Just because the drunk driver won his DUI case does not mean that he will escape liability for drunk driving in a later civil case.Drunk drivers can refuse blood alcohol testing, and this is a common tactic among experienced drunk drivers to avoid criminal convictions. There are other penalties for refusing the blood alcohol testing, but that is often a choice that drunk drivers will make. Without actual blood alcohol evidence, that frequently results in the dismissal of the DUI charges.However, in a later civil case for injuries from a car accident, the law provides that juries can be told about the refusal of the defendant to submit to blood alcohol testing. Juries are not explicitly told to infer that the defendant was drunk by virtue of his refusal to submit to blood alcohol testing, but do any way. This kind of evidence, coupled with other evidence of the defendant’s intoxication such as slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, erratic behavior, etc., can show a jury the defendant’s intoxicated state just as effectively as blood alcohol evidence. Also, defendants in a DUI case have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Civil defendants have no such right and must testify as to their activities before a car accident.That is a long way of saying that refusing a blood alcohol test may help the defendant win a DUI case, but will help bury him in a personal injury lawsuit from a car accident.