A Worcester County Circuit Court jury deliberated for about a half an hour on Wednesday before returning a guilty verdict for driving while impaired for Gerald Lusby, 42, of Selbyville. The jury had the option of convicting Lusby on the lesser driving while impaired charge or driving under the influence, a more serious offense that carries stiffer penalties in terms of jail time, fines and probation.
What the jury did not know and could not have known when it went back to deliberate is that it was Lusby’s 11th drunk-driving arrest in a span dating back to 1991. After the jury returned the guilty verdict for driving while impaired, Executive Assistant State’s Attorney William McDermott made that information available just prior to the sentencing phase.
More
4 comments:
The jury would have been aware, had the State's Attorney filed for subsequent offender charges prior to the jury trial.
Now I stand corrected,because yesterday I commented that only Delaware had allowed someone to keep driving after 11 DUI's.Since this is public information,does anyone know if it would be legal for a citizen (or citizens)to create a DUI registry without government permission? It's long overdue and the government refuses to do it.
One f-ing year? That's all? What a joke.
@9:01...obviously the prosecutor did file a subsequent offender notice since the defendant received one year on driving while impaired. Dwi carries a 60 day maximum period of incarceration, the maximum period of incarceration for Dwi as a subsequent offender is one year. The jury is prohibited from hearing about prior convictions under these circumstances.
Post a Comment