Understanding a DUI Trial in Arizona

Jury – Judges of the Evidence in a Trial

In their role as jurors, they exclusively evaluate the evidence presented in this case. “Evidence” encompasses witness testimonies, writings, material objects, or other sensory elements offered to prove or disprove a fact. Their duty is to determine, based on this evidence and reasonable inferences, whether the state has proven the truth of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The verdict they reach should solely be based on the evidence introduced in court, avoiding reliance on unsupported theories, speculation, or guesswork. Their decision-making process must remain uninfluenced by sentiment, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion, or personal feelings. Factors like race, color, religion, national ancestry, gender, or sexual orientation should not sway their judgment; their verdict should be fair, impartial, and grounded in the case’s facts.

Jury – Judges of the Credibility of Witnesses in a Trial

When determining the facts in a felony DUI case, they must carefully assess the testimony’s credibility. They have the discretion to accept or reject a witness’s account in whole or in part. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard they should apply, recognizing that absolute certainty is rare in this world. If convinced of the defendant’s guilt, they should render a guilty verdict; if there’s a real possibility of innocence, they must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and deliver a not guilty verdict.

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence in a Trial

Evidence is categorized into “direct” and “circumstantial” types. Direct evidence involves witness accounts of observed events, while circumstantial evidence infers the existence of a fact from another fact. They are empowered to determine the weight given to all evidence, irrespective of whether it’s direct or circumstantial. Both types are acceptable, and the law makes no distinction between them.

Duty To Deliberate

Their collective verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror, requiring unanimity. While deliberating, they are encouraged to consult and discuss but without compromising individual judgment. Reexamination of views is permitted, but they shouldn’t surrender their honest determination merely to align with fellow jurors’ opinions. Their role is that of impartial judges of the facts, seeking the truth from the evidence presented.

Defendant Need Not Testify

The defendant’s decision not to testify is not an indication of guilt. They must not let this choice influence their deliberations or lead to assumptions about the defendant’s likely guilt.

Evidence to Be Considered

They must determine the case’s facts solely from the evidence presented in court. If an objection to a question was sustained or if testimony was stricken from the record, they must disregard that information.

Defendant Need Not Produce Evidence

The state must prove guilt based on evidence, and the defendant is not required to produce any evidence. The decision not to produce evidence should not be considered evidence of guilt.

Lawyers’ Comments Are Not Evidence

Statements made by lawyers during opening statements and closing arguments are not considered evidence. While these statements may aid their understanding, they don’t carry the same weight as actual evidence presented during the trial.

Stipulations

Lawyers can stipulate certain facts, meaning both sides agree on their existence as part of the evidence. They should treat stipulations like any other evidence, with the freedom to accept or reject them.

Closing Instruction

Once the case is submitted for decision, the jury will proceed to the deliberation room, where they will select a Foreperson to preside over discussions.

It is suggested that they initiate a discussion to establish their deliberation schedule, over which they have full control. The jury can set and adjust the schedule by mutual agreement, subject to the court’s approval. After finalizing the schedule, they should inform the bailiff.

Deliberations should only take place when all jurors are present in the jury room. Any discussions about the case are strictly confined to these deliberation sessions, and jurors are advised to refrain from talking about the case during breaks or recesses. The admonition from the trial remains in effect when the jurors are not actively deliberating.

After confirming the schedule, it is recommended that the jurors review the written jury instructions and verdict form(s). It’s beneficial for them to discuss these materials to ensure a collective understanding. Throughout their deliberations, they must adhere to the provided instructions and refer to them to address any questions related to applicable law, procedure, and definitions.

If any juror or the entire jury has a question during deliberations or wishes to communicate with the judge on any matter, they should document it in writing and sign it. The judge will consider the question or note, consulting with counsel before providing a written response at the earliest opportunity.

During deliberations, jurors should avoid communicating or providing information to anyone about the case through any means. Usage of electronic devices or media, including phones, computers, the internet, messaging services, chat rooms, blogs, websites, or social media, for discussions or research related to the case, is strictly prohibited until their discharge.

Remember, jurors are not to disclose their stance, whether numerically or otherwise, to anyone, including the judge, until after they have reached a verdict or have been discharged.

The crime of having an lcohol concentration of 0.08 or more within two hours of driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle and the alcohol concentration results from alcohol consumed either before or while driving or being in actual physical control of the vehicle, a violation of Section 28-1381(A)(2), Arizona Revised Statutes, requires the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that:

• • The Defendant drove a vehicle in Phoenix, Arizona; and
  • The Defendant had an alcohol concentration of .08 or more within two hours of driving; and
  • The alcohol concentration resulted from alcohol consumed before or while driving the vehicle.