DUI Trial Defense in New York - Securing a Partial Acquittal

1. DUI Trial in New York – Case Background and Initial Charges

The early phase of the DUI trial required an immediate assessment of the severe allegations. Prosecutors charged the client with drunk driving and vehicular injury, asserting impairment, negligence, and violation of New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) §1192. The prosecution argued that the client caused the collision due to intoxicated driving, but the DUI trial also required an inquiry into causation and whether the injuries met statutory thresholds.

Collision Circumstances and Prosecution'S Allegations

During the DUI trial, the prosecution emphasized the client’s BAC of 0.193%, which far exceeded the license-revocation threshold under New York law.

They asserted that the client failed to maintain proper lookout and that the victims’ cervical sprain constituted legally cognizable injury.

The defense accepted the DUI violation but challenged the injury charge.

Evidence showed that the victims’ vehicle entered the merging lane aggressively, possibly striking the client’s vehicle from an unfavorable angle.

Defense Intake and Strategic Case Positioning

The DUI trial strategy focused on an alternative narrative grounded in objective evidence.

Our defense team examined dash-camera footage, accident-reconstruction data, and inconsistencies in the victims’ statements.

The client acknowledged intoxication but maintained that the collision was not caused by his actions.

The defense positioned the DUI trial on disputing legal causation and the statutory definition of injury.

2. DUI Trial in New York – Challenging Causation and Liability

The DUI trial then moved to the critical issue of whether the client’s conduct legally caused the collision. New York case law requires the prosecution to prove a direct causal link between intoxicated driving and resulting injury.

Traffic Analysis and Fault Allocation

Dash-camera evidence revealed that the client was traveling in the second lane after completing a right turn.

The victims’ vehicle appeared to merge at an angle that compromised visibility.

The DUI trial highlighted that the victims’ rapid entry, rather than the client’s intoxication, was the primary collision factor.

The defense presented expert accident-reconstruction analysis, showing that the client’s steering angle, speed, and lane position were consistent with reasonable operation.

Impeaching Inconsistent Testimony

The victims testified that their vehicle had been fully established in the lane before impact.

However, the DUI trial exposed inconsistencies between this testimony and the dash-camera footage.

The defense used point-by-point impeachment to undermine credibility.

This discrepancy significantly reduced the prosecution’s ability to satisfy the burden of proof.

3. DUI Trial in New York – Contesting the Legal Definition of Injury

A pivotal portion of the DUI trial revolved around whether the alleged injuries met the statutory threshold of “impairment of physical condition,” as defined in analogous provisions such as VTL §1192 and judicial interpretations in injury-based prosecutions. The victims received two-week cervical strain diagnoses, but the DUI trial required scrutiny of their actual physical condition and post-accident behavior.

Medical Evidence and Lack of Functional Impairment

The DUI trial revealed that the victims:

Chased the client’s vehicle immediately after the collision
Were hospitalized for only two days
Primarily received electrical-stimulation therapy
Did not pursue further treatment after discharge

These details were used to argue that the injuries did not meet New York’s standard requiring significant health impairment or functional limitation.

The defense presented supporting medical commentary to reinforce this argument.

The DUI trial concluded that minor strains do not automatically qualify as prosecutable “injury.”

The defense argued that merely receiving a diagnosis does not meet the injury threshold without demonstrable impairment.

The prosecution could not rebut this position with persuasive medical evidence.

4. DUI Trial in New York – Verdict and Legal Outcome

The conclusion of the DUI trial demonstrated the effectiveness of a dual-track defense. The court accepted the defense’s argument that the prosecution failed to prove causation and the legally required degree of injury. The client was fully acquitted of the DUI-injury charge. The DUI trial resulted in a substantially mitigated sentence on the DUI offense. Despite the high BAC, the court imposed a light monetary penalty rather than the harsher sanctions typically associated with aggravated DUI cases in New York.

21 Nov, 2025