They say that Ithaca, NY is "ten square miles surrounded by reality," and I would imagine life would be easier if we could only all agree on what reality is.

It is often a challenging task for lawyers to clearly communicate the reality of their pending criminal charges. Explaining a legal situation by placing it in context, and in terms they can understand can be difficult. In the practice of DWI defense a discussion of the differences between reality, fantasy, and actuality are an integral and necessary part of the case evaluation process.

I always like to tell my clients, and potential clients that I deal in reality, and not fantasy. If they are looking for pipe dreams, long shots, and Disney happily ever after then they have the wrong guy. I am not optimistic or pessimistic, I AM REALISTIC.

Growing up on the streets of Brooklyn, NY gave me a real education. My father was a prison guard. He was always "on" so to speak. The man was very wise about understanding people. He was not the trusting type, so what I did not get on the street, I most certainly learned from him.

Reality always comes from a person's specific, personal, and unique vantage point. This viewpoint is likely grounded in a person's set of mental filters and life experiences. Jurors from various backgrounds who sit on the same case, side by side in the same box, will likely focus on different facts. All that they choose to hear and see are then interpreted through their own belief systems. The unanimous conclusion they form over a person's legal guilt or legal innocence hinges on their agreement as a cohesive group over what the facts mean to them. A not guilty verdict in a DWI case does not mean innocent, NOT GUILTY merely means NOT PROVEN .

It is often the case that agreement between the jurors over "whether a person was driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving while their ability was impaired (DWAI)" may have less to do with the truth of the evidence presented and have more to do with how they see and interpret the world.

The prosecutor and the defense attorney will both present the same set of facts but from different points of view, and with different conclusions. Which story (focus), and which conclusion regarding the DWI charge the jurors believe will partially rest on their upbringing and unique set of life influencers. That is why the jury selection or de-selection process called "Voir Dire" (literally to speak truth) is crucial to discovering possible juror prejudice or bias. Voir dire is when both Judge and attorneys can ask the jurors questions to bring out issues of partiality or unfairness amongst the jury pool prior to them being picked to sit for a trial.

In a DWI trial, we certainly want jurors who can be fair and impartial. If they or a family member was hurt by a drunk driver they will likely bring a highly charged prejudice into the Courtroom. If they or a family member works or worked in law enforcement this will likely color their opinion in favor of the police officer and breath test operator's degree of credibility and subsequent testimony.

The "Reality" Question: Can the jurors put themselves in your shoes?

If you are under the age of 21, and were out on a night of illegal drinking (you must be 21 to legally drink in New York State) and you had a grinder on the front seat (a device used to get rid of pot seeds) then a jury of people from the ages of 40 to 70 who do not smoke may not be in your favor.

In contrast, if you were out celebrating your birthday with family and friends, and you were over 21 at the time, the scales will probably tip in your favor. This is because many people will likely relate to your legal and normal, social celebration of that special occasion with alcohol.

Jury empathy is powerful. Your unique set of facts on the night of your stop and subsequent arrest speak volumes to people who can see themselves, and their own behavior in your situation.

The main purpose of an attorney review and evaluation of your criminal case is to clearly, completely, and objectively dissect the evidence against you . I cringe when attorneys tell me it only takes five minutes to read a police report.

I believe that Only after an attorney has complete discovery (police reports, accident reports, investigative notes, and records), and your version of the event, can he or she give you a fair and balanced legal opinion. The law is based in degrees of culpability (fault), and likelihoods (probabilities). Is it likely based upon all the facts, the charges, and the totality of the situation that the government can prove all the criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt? You can not sweep bad evidence under