Many Judges In California Denying Supreme Court

In 2009, the California Supreme Court decided a case called People v. McNeal with a "Unanimous 7 to 0 Ruling" stating that the defendant in a DUI criminal trial had the absolute right to present evidence of Partition Ratio if the District Attorney or City Attorney charged the defendant with a "Generic DUI Charge". A generic charge is California Vehicle Code Section 23152(a) driving while impaired by alcohol. This does not apply to the second (2nd ) charge of 23152(b), because the law says breath or blood result, but comes from the same breath test for purpose of impairment.
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, many District Attorneys or City Attorneys, have dropped a jury instruction to attempt to get around this ruling, and the trial courts have assisted them, the Prosecutors, by not allowing the defense to raise this issue if the jury instruction is not given. Some trial judges have taken it upon themselves to drop the jury instruction to prevent the defense, but dropping the jury instruction does not relieve the Court of the duty to allow the defendant the right to present this evidence, and therefore, the trial court judges are denying the law of the State of California and the California Supreme Court, not to mention the Defendant's Federal Constitutional Rights to present evidence in his own behalf. But it gets worse.
Some trial court judges allow the Prosecution's Toxicologist to talk about how the machine works and is accurate in the breath testing of the defendant. The accepts this person as an "Expert" in the field of breath testing. However, when the Prosecution's Expert refuses to talk about Partition Ratio saying they don't know anything about any difference in Partition Ratios only the 2100:1, the trial judge will not allow the defense lawyer to cross-examine the Expert as to the different possibilities despite the California Supreme Court ruling and Federal Constitutional Right of the Defendant. Some judges in San Francisco have actually shifted the burden to the Defendant requiring he show that his Partition Ratio is different than 2100:1, another Federal Constitutional Right violation. This is why you should be prepared to have patience and take your case into the Federal Court on appeal if your lawyer is denied this right to protect you on this issue during your trial. As a general rule, the appeal to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court where you had your trial is just the same bunch of trial court judges overseeing themselves. This is kind of like the Fox guarding the chicken house. And, the District Court of Appeals and Supreme Court of the State of California do not have to hear your case, so it is imperative that your lawyer during the trial OBJECT ON FEDERAL GROUNDS to the denial of Due Process amongst other things when denied this area of defense.
There are many DUI lawyers advertising inexpensive rates as low as $700 or $1000 dollars, so be careful when you hire a lawyer for a cheap fee. It may seem like a good idea at the time, but when your trial is over, if they will even take you to trial, you will then quickly understand why a lawyer that charged double that fee was worth the money. Your lawyer needs to be able to fight for you, not just agree with the Prosecutor and be afraid of fighting with the Judge to protect your Constitutional Rights, and by fighting with the judge, I mean KNOW THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND SUPPORTING CASES to protect you. Get a free consultation at www.duioffice.com