Source: http://www.michigancriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2010/11/
Timestamp: 2015-02-01 07:05:06
Document Index: 585512012

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 1']

November 2010 Archives: Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeals - Fixing Errors That Caused the First Appeal to Lose - Part 3
In part 2 of this article, we examined some of the reasons that an initial, usually "do-it-yourself" License Appeal is lost. In this third and final part, we'll conclude our discussion with a review of some of the more serious errors that can occur, and how they are fixed in order to win the next Appeal.
In plenty of my other articles, I have pointed out that the Substance Abuse Evaluation itself is the very foundation of an Appeal. While it can never win an Appeal on its own, it can absolutely be the cause of one that's lost. In order to help a case, and not hurt it, the Substance Abuse Evaluation must really have 2 essential qualities:
1.	It must be "legally adequate" in the eyes of the DAAD, and
2.	It must be "favorable" for the person filing the Appeal.
Those qualities are explained thoroughly in my articles about the Substance Abuse Evaluation. Here, we're looking for an example of a catastrophic error in a "do-it-yourself" Appeal. So we're clear, this kind of error should never happen when a person has a real, bona-fide License Restoration Lawyer handling their Appeal. In fact, it's precisely this kind of error that I avoid for my Clients.
Let's assume a person has submitted a Substance Abuse Evaluation that was "legally adequate," or, in the DAAD's view, "sufficient." Let's also assume that the Evaluator notes in the Comments section that the person should involve themselves in some kind of Recovery support, such as AA or Counseling. Let's further assume that are not actively involved in that kind of support at the time of their Hearing.
Of course, they'll lose their Appeal. That's a given. The Hearing Officer will note that the Evaluator felt that such support was important to the person's Recovery, but the person was not so involved at the time of their Hearing. Yet again: Game over.
But what should they do for next year's Appeal? Do they now start going to AA? What if they testified that they didn't like AA, or found it wasn't for them? How do they address this problem next year, and rectify any inconsistency between their prior testimony and the advice of the Evaluator?
Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeals - Fixing Errors That Caused the First Appeal to Lose - Part 3" » Posted by Jeffrey J. Randa | Permalink | Email This Post
Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeals - Fixing Errors That Caused the First Appeal to Lose - Part 2
In part 1 of this article, we began outlining how the biggest obstacle to winning a License Appeal after an initial loss is addressing and fixing the problems that cause the loss. Now we'll move onto a more detailed discussion of some of those things, focusing on the less severe problems first, and getting into more serious, or catastrophic problems in part 3.
If the reason or reasons for the loss are significant, however, things are different than if they were not that bad.
In a recent article, I noted that I NEVER call witnesses in my cases. The long and short of that article was that anything a witness can say live can be included in a Letter of Support. Of course, knowing what should specifically be in those letters, and what is a waste of space (like how the person has suffered without a License, how they've learned their lesson and will treasure the ability to drive again, what a good and different person they are, or how their employment opportunities will be so much better if they could drive) is the result of considerable experience practicing before the DAAD. Anyway, many less-experienced Lawyers or "do-it-yourselfers" drag witnesses to the Hearing in the hopes that their testimony will help their case.
Quite often, it does not. As I noted in that witness article, Letters of Support cannot be cross-examined, do not get nervous, and certainly don't make mistakes in testifying, because Letters don't testify. Witnesses do all of the above, even if unintentionally.
As I sit across the conference table from someone who is hiring me to handle their second try at getting back on the road, and I read the Order denying their first Appeal, I often find inconsistencies between the testimony of various witnesses, or between what the witness says and what the person Appealing said earlier. To be clear, witnesses are kept outside of the Hearing Room while the person testifies, so they have no clue what was said. They are called in afterward, having no idea of what has transpired.
Let's say Dan the Driver has testified that he has been sober for 2 years. In response to the Hearing Officer's questions, Dan admits that he had a back injury at work about 9 months ago, and had a prescription for Vicodin, which he used then, but discontinued when his condition improved. Okay, not the best situation, but in and of itself, not the end of the world.
Dan lives at home with his parents (or it could be that he lives with his girlfriend) and either mom or the girlfriend are called in to testify. Even with a Lawyer asking the first questions, there will come a point when the Hearing Officer has an opportunity to question the witness, and be sure, they will.
Continue reading "Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeals - Fixing Errors That Caused the First Appeal to Lose - Part 2" » Posted by Jeffrey J. Randa | Permalink | Email This Post
Michigan Driver's License Restoration Appeals - Fixing Errors That Caused the First Appeal to Lose - Part 1