Ted Mondale Arrested for DWI: ‘I’m Guilty’

Wrong Fecke:

Your information is incorrect. You stated that “failure to submit to a test is itself viewed as proof of guilt.”

Failure to submit to a breath, blood or urine test is a crime. A gross misdemeanor. It is not proof of guilt. DWI or “Failure to Submit to a Test” are still crimes that needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, it is not a difficult burden to meet in these cases and he will likely plead guilty and receive the standard sentence for first time offender.

Technically both correct The prosecutor will use it as evidence, however. Which, to the prosecutor is viewed as a “failure to submit to a test is itself viewed as proof of guilt.”

“When prosecuting DUI cases involving alcohol, the state frequently relies on chemical test results to prove the DUI defendant’s guilt. If the DUI defendant refused to submit to chemical testing, the prosecutor will attempt to introduce evidence of that refusal and induce the court to prematurely conclude that the DUI defendant knew he would fail the test; hence he/she is guilty of DUI.” [source]

While Jeff’s comment is a unintentionally misleading because the sentence begins with “under Minnesota law,” but it’s generally correct to say it is ‘viewed’ as proof of guilt.

It’s semantic And I take your point; regardless, if Mondale’s attorney is at all competent, I’d expect he’ll plead to reckless driving and avoid anything too disastrous.  Then again, I’m sure Mondale’s attorney isn’t thrilled with his client admitting guilt, even if it’s true.

Wow swiftee Thank you for once again contributing you thoughtful insights to the topics of the day. I thought it was just your usual cut and paste job, but it looks like you transposed a few words for effect. Bravo!

Wrong Fecke:

Your information is incorrect. You stated that “failure to submit to a test is itself viewed as proof of guilt.”

Failure to submit to a breath, blood or urine test is a crime. A gross misdemeanor. It is not proof of guilt. DWI or “Failure to Submit to a Test” are still crimes that needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, it is not a difficult burden to meet in these cases and he will likely plead guilty and receive the standard sentence for first time offender.

Technically both correct The prosecutor will use it as evidence, however. Which, to the prosecutor is viewed as a “failure to submit to a test is itself viewed as proof of guilt.”

“When prosecuting DUI cases involving alcohol, the state frequently relies on chemical test results to prove the DUI defendant's guilt. If the DUI defendant refused to submit to chemical testing, the prosecutor will attempt to introduce evidence of that refusal and induce the court to prematurely conclude that the DUI defendant knew he would fail the test; hence he/she is guilty of DUI.” [source]

While Jeff's comment is a unintentionally misleading because the sentence begins with “under Minnesota law,” but it's generally correct to say it is 'viewed' as proof of guilt.

It's semantic And I take your point; regardless, if Mondale's attorney is at all competent, I'd expect he'll plead to reckless driving and avoid anything too disastrous.  Then again, I'm sure Mondale's attorney isn't thrilled with his client admitting guilt, even if it's true.

Wow swiftee Thank you for once again contributing you thoughtful insights to the topics of the day. I thought it was just your usual cut and paste job, but it looks like you transposed a few words for effect. Bravo!