Eugene A. Ahtirski DUI/DWI Law Blog on Lawyers.com

When you get pulled over and arrested for a DUI in
California, there are two, not one, but two charges pending against you.  

1. to be under the influence
   while driving


2. to have a blood alcohol
   content of 0.08% or more

After the arrest, booking and initial bail phases of the DUI
process, then the first phase of the courtroom-based proceedings take place,
the arraignment.  For most DUI cases, the arraignment is the first and
last of the courtroom-based proceedings.

Why?

In most cases, the accused is unrepresented, and unknowingly
pleads "guilty" right away.  Typically, if the accused pleads
guilty, one of the two charges will be dropped, and you will be punished for
only one.  This is supposed to "sweeten the deal" if you plead
guilty.  If the accused pleads guilty, it is much easier for the Courts
and the District Attorney:  there's no trial, no more court dates, they
assign your punishment and for the most part they're done with you.

If you had a lawyer:

At the arraignment, the lawyer would have pled
"not-guilty" or possibly "no contest" or "nolo
contendere", depending on the circumstances.  

What kind of circumstances?

Pleading "no contest" is like a "guilty"
plea, but you do not agree with the charge.  Let's say your alleged
reckless driving damaged a storefront.  The owner of the store might file
a civil complaint against you seeking to obtain a money judgement for the
damage you caused to the building.  If you plead guilty in the criminal
case, the building owner can offer that plea into evidence in the civil case to
prove you are responsible for the damage.  But if you plead no contest,
the owner cannot offer that plea into evidence in the civil case.  This is
the main reason for pleading no contest rather than guilty.

Just two words - "no contest" - could save you
hundreds of thousands of dollars.  And this happens so quickly in your
arraignment.  You could not possibly no the difference or the tact to
protect yourself.  

Yes, it is known that you're blood alcohol content was over
the limit and all existing evidence points to you being guilty, but by pleading
"not-guilty" or even possibly "nolo contendere" your lawyer
has just bought you time.

Time for what?

Time to prove there could have been a procedural error by
the lab, by the arresting officer or by the prosecution.  Time to present
relevant evidence on your behalf.  Time to arrange for expert witnesses on
your behalf and time to examine whether or not there is any evidence that could
suppressed.  Time to investigate the arresting officer.  Time to see
if the arresting officer really did have probable cause to arrest you.