It’s not hard to imagine what the outcome of the Jeff Garcia
drunken driving saga will be.
It’s not hard to imagine what the outcome of the Jeff Garcia drunken driving saga will be.
On two breathalyzer tests, Garcia registered blood alcohol levels nearly three times the legal limit. And according to police, Garcia struggled through field sobriety tests after officers pulled over his Lincoln Navigator the morning of Jan. 14.
Likely result – a guilty verdict from the judge, some fines by the court and the National Football League, and some kind of first-time DUI treatment program. Almost certainly, there will be no jail time.
How this case ends up may turn out to have little impact on Garcia and his native Gilroy. But the journey that precedes the case’s outcome will tell us a lot about Garcia and ourselves – more than a judge’s ruling ever could.
Before his March 1 arraignment, Garcia will have to make critical legal decisions. Each will be scrutinized. Some could trigger criticism. Some could trigger support. All will trigger media attention and community gossip.
So here’s the path I’d like to see Garcia take beginning with his first court appearance: Show up, look the judge in the eye and don’t say the words “not guilty.”
Garcia should keep the thousands of dollars he’ll owe to the San Jose-based law firm Manchester, Williams and Seibert that is representing him. There are better uses for it.
Garcia already admitted to police he had “a few drinks (cranberry vodkas)” before he got behind the wheel of his SUV. And within hours of being released from jail, Garcia gave a heartfelt and public apology to his family, his teammates, the 49er organization and the entire Bay Area for “this type of situation.”
But in those benign words, Garcia did not admit guilt and said other things that reeked of legal posturing.
Garcia told the public, “Because of legal issues, I can’t further discuss certain matters.” His words that day mirrored the statement his lawyers issued the next week: “Jeff Garcia takes this matter extremely seriously. We will conduct an investigation, after which appropriate decisions will be made.”
Is Garcia ready to rip a page out of the Councilman Charlie Morales’ DUI play book?
Morales, who during his most recent drunken driving arrest also blew a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit, spent months fighting his DUI with the aid of a private lawyer.
Morales’ lawyers, at the first court appearance, pled not guilty to drunken driving charges. They later delayed the case to retest Morales’ blood sample.
When Morales’ blood alcohol level turned out to be identical on both police and private lab tests, his lawyers pled guilty for him. Only once did Morales appear in court, and that was because he believed the court lost documents he was required to sign.
Garcia of course has the right to retest his blood and let his lawyers appear in court. Who knows, maybe another lab test would result in a blood alcohol level this time under .20, a level that brings enhanced punishments such as longer amounts of time in treatment and higher fines. And by not going to court, Garcia could avoid having photographers and reporters in his face – for a while.
But given his obvious wrongdoing, those are some plays I hope Garcia never runs.
Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Lisa Rogers says someone in Garcia’s position has three options: plead guilty, not guilty or no contest.
Rogers explained that the criminal court will handle a guilty plea just like a no contest plea, but in civil courts the two can be seen differently. Essentially, if someone sued Garcia over the incident, the plaintiff would have to re-establish various facts in civil court.
Considering all this, it would be understandable if Garcia pleads no contest, but it would be disingenuous if he pleads not guilty.
And if Garcia pleads guilty, it would be honorable.
