Should you testify at your impaired driving or you're over 80 milligrams of alcohol trial? That's a That's a loaded question. You have a right to remain silent so you don't have to testify. What happens in impaired driving trial is winning those cases is often about weakening. The police evidence showing is not credible or reliable or showing the police made an error.
Oftentimes, the crown will call the police officers to testify and I will cross examine the police officers and I'm able to show those errors and have the reasonable doubt emerge directly from their evidence with no need to ever call the client. So that's a good situation to be in. And that's always the goal. At the end of the Crown's case, you have to make the decision is there enough reasonable doubt based on the police evidence or the civilian evidence? There’s Civilian evidence often called in impaired driving. for the judge to have reasonable doubt? If the answer to that question is yes, you may not want to call your client, particularly when like very many of these trials are very technical, technical aspects which has nothing to do with what your clients going to say, so you don't have to call them now sometimes when it's an impaired driving and an over 80 cases at the end of the Crown's case. You'll say to yourself, look, I created reasonable doubt in the over 80 But the impaired still a grey I think I've done a pretty good job weaken the police evidence, but I think I need my client to bring it home. For example, I was driving down the road I dropped my cigarette lighter. That's why I was reaching and I swerved I had a concussion, here's my medical evidence. So, you're dealing with throwing out the impaired because over 80 is based on technicalities, police mistakes charter issues and apparent based on is there a reasonable doubt that the accused was impaired that's a visual thing so the client often has to testify. So every case is different but you know a lot of impaired driving over 80 cases I don't have to call my client because a reasonable doubt has been made already and I know that I can see in the Judge’s eyes because sometimes it's actually a signal to you at the end of the Crown's case with subtle questions, Mr. Kruse, do you really want to call your client you know, that's a nice position to be in there’s the odd judge that would rather do that than waste another half day in court because we know they’re going to acquit. So, I often will take a break in the end of the case and I discussed that in the Crown's case. Halfway through the day of the trial day, I will sit down with my client say look, these are the pros and cons of testifying. You're fully prepared, but we don't need you to testify, or we need you and the client. It's a client's decision ultimately, but I but I guide them to make the right decision. They don't always agree with me, but they usually do. Like 99% of time, I've had the client disagree with me there's too nervous or too much anxiety that's happened to me before, but that in a nutshell is the answer The real answer to the question, it depends on the case. It depends if reasonable doubt has already been established at the end of the Crown's case, whether you need to call your client and it's a tricky decision because you don't want to make the wrong decision because if you think the judge is going to acquit, don't call your client and convict, wow, you made the wrong decision. So that's why you need prepare that client and you tend to error on the side of caution. You error on the side of caution by calling your client unless you're compellingly convinced you've already won the case and the Crown’s case. That's it in a nutshell.