owned by the Federal
government, National Park Service land, place on federally owned property,
including military bases or other government-owned lands or roads, such as the
GW Parkway and the Pentagon parking lot then you will be prosecuted in a
Federal court.
Under 36 CFR 4.23
Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs
"(a) Operating or being in actual physical control
of a motor vehicle is prohibited while:
(1) Under the influence of
alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination thereof, to a degree that
renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or
(2)
The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08
grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of
alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided however, that if State law that
applies to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol
establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's
blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits specified in this
paragraph."
Below is a sample
case of federal DUI in Virginia as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.
Have you been
charged with federal DUI in Virginia and you are wondering what the penalty is
for federal DUI and need a lawyer to defend you?
Are you concerned
about the consequences of being charged with federal DUI in Virginia and you
are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI?
For a lot of our
clients, a charge of federal DUI can result in the loss of their job, their
security clearance, etc.
Don’t risk going
to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a crime of federal DUI
in Virginia.
We have client
meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach
Fredericksburg Lynchburg.
Our law firm has
the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get
the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
Harrison v.
United States
Facts:
Defendant appeals
from his convictions of involuntary manslaughter (18 U.S.C. § 1112 (1988)),
reckless driving (Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-852 (Michie 1989)) assimilated by 18
U.S.C. § 13 (1988)), driving while intoxicated ( 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(2)
(1992)), and driving while under the influence (DUI) of alcohol ( 36 C.F.R. §
4.23(a)(1) (1992)).
If you are facing
a federal DUI case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Holdings:
The Federal Court
made the following holding:
- The purpose of
establishing "chain of custody" as a threshold requirement to
admission of evidence is to establish that the item to be introduced is
what it purports to be. The ultimate question is whether the authentication
testimony was sufficiently complete so as to convince the court that it is
improbable that the original item had been exchanged with another or
otherwise tampered with. Precision in developing chain of custody is not
an iron-clad requirement. Admission of evidence is not prevented just
because there may be a missing link in its chain of custody, so long as
there is sufficient proof that the evidence is what it purports to be and
has not been altered in any material aspect. Resolution of a chain of custody
question rests with the sound discretion of the trial judge.
- In evaluating the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the relevant question
is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government, any rational trier of facts could have found the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court must consider circumstantial
as well as direct evidence, and allow the government the benefit of all
reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established.
The court does not weigh evidence or review the credibility of witnesses
in resolving issues of substantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence need
not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
We have client
meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach
Fredericksburg Lynchburg.
Our law firm has
the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get
the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are
provided by the SRIS Law Group. They
represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for
their authoritative content.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Our Phone #
Powered by Blogger.
Popular Posts
-
If you have been charged with DUI / DWI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on fe...
-
If you have been charged with DUI / DWI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on fe...
-
If you have been charged with DUI / DWI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on fe...
-
If you have been charged with DUI / DWI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on fe...
-
If you have been charged with DUI / DWI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on fe...
0 comments:
Post a Comment