Man challenges court jurisdiction on his DUI cases

KINGMAN - A local man says Mohave County Superior Court has no jurisdiction in prosecuting him for driving under the influence.

Rex Carl Sagely, 60, was arrested shortly after midnight on Jan. 2, after a deputy with the Mohave County Sheriff's Office said he observed Sagely's gray Ford pickup swerve into the other lane while traveling northbound on Patsy Drive.

Sagely was taken into custody after deputies performed a field sobriety test. Sagely refused a breath-analysis test while at the Sheriff's Office and was transported to Kingman Regional Medical Center, where his blood alcohol content tested at .147, nearly twice the legal limit.





Sagely's January arrest was his third DUI arrest in the last year. He was arrested last August and September by Mohave County Sheriff's deputies and each time refused the breath-analysis tests. Those cases are still open.

At an evidentiary hearing Thursday, Sagely, who is serving as his own attorney, said he believed the search warrant used to obtain his blood was not signed by a judge before the sample was taken at the hospital. The deputy who arrested Sagely testified at the hearing that he obtained the judge's signature before transporting Sagely to the hospital. He said he may have made copies of the warrant before taking it to be signed.

Sagely said the copy provided to him by the deputy was not signed. Judge Rick Williams said it was possible Sagely was provided with a copy of the warrant made before it was signed by a judge and denied the defense's motion to suppress the blood evidence.

Sagely has filed several motions to have the case thrown out of court before it goes to trial. Sagely joined the Little Shell band of Chippewa Indians five years ago. He said that as a member, he is subject to the tribe's laws, not the state of Arizona's laws.

"I realized I didn't have the rights Native American have," he said.

Sagely cancelled his Arizona driver's license in March 2008 and obtained an international identification card, which he said negates his driving contract with the state of Arizona.

The court says it has jurisdiction in cases that occur on non-tribal land regardless of the defendant's heritage.

Richard Neal, assistant attorney for the tribe, said the court is pre-empting the tribe from enforcing its own law.

"We're entitled to the revenue, not the state of Arizona," Neal said. "The only reason the state is prosecuting is for the revenue."

Sagely admits to having about three to four drinks prior to being pulled over, "but that was sometime prior to getting onto the highway," he said. He said the state has failed to provide him with copies of the original tickets, along with other documents such as copies of federal treaties with Native Americans.

"Denying me the tickets denies me a fair trial," Sagely said.

Williams said Sagely could still conduct pre-trial witness interviews without the original tickets. He also said many of the documents requested by Sagely are "arcane documents" not relevant to the trial and are not in the possession or control of the state.

"I realize there is a difference in opinion in what the defense feels is relevant and what the court feels is relevant," Williams said.

Neal said Williams is "rubber-stamping motions made by the prosecution."

"We know he's going to deny it (defense motions) before he's even heard it," Neal said.


Source

Know Your DUI Expert

Let me tell you a tale of two contrasting DUI cases.  Both where the attorney and I have worked together in the past.  One where the attorney prepped with me in advance, and the second when the attorney didn't

In the first case, based on  incredibly good performance on a dash-board patrol camera, the defense attorney was able to asked me questions that lead the jury to have enough reasonable doubt for a full acquittal.  That's impressive enough on most DUI cases, in this case the defendant was charged with:

1)  Impaired to the slighted degree

2) BAC over 0.08 within 2 hours of driving

3) BAC over 0.150 within 2 hours of driving (AZ Extreme DUI)

4) BAC over 0.200 within 2 hours of driving (AZ Super Extreme DUI)

The attorney in this case is arguably one of the best litigating DUI attorneys in the southern Arizona area.  The evidence against the subject was a blood reading of 0.265.

In the second case I wasn't prepped properly for trial.  I had read the case material, and in my case notes I had written that the case seemed very weak, and the subject's (who's blood reading was a 0.146) best possible outcome was very likely a regular DUI charge.

There was a lot of documented behavior in the case that would lead to very poor jury appeal.

The issue in the case was that the blood draw occured over 3 1/2 hours after driving.  The attorney got me on the stand and made sure I was aware (and the jury was aware I was aware) of the time line of the case.  The theory of the case for the defense was that a retrograde extrapolation (a back calculation/prediction of the subjects BAC earlier in time) can't be done from 3 1/2 hours after the time of driving.

His question was something of the effect of - Isn't it true that there is no way to give a reasonable scientifically accurate retrograde extrapolation 3 1/2 hours after driving, and with no eating or drinking history?

My answer was something to the effect of - "Accurate scientific and retrograde extrapolation" are oxymorons.  Be that as it may, without an eating and drinking history, in Arizona it is still generally accepted to retrograde back to the time of the stop +2 hours.  Some police scientists might go an hour, others might even go a half hour, but 2 hours would be fine, but we have to remember that based on the literature, the individual's calculated BAC could over-estimate their actual BAC by as much as 10% if they aren't fully absorbed at stop +2 hours.

This wasn't the answer the attorney was expecting, and it basically tanked his case.

Always remember to talk to your expert before they get on the stand.  The state's expert can hurt your case, but your own expert can destroy it even quicker if you don't know what their opinions are, and you make assumptions.

Source