A lifelong struggle for him. For the life of me, I don't get why rich folks don't have a driver or access to one when needed

IANAL (IAJAA) but ... how is this constitutional? A crime defined by how many previous convictions you have? Obviously habitual offending can play a role in sentencing or the prosecutor's discretion on whether to charge you with, for example, felony assault or misdemeanor assault. But if he paid the fine and did the time on those earlier convictions, how are those part of this offense? Aren't prior bad acts usually inadmissable due to prejudicing a jury yet here it's part of the actual charge?

Throw the book at him as far as I'm concerned but what's to keep them from defining persistent burglary or persistent prostitution or persistent trespassing (would be very convenient against protesters)?

That said, if we can get persistent stepping out of the box defined as a felony ...

2. Enhancements based on prior conduct are constitutional in the US. Prosecutor has to prove the prior convictions (accused is entitled to a jury trial on whether or not he was convicted of the crime).

As to prejudice, it is very prejudicial to have a jury hear about prior convictions when deciding the current conduct. Often the proceedings are bifurcated, meaning there is a trial on the merits, the current charge (in this case DUI) and, if there is a conviction, a second trial with the same jury on the priors. Sometimes judges would err by discharging the jury before the trial on the priors, which, at times, would result in the prosecution's being unable to proceed to trial on the priors.

As to bifurcation, there still is a three strikes law in California providing for a life sentence for a felony upon conviction of two enumerated prior felonies (the priors were strikes, usually serious crimes). Originally, the third offense did not have to be a strike. So, if a person had a simple possession of drugs for personal use (which, with exceptions, is currently a misdemeanor) and had two prior robbery convictions, the person faced a 25 year to life sentence upon conviction (and some people got it). Some lawyers in trying these cases would not request bifurcation of the priors, reasoning that a jury (at least in some areas) would be reluctant to convict a person of a minor crime knowing that sentence would be 25 years to life. Some defendants would mention to a jury during testimony (and even some would just say it during the course of the trial from where they sat) that they were looking at a third strike, hoping to avoid a conviction for a minor offense.

apparently TLR instructed all parts of the organization while he was there

Plaudits to #4.

I do think the guy should be cut some slack if it's been 11 years between offenses.

I do think the guy should be cut some slack if it's been 11 years between offenses.

are you referring to him suggesting stepping out of the box should be defined as a felony? If so I do not agree.

I do think the guy should be cut some slack if it's been 11 years between offenses.

I'm one of those with two dui's. My last one was in 2010. You are forced to put an interlock on your vehicle after the second one for a period of one year. You have the option of keeping it on. I've kept mine on for fear of exactly this, a felony. It's $30 a month for the interlock, every car I have had since then, and will going forward will have one. If I screw up again, it really doesn't matter how long it's been, I know it's a felony, it's drummed into your head during the rehab classes.

I wouldn't ask for slack if caught again, I know better. Well I would ask for slack, but wouldn't really expect it.

Nowadays with uber, I feel it's even easier to avoid a dui.

It's $30 a month for the interlock

Aren't you the guy who won't subscribe to Play Index because it's too costly?

A lifelong struggle for him. For the life of me, I don't get why rich folks don't have a driver or access to one when needed

He's a sideline reporter, I doubt he's "rich", but yea, if I can afford an Uber when I go out, he surely can.

Aren't you the guy who won't subscribe to Play Index because it's too costly?

So? PI is a pure luxury, from the sounds of it an interlock is close to a necessity for CFB.

Aren't you the guy who won't subscribe to Play Index because it's too costly?

The cheapskate probably also pays for insurance, gas for his car, and food. Priorities!

Thanks #3. But I'm still a bit confused. Both three strikes and the bifurcation you're talking about (news to me) sound closer to "sentencing" impacts rather than defining a new offense. When the two burglaries and the drug possession, the defendant is tried on the drug possession and the drug possession alone, charged with the same crime as anybody else allegedly in possession of drugs could have been charged. Or at least that's how I've understood those laws to work. It sounds similar in the bifurcation where they are first convicted of the latest offense then the earlier offenses are considered -- I assume that initial conviction is charged as the "normal" crime.

So I can understand there might be felony DWI and misdemeanor DWI with "third time, at the latest, we charge you with felony DWI." But it's still a charge and trial on that one incident. Here it sounds like "third time DWI" is the charge making it impossible to exclude the prior charges. Anyhoo not high on my list of concerns.

if I can afford an Uber when I go out, he surely can.

Where we need to change behavior is getting people not to drive there in the first place. Make the sensible decision when you're sober then you won't have to worry about making it later. Of course if you're getting drunk/high at home then going out ... maybe stick a note on your steering wheel that says "call uber you idiot."

I'm one of those with two dui's. My last one was in 2010. You are forced to put an interlock on your vehicle after the second one for a period of one year. You have the option of keeping it on. I've kept mine on for fear of exactly this, a felony. It's $30 a month for the interlock, every car I have had since then, and will going forward will have one. If I screw up again, it really doesn't matter how long it's been, I know it's a felony, it's drummed into your head during the rehab classes.

I wanted to acknowledge this because I remember years ago you being taken to task (by me and others) saying you did not think drinking and driving was a big deal. If you are doing what you stated beyond when it was required, it shows remarkable growth as a person to know that you need this in your life because of the consequences. I don't care if your stance on how you feel about drunk driving has changed because you have taken steps for you yourself not to do it.

I know anonymous person on chat board may not mean anything, but you truly have my respect for this. Thank you!

Where we need to change behavior is getting people not to drive there in the first place. Make the sensible decision when you're sober then you won't have to worry about making it later. Of course if you're getting drunk/high at home then going out ... maybe stick a note on your steering wheel that says "call uber you idiot."

The vast majority of DWI deaths and serious injuries are caused by people who are hard core alcoholics and habitual drunk drivers. IIRC the average BAC in a fatal DWI is something close to 2.0. These people are not making a lot of good decisions.

Aren't you the guy who won't subscribe to Play Index because it's too costly?

The problem was PI had a massive price jump, and the quality and options actually got reduced, so you are paying massively amount more for an inferior product.


9, 10 thanks for the defense.

I wanted to acknowledge this because I remember years ago you being taken to task (by me and others) saying you did not think drinking and driving was a big deal. If you are doing what you stated beyond when it was required, it shows remarkable growth as a person to know that you need this in your life because of the consequences. I don't care if your stance on how you feel about drunk driving has changed because you have taken steps for you yourself not to do it.

I know anonymous person on chat board may not mean anything, but you truly have my respect for this. Thank you!

Thanks. It's appreciated.

If I had two DUIs in Missouri I'd just move. I wouldn't want that hanging over my head. It seems at some point they should go away and you get a refresh. Ten years seems about right to wash away past sins

Prosecutor has to prove the prior convictions (accused is entitled to a jury trial on whether or not he was convicted of the crime).

Wait...what?

Both three strikes and the bifurcation you're talking about (news to me) sound closer to "sentencing" impacts rather than defining a new offense.

It might sound strange, but there are plenty of crimes like this. Oregon doesn't have "persistent" DUII, but the number of felon in possession of a firearm cases I've worked is practically uncountable, and I've only been at the DA's office since June.

EDIT: (A) That's right, #############, Voxter is now one of the think factory's dreaded attorneys.

(B) Also, it is true that recidivism is usually dealt with at the sentencing level. But the distinction between "felony" and "misdemeanor" is one of sentencing, anyway -- any crime punishable by 1 year+ in prison is a felony, any crime punishable by less is a misdo, at least in the federal system and most states. So really what "persistent DUII" comes down to is that he's going to be eligible for more than a year in prison.

12. I can't speak to Missouri law; in CA, the priors would be bifurcated. The priors do enhance the sentence; a jury must find them true (unless jury trial waiver/admission). Formerly, CA had a petty theft w/prior law, 2nd time (amended to 4th time) petty theft could be filed as a felony. One difference of a sentencing enhancement ("strike law") and prior making a crime a felony, the prosecutor must prove them at a preliminary hearing (probable cause hearing required in felonies, nationwide, unless indicted by grand jury). I don't remember if the priors were bifurcated in petty theft w/prior trials.

Felon with a gun is another crime depending on a prior conviction. But, for that crime the jury is told of the allegation (though possibly not the nature) of the prior conviction b/c it is otherwise legal (with many, many exceptions) to have a firearm in CA.

CA has a priors law on DUI's; 4th one w/in 10 years = felony. It is not a lifetime priorability. The time period may have changed, but I think it's still 10 years.

17. Yes, trial on the priors, absolutely, the issue is whether the defendant is the person who was convicted of the crime; CA courts have held that the issue of whether the crime is a serious felony ("strike") for example is one for the court (which I don't think is accurate, but who am I other than some idiot pounding a keyboard). Examples of where much confusion arose was assault; assault could be committed by using a deadly weapon (although the enhancement for use of a deadly weapon could not be pled b/c it is an element of the offense) or by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (such via fists or feet). The court records in some of the older priors were often unclear. Currently, the statute is renumbered so it is a lot easier to tell whether the assault was by means of force likely to cause GBI (not a strike) or with a deadly weapon (is a strike). Note also, the prosecutor would have to prove the defendant personally used a weapon (per statute; other crimes, such as robbery, are strikes listed in the statute, so the prosecutor just has to prove the conviction.

18.(B), distinction between felony and misdemeanor is one of jurisdiction in addition to sentencing. A prosecutor cannot charge as a felony a crime defined as a misdemeanor. There are some crimes in CA that the prosecutor has discretion to charge as a felony or a misdemeanor (4th time DUI is one of them, never seen a 4th charged a misdemeanor).

There are couple other ones in CA: possession of body armor by a person convicted of a violent felony (seen that mischarged when the person was convicted of felony assault, which is not a violent felony as defined in CA law); also use of teargas by a convicted felony. That latter statute is very confusingly written; possession of tear gas by a convicted felon is strictly a misdemeanor. But, if you are so inclined (which I was for a reason) you can look up in CA all the opinions (appeal post trial) postconviction for that offense. One court reversed trial court that sentenced the person to a felony. Amazingly, one court UPHELD a felony sentence, that had been enhanced with a strike, meaning the person got 4 years in prison (at 80%) for a crime that at most carried 1 year in a local jail. We all make mistakes.

Aren't you the guy who won't subscribe to Play Index because it's too costly?

Driving sober and not getting thrown in jail seems slightly more important than a PI subscription.

He's a sideline reporter, I doubt he's "rich", but yea, if I can afford an Uber when I go out, he surely can.

He's the main announcer for Cardinal broadcasts, he probably makes good money (I've seen numbers ranging from 70,000 a year which would be a joke, to $4mil a year, which seems more on par for a guy who is the face/voice of Cardinal broadcasts)

McLaughlin is out of a job.

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/dan-mclaughlin-is-out-as-cardinals-broadcaster-by-mutual-decision/article_ffc859bf-63f2-5247-ba80-b9759ab971cf.html