If you’ve been charged with DUI (also known as OWI in Michigan), you might be thinking:
“It’s my first offense—I probably don’t need a lawyer unless things get really serious, right?”
This is one of the most dangerous assumptions people make after a DUI arrest.
Jury nullification occurs when a Michigan jury returns a verdict that is contrary to the law given them by the Judge. In a criminal case, jury nullification occurs when the jury, while believing the accused to be guilty, nevertheless return a verdict of not guilty.
In Michigan criminal defense cases, jury nullification can be both a fascinating and controversial topic. Many people are surprised to learn that a jury can essentially reject the law as it’s written if they feel applying it would result in an unjust outcome. This doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it can be a powerful reminder that our justice system includes a human element. Jurors are instructed to follow the law, but they also bring their own values and perspectives into the courtroom. For people facing serious charges like OWI or other criminal offenses in Michigan, understanding how a jury might respond to the facts—and the law—is an important part of legal strategy.
Usually this happens when the jurors either don’t like the MI criminal law in question or don’t believe that the criminal law is being appropriately applied. When a jury does this they are thought to “judge” the law.
The short and simple answer is that questions of law are for the judge to decide whereas questions of fact are for the jury to decide. However, while technically correct, this short answer is incomplete. Especially if you are charged with a crime like OWI Michigan.
One reason this explanation is incomplete is because it ignores the issue of jury nullification where judges are thought to be “judges of the law.” However this is a complicated and controversial topic, and beyond the scope of this article. To learn more about jury nullification, see; What is Jury Nullification and is it Lawful in Michigan?
When you’re facing an OWI charge in Michigan, the stakes are high, and understanding the roles of judges and juries becomes more than a legal curiosity—it becomes a crucial part of building your defense. For example, many clients charged with operating while intoxicated wonder who decides if a breathalyzer test was administered properly, or whether the officer had a valid reason to initiate the traffic stop in the first place. These aren’t just technicalities—they’re legal questions that could affect whether key pieces of evidence are even considered at trial. Knowing who decides what, and when, could make the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.
The criminal arraignment is the first formal court appearance in your case, marking the beginning of the legal process. In Michigan, as in all states, you have an absolute right to an arraignment. This right is deeply rooted in history, reflecting the foundational principles of justice in the United States. The U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment guarantees that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” This safeguard ensures transparency and fairness, allowing individuals to know the charges they face and begin preparing their defense.
If you’ve been arrested for DUI in Michigan, you’re likely feeling anxious and uncertain about what comes next. The penalties for a DUI conviction can be severe, but knowing what to expect can help you prepare.
In a Michigan operating while intoxicated case, also called OWI/DUI, the penalties will be based on the severity and nature of the offense, and your prior record. Possible penalties include jail time, license suspension or revocation, fines, costs, community service and probation.
The first DUI laws went in the books all the way back in the 1950s when cars where just starting to become very common. Back then, there were no breath tests, so that law enforcement tool in a DUI investigation was not available to police officers. That only happened ten years later, in the 1960s. Technology has improved a lot since then, and the law has changed too, because the law of implied consent is younger than the first breath tests. Back in the “olden days” people could refuse a breath test in a drunk driving case without an possible sanction. That is no longer true, and today, there are serious consequences if you unreasonably refuse to to a breath test.
What is Proximate Cause?A drunk driving causing death case always involves allegations that (1) a person was driving a motor vehicle, (2) while intoxicated, (3) the operation of the motor vehicle caused the death of another. As previously described, proving the “vehicle caused the death of another” involves two kinds of causation. Factual causation and proximate causation.
Being charged with a crime is most certainly one of the most traumatic events you can experience, and then attempting to retain the right attorney or law firm might also feel like a daunting task. The Criminal Defense Trial Attorneys at the Barone Defense Firm understand that difficulty and that trauma, therefore we want to address some important factors in hiring the right trial attorney for your case.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) recently published a report that 3% of all criminal cases in State and Federal Court are resolved through Trial compared to 20% of cases from 30 years ago. A related article lists that some of the reasons for this decrease include fear of what is known as a trial penalty or trial tax, meaning a worse sentence after a loss at trial. This is balanced against the fact that a lesser sentence can be arranged as part of a plea agreements. Certainly, another reason is the lack of ability or lack of experience of the trial attorney themselves. The very fact fewer cases reach trial every year is reason enough to seek an attorney that does not have significant trial experience, and who will not be afraid to go to trial.
Michigan’s Super Drunk Driving Law went into effect on October 31, 2010. It created enhanced punitive and driver license sanctions for Michigan drunk drivers with a Bodily Alcohol Content (BAC) of .17 gerams % or above. It only applies to first offense drunk driving as penalties and driver license sanctions for second or subsequent offenses remain unchanged and more punitive than for super drunk driving. This is true even for repeat offenders with BACs at or above .17 grams %.
This means Super Drunk Driving laws are specifically targeted at first-time offenders with a high BAC—those testing at 0.17 grams % or above. The goal is to create a middle ground: a punishment more severe than a standard first offense OWI, but not as harsh as what repeat offenders receive. This is important, because many first-time offenders with high BAC results are shocked to discover how serious the penalties can be. If this is your first OWI, but your BAC was above the legal threshold, you could be facing a full year of license restrictions, significant fines, and even jail time—all under Michigan’s Super Drunk statute. Understanding where your case falls is the first step in protecting your rights.
The black letter law in Michigan suggests that juries have the power but not the right to exercise jury nullification.[i] Nevertheless, the practice of law is all shades of gray, and the arguments made by lawyers are often in the penumbras of black letter law.
For example, some Michigan cases have indicated that nullification may be argued where nullification is a recognized legal defense. Because a trial judge may exclude a defense attorney from presenting to the jury evidence supporting a defense that has not been recognized by the legislature[ii], the judge can preclude a lawyer from arguing for nullification.
This does not mean that the power of nullification can be taken away from the jury, and a judge cannot explicitly tell a jury that they are precluded from exercising jury nullification. In one Michigan case where a judge told the jury that jury nullification was inconsistent with the recognized power of the jury, the verdict of guilty was reversed.[iii] In support of their reversal, the court indicate that:
Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog