The DUI at karaoke
by Robert Hedges ©
The DUI at karaoke
by Robert Hedges ©
Karaoke, however did catch Robert's attention, and TK's began to have several karaoke nights.
Robert now had an opportunity to stand in front of a crowd with a microphone in his hand to describe the hidden microphone which was just up the street at the BP, and which had caused so many interesting events while he worked all night.
Robert was mostly staying in Louisville, and bicycling to karaoke bars, but the opportunity to address a crowd in the Fern Creek area was too great to miss, and Robert decided to go participate in karaoke at TK's.
He sang several songs on Tuesday, the 23rd of May, and kept his carbo-level high and his whistle wet with draft beer.
He had seated himself with several of the circulating karaoke regulars, and he left his beer unguarded on his own vacant table. Another patron swooped in on his pitcher of beer and carried that unmolested orphan away. Robert went to retrieve his full pitcher and a commotion ensued. Robert offered to share a beer with the parsimonious and quick-thinking patron but refused to give the full picture up. A full pitcher left on a table would be a terrible thing to waste.
That penurious patron was the singular afro-American in TK's at the moment, and he began to (apparently to save face) say macho nonsense about how he could sleep with any girl in the bar. Robert told the crowd to " disregard all that macho-posturing stuff" when he got on stage again, to diffuse the off-color suggestive topic.
Robert was driving back to Louisville later that evening and was stopped allegedly for reckless driving and arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence.
Robert had been unable to get an official blood test to prove his
having been drugged in 1989, and he declined to take the blood
test
that night. He was never asked to take a breathalyzer. Thus he
was
only faced with the testimony alleging his guilt while he himself
maintained his innocence.
Robert attended this court several times as required, and on one
occasion the first-assigned judge, Judge Martin, handed Robert a
copy of a document which turned out to be a KRS 202. warrant she
had signed. She said that if he wished to represent himself he
would
first be required to see a psychiatrist to prove his competence.
This
resulted in a delay of about two months, which gave him needed
time to
prepare the Federal Case now
pending in the 6th Circuit.
He went to Central State hospital one day several weeks
later
and convinced a psychiatrist that he was sane and planning to
litigate. This particular psychiatrist was an Asian female, and
not
suitable for later testimony as an expert witness to describe
damage and injury done to Robert by the torts described in the
yet-to-be-heard jury cases pending.
The KRS 202 warrant was misused, because the only criterion for
it's issuance is a "clear and present danger" which was not
indicated
by the immediate circumstances. Expungement can be achieved by
suit anytime after because expungement is prospective relief.
The trial was finally scheduled for November 19, 1995. The public
defender's office has knowledgeable and experienced individuals
on
the topic of DUI criminal law, so Robert took the random public
defender who was offered. There arises a dilemma when you are
forced to choose between what you intuitively think and the
advice
given by those who are paid a salary and thus believed by someone
to
be knowledgeable.
Defendant Robert had read that a jury was not advisable in a DUI
case, but rather the case is best attacked on technical or
factual
discrepancies before the fact-finder judge. The public defender
relayed the final-plea-bargain-offer of the Prosecutors (which
was a
fair offer to avert the trial) of 10 days home incarceration, but
upon
Robert's refusal to plead guilty, did not recommend a bench trial
rather than a jury trial.
The public defender's office sent a second attorney to conduct
the
jury voir dier, the questioning of whom is a specialty area.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty of DUI and guilty of
reckless
driving, and they assessed a fine and 90 days of custody.
Defendant
Robert was remanded to custody immediately. Appeal would have
been required within ten days, in which Defendant/Appelant Robert
was not near a computer, word processor, law books, or computer
records. This effectively would prevent appeal had Robert
intended
to do so, (which he did not plan, since a Circuit appeal seems a
rubber stamp).
the public defender made many objections, but each of these
were made quietly in conference with the bench. Their content is
unknown to the defendant.
Defendant was silenced by the judge on more than one occasion,
which put the defendant in a spot in which he was unable to
attack
the credibility of the arresting officer, and was limited to
answering questions by the public defender.
The officer stated that Robert's arrest occurred fully a
half-mile
from the actual location.
The officer described Robert's failure to cut in front of another
car in
the
slower right lane as an indicator of "flight" or confusion. It
was
rather a desire to drive safely and neither stop suddenly in
front of a
blue light in the fast lane on the highway, nor swerve and cut
over
suddenly into a slower auto which represented the obstacle which
had required Robert to enter
the
left faster lane, to pass, to begin with.
The officer testified that he had followed the defendant in a
line of
traffic for five minutes at 35 miles per hour, and that defendant
was the slow car.
Five minutes at 35 mph is several miles. This opens the door to
inconsistencies and conflicts with his
story of the events.
The fact that defendant had no reason to seek the men's-room for
several hours after leaving the bar (drive, arrest, transport,
bull-pen
in jail) indicates low fluid in the body, rather than lots of
fluid which beer drinkers
know
leads to frequent men's-room breaks. The public defender did not
stress this inconsistency or question the officer-witnesses about
their observations of it.
The officer wore a suit to look more authoritative, while the
blood-
test technician put on her Corrections Department uniform. This
is the usual method of the professional witness, who is paid to
attend, and try to convict.
The blood-test technician commented to the judge that the
defendants arrest record contained an harassment charge, which
was
supposed to indicate some reason why the jury was to be
unidentified. Allegations are not the same as facts. Defendant
was not allowed to answer this
prejudicial-sounding allegation, which was consistently a denial
of Defendant being allowed to speak, when necessary, on his own
behalf.
Robert has a very high metabolic rate. He needs carbos at regular
intervals throughout the day. Beer is a fat-free carbo and is
similar
to a potato, and it is burned by the body in a similar fashion as
a
potato. It is empty of both vitimins and minerals, so the carbos
are called empty carbos. The muscle mass of an individual is the
single most
important factor in the equation of the speed with which the body
consumes a beer. Fat has no mitochondria (fuel-factory) to burn
glucose (the broken-down carbos). Weight is thus not the
controlling
factor in metabolic rate. A body with twice the muscle mass will
burn twice the carbos in a given time, regardless of the total
body
weight. Robert has large muscle mass which needs many carbos.
Metabolizing beer is thus not a problem for him.
The officer stated that he followed Robert for a mile or more, at
30
mph which is for 2 minutes, while for 5 minutes the distance
would be 2.5 miles.
The Officer said Robert failed to stop, implying more than a
routine stop, and stating thus he was guilty of
wreckless driving, but this is not probable cause to stop a
motorist. The belief that a motorist doesn't wish to stop cannot
occur before the lights are used to signal the same motorist that
some official vehicle is accelerating in the fast lane, and may
need to pass, or assume the right of way.
The Officer technician said defendant's eyes were bloodshot and
pupils dialated - "looked funny" -Defendant was either in
sunglasses - or without sunglasses after
bedtime when eyes will look strained in the bright lights when
sleep is expected, and sunglasses were worn on stage, for a
performance in a darkened room.
The speed limit was 45 mph, which over five minutes = 4 miles.
Thus the Officer either was driving just as slow as all the other
traffic he described, or he didn't follow the Defendant, as he
stated. The written record of his report was supplemented by much
more conflicting and new "facts" as he recalled them, on the spur
of the moment in that court.
1:56 AM - 2.37 AM - observation while in custody during arrest
The burning of the last glucose causes a glycemic response
(shakes) which
indicate a need for carbos rather than a failed coordination.
This coupled with the flow of adrenaline (a natural high) from
the recent singing performance creates less than optimum
circumstances for an immediate sobriety test, though the
adrenaline is soon exhausted, and only the hypoglycemic response
remains.
The actual singing requires coordination & non-slurred speech -
and is
proof of the presence or the absence of sobriety
Robert is expected to be counseled by someone who has earned and
wasted large sums of money on drugs (cocaine for example), and
not someone who has experienced
the circumstances of constitutional
deprivation which he has and is experiencing.
KRS 189 is intended to protect society, rather than penalize the
individual - thus not driving accomplishes the goal of protecting
society, and jailing is not necessary - Drunkeness was considered
silly
in 1981, but was perceived as tragic by 1988.
The movie Arthur II failed as a result in this change in
perception.
This may account for the change in the law.
Adrenaline from excitement + exercise + stage fright =
unsteadyness of a sort -
Three judges have been involved so far.
It is the wisdom of the law which demands respect, rather than
the power of the court. Sometimes the very individuals who
presume to represent themselves as the law fail to respect it, as
can be seen by their actions. Thus the private citizen learns by
example that there is no reason to respect the law.
DUI hearings
He said Robert parked on tilted earth, with two wheels off the
road, and was not standing on the highway (which would have
been unsafe for a sobriety test) thus he was asked to prove his
sobriety by standing on one foot on poor surface of uneven
earth and gravel.
2:57 AM - defendant still has had no bathroom break, which is
prima-facie proof of an absence of the excessive fluids which
result from recent or immediate beer consumption
Witnesses were unavailable to indicate or testify that Robert was
not intoxicated, and indeed such testimony would have required
expert testimony.
The court deals with the prosecutor constantly
-every day, and in fact the judge relies heavily upon the
prosecutor for advice, which makes impartiality a bit tricky. A
defendant is in court infrequently or only
once, and is at a disadvantage.