Taimoor Rana is seasoned criminal defense attorney specializing in DUI related cases. He shares his expert legal opinion here « Truth, Justice…and DUI Politics
0
- It is known by any experienced criminal attorney that when dealing with a drunk driving offense truth, justice and fairness can be rare commodities in our courts. This thing has has become such a common phenomena that now a label has been acquired by it and that is: "The DUI exception to the Constitution". When it comes to cases that involves driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, it looks like there is a distinct bias in favor of "streamlining" procedures and facilitating convictions.
It might be suggested by the cynics that this may have something to do with political considerations with the desire of some judges to get reelected. We will discuss that about that in a moment….. Right now, let’s take a look at an example of what kind of thinking goes on in a DUI case in the judicial mind. In fact, let us take example from the highest court of the most populated state in the country: the Supreme Court of California.
In People v. Bransford, the Supreme Court was confronted with a defendant by whom his .08% DUI conviction has been challenged that on the grounds that he was not permitted to offer scientific evidence to the jury. Especially, the court didn’t permitted him to offer the testimony of recognized experts that the breath machine’s computer has been programmed to assume that for every 1 part it measured in his breath, there were 2100 parts of alcohol in his blood. The trial judge also prevented him from offering further evidence that this 2100:1 ratio was only an average and in reality that ratio varied widely from person to person, and within one person from moment to moment. (If, for example, a suspect’s ratio had been 1300:1 at the time when he had blown a .10% on the machine, his true blood-alcohol would have actually been .06% which means that he would have been innocent.)
The conviction has been affirmed by The Supreme Court of California, ruling that such scientific facts are irrelevant: the law has been written in such a way that concerned the amount of alcohol in the blood "as measured on the breath". In a display of either twisted logic or ignorance of the scientific facts involved, it has been simply said by the Court that the crime consisted of the amount of alcohol in the blood, but only as measured on the breath. Explaining this in other In other words, although the crime is having .08% alcohol in the blood, but any evidence about the amount of alcohol actually in the blood can not be offered by you! Isn’t that an amazing decision.
The more interesting things, perhaps, is the language in the opinion, such an opinion which gives us a window into the justices’ minds. In what must have been a complete failure to appreciate the significance of what they were writing, the Court could have been justified its ruling in a rather frank and incredible admission of its hidden agenda.
In other words, preventing an accused from defending himself with scientific truth is serving justice by making it easier to get convictions. Are all judges are not completely aware of the truth? Not entirely. One judge, Justice Joyce Kennard, has shown strong difference in opinion from the majority opinion. It has been written by her in a separate opinion that the majority…has on its own created the new crime of driving with alcohol in one’s breath.
You might also like
 |
 |
 |
 |
