before on civil cases following the prosecution of criminal cases involving DUI's that cause serious injury. For the most part they are helpful but often it is clear they have only one goal and that is to keep the issue in the public's eye. Years ago, and only one example, they knew I represented a victim of a horrific car accident in which the responsible party was convicted of a felony DUI. Without my permission they took a very vulnerable woman, interviewed her and used the interview in a campaign. Had I known I would never have allowed the interview because she made statement that were actually damaging to her claim for compensation. And they were not true as she later had to admit in a deposition. But MADD wanted her to say it and led her into the statements. Another case involved a young boy on a bicycle who was seriously injured by a DUI driver (convicted). The only way I could get sufficient compensation for the youngster was actually through the help of the driver. To do that I asked the court for lenience on the condition the driver would cooperate in providing helpful information that would help us in a case against another party. That other party had sufficient insurance to pay for critical care including multiple surgeries to my client which the parents could not afford. MADD stepped in and opposed any of my efforts to reduce the sentence even though it would have meant the child would have access to badly needed critical care. Because of the politics surrounding DUIs and the very public opposition by MADD the judge in the criminal case refused to cooperate with us in the civil action.
So I guess I too have an agenda.
