The defendant was charged with a DUI in April 2009 and wasn't officially arrested until September, 2009. Is that normal? It is the 2nd DUI for the defendant. The first was in 2001. Charges include "reckless endangerment of another person" as the other charges are high rate of alcohol, driving in the wrong lane, no rear lights, and careless driving. Is that what "reckless endangerment of another person" mean? The defendant's next date is for "call of trial list"; however, the prosecutor just filed a "Motion to Amend Bills of Information." what does that mean? Just curious, yes, I used to know the defendant and my immediate concern is the children.

The Bill of Information - in my State - is the charging instrument. Sounds like the original charging instrument was amended. Was this taken to the Grand Jury?

All of those things would endanger another person. Did the driver have children (or other passengers) in the car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

The Bill of Information - in my State - is the charging instrument. Sounds like the original charging instrument was amended. Was this taken to the Grand Jury?

All of those things would endanger another person. Did the driver have children (or other passengers) in the car?

---

The state is PA. I do not know if anyone was a passenger. I do know that it is possibly going to trial; although some people tell me that that is a way of taking more time. I also know that the prosecutor denied ARD. Does it normally take this amount of time for a second DUI? I just wonder because the defendant is still driving~! Isn't that ridiculous? :eek:

Yes, it's ridiculous but - again - I wonder if it went before the Grand Jury or there was some other hold up in the process.

No, it hasn't. The call for trial list has been scheduled but in the meantime, the DA has requested a motion to leave to amend the bills of information. I guess it's to add something that was left out, but in any event, I suppose it's NOT good for the defendant?

I suspect you are right - DA isn't going to do anything to help the Defendant and/or hurt "his/her" case.

Of course, not good doesn't mean terrible...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

I suspect you are right - DA isn't going to do anything to help the Defendant and/or hurt "his/her" case.

Of course, not good doesn't mean terrible ...

---

Thank you for your responses Judy. I guess I will not find out until it goes to court. Yes, not good does not mean terrible (I could only hope). Thanks again for your time!!