I'd have to agree. Having once been convicted of going 78 miles an hour in a car that could not possibly crack 45, I know that cops often create or change facts to meet "performance standards" of tickets issued or conviction rate on their arrests. The slightest hint of this kind of thing going on, and I'd be completely discounting everything the cop said.

My question is did the guy get charged for resisting arrest and/or assault? Spitting on a police officer is assault, is it not?

That was what I was wondering - why would the prosecutor be screwing around with a questionable DUI charge when there seems to be stronger evidence for a resisting arrest/assault charge?

I can't help but wonder if the prosecution hurt their own case emphasizing the spitting. I understand the reason for the emphasis (to make the defendant look bad), but it gives the officer a reason to be overly angry at the driver, therefore making it more likely he would lie about the vehicle moving.

How were you convicted? Seems a simple "If you can get this car to go 78, I'll plead guilty" line would have worked...

We actually asked in the debriefing if he had other charges pending against him based on this incident. The Public Defender said she was frankly unsure what she was allowed to tell us about other charges pending against him. She did admit that he wasn't going to walk out the front door of the courtroom after his aquittal.

Honestly the issue did come up during deliberations. "If that damn car had backed up three feet toward that deputy, why is he wanting to have him processed for a DUI? I think I'd want to send him up for assault, if I were him."

The spitting as assault or actually more likely battery didn't come up at all.

An interesting point; EVERYONE who said they had contested a traffic ticket was excused from by the prosecution. Once the case went to the jury, and I started to evaluate the case, I understood that coorelation immediately. Prior to that point, I couldn't figure out why this near retirement age high school and college physics teacher was excused, almost, no actually, before he took an actual seat in the jury box. He had contested a parking ticket for parking next to a fire hydrant. As evidence, he provided the court photos showing the car next to a huge snowbank, presumably hiding said hydrant and the appropriately painted curb. He lost his challenge.

DUI most likely was handled on its own, with the other charges (likely felonies) completely seperate. This was just a "pile-on" charge.

Interesting read. Mine was similar, but we convicted. It was about 5 years ago, but many of the details are pretty clear still.