Jason Botos, 30, had a novel defense to avoid being sentenced for drunk driving in Nebraska: he was too drunk. Botos showed up at the Papillion courthouse so drunk that his father needed help from deputies to get him from the car to the courtroom.
After the prosecutor told the court that Botos was too drunk to appear, the judge issued a warrant for his arrest and deputies arrested him in the parking lot.
Botos pleaded guilty to misdemeanor drunken driving in a September 2009 collision with five other vehicles.
In the earlier accident, three of the drivers suffered critical injuries and two drivers suffered serious injuries. It is remarkable that Botos only received a misdemeanor since he already had a drunken driving conviction and previous citations of driving with a suspended license and reckless driving.
He now faces additional charges.
For the full story, click here.
8 thoughts on “Nebraska Man Found Too Drunk in Court To Be Sentenced for a DUI”
The difference between DUI’s and stealing cheese is that people with the gold don’t steal cheese (they engage in more sophisticated theft) but occasionally drive drunk.
I forget the source but remember the quote about “the law, in its majestic equality, that criminalizes begging, stealing bread and sleeping under bridges.
The lesson of our era is that “he who has the gold makes the rules” is outdated. As telecom immunity demonstrates, this adage has been updated to “he who has the gold makes the rules, and then changes them when he gets caught.”
On days when I’m feeling rebellious and the court is upset about my client’s multiple DUI’s, I remind them that Cheney had 2 and Bush 1. It works on Democratic appointees but can come back to haunt my client when I’m before GOP appointees as the judge uses the opportunity to remind me that he holds the gold, and the power.
I do a lot of DUI work in Nebraska and know the judges in county court well. Fortunately, there is a large AA presence there and, as a result, even the judges have a strong belief in it from what I’ve seen, meaning that they’ve gotten beyond the “string ’em up, it’ll teach ’em a lesson mentality” so prevalent today.
As a DUI lawyer, much of my work is being a drug counselor and I’ve dealt with drunk clients many times. As one client once told me: “telling me to quit drinking would be like telling you to quit breathing: I get through the day by doing it and can’t imagine living without it.”
I even have a friend who showed up drunk for his DUI sentencing in this County. Miraculously he received probation, the product of a judge who risked being labelled as soft but who understood that the potential jail time was more valuable as a “carrot” than a “stick” and that anyone who showed up drunk for court was likely an addict rather than an Assh&*#@.
While MADD will want this guy jailed, it sounds like what he truly needs is the “one alcoholic to another” approach of AA, and a judge who will push him to get to the root of his problem, which might come from a jail cell if the patient isn’t ready to accept the treatment of AA at this point.
The verdict was ethanolically challenged…
Interesting concept.If I never stop drinking, not only will I not have a hangover, I won’t be sentenced! Does this theory only work in Nebraska?
Yep Canadian, ‘just this’ has become quite arbitrary… but good to see not only the high society (no pun intended) gets away with crime… simple rednecks apparently still can too 🙂
What a classic metaphor for representing the media and cowardly scholarship in our society.
So let me get this straight. For the crime of multiple DUI’s and showing up drunk at court one receives a misdemeanor, however for the crime of stealing $3.99 worth of shredded cheese one gets 18 years in prison. Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?
He whose attorney knows the Judge has the best attorney. Or has something on the Prosecutor.
Comments are closed.