Mr. Corletta obtains 5^th consecutive reduction to Driving While Ability Impaired.

Mr. Corletta, by filing Motions and conducting a Pre-Trial Suppression Hearing involving a difficult technical issue as to what exactly constitutes a lane violation, forced a reduction to Driving While Ability Impaired, a traffic infraction, in People v. N.R. (Henrietta Tn. Ct., 1/15/20).

In that case, Mr. Corletta conducted extensive cross-examination of the arresting deputy as to whether the client committed an Unsafe Lane Change under applicable law. Pursuing the officer vigorously, Mr. Corletta got him to admit he applied his own subjective standard, not the objective standard required by the caselaw. Strictly arguing caselaw, Mr. Corletta asserted the police may not apply their own discretion or subjective reasoning in determining what constitutes an unsafe lane change.

Unfortunately, while the Court did not agree with Mr. Corletta’s argument and sustained the stop, but the proverbial “seed” had been planted.

The District Attorney, fearful of a not guilty verdict at trial, promptly offered Mr. Corletta, even though he lost the Probable Cause Hearing, a reduction to Driving While Ability Impaired, a mere traffic infraction.

Thus, Mr. Corletta demonstrated how important it is to put up a vigorous defense, even while losing a motion seeking to suppress all evidence based upon a lack of probable cause to stop. Mr. Corletta made enough of an impression on the District Attorney, as well as the Court, which took several months to issue a decision, that the District Attorney did not want to risk acquittal at trial, and therefore offered a reduction to a far less serious offense, which does not involve a criminal record or Ignition Interlock.

The strategy is often to get the client the best possible result without putting them in harms way at trial. This is a classic example of this sort of strategy. Charges cannot be reduced if one doesn’t work for the reduction. The “my client’s a nice guy” defense doesn’t cut it.