Before the Diamondbacks came in existence, I, like seemingly all of my friends, was a New York Yankees fan. And I remember quite well when Hideki Irabu came to the Yankees.  He dominated the Japanese Major League, the same league that gave MLB Ichiro Suzuki.  Irabu was supposed to have the fastball of Nolan Ryan and the split finger fastball of Mike Scott.  In short, he was the Japanese version of Roger Clemens.  

His career came and went, without the Cy Young Awards, and I soon forgot about him and the my loyalty to the Yankees switched to Arizona.  I had not heard his name in a few years, until sadly yesterday, I read online that he died from a suicide.  I also read that he had a DUI, not an Arizona DUI but in California.  

Now I can't help but think that DUI case, even though it was a misdemeanor and even though it seems in California jail time is not automatic, may have contributed to his emotional problems.  And that mere possibility is why I think it would be a great shame to eliminate the right to a jury trial for even a first-time non-extreme DUI. A DUI charge, particularly an Arizona DUI charge, is not like any other allegation.   A DUI conviction is a stigma that weighs heavily.  It implies that someone is a social outcast, a drunk, and is so selfish and dysfunctional that he is willing to risk the lives of friends and neighbors for no good reason.   

The Arizona Supreme Court used to recognize these points and there was constitutional protection.  The constitutional basis for a right to a jury trial in all DUI cases used to be an Arizona Supreme Court decision called Rothweiler v. Superior Court, 100 Ariz. 37 (1966).  In that case, the Supreme Court decided on a three part test to determine which crimes warranted a jury trial. 

1) Is the defendant exposed to a severe penalty in which the exposure exceeds six months imprisonment or $1000 in fines?

2) Does the act involve moral turpitude? 

3) Has the crime traditionally merited a jury trial? 

But that may have changed with the 2005 Arizona Supreme Court decision called Derendal v. Griffith, 209 Ariz. 416 (2005). I used the "may" because the 5000 word decision does not specifically address the right to a jury trial for misdemeanor DUIs.  Despite the still seemingly unresolved issue of  the constitutional right to a jury trial in all DUI cases, there was a statutory right in ARS 28-1381(F), which read: 

F. At the arraignment, the court shall inform the defendant that the defendant may request a trial by jury and that the request, if made, shall be granted. 

But what the legislature gives, it can take away.  And that is exactly what has happened with the new law. What a shame.   Please see my interview with Nicole Crites of CBS KPHO channel 5 regarding this topic.