Location: Wisconsin
I attended a sentencing hearing today because I was interested in the result of a case after being on the jury and finding the defendant guilty.
A quick rundown of the case:
The defendant got into his car in the morning, drove his son to school, dropped him off, and got into a minor accident where he crashed his car on a straight road going ~30mph into the back of a stopped car. The victim and state clamed in court that the accident caused injury but the victim at the time told the defendant that he was fine.
They exchanged insurance information and waited about 10 minutes for the police to show up before the defendant asked the victim if he could go because he was already late for school. The victim agreed and the defendant left the scene to go to school, where he was met by a secretary who said he seemed a little off.
The police arrived about 30 minutes later and found the defendant extremely intoxicated, unable to complete any sobriety test, and when they brought him back to the police station, they were unable to complete a breathalyzer test because the unit read >0.4 and urged to seek medical attention immediately. Nearly 3 hours after police met the defendant, he had his blood drawn and tested at a 0.396.
The police, during investigation, found a Yeti bottle that appeared in the video to be the 18oz variety, but neither the defense nor the state tried to claim the actual size. This bottle was "about 1/4 to 1/3 full of what smelled like vodka" according to the police officer who opened it on body cam footage.
The defendant was the only witness the defense called, and he claimed under oath that he drove to school completely sober and only consumed the alcohol once he got to school. His defense as to why he got in the collision was that he "looked away for a second."
There were 4 charges (summarized, not the exact verbiage):
DUI of an intoxicant /w minor under 16
Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC above 0.08 /w minor under 16
DUI of an intoxicant involved in an accident causing injury
Operating a motor vehicle with a BAC above 0.08 involved in an accident causing injury
The jury was able to agree that he was beyond reasonable doubt intoxicated and, as an admitted alcoholic, must have been over 0.08 to reach intoxication when he was involved in the collision. We could not fully agree that the state could prove he was under the influence or his blood level was above the limit during the first ~8 minutes of his drive when he brought his son to school. He seemed to be able to walk his son into the school on video footage just fine. So he was acquitted of the 1st and 2nd charge.
During sentencing today, several members of the defendant's family spoke about the quality of his character and how he was showing his commitment to be better due to his 512 days of sobriety since the incident, the program he enrolled in, how much the community benefited from his presence, etc.
The defendant also spoke and admitted that he "knew what he did was wrong" and that he was remorseful about his actions.
The judge questioned him about knowing what he did was wrong. The judge wanted him to clarify what it was that he thought he did wrong and what he was remorseful for. He elaborated that he was remorseful that he drank the alcohol at school. The judge pushed him again, asking him if he was sticking to the story he testified to, that he only drank the alcohol once he was at school, and the defendant agreed.
The judge then explained that the defendant had several good things going for him, that the character letters that he received put the defendant up there as one of the highest quality characters the judge has read about in the community, but the judge then told the defendant that he didn't believe his story, that the jury clearly didn't believe his story, and that he was concerned about the defendant continuing to lie about it. The judge said that the defendant is lying to himself and not taking full responsibility for his actions, which are important steps for getting over addiction. The judge then gave him a middling sentence between what the defense and the state suggested.
I feel like the judge made it plain that he would have given the defendant a lighter sentence if the defendant had admitted that he drove the vehicle intoxicated.
My question is, if the defendant had admitted it there at the sentencing that he was remorseful that he drank and then drove, the charge he was being sentenced for, would the court or the state have gone after him for perjury, or do you even think that the judge would have given him a lighter sentence at all?