We get many calls from people who have been arrested for DUI and want to know what the penalties can be.  We’d like to spread the word and let you know that the mandatory minimum penalties for a Pennsylvania DUI are readily available right on our website.   If you never bothered to find out what can happen to you if you have a couple drinks at dinner and drive home, you should review the table of penalties.  If you think you might want access to this information in the future you should bookmark or save to favorites http://fairlielaw.net/practice-areas/pennsylvania-dui-penalties/  .  Be sure to scroll about half way down to where the chart starts.  If you can’t use the link, type in www.fairlielaw.net and go to our practice areas page, and then click the link for DUI Penalties.  Bookmark that page and you won’t have any trouble finding it if you need the information again.

If the repo man took your car you have very specific statutory rights.  It is our experience that these rights are frequently violated.  The violations can result in large statutory penalties that the victim of the illegal car reposession can recieve.  Collect your sales contract and your notice of repossession and call us to find out if you have a valid case.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that U.S. District Chief Judge James Halderman shall be removed from presiding over the trial of a man accused of smuggling drugs into the U.S. due to his “unreasonable fury” towards prosecutors.  Judge Halderman had suppressed fingerprint evidence under the theory that the government had tampered with the evidence and repeatedly accused the government’s lawyers of lying.  He said “I don’t believe you when you say just about anything anymore because I know that you will lie to a court any time it helps you. I know that. I saw you do it. I know you will do that. You have proven that to me beyond a reasonable doubt.’”   The appellate court determined that his ruling was “patently unsound as to exceed the legitimate bounds of judicial power.”  Further, the appellate court wrote that “The transcript of the district judge’s remarks concerning the evidentiary issue reveals a degree of anger and hostility toward the government that is in excess of any provocation that we can find in the record.”  The Government had not requested the Judge’s removal from the trial, but the 7th Circuit ordered that anyhow and denied a defense request for a continuance based upon the unprecedented ruling.  It will be interesting to see if this precedent is ever needed in the future, and if so, how the appellate courts will react to it the next time.