Drink. Drive. Go to jail. Really?
We have all seen the billboards around that read “Drink. Drive. Go to jail.” Mimi Coffey even put up her own billboard arguing against them. For the longest time, I just assumed this was standard scare-tactic propaganda used to frighten people away from ever drinking and driving.
I suppose, since I have actually read the Texas Penal Code and know that it doesn’t criminalize someone drinking and then driving, I thought these billboards were aimed simply at scaring the uninformed populace to change their “law-breaking” ways. If someone saw the enormous billboard and read that, maybe they would think twice about hitting the road after having that beer with their Mexican food. That’s the point, isn’t it? Well, I’m not sure it really is.
Not too long ago, I had a conversation with my father about some federal case I had where there were some complex search and seizure issues. I tried to explain to my twenty-ninth generation Texan, former rodeo cowboy, straight-talking father that the government can’t actually just walk into your house and seize everything on a hunch. To my dismay, he apparently assumed the government could.
As I began to dissect this somewhat horrifying situation, the conversation turned to DWI cases. My father quizzed me on how I defend (or at least try) various DWI cases. I explained the common fact scenarios for a DWI case that might go to trial. During the middle of the conversation, my father interrupted me to state very matter-of-factly that “If you drink and drive, you go to jail. End of story.”
Somewhere, a Texas prosecutor is smiling. It dawned on me. Those billboards are not about deterrence. Whoever came up with that slogan wasn’t thinking that the campaign was going to stop anyone from having a drink before driving. The purpose of these billboards is to contaminate the jury pool.
You see, after I wiped the drool from the sides of my mouth, I tried to explain that that little catch-phrase is not actually Texas law. I went over the definition of intoxication and explained how a typical DWI case is constructed. I even went so far as to show him a copy of a jury charge that I happened to have saved onto my laptop.
Despite all of that, he wasn’t sure. He had questions about how the definition of intoxication worked with the catch-phrase. He questioned the thinking of someone that drank before driving knowing that it was against the law. The point is, he was swayed by the billboard. He was confused by billboard because he thought for the longest time that the billboard was the law.
God help the poor defense attorney that has to deal with my father on a DWI trial. God help us all that have to deal with the billboard in trial.
God, I hate those signs too. I almost always succumb to the urge to give them the finger.
On the other hand, could you lawyers turn this into a voir dire issue? Or is it too easy to rehabilitate?
Posted by: Windypundit | August 28, 2008 at 03:25 PM
The biggest problem about trying to voir dire on that, at least around here, is that we generally only get about 20 to 30 minutes for the entire voir dire. Although I'd love to spend all of it on the definition of intoxication, I have to get to other things. It can be tough.
Posted by: Matlock | August 28, 2008 at 03:57 PM
85-90 percent of DWI offenders are never again arrested for DWI.
Stop filling up our county jails with "otherwise" honest, hardworking people who made a big mistake.
Posted by: jerrod | June 06, 2009 at 05:45 PM