NOW REVEALED: 7 Secrets Your Prosecutor Doesn’t Want You To Know!

1. If every defendant insisted on their constitutional right to go to trial, the Prosecutors (Assistant State Attorneys) handling DUI cases would be in court all day long.

Assistant State Attorneys can’t spend all day in court; they are already overwhelmed with cases!

2. Now more than ever, the minimum mandatory sentences for DUI offenses are so severe, a DUI defendant has little to risk by taking their DUI case to trial.

My clients often ask “will the judge punish me with a harsher sentence if I insist on taking my DUI case to trial?” In truth, there are a few judges who will impose the maximum sentence on a defendant who loses at trial, simply because that defendant would not accept a plea-deal from the State prior to trial. Our Florida law-makers keep raising the minimum sentences for DUI violations, so that if you decide to take your case to trial and you lose, you will likely receive the same sentence as the person who pleads guilty or No Contest.

3. The Assistant State Attorney doesn’t want to be there any more than you do.

No attorneys working for the State Attorney’s Office (SAO) want a career prosecuting misdemeanor DUI cases in criminal court day after day. Any Assistant State Attorney (ASA) would rather be prosecuting high-profile felony cases than covering a traffic court docket. In fact, the Assistant State Attorney has to handle 40 to 50 other cases with criminal defense attorneys on the criminal court docket each day. In Broward County alone, there are five separate criminal courts with fifteen different Assistant State Attorneys handling criminal matters every day. The senior Assistant State Attorneys try to get assignments to the fastest judges, so they could be done with court each day as soon as possible.

4. The Assistant State Attorney is never fully prepared. She has too many cases to juggle each and every day.

In South Florida, Assistant State Attorneys DO NOT review traffic cases ahead of time because they are overloaded with case files. They barely review their DUI cases before they get to court.

And don’t be shocked when I tell you that it is impossible for me to contact any particular Assistant State Attorney with knowledge about your case before your court date to discuss your case, because the Assistant State Attorneys rarely go over their DUI cases before the court date. In fact, most DUI cases are not assigned to a designated Assistant State Attorney until the last possible minute.

5. The arresting police officer is unprepared or fails to show up.

Let’s face it, your case is just one of dozens of cases on the docket that the arresting officer has on that particular date. It is common for a police officer to have 25 to 30 DUI cases on one date in addition to dozens of other traffic tickets he has to appear on. Without fail, the arresting DUI Task Force officer has no recollection of your DUI arrest because he made hundreds of arrests before yours and hundreds of arrests after yours.

This happens over and over again in court when a police officer on the witness stand reads from his notes because he can’t remember the events of your particular DUI arrest; as a seasoned DUI defense lawyer, I always object to an officer reading from his notes and, after my objection is sustained by the judge, it becomes obvious that this officer has no independent recollection of your arrest because his answers to my cross-examination questions consists of “I don’t recall… I’m not sure… I think he did… it’s possible she said…” etc. He can’t possibly remember your arrest because he has arrested hundreds of drivers before he arrested you, and he arrested hundreds of drivers after he arrested you! He can’t be expected to remember each and every DUI arrest he made.

6. Assistant State Attorneys know very little about the so-called “science” behind field sobriety testing.

Standardized field sobriety testing (SFSTs, aka the “roadsides”) is not something taught in any law school, it’s not taught in any Driver’s Education class and it’s not found in your Florida Drivers Handbook when you prepare for your Florida Driver’s License examination… and this is because the SFSTs are not part of your Florida Driver’s License exam. You are not required to do the heel-to-toe, walk-and-turn (WAT) exercise, or the one-legged-stand (OLS) exercise in order to get your Florida Driving Permit or Florida Driver’s License. In addition, 13 states already refuse to allow Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test results into evidence in DUI cases, because like the other Standard Field Exercises (SFEs) they are unreliable in measuring any level of intoxication.

Actually, the SFSTs are not even considered “tests” by scientists and they are not recognized in the scientific community or the medical community as having any reliability in predicting intoxication. They are actually “exercises” that are designed for failure. A thorough and complete knowledge of these field sobriety exercises (FSEs) would actually hurt the Prosecutors’ DUI cases. In fact it would stop them from making the argument that the results of these exercises should be given more weight and credibility than they deserve.

For example, the SFEs used today were originally supposed to be a reliable predictor of Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .10 and above. But since the legal limit was lowered to .08 in 2004 in all 50 States, technically there is no weight a judge can give these “tests” on someone with a .08 or .09 BAC. The FSEs are commonly referred to as “Junk-Science” or “Fake Science” among DUI defense attorneys, scientists and those in the medical profession.

7. The arresting DUI Task Force officer did not follow proper procedures when conducting the field sobriety exercises.

When a police officer receives proper training about field sobriety exercises, he learns the proper standards and procedures used according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”). However, for example, on the “follow the pen with your eyes” test (the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, or HGN), the manual says that if the suspect moves his head during the exercise, the officer should use his flashlight or his free hand as a chin-rest for the suspect.

In my experience as an aggressive criminal defense lawyer, I have never had an arresting DUI Task Force officer testify that he used anything as a chin-rest for a DUI suspect… even though that officer will testify that the DUI suspect was swaying side-to-side and unsteady on his feet.

The NHTSA manual also indicates that the walk-and-turn (WAT) and one-legged- stand (OLS) exercise should not be done if the suspect is more than 50 pounds overweight or has physical limitations that could affect his balance. The manual also states that the walk-and-turn exercise “requires a line that the suspect can see.” In my experience, this warning is almost always ignored by the testing DUI Task Force officer.

If you have been arrested for a DUI you owe it to yourself to call me, Hollywood DUI lawyer, Richard G. Salzman, Esq. for your FREE 30-minute telephone consultation.

Despite what you may think, getting arrested for Drunk Driving is no longer a hopeless case. Whether it’s your 1st DUI, 2nd DUI, or 3rd DUI… everyone knows that hiring a skilled and aggressive DUI attorney is your ticket to fighting and beating the DUI charges against you. In fact, there are many powerful and effective strategies I can use for fighting and beating your misdemeanor DUI or felony DUI charge, or at least keeping adverse consequences to a minimum.

Don’t let procrastination, hesitation or fear stop you from fighting back! For your free 30-minute initial case evaluation by phone, call me, Hollywood DUI lawyer Richard G. Salzman, today (855) DUI-GONE (855-384-4663), home of South Florida’s Premier DUI Defense Law Firm.

Let me be your DUI Defense WARRIOR!
We accept All Major Credit Cards.

Florida DUI Defense Law Offices of Richard G. Salzman, P.A.
4340 Sheridan St., Suite 102
Hollywood, FL 33021
(954) 981-0336
(855) DUI-GONE, (855) 384-4663

The content contained herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinions. It is only offered for general informational purposes. The information is intended, but not promised to be current, complete or up-to-date.

7 Simple Questions That Can Result in DISMISSAL of your DUI case!

7 Simple Questions That Can Get Your DUI Case DISMISSED!

First, can I ask you a personal question? (… no, this question isn’t one of the 7 Simple Questions I am referring to). My question to YOU is, have you ever wondered how some people are able get their DUI case dismissed or the charges substantially reduced while others are convicted of criminal DUI, thrown in jail and slammed with heavy fines? The answer may be easier than you think…

You probably already know that once you are stopped and suspected of drunk driving a Florida DUI Task Force Officer is called to the stop to do a Florida DUI investigation. During the course of your DUI investigation, the law requires the police to follow certain procedures. If the arresting officer fails to follow any of those procedures, your DUI case will be DISMISSED.

What you may call a “technicality” or “loophole”, is actually the way your DUI lawyer enforces your Constitutional rights. Hollywood DUI lawyer, Richard G. Salzman uses creative and aggressive DUI defense techniques to tear apart even the toughest Florida DUI cases with the highest breath test readings and failing roadside sobriety exercise scores.

Even a Refusal can be successfully challenged!
The following is a list of 7 simple but critical questions that can significantly impact the final outcome of your DUI case:
1. Did the officer warn you that your drivers license would be automatically suspended if you refused to submit to a breath test?
2. Did the officer neglect to inform you that you had the right to a lawyer before performing the roadside sobriety exercises?
3. Did a police officer tell you to “keep blowing” during the breath test?
4. Do you suffer from any injury or illness which may affect your balance?


5. Do you suffer from any illness that may cause you to have slurred speech; excessive sweating; red or watery eyes; restlessness; alcohol-smelling breath (example: Type II Diabetes); extreme fatigue; or light-headedness?
6. Did the arresting officer mistake your nervousness or exhaustion for intoxication?
7. Did the arresting officer neglect to conduct your roadside sobriety exercises on a flat, dry surface that was well-lit? Were your roadsides conducted on the side of the road, close to passing traffic?
7a. BONUS question: Did the DUI Task Force officer fail to observe you for 20 uninterrupted minutes just prior to conducting your breath test?
If you answered “YES” to any of these questions, you owe it to yourself to call me, Hollywood DUI lawyer Richard G. Salzman, for your FREE 30-minute telephone consultation.

Whether it’s your 1st DUI, 2nd DUI, or 3rd DUI… everybody knows that hiring a skilled and aggressive DUI attorney is your ticket to fighting and beating the DUI charges against you! In fact, there are many powerful and effective strategies I can use for fighting and beating your misdemeanor DUI or felony DUI charge, or at least keeping adverse consequences to a minimum.

Don’t let procrastination, hesitation or fear stop you from fighting back! For your free 30-minute initial case evaluation by phone,     call me, Hollywood DUI attorney, Richard G. Salzman, today (855) DUI-GONE (855-384-4663), home of South Florida’s Premier DUI Defense Law Firm.

Let me be your DUI Defense WARRIOR!
We accept All Major Credit Cards.

Law Offices of Richard G. Salzman, P.A.
4340 Sheridan St., Suite 102
Hollywood, FL 33021
(954) 981-0336
(855) DUI-GONE, (855) 384-4663

Top 10 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Talk to Police!

Top 10 Reasons Why You Should Not Talk with the Police

REASON #1: Talking to the police CANNOT help you. EVER.

If the police are talking to you, it’s because they suspect you have committed a crime. If they have detained you, it’s because they already have enough evidence to arrest you and they want to see if you will admit it and thus, give them an even stronger case against you. If they have evidence to arrest you for a crime, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. It’s as simple as that. Talking to them or not talking to them won’t make a difference! No one has ever “talked his way out of” an arrest. If the police have enough evidence to make an arrest, they will.

If you deny that you committed the crime, they will not believe you. They already have evidence suggesting that you committed the crime. They’ll assume you’re just doing what every criminal does in denying the offense. It will not prevent you from getting arrested. This is completely contrary to popular belief.

For some reason, many people think that they are savvy enough or eloquent enough or well educated enough to be able to talk to the police and convince the police not to arrest them. But ask any police officer if because of the eloquence and convincing story of the suspect, they have ever been convinced not to arrest somebody whom they had originally intended to arrest, and they will tell you no. They will tell you that in their experience, no one has ever talked themselves out of getting arrested. Talking to the police cannot help you. It cannot prevent you from getting arrested. It can only hurt.

REASON #2: Even if you’re guilty, and you want to confess and get it off your chest, you still shouldn’t talk to the police.

There is plenty of time to confess and admit guilt at a later stage of the proceedings. What’s the rush? Always get a lawyer first. Let the lawyer set up a deal whereby you get something in exchange for accepting responsibility for the offense; a better plea bargain, or maybe even immunity. If you confess to the police, you get nothing in return. Zero. In fact, you probably will get a harsher prosecution because the state’s case is now airtight, now that you have confessed.

REASON #3: Even if you are innocent, it’s easy to tell some little white lie in the course of a statement.

This kind of thing happens all the time. A person who is completely innocent and who is vehemently trying to assert their innocence will go overboard and take it a little bit too far and deny some insignificant fact, tell some little white lie, because they want to sound as innocent as possible. But if the police have evidence of that lie, it makes your entire statement look like a lie. The prosecutor will ask: “Why did he lie to the police? Why indeed would he lie to the police, unless he were guilty?”

That little white lie could be used to destroy your credibility at trial.

An example would be a man who is questioned about a murder. He wants to sound innocent. He wants to sound non-violent. He is, in fact, innocent. So he denies everything. He denies the killing. He denies being in the area where the killing occurred on the night that it occurred. He denies owning a gun, and denies that he has ever owned a gun in his whole life. But it turns out that this last statement is not true, And the police can prove it. He did at one time during his life own a gun. Now he has told a lie and the police have caught him and things will only go downhill from there. Although he is innocent of the murder, he has told a lie that will be used to destroy his credibility at trial and could be the cause of his conviction.

REASON #4: Even if you are innocent, and you only tell the truth, and you don’t tell any little white lies, it is possible to give the police some detail of information that can be used to convict you.

For example, a suspect is being questioned about a murder. He is truly innocent of the murder. But in the course of explaining his innocence, he makes the statement that he never liked the victim, because the victim was not a nice guy. A statement like that could be used to prove motive.

Or in the course of the statement, the suspect might admit that he was in the area of town where the murder was committed at the time it was committed. Although he’s innocent and although this statement is true, the prosecutor could use that statement to suggest that the suspect had the opportunity to commit the crime, which looks very bad in front of a jury.

REASON #5: Even if you were innocent, you still should not talk to the police because of the possibility that the police might not recall your statement with 100% accuracy.

What if the police officer remembers something wrong? What if he remembers you said “X” when actually you said “Y”? If the police officer takes the witness stand and contradicts your statements at trial, it will kill your credibility. You can take the witness stand and say “I never said that!” But it’s your word versus a police officer. Who’s the jury going to believe? Who will the jury assume is lying to save his own skin? Who will the jury believe is lying because he’s really guilty? You guessed it. YOU!

REASON #6: Even if you’re innocent, an innocent person can still make some innocent assumption about a fact or state some detail about the case they overheard on the way to the police station, and the police will assume that they only way the suspect could have known that fact or that detail was if he was, in fact, guilty.

Example: Suppose a police officer is questioning a suspect about a homicide. And the suspect makes the statement “I don’t know who killed the victim. I’ve never owned a gun in my life. I don’t even like guns.” On it’s face, there’s nothing incriminating about that statement. But suppose at trial, the prosecutor asks the police officer if anything about that statement surprised him. The police officer answers “Yes, it surprised me when the suspect mentioned a gun, because I had never mentioned a gun before that. I merely told him that I was investigating a homicide.”

When the officer said there has been a homicide, the suspect may have simply assumed that the killing was done with a gun. Or the suspect may have overheard in the police station some other officer talk about the fact that it was a shooting. But if the officer taking the statement had never mentioned a gun or a shooting, and the suspect makes the statement that he had never owned a gun, you give the prosecution the opportunity to create some high drama, suggesting that suspect has had a Freudian slip, and has made a statement about a gun because he is, in fact, the murderer. And as the murderer, he knew that a gun was used.

REASON #7: Even if you’re innocent, a suspect’s answers can still be used against him if the police (through no fault of their own) have any evidence that any of the suspect’s statements are false (even if they are really true).

Suppose the police have a statement from a witness who claims to have seen the suspect in the area where the crime was committed at the time of the incident. Suppose further that this witness is actually wrong, but has made an honest mistake. The suspect then gives a statement to the police in which he says he was nowhere near the area where the crime took place at the time of the incident. By giving the statement, the suspect has now created a conflict between his own statement and the statement of this witness. By itself, the statement of the witness that he or she saw the suspect in the area at the time the crime was committed is not that useful. But by giving this statement, and creating a conflict with this witness’s statement, the suspect has now made this relatively minor witness into the government’s star witness.

The jury will hear the conflict and will assume that the suspect is lying and wonder why.

So even if you tell the complete truth, you’re putting your cards on the table without first seeing what evidence the government has. And some bit of evidence which, through some honest mistake, contradicts part of your story, if the government has you set yourself up to be portrayed as a liar by giving a statement without first knowing what evidence the government has.

REASON #8: The police do not have authority to make deals or grant a suspect leniency in exchange for getting as statement.

People tell me all the time that they gave a statement to the police because the police told them that they would be better off if they confessed, better off if they admitted what they did wrong, better off if they cooperated. The police will make vague statements that things will go easier on the suspect if he simply admits what he did wrong. The police will also make vague statements suggesting that they will do what they can to help the suspect, that they will put in a good word with the prosecutor, if the suspect will just come clean.

Number One thing to remember: The police do not have authority to make deals, grant immunity, or negotiate plea agreements. The only entity with that authority is the State Attorney in state court and the U.S. Attorney in federal court. Despite their claim that they are trying to help you, the only help police are providing when they take your statement is giving you rope with which to hang yourself.

REASON #9: Even if a suspect is guilty, and wants to confess, there may be mitigating factors which justify a lesser charge.

Mitigating factors are rarely brought out by the police in an interview. Normally, police want to focus on the facts that will suggest the suspect has committed the most severe crime possible. In fact, the suspect may have committed a lesser grade of offense. And if given the opportunity to talk to an attorney first, the attorney may be able to explain to the suspect what facts are important in establishing that he is guilty of a lesser grade of an offense, and not a higher grade. A confession presented in this context to the State Attorney’s office might result in a lesser charge and a more appropriate and fair penalty.

REASON #10: Even for a completely honest and innocent person, it is difficult to tell the same story twice in exactly the same way.

If you tell your story one time at trial and you tell the truth and you’re innocent, there’s very little the prosecutor can do by way of cross examination. But if you’ve told your story twice, once at trial, and once previously in a statement to the police, many months apart, the chances are very high that, even if you are telling the truth, some little details in your statement are going to change.

A good cross examiner will pick up on these changes and will relentlessly question you about them in an effort to make it look like you are lying.

So for all these reasons, whether you are guilty or innocent, whether you want to confess or want to exonerate yourself, whether you’re poorly educated or the most eloquent speaker in the world, you should NEVER, EVER, under any circumstances, give a statement to the police when you have been detained as a suspect.

Are you serious about beating the charges against you? If so,           don’t let procrastination, hesitation or fear stop you from fighting back! For your free initial case evaluation by phone, call me today (954) 981-0336. We accept All Major Credit Cards.

I’m Richard G. Salzman, your Criminal Defense WARRIOR!

My goal is Justice, but I’ll settle for VICTORY!