Drinking in the name of the law
Sep. 15th, 2006 05:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
twilight33As part of my husband's experience as a juror today resulting in a mistrial due to a hung jury, I (who rarely to never drink anymore since I take metformin although I do not have diabetes) downed a Mike's & Apricot ale in 15 minutes then did a field sobriety test that was demonstrated to him in court to see if we could prove a point.
Unbeknownst to him and probably just about anyone who hasn't been involved in a DUI case in our lovely state, judges have total discretion as to whether or not to allow breathalyzer results or even if one was administered to a suspect in trial. No, really. This issue is before the state Supreme Court currently, and defense lawyers everywhere are rushing DUI cases through & making sure jurors who haven't served on trials before are selected.
The prosecutor wasn't allowed to state a breathalyzer test was administered, only that 2 (the walking thing measuring the ability to follow DATs & the eye thing where you follow a pencil or whatever) were. He started to, the defense immediately objected & it was sustained. The majority of the jury questioned the credibility of a relatively new cop as a result of this, as I would have too: why the heck wasn't the suspect given a breathalyzer test?
However, the eye thing is measured on 6 points and the suspect failed all 6 of them. THey had substantial testimony from a toxicologist explaining the involuntary way eyes jump when you're tracking a pen tip at different distances under the influence (like marbles on sandpaper vs. marbles on glass) and demonstrated how it's done. The jury even tested for themselves on one of them who was feeling physically shaky from hypoglcemia and her eyes tracked smooth as glass.
"rookie cop who doesn't know what he's doing yet" and "where's the breathalyzer? stupid cop" was enough for the majority of the jury to say the suspect wasn't guilty, with only my husband and another woman who was a physical therapist and already knew all about this as the holdouts.
In the debriefing afterward came the news about the breathalyzer issues.
The suspect had one done. He claimed he had '2 beers a few hours before'.
The results of his breathalyzer test, which was done but because of having this particular judge were not allowed in court?
.16%, twice the legal limit. My husband did report that the 'not guilty' ones did look a bit sheepish or said 'oh...' after hearing that.
The suspect was shorter than I but about the same weight, plus women supposedly get higher BACs due to lower water content in our blood. At any weight, it is impossible to have a .16% BAC with 'two beers' in 2 hours.
15 minutes after having the 2 beers I definitely felt that I should not be behind the wheel of anything, and in my husband's opinion only missed 2 of the points (the ones at a further distance & held for a while). 45 minutes after the beers I felt fine & he couldn't pick up any jumps.
He was having a great time with his civil service duty until that came out in the debriefing, which pisses me off as well.
Unbeknownst to him and probably just about anyone who hasn't been involved in a DUI case in our lovely state, judges have total discretion as to whether or not to allow breathalyzer results or even if one was administered to a suspect in trial. No, really. This issue is before the state Supreme Court currently, and defense lawyers everywhere are rushing DUI cases through & making sure jurors who haven't served on trials before are selected.
The prosecutor wasn't allowed to state a breathalyzer test was administered, only that 2 (the walking thing measuring the ability to follow DATs & the eye thing where you follow a pencil or whatever) were. He started to, the defense immediately objected & it was sustained. The majority of the jury questioned the credibility of a relatively new cop as a result of this, as I would have too: why the heck wasn't the suspect given a breathalyzer test?
However, the eye thing is measured on 6 points and the suspect failed all 6 of them. THey had substantial testimony from a toxicologist explaining the involuntary way eyes jump when you're tracking a pen tip at different distances under the influence (like marbles on sandpaper vs. marbles on glass) and demonstrated how it's done. The jury even tested for themselves on one of them who was feeling physically shaky from hypoglcemia and her eyes tracked smooth as glass.
"rookie cop who doesn't know what he's doing yet" and "where's the breathalyzer? stupid cop" was enough for the majority of the jury to say the suspect wasn't guilty, with only my husband and another woman who was a physical therapist and already knew all about this as the holdouts.
In the debriefing afterward came the news about the breathalyzer issues.
The suspect had one done. He claimed he had '2 beers a few hours before'.
The results of his breathalyzer test, which was done but because of having this particular judge were not allowed in court?
.16%, twice the legal limit. My husband did report that the 'not guilty' ones did look a bit sheepish or said 'oh...' after hearing that.
The suspect was shorter than I but about the same weight, plus women supposedly get higher BACs due to lower water content in our blood. At any weight, it is impossible to have a .16% BAC with 'two beers' in 2 hours.
15 minutes after having the 2 beers I definitely felt that I should not be behind the wheel of anything, and in my husband's opinion only missed 2 of the points (the ones at a further distance & held for a while). 45 minutes after the beers I felt fine & he couldn't pick up any jumps.
He was having a great time with his civil service duty until that came out in the debriefing, which pisses me off as well.
