Here’s a way to delay a public trial: the attorney on the case gets arrested for driving under the influence. That’s right; Charles Philip Campbell Jr. is the attorney representing Todd “MJ” Schnitt in the defamation trial against Bubba the Love Sponge Clem. Unfortunately, Campbell’s out of court behavior is causing a delay that no one is very happy about.
To back up a bit…Campbell’s client is suing rival talk show host Bubba the Love Sponge Clem for making defamatory statements about him and his wife on his morning radio show. Seeking more than $15,000 in damages, the case has received a considerable amount of publicity for the two radio personalities. The recent Tampa DUI arrest is just adding more publicity to the case.
Campbell was also arrested for a DUI in 2008. My Fox Tampa Bay quotes opposing counsel Steven Diaco on what the delay means: “I’m shocked the case as continued. I feel horrible for this jury that has been sequestered and pulled from their jobs, their lives, their families. I’m disappointed but it’s out of my control.”
Like most Tampa DUI arrests, Campbell was pulled over for suspicious driving behavior after he violated the right of way of another vehicle. The 64-year old attorney also refused to take a blood alcohol test following his arrest, a decision that may cause legal problems down the line for Campbell.
Refusing to take a chemical test in Tampa can result in fines, criminal charges, mandatory DUI education courses and jail time. Additional penalties are attached to those individuals that refuse to take a chemical test because this is a violation of Florida’s implied consent laws. Implied consent laws go in place the moment a driver gets his or her driver’s license. Look at the law as a tradeoff of sorts—the state of Florida is granting you the privilege to drive and in return you are consenting to DUI testing when necessary.
In this DUI case, police have evidence against Campbell (erratic driving behavior, smell of alcohol, red blurry eyes at the time he was pulled over) that may indicate a level of intoxication above the .08 legal limit but they do not have an actual reading of his alcohol level at the time of the arrest. How might the prosecution in the case use this lack of evidence? In cases like this, the prosecution will argue that the refusal to take a test is evidence of his or her guilt. Certainly a much weaker argument than a BAC reading will be, Campbell will nevertheless face some type of punishment for this refusal whether or not he is convicted of a DUI.
If you have recently been arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence, give the attorneys at Finebloom & Haenel P.A. a call today. Whether you took a chemical test or refused, we have years of experience on a range of DUI cases and will work hard to get you the best result possible. Give us a call today for a free consultation.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.