Marry the officer to his/her reports. Make them tell you that they have read their reports recently and that they cannot think of any clues of intoxication that are not listed in the police reports. If they observed a clue of intoxication that night they memorialized it in the reports. The officer should admit that if a clue of intoxication is not included in the report then it was because they didn't observe it. Each of your questions should relate to the report. If you ask the police officer you didn't see my client stagger did you (assuming staggering is not in the report) the officer may now add new fact by simply answering Ayes. This is a BAD FACT! Instead ask the officer Do you indicate in your report that my client staggered if it’s not in the report then the answer is no. It limits the officer's ability to start adding facts.

During your voir dire, opening, cross-examination, defense case (if presented) and closing, use a time line. It will be easier for the jury to follow along with your theory of the case. Stories that have a beginning, middle and end are easier to follow and just make sense. Start your case with when the officer first observed your client and then work your way thru the AIR and narrative.