Felony Fleeing and Eluding: Defending the Indefensible Video
Nine minutes of dashcam pursuit footage looks unwinnable on first viewing. It is not. A Whitfield County jury returned a not-guilty verdict because the footage answered fewer questions than the State believed.
Felony fleeing and eluding is the kind of case prosecutors prefer to try. The video is dramatic, the narrative is simple, and the jury — for the first several minutes — frequently arrives at the same conclusion the State wants. The defense work is everything that happens after those first several minutes.
I · The StatuteO.C.G.A. § 40-6-395 and what makes it a felony
Fleeing or attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle is, in its baseline form, a misdemeanor under Georgia law. It becomes a felony when the State alleges aggravating circumstances — operating at speeds in excess of 20 mph above the posted limit, driving in a reckless manner, striking another vehicle or person, fleeing in traffic conditions that place the general public at risk of serious injury, or leaving the state. Each of these elements requires separate proof. None of them is established merely by the fact that a pursuit occurred.
II · The Visual ProblemWhy jurors lock in early
Pursuit video is engineered for impact. Sirens, flashing lights, an officer's narration over the radio — the production values of the medium do the State's persuasive work before any witness takes the stand. The defense's first task is to slow the recording down, return the jury to the standard of proof, and remind them that atmosphere is not evidence.
III · The Whitfield County TrialWhat approximately nine minutes of dashcam revealed
The firm tried a felony fleeing case in Whitfield County in which the State offered approximately nine minutes of dashcam pursuit footage. The jury returned a not-guilty verdict. The defense was not built on denying that a pursuit occurred. It was built on what the footage, examined frame by frame, did not establish:
- Whether the driver had a sustained, unambiguous awareness of the pursuit from the moment the State alleged it began.
- Whether the speeds the officer narrated over the radio matched the speeds the in-car telemetry actually recorded.
- Whether driving conditions — time of day, traffic density, road geometry — supported the statutory aggravator the State had charged.
- Whether intervening conduct by the pursuing officer materially influenced the driving the State sought to attribute solely to the defendant.
A pursuit video is not a single piece of evidence. It is dozens of discrete moments, each capable of supporting or undercutting a separate element. The discipline is to refuse to argue the video as a whole, and to make the State prove it the same way the statute requires.
IV · Voir DireThe jury you actually want
These cases are won or lost in voir dire. The jurors who can hold the State to its burden in a pursuit case are not the jurors who hesitate to convict — they are the jurors who can watch nine minutes of video and still ask what they have not been shown. Identifying those jurors, and seating them, is the most consequential work of the trial.
V · ClosingWhat the State did not bring
A felony fleeing closing argument is not a defense of the driver's conduct. It is a recitation, methodical and quiet, of what the State was required to prove and did not. The drama of the video is the State's strongest asset. The State's failure to translate that drama into the elements of the felony statute is the defense's.
Juries do not acquit because they admire the defense. They acquit because the State left a question on the table they could not bring themselves to answer.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This article is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice.