Finally, defense attorneys try to discredit law enforcement witnesses by emphasizing that they failed to follow their departments' rules. Every day in the field, law enforcement officers conducting criminal investigations are called upon to make quick legal decisions. These decisions are later scrutinized in the sterile environment of the courtroom. Law enforcement witnesses who display a thorough understanding and well-founded application of the law garner favor with the judge, the jury, and the defense attorney. Judges give much more latitude and credence to the answers of these officers.
Jurors generally find their evidence reliable and credible.
A typical dialogue between a defense attorney and a potential juror may go something like this. This exchange appears innocent but could prove damaging during the trial when the defense attorney discounts the law enforcement officer's testimony as opinion, not fact. This frequently occurs during DUI trials. If the defendant refuses to take Breathalyzer and field sobriety tests, the testimony of the arresting officer may be the prosecutor's only evidence. In such cases, the defense will argue that without corroborating tests, the defendant's condition at the time of arrest is merely the officer's opinion.