During the last ten months, Mr. Corletta has scored victories in Driving While Intoxicated cases on a wide range of issues, in a variety of forums.

In People v. V.K. (2/11/04), Mr. Corletta convinced a Town Justice in rural Wayne County that an accusatory instrument charging his client with Driving While Intoxicated Per Se was facially insufficient, based upon the arresting deputy’s failure to sign the supporting deposition, and failure to state he witnessed the breath test. This case was subsequently followed by another rural Wayne County Justice in an adjoining town.

In People v. R.H. (7/28/04), Mr. Corletta obtained suppression of a statement made during field sobriety testing on grounds defendant’s situation had become custodial, thereby restricting the broad use of the “investigatory” exception to Miranda first enunciated in Berkemer v. McCarty 468 US 420 (1984). In this case, which was subsequently tried to the Court on September 27, 2004, Mr. Corletta obtained dismissal of three of the four charges, and obtained a reduction for his client to Driving While Ability Impaired on the DWI charge.  An underlying Speeding charge was dismissed based upon a Memorandum of Law submitted by Mr. Corletta, arguing the Court could not take Judicial Notice of the placement of speed signs. Due to a failure of proof by the People that the signs were actually placed in the area where the alleged violation occurred, the charge was dismissed. In that Memorandum, Mr. Corletta utilized obscure case precedent that was over 35 years old.

In People v. T.H. (10/1/04), Mr. Corletta obtained rare suppression of statements in prosecution-oriented Ontario County, again arguing that statements made during field sobriety testing in response to pointed questions by police were not “investigatory” under Berkemer v. McCarty, and required Miranda Warnings.

Finally, using his knowledge of Criminal Procedure Law speedy trial rules to the benefit of his clients, Mr. Corletta has obtained dismissal of Driving While Intoxicated charges in  3 separate cases, on several different grounds, due to the unexplained failure of police officers to appear at pre-trial hearings or trial.  In People v. J.S. (11/12/04), a police officer was granted an adjournment of one trial date due to a vacation, and then failed to appear on the second rescheduled trial date. Defendant, an older woman with no prior criminal history, had traveled from out of state, spending hundreds of dollars on airfare to make sure she was present for her trial date. The Court, on Mr. Corletta’s motion, taking into account the woman’s age, lack of a prior criminal history, relative weakness of the evidence in the case, and the police officer’s unexplained failure to appear, dismissed the Driving While Intoxicated charge in the “furtherance of justice.” Dismissals under that statute are rare.

In People v. P. (1/08/05), Defendant was originally charged with Driving While Intoxicated as a felony.  The charge was subsequently reduced by the Grand Jury to Driving While Ability Impaired, a traffic infraction.  Due to excessive periods of time taken in arraigning Defendant, and in presenting the case to the Grand Jury, as well as delays in obtaining the Grand Jury Minutes, Mr. Corletta filed a Motion to Dismiss the Driving While Ability Impaired charge based upon a Constitutional  Speedy Trial violation.  Such a motion is not attempted often, because it is a "gray area", and it is unclear what the period of limitation is for infractions.  Mr. Corletta convinced the Court and DA to  give his client an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal, which involved no conviction for anything, no license suspension, no jail time-no fine.  This was an exceptional disposition given Defendant's underlying circumstances, which included an extensive prior history for Driving While Intoxicated.