SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome to Beat the Prosecution, presented by Northern Virginia criminal defense and DUI lawyer Jonathan Katz, where we are here to regularly present you information and ideas for beating your prosecution as best as possible. Nothing on any of our media sources, such as our podcast or website, is legal advice. John Katz only provides legal advice to current clients or for individuals who have paid for a consultation. And now for your host, John Katz.

SPEAKER_02 0:32

Hello, everybody. This is John Katz. I'm a criminal defense and DUI defense lawyer here in Fairfax, Northern Virginia. I am absolutely delighted to have today as guests with us. His name is Don Ramzell. He is a lawyer in Illinois. I first met him four years ago when I did the field sobriety test training here in DC in a tiny room only two years after COVID started. They made a mistake there, but everyone was so dedicated that we still did it. We learned great things. Don Ramzell, please introduce yourself.

SPEAKER_01 1:08

Well, thank you, John, for inviting me. I'm truly honored. My name is Don Ramzell. I'm an Illinois DUI attorney. I've been practicing since 1984. I've had my own firm in DUI defense since 1986. I guess I'm best known for being the author of the Illinois DUI Law and Practice Guidebook here in Illinois. And uh I'm the past president of the National College for DUI Defense. I've argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on a DUI case. And I really enjoy what I'm doing for a living.

SPEAKER_02 1:47

Don, uh apparently you're so busy that you said you didn't even necessarily need to state your URL, but what is your web address?

SPEAKER_01 1:57

Well, my web address is dui-illinois-attorney.com. Um but as I like to tell people, if it's a DUI you need beaten, call me. I'm in Wheaton, Illinois.

SPEAKER_02 2:11

Got it. What made you decide to go to law school? And did you have a scientific background before then or while you were in law school?

SPEAKER_01 2:21

Well, I'm one of those people that wanted to be a lawyer since I was about seven years old. And my parents were very encouraging of that. So uh that really was uh what I intended on doing for my entire life, and uh was lucky enough to uh find that path and avoid all the obstacles along the way. Um I was a criminal justice major at Loyola before I went to DePaul Law School. I don't have a scientific background, uh, but as you know, in the world of DUI defense, given the forensics, you really do need to learn science if you want to be good at your job. So along the way, I have taken science courses and uh I read a lot.

SPEAKER_02 3:09

You've been very active with the National College of DUI Defense. What's been your activity with that and what made you decide to put so much time into that group?

SPEAKER_01 3:20

Well, I found the National College for DUI Defense back in the late 1990s, I guess it would have been. And what it is is a group of dedicated attorneys that founded this group uh back in 1999. And so uh I was excited to meet other people that were as dedicated to DUI defense as I was. And um, you know, there's a story from The Wizard of Oz about the uh when they were filming that movie and they got all the little people together from all over the United States, and they had not realized there were so many of them at the time. And when they got together in Los Angeles to film the movie, they went crazy. They went nuts because there were so many of them that uh lived the same life. And when I joined the National College, I found DUI attorneys that were just as excited about all the little nuances as myself. I fell in love with that group and became dedicated to the cause ever since.

SPEAKER_02 4:29

When was the NCDD started? I joined a few years ago myself.

SPEAKER_01 4:34

Back in the late 1990s, uh a group of a dozen lawyers across the country decided that there should be a national organization that was dedicated to DUI defense because it became a thing. So um that was when it was founded.

SPEAKER_02 4:53

And you're one of the uh original founders?

SPEAKER_01 4:55

I was not one of the original founders, but I I was got involved a couple of years later when another attorney had recommended that I join.

SPEAKER_02 5:04

So you say you went to DePaul. I guess it was after time that Andrea Lyon ended up being involved over there.

SPEAKER_01 5:11

Andrea Lyon is a good friend of mine. Uh, she's a professor at DePaul, and yes, we both have we both have gone there. She was a little bit before me.

SPEAKER_02 5:20

Andrea's dynamite. Um, I would like to know how much of your time have you spent uh getting up to speed on the science involving DWI defense? And uh I was blown away that you and several of these other NCDD uh members uh spent so much time teaching us the field sobriety testing. And I'd like to know what motivates you to do that, because that's a big investment of time, and I certainly benefited from that tremendously.

SPEAKER_01 5:53

Well, I I've always I guess because I'm a little bit self-taught, um, I've always asked the questions why and how. So back in 1986, when I first really started doing DUI defense, um, and breathalyzers were out there, most judges and lawyers and prosecutors thought of a DUI as just a glorified traffic ticket. And uh they just assumed the breathalyzer was you know the greatest thing since sliced bread. So I started asking questions about how this machine is being checked for accuracy? And apparently um continuing to ask until I got answers, ultimately I discovered that uh the way that the machines were being checked was by using a simulator solution that was being made in the basement of a police officer's house, as opposed to in a laboratory. And uh from that I made a big issue about that and ultimately proved that the um police officer that was doing the job was not making the solution that it was being used to check all the machines in Illinois for the last 15 previous years uh valid and accurate. So that kind of broke wide open thousands of DUI cases, and it made the news and it sort of changed uh changed my practice in a sense, and uh I realized that uh the science of DUI was an area where most lawyers and uh prosecutors and judges were just accepting that everything was being done correctly when the opposite was true.

SPEAKER_02 7:48

Too much acceptance. Now, where you practice, um do you have a situation where you can go right to a jury trial for trials for DWI defense, or is it like where I am in Virginia, where we have to do a bench trial first and have a conviction before we can even get a jury trial?

SPEAKER_01 8:07

No, we have a right to a jury trial um uh in the first level, so to speak. So we do not uh have a two-level trial system like some states.

SPEAKER_02 8:17

Are there any circumstances under which good DUI defense lawyers in Illinois will go ahead and waive a jury trial and have a bench trial, then, which of course our friend Terry McCarthy would call a slow plea to do a bench trial?

SPEAKER_01 8:34

Well, I think Illinois has a lot of good independent judges that are willing to say not guilty, unlike many other states where you cannot seem to get that verdict from a judge, so you have to go jury. Uh also uh, so I'm not afraid to have a bench trial. Uh our judges believe in proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and uh they're they're willing to say not guilty. The other thing is that um we have the right to choose jury trial, and this the prosecution, the state, cannot interfere with that right. So many states the prosecution has to agree to a jury trial, or you can't get one. But uh or a bench trial, either way. So we can get both here. It's the defendant's choice. So we're lucky that way.

SPEAKER_02 9:28

We were talking before we got on camera about how I've had two other great DWI defense lawyers on the show this year. One was Andrew Mishlov, who combines uh NCDD approaches with trial auras college approaches. The other one is uh Lenny Stam, and both of them have been very active, of course, with the NCDD. I wanted you on because my understanding is you do have this big focus in the scientific area, but I'm gonna come straight out and ask you: do you have any opinion about incorporating trial's college approaches to the extent you know about them? And I I attended the trial auras college with DUI defense.

SPEAKER_01 10:10

Um, yes, I mean I try to use all the techniques I hear from wherever they come. But certainly storytelling is a very uh is a great technique to be able to reach the jury and to be able to describe the reasons why um you're looking for a and asking for a verdict of not guilty. So, you know, trial lawyers college, I I've certainly seen the instructors, and and so I believe I believe in the process of storytelling. You know, uh there are things about the storytelling in uh that the trial lawyers teach that might be more uh amenable to a personal injury case than to a criminal defense case. But either way, it's a great technique. If you can have a story where you've got a villain, where you can create the hero, and where you can create a narrative, uh the jury's gonna follow your story much better. Um, you know, I also like to do maybe different persuasive techniques, like um, have you ever heard the technique about um a DUI being like the sale of a house?

SPEAKER_02 11:33

No.

SPEAKER_01 11:34

Okay. So sometimes in a jury trial, at the end of the case, I will tell the jury, you know, a DUI trial is like the sale of a house. All right, here we have uh the police officer, and he's he owns the house, and he's trying to sell the house. And you, the jury, you're the buyers, potential buyers of this house, and uh you need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt before you're gonna buy the house, because for most people, the the purchase of a house is gonna be the biggest purchase in their life. So you want to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the house is in the shape that uh you're being told it it is in. The prosecutor is the real estate agent who's there to assist in selling the house. They're there to convince you to buy the house. So their job is to tell you, and they've said it here, that the house is in perfect working condition. It's in perfect condition. The defense attorney, and that's me, I'm the house inspector. I've been hired to inspect the house. I look in all the nooks and crannies. So I'm kind of that curmudgeony guy that is going to pull apart all the little loose boards and panels. I look for termites, I look for vermin, I look for signs that any of this is not in good working condition. So when you heard me today telling you about these problems, it's because you need to know that before you decide whether you're gonna buy this house. So some of the problems that I found, I don't make up the problems, they existed. The state's attorney kept saying this or that, they used fancy words like objection or whatever, or look the other way, or relevance. They want to keep you away from what I'm showing. But remember, when I showed you that there was evidence that the breath instrument had improper temperature gauges, or the gauges were off, or when I told you there was a question about whether the breathalyzer measured the result to 100% accuracy, and all of the limitations that a breath testing instrument has, and all the other things about how my client drove, and all those question marks, these were not things we invented. These are the parts of the of the house that still exist. So, ladies and gentlemen, now that you've heard all of the evidence, is that house in perfect working condition? And I would submit to you, no, it's not. Is that house worth buying? Are you convinced of its price beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, all you have to say here is, I'm taking a pass on this house. This is a no sale. And guess what? The prosecutor will be here tomorrow selling yet another house, and the next day he or she will try to sell another house to another set of buyers. But today it's very simple. Just say no sale, and that's where you come into play.

SPEAKER_02 15:21

Great ideas. Does that always work with the juries for you, Don?

SPEAKER_01 15:26

I think it does. Um now I tell people, listen, so you may have thought, oh, I don't like this curmudgeony guy, because you know, I'm gonna object, I'm gonna be that way. Um, sometimes I tell other stories instead. Um most of the time it's really about proof beyond a reasonable doubt and what are the doubts in the case. And really, um, I'm never asking them to agree with me 100%. Um, they can have their own reasons for doubt. Unfortunately, I'm limited in the length of time that my closing argument is going to be. And if that's, you know, I'm not going to tell you how the whole trial went. So there are probably things that in my summary I've missed that you thought were important, and I don't want you to forget those, uh, certainly. And um, so I really just kind of suggest that a verdict rests on the case for the rest of my client's life. There are no do-overs. This was not a case where just because the police officer arrested my client, somehow it got this far because it was more valid than that. You're the first and only set of people that are ever asked to decide the case. And we're here today. We came to this trial one year later, two years later, three months later, because we know that this is a not guilty. And that's why we will be waiting out there as you patiently discuss the case amongst yourselves.

SPEAKER_02 17:13

Over in Illinois, do you get lawyer-directed voidier, lawyer-directed uh jury selection, or do you have to uh funnel your questions to the judge?

SPEAKER_01 17:22

Well, that's up to every judge to decide how much voidier the attorneys get. But as a rule, we're allowed to have some voidir. Some judges are more strict than others, but as a general rule, um I usually try to say to the judge, judge, I mean, I got I got this far, you know. Whether this l whether the case goes to Tuesday or Wednesday, is it really that big of a deal? You know, give me my fair shot. I'm gonna try to, I'm trying to get I'm gonna try to get to the point uh with each one. And I try to make the Vladir very entertaining so that nobody is bored in the room.

SPEAKER_02 18:02

So what do you do to make it entertaining? And what are some of your uh persuasive uh persuasive approaches to jury selection when you get to do uh Laura conducted jury selection, and what are your goals with the jury selection?

SPEAKER_01 18:21

Well, uh where I practice primarily is very conservative. So I would say uh, you know, 75% or greater pro-law enforcement, uh white collar and professionals, things of that nature. So they're really in favor of the police. So you have to know your neighborhood, you have to know the crowd you're working in. It's it's like being a comedian. You have to know before you go into uh whatever your your script is going to be or your pitch, you have to know who you're speaking with. Um so quite honestly, I do not try to influence them as much as I just try to engage in a conversation and get a feel for where we're going. Uh ultimately, in the back of my mind, when I'm doing Vodir, I try to convey that the jury trial is like we're all gonna get on this bus together, we're gonna go for a ride. And my bus is kind of a bit of a party bus. It's gonna be very enjoyable. The experience is gonna be fun. And uh whereas the government's bus is very boring, it sits in traffic, it pays tolls, it stops along the way at, you know, the worst place to use the restroom. I'm I'm not that person. My bus is the fun bus, and I'm a great tour guide. Okay. So I I want people that want to be on that bus, and I don't say it that way. None of that is spoken out loud. For the most part, I'm just conveying that uh subliminally, and I do a good job of conveying. So one thing that I did do was I took a memory course, which taught me how to remember everybody's names and uh a few facts about themselves. So when I get up to do my voidier, I will have no pieces of paper in my hand, and I'll be able to approach them and speak to them. Uh, and we're allowed to say them, say their last name, but Mr. Smith and Mrs. Jones. Um and then I'll and I'll go back and forth, and it keeps everybody engaged. So I don't go one juror at a time down the line, because for the most part, if you do that, it's like school. If you know that person's getting the questions and there's 10 people before you, your brain shuts off. But if you think that the uh teacher might ask you the next question, you stay engaged. So I like to stay engaged. I ask questions such as, um, do you serve alcohol at your house from time to time? And it's interesting because less and less people do. But those that say yes, they do, I'll say, and from time to time, have your guests drank alcohol at your house? Yes, of course they have. And at the end of the evening, have you said goodbye to your guests? And even though they drank alcohol, did you feel they were safe to drive home on their own? And yes, I did. Okay. This really puts the idea of tolerance in front of them. So then I might say, so you understand the concept that some some people are able to hold their liquor, perhaps better than others, and and you know how that works. Yes. So the mere fact that somebody has one drink doesn't mean you insist that they have to take an Uber or you take their keys away, anything of that nature, right? You ever go to church and get communion where they serve you liquor there? And that's okay, right? Yeah, that's fine. What about anybody have any ideas how a person might not be able to stand on one foot for 30 seconds? That has nothing to do with alcohol. Yeah, and they've a few of the ideas, and I'll prod them from time to time. I like to say, now the judge told you about proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you going to be able to hold that line throughout the course of the trial, including during the deliberations? Are you going to hold that line, right? So they understand that their role as a juror is to hold that line. Yes. And then in addition to that, the judge told you a separate thing called the presumption of innocence. That's like, to me, it's different than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is you're going to presume somebody innocent. Can you root for the defendant throughout the trial? Presume that person innocent throughout the trial and during your proceedings in the back, the deliberations, will you be able to presume that person innocent? Can you root for the defendant's innocence? And I get them to do that. If I have a difficult juror that I, for some reason, will not be able to get them off the jury, I'll try to neutralize them. I'll say, you know, I know you've given me all these answers, and I really appreciate your fairness and your honesty here. But on behalf of my client, I really have to give you a hard question. So forgive me if it bothers you, but when you get in the back, you're not going to go back there and instantly start saying how guilty this man is after you've promised to presume him innocent and hold them to a burden called beyond a reasonable doubt, you're not going to do that, are you? And they'll and they'll say, no, I'm not. So I know that person is probably the one that's going to go back there and try to do exactly that. But since I've made him commit in front of the other 11 that he won't do that, if he does, if he or she does open their big fat mouth right out of the box, they're going to get zero respect and they're going to be outvoted by the rest of them in that way. Now, I also like to say, do you understand that they are in the in the 250 years that we've had this system, and it is the best system in the world. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Smith? How about you, Mr. Jones? Do you agree with Mr. Smith? And then I'll loop them that way. How about everybody? Let's just raise your hand. Y'all agree it's it may not be perfect, but it's the best one in the world, yes? And you've inherited over 250 years, people have applied these principles, and you've inherited them. And that's a good good thing, isn't it? We haven't given up on it yet, have we? No. And so are you willing to pay it forward and apply those principles? And as a juror, at the end of the case, if you were to sign a not guilty, you're saying, okay, I believe in these two constitutional principles and I'm applying them today. When you put your name on a not guilty verdict, do you understand that your descendants will be able to look up this piece of paper another 250 years from now? And they'll now they'll know where you stood when it was your turn to say, I believe in proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They'll know what you said when it was your turn to say, I believe in the presumption of innocence, and it'll be there for your descendants, for the future. God willing, for at least another 250 years. And that's all you're saying. You're saying not proven to a level called beyond a reasonable doubt. That's that's a very, a very comfortable thing. And do you think in the previous 250 years have there been cases where a person was maybe kind of guilty, maybe they really were, but the they got a verdict of not guilty because the proof did not reach the level called beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you think that's happened in the past? And of course they have to say yes to that. If they don't say yes, well then I try to politely excuse them. Um I try to get them revealed. Um, you know, another couple of things that I do when I'm picking juries is I'll say stuff like, uh, as a child, have you ever been accused, or any time in your life, have you ever been accused of something you did not do?

SPEAKER_02 27:17

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 27:18

Right? If they say no, they're lying. If they say yes, I'll say, well, for example, uh, your mother, uh if it's a woman or something, your mother thought uh you took your sister's sweater, um, and for whatever reason, she just believed you did it, even though you said, no, I didn't do it. Um has that ever happened to you, or maybe your sister thought the same thing and she didn't realize it was in the laundry or whatever? Sure. So these were people that love you, yeah. People that loved you looked at a set of facts and came to the wrong conclusion and and said you did something that you didn't do. So it doesn't matter, it's not about whether somebody likes you or people that love you sometimes make make mistakes and when they look at a set of facts. Have you ever looked at a set of facts, John, and came to the wrong conclusion? You thought Billy broke the window when maybe it was Johnny, and then later on you realize you were wrong. Yeah. So we all can, it's a human thing. We can all look at a set of facts, no matter how much we try, and sometimes we get it wrong. That just happens. And so, can a police officer, you're you've been told the police officer is no different than any other human being. Would you be able to apply that? And in this case, of course, somebody can look at the wrong set of facts. And maybe they didn't know everything that they now know after a trial because you know, the friend that was at the bar wasn't at the scene. When the police officer had to make that decision, he or she was working on a limited set of facts. That's why we have a trial. The trial doesn't happen on the street. Now we know. And now we know. So I like to talk in those terms uh about you know trials. Uh I try to be more of a a guide. Uh frequently, uh when I get up for opening statement, frequently a judge has never told the jury how that how the trial is going to actually proceed. So sometimes I might spend a little time to say, just so you know how the trial's going to proceed, the government's going to put all their witnesses on first, and they're going to put them on one at a time. They ask all the first set of questions, then I ask the harder questions, and then the next government witness comes, and the next government witness comes. And then it's our turn. Maybe we have witnesses, maybe we don't. I'll leave that for later so that you don't know how the entire movie is going to go. Uh, and then at the end, both of us get up to talk to you. They get they talk to you twice, I talked to you once. Then you go in the back and you start to decide. But that's how this process is going to unfold. Um, and often jurors will say, Thank you for telling me that. I really had no idea. And see, this is my being the tour guide on the party bus, letting know where I'm going with it, and giving them somewhat of uh an idea about my credibility. Not authoritary, uh, not like that, but just like a tour guide. Hey, we're gonna go down these blocks, you gotta know in advance, right? The restrooms out the side to your left, you we'll get a break every once in a while. I don't tell them that stuff because the judge likes to be that person.

SPEAKER_02 30:56

Right.

SPEAKER_01 30:57

But uh just a little bit in case in case they haven't gotten any of that. And not enough to be boring. I also try to move on really quickly from whatever I'm saying, so that if any if anybody has an objection, I'm already on to the next thing by the by the time that shows up, anyway. So it doesn't disrupt what I'm saying.

SPEAKER_02 31:17

Um I'm hearing a lot of good stuff here. I'm hearing about you being conversant. I've certainly heard uh so many lawyers over the years give their own uh description about reasonable doubt. You've given some nuances here that I haven't heard. Uh and I guess you come across to a lot of the potential jurors and the jurors as their uh their lovable uncle. Uh but there's maybe maybe I want to rent some of your or borrow some of your judges because you you say how fair some of them are with a reasonable doubt. But I have to imagine that even someone as likable as you sometimes has a judge getting down your neck. And does it happen? And if that happens, how do you deal with it?

SPEAKER_01 32:01

Well, I'm not always the lovable uncle. I think I come up, I think I come across, I'm a tour guide, but if anybody gets on that bus that's gonna try and F with the uh with my my passengers, oh, I've got the weapons. Okay. So uh I I come across judges all the time uh that like me because I've been doing it long enough, and you have to earn your reputation frequently. And I have plenty that don't like me, and I have plenty that were prosecutors that want to get even with me, right? Now they're on the bench, now they're the boss. So I don't have any problem with that because I appeal cases. So, and plus I've written the book. So I always had appellate work in the back of my toolbox. From the very beginning, I have appealed cases. Uh and the appeals, when they'd be published, your name would be on them. Who's the lawyer that did this? And I lost more than I won, certainly along the way. But it keeps judges honest if the law is in your favor. And so along the way, I've learned to be patient when they make their rulings most of the time. And if they don't make the right ruling, I'm writing it down and I'm moving on. Uh, but I will appeal a case for free. I do that frequently to look for areas of the law where I want to uh create new law, uh expand on it. Um I don't appeal every case, you know, you can't do that. But uh if the judge knows that you have no problem filing a notice of appeal, they treat you differently. Yes. If they know that you are gonna you have instant replay nowadays, then they have to call the balls and the strikes more honestly. If they can call a ball way outside the plate a strike just because it's against you, and you're not willing to appeal or call that replay, they'll take advantage of that from time to time. You just have to you have to be confident that and understand um how it works. And you know what? I tell my clients this too. I can file a hundred motions, I can make a hundred objections, we only have to win one to win the case, right? So don't worry about the other 99. We're okay there. And you know what? The same holds true in a jury trial. You can win any case in the bottom of the ninth inning, you can win any clay case in closing argument. You got that far. Amazingly, jurors believe that you're going to trial because you have a reason for not guilty. They're gonna give you that. Okay, we are a forgiving nation. All right, and I say that to juries. We are a forgiving nation. We have learned to give people the benefit of the doubt. We are a kind, gentle group of people, and that's why you have been polite and willing to listen to what we've had to say today. And I know you're going to give the benefit of the doubt here.

SPEAKER_02 35:48

You talked about doing free appeals now. So what uh not all your appeals are free, are they? And and how do you decide which ones are free?

SPEAKER_01 35:59

Um, if it's a case where, you know, many of these cases, the cost of the appeal uh would not override the consequence of the finding of guilty. You know, like uh deferred adjudication. Maybe they're gonna get a non-conviction. We have something here in Illinois where the first DUI is a deferred adjudication. We call it court supervision. There's no conviction. You have to do classes, you have to pay a fine, you have to be good, um, and you can't get another one in your lifetime. Well, nobody's gonna want to pay $20,000 for an appeal under those circumstances with a $1,000 fine. So that would be a case where if there was an interesting uh area of the law that I wanted to explore, I'd talk to them about whether they wanted me to do the appeal for free so I could do that. If it's a case where I wasn't interested, I'd just tell them bluntly, I'm not interested in this appeal. Um, you know, so that that can they can find another attorney and I would help. Uh it's a it's just a decision that comes along the way. I don't do an appeal if I don't think there's a decent grounds for it for free. Um and in Illinois, there's no stay of the sentence or the consequence just by filing an appeal. So if somebody's gonna go to jail, go to prison, do whatever, the consequences happen up front unless you can get a stay from the appellate court or from a judge, which is rare. So all of these have to be decided along the way. So I've done hundreds of appeals in 40 years. Um but I'm always interested in what's going to benefit my future clients. Or if I have other cases where the same issue is re-reoccurring and I have to put a stop to something.

SPEAKER_02 38:06

Which case or cases have you argued in the U.S. Supreme Court?

SPEAKER_01 38:11

Well, I argued one case in the United States Supreme Court. It was called Illinois versus Lidster. And it was a case where the police had set up a roadblock, which they called an informational checkpoint, to look for uh people who might have witnessed a fatal hit and run one week earlier. So they set up this checkpoint to stop people to say, Did were you in this area a week ago, same time, same place, did you happen to see anything? And then here comes my client, who they then stop, and they they claim that he was under the influence at that moment, so they arrest him for a DUI. So now the issue of whether the informational checkpoint was a violation of the Fourth Amendment uh had to be decided. And um the trial judge said, no, this is okay. The appellate court said, no, this is not okay. The Illinois Supreme Court, in a four-to-three decision, said this is not an okay checkpoint. And then the United States Supreme Court took the case to review it to decide whether informational checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. Now, during the history of the case, which took a few years to get all the way up there, we had two things that happened. We had 9-11 happen. Right. And then we also had the DC Sniper happen. Right. So by the time I got to the United States Supreme Court, the most common thing was the DC sniper. And since I'm sure you're aware of that story, I'll just summarize it. There was snipers that were shooting people in or near Washington, D.C. And then uh after they would shoot these people, the police were setting up roadblocks to try and catch them. Uh the roadblocks did not help, but it became sort of a commonplace event for a period of time that that's what they were doing to look for the snipers. Same holds true with terrorism. Terrorism became a thing where suddenly all the cases that were being heard, and still to this day, all the cases that are heard in the Supreme Court of the United States, Fourth Amendment, we all they plug in a different hypothetical. When they say, could this person be stopped for this reason or another? They say, would this be a valid technique that we would want to use to catch a terrorist? That's how I look at it. I think that's how they looked at it there. So the the uh the bottom line is the Supreme Court of the United States said this case is okay. The roadblock was constitutional in a six to three decision. Ah, you would stop people for what 30 seconds, a minute? What's so harmless about that? That's not that big of a deal. So uh now informational roadblocks are lawful um in those types of situations, I guess.

SPEAKER_02 41:37

More incursions on our liberty.

SPEAKER_01 41:39

More incursions. Uh so I got the silver medal, but it was it was a wonderful experience. I'll never I'll never forget it.

SPEAKER_02 41:49

When I went to the uh field sobriety test uh training uh session with uh Anthony Palacios, Hugh, and several of the other leaders at the NCDD, I was just blown away about the uh the focus on the science, making sure we were knowing it, making sure we're getting it right. And I think one thing I remember uh learning from one of the leaders or maybe the executive director of the group was that a lot of the materials from the NCDD are not made available even to the members, other than attending the classes. So do I have any of that wrong? And and really, please use this as an opportunity to tell uh criminal defense lawyers who do DUI defense what they're missing out on by not being members of the NCDD, not being active with it, or if you think that the uh alternative group is okay, the same thing with you know the the importance of being involved with the NCDD or the alternative group.

SPEAKER_01 42:47

Yes, John. I actually remember our back and forth conversation by email in April of 2022 on this very subject.

SPEAKER_02 42:55

And that was you.

SPEAKER_01 42:56

Yeah, where you were going back and forth about you're wanting to share this brilliant information with your um peers, and how kind and admirable that you are that way. And I have to compliment you for that. You're a wonderful, wonderful lawyer that gives back to the profession, and uh it's people like you that are so valuable to the rest of us in that way. Um, but unfortunately, the National College, we we pride ourselves in teaching all of these defenses, um, but we're not able to share because many of the contributors to the college don't want us sharing their their hard work um without their permission. That's just you know, that's just the world. So, you know, we like to encourage people to join. It's really it's $250 a year, I think, something. Like that, which uh I used to say it's not even one speeding ticket for a whole year's worth of information. Now I'd say it's not even one parking ticket. Your own parking ticket's more than $250, John. I know how much they're they're tagging people for in Washington. If you can afford a parking ticket, you can afford to join the National College for DUI Defense. Um, you will learn everything you want to know, and we have a virtual library, just like Google, but we have our own library where we have all of the information you could possibly imagine that covers almost anything you'd ever want to know about DUI, about interfering tests, studies, good, bad, and otherwise, you will become an instant expert. And of course, you're going to go, if you're a private practitioner, you're going to go from a solo practice to a practice with 1,500 fellow associates in an instant. I will tell you, way back when, when cell phones were not as prevalent as they are today, but they were available. Uh, I was at a trial and instantly started a thread on the National College for DUI Defense Listserv uh seeking information that I could use to cross-examine a literal witness on the stand. And uh it was amazing how much information was flying right at me during that event. So I would highly recommend uh that people join the college for that purpose. It is money so well spent. You win one case in your lifetime and you've paid for dues forever.

SPEAKER_02 45:55

Now, of course, people become members in a that uh a minimum of every two years the person has to attend either an NCD program or an NCDD-approved program.

SPEAKER_01 46:07

That is true. Um, we don't really force people to, you know, fill out forms anymore. We trust that they will do that. And quite honestly, I wouldn't think of any reason why somebody wouldn't want to continue to attend these high-quality courses, whether it's through us directly or through um uh affiliates. You'd want to do that. And most state or local uh organizations, if you want to go to one of their courses, you can email us and we'll give you that as an approval of your course. So it's literally uh nothing that is very difficult whatsoever.

SPEAKER_02 46:52

Now I get back to what motivates your dedication. Because I think for the field sobriety uh training um uh program alone, that was a Thursday through Saturday. What motivates you to uh leave Illinois to be helping out everyone else? Is it just paying it forward? Is it more than that?

SPEAKER_01 47:11

Uh it's paying it forward. I don't get paid a dime for my work. Uh, it's all volunteer. Um, I mean, they pay for me to fly coach in the middle seat, and I get one of these wonderful rooms with uh two double beds and a holiday inn every once in a while. Um so no, it's uh it's a love of the game. I really enjoy what I what I've been doing, and uh it also protects our profession because you know what? If people were only exposed to um Hyundai's and Kia automobiles, they would have no idea that there's Rolls-Royce's and Corvettes and Cadillacs, they wouldn't know such things exist, so we try to roll out those other cars so that lawyers know hey, there are real lawyers that do this work. There we don't just plead people guilty, and not everybody is guilty. As I like to say, even if a breathalyzer is 99% accurate, that means one out of 100 people are being wrongfully accused.

SPEAKER_02 48:21

Yes, reasonable doubt.

SPEAKER_01 48:22

Yeah, and that means our job is to find that one out of one hundred so they don't get convicted. That's my job. Uh, and I want science to be honest, and I uh and science is important to the criminal justice system, and it starts with literally a radar gun and it it continues through with breath testing equipment. Now we have drug testing equipment, we have eyeball testing equipment, and it's not fair if somebody was to be e uh convicted simply because, oh, it's just a DUI case, it's not a murder. Well, you know what? If police officers think they can get away with telling untruths, if scientists think they can get away with this, then it will be murder cases, it will be felonies. So it's important to hold our ground from the ground level. Okay, we are the first level of defense. We are the Bill of Rights attorneys. We're not DY defense attorneys, we're Bill of Rights attorneys. That's right. And that's our job to teach the Constitution, to demand the level of proof remain what it has been, and to force science to be honest and truthful. No cheating. Wherever the ball ends up is where it ends up. And that's our job, right?

SPEAKER_02 49:48

What is the status of uh driving the influence of marijuana, cannabis, or THC in Illinois? In Virginia, fortunately, there are no uh per se rules. And my understanding is that the Department of Forensics Science Scientists will say there is no direct correlation between THC levels in the blood and impairment.

SPEAKER_01 50:09

Yes, Illinois adopted a 5 nanogram Delta 9 THC limited in blood and a 10 nanogram delta-9 THC limit in other bodily fluids in 2016 when they legalized recreational marijuana. So we have a per se limit. And I agree with you, John, it does not correlate to being impaired, but that's the law in Illinois. Um we just uh recently I led a team of people that forced a crime lab to shut down and it's now closed, and thousands of cases are on review because the lab was cheating. And remember, I used the term Delta-9 THC? That's only one of the cannabinoids in cannabis, but their testing was falsely including other cannabinoids, such as Delta 8 THC. So they knew it and they weren't revealing the truth that their methods were improper. So, yeah, we're fighting that battle every day as we speak, John. Um so hopefully it's not coming to a theater near you or a courtroom near you. But if it is, um be on the lookout. There are uh labs that don't know what they're doing.

SPEAKER_02 51:35

Absolutely. Do you have any uh persuasive approaches to cross-examination beyond what our friend uh Larry Posner teaches about cross-exam?

SPEAKER_01 51:48

I'm not really a chapter and method guy. Um I I use all the techniques depending on what's going on. I I don't want to be a predictable sod, and I'm not saying that Larry Posner is. It's very helpful. All right. Uh chapter and method is uh is helpful, um, just like one word, one question questions, one answer questions, however that goes, are uh but I'm a I'm a conversationalist. So, you know, I'm paying attention if the jury can listen and follow. And obviously, if you have a difficult witness, then you have to bring it down to uh basics. And if you're a very new lawyer or uh maybe a nervous lawyer, then use the methods that you're taught. I use methods, it's not that I'm just up there just winging it, maybe I am a little bit, but uh yeah, so I'm always thinking about my closing argument. And I'm just taking what I can get, putting it in my pocket, and moving on. I'm at the point now where I don't make the police officer say, now say you're sorry, officer, for having made that prior inconsistent statement. Look at the jury. I'm beyond that, okay? I'm not, I don't make them cry anymore. Um I try to be sort of an officer's friend, too. And I might say something like, now, officer, um, remember when you were taught the three uh basic areas of DUI detection? And they'll be like, hamana, haamina, hamana, like that. I'll say, I'll say, well, you know, vehicle in motion, personal contact, pre-arrest screening. Oh, yes, yes. You're just nervous because you know, you're here and I'm putting questions to you, right? Yeah, because you're nervous and so, you know, I am too. Yeah. Right? I'm trying to help them out. Um, so when we talk about it, these are your decision-making factors. I'm I'm not trying to make them wrong unless they want to go that route with me. Okay. I just want them to be admit where there's disputes and there's issues and the accuracy, the one leg stand was taught at 65% way back in the beginning of time. If they don't remember, I've got the book there. Just go, just go with me, officer. I'm not gonna hurt you.

SPEAKER_02 54:17

Right. And since you are so likable, at least in my two interactions with you, uh, during the FST training and today, does that mean that you never butt heads with any of your clients? And if you do ever butt heads with them, uh, how do you handle that?

SPEAKER_01 54:33

Well, this is being recorded, John. So we're gonna have to we're gonna have to save that for a beer and another day. All my clients are just wonderful, all right? They're number one, they're nervous, they're scared. It's our job to make them understand what's taking place. And if I have to repeat it six times, you know I just tell them, oh, you guys are wonderful. You're such a mensch. And you know, and and then and then we move on from there. Now, but the stories we tell in the locker room might be a little different. Maybe the story stories in the lawyer's lounge are a little different than that, but that's where they're gonna stay for today.

SPEAKER_02 55:19

Very good. Don, I told you we'd go until one o'clock, and it's 1 p.m. I could go on and on, but I'm sure you have other stuff to do too. So this is your opportunity to say anything you haven't said that you want to say or to repeat anything you did say.

SPEAKER_01 55:36

Well, um, I just want to say that I really enjoy what I'm doing. Um it's like eating eggs three times a day. Um, it's DUI defense. But I love eggs. And I still wake up in the morning and go, oh great, I think I'll have eggs today. All right. And that's how you need to be when you have a certain niche of what you do. And uh you you need to enjoy what you're doing. Um that's what we that's what we got ready for and studied for our whole lives. So reinvent yourself, right? Isn't that what they say? Hey, try to be yourself, but if yourself's not working, then be someone else. So thank you so much for inviting me. I really enjoyed our conversation today, John.

SPEAKER_02 56:27

Well said. I learned more from you, and I'm sure a lot of our listeners have learned some great things for you as well. Everybody, you've heard from Don Ramzell, a great criminal defense and DUI defense lawyer, and I think he said a Bill of Rights lawyer over there in Wheaton, Illinois. If you need uh services that he provides out in Illinois, call him up. This is John Katz. I'm a criminal defense and DUI defense lawyer here in Fairfax, Northern Virginia. This is Beat the Prosecution because there is no other way. Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 56:58

Thank you for listening to this week's episode from Beat the Prosecution. This is a regular podcast giving people a leg up against police investigations and prosecutions. Nothing discussed on our media sources, such as our podcast or website, is legal advice. John Katz only provides legal advice to current clients or to individuals who have paid for a consultation. We welcome you contacting us via email at info at beat the prosecution.com by calling our office at 703 383 1100 or texting us at 571 406 7268.