DUI BLOG

In my last post, I presented three news articles from the previous three days reflecting the double standard in  how cops, prosecutors and judges are treated when they are caught driving drunk.  In the judge’s case, despite aggravating facts she avoided any jail time…But surely she’ll be removed from sitting on the bench, right?

Secret Discipline of $150,000-a-year DUI Judge ‘Could Take Two Years’

Chicago, IL.  Jan. 25 –  She quietly pleaded guilty to drunken driving and was sentenced on the day President Obama was inaugurated.

But it may be another two years before Cook County Judge Sheila McGinnis is disciplined by the authorities who oversee Illinois judges – if they discipline her, according to the executive director of the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board.

McGinnis on Tuesday dodged a potential one-year jail term when she admitted drunkenly crashing her Chevrolet sport utility vehicle into the back of a family-of-four’s minivan May 9 in Tinley Park.

With the attention of the Southland and the world focused on Washington, D.C., Judge Edward Burmila fined McGinnis $1,000, ordered her to complete an 18-month probation stint, to attend counseling and to attend a victim impact panel during a brief hearing at the Markham courthouse.

Secrecy governs the process by which judges are disciplined in Illinois, meaning the JIB cannot reveal if an official complaint has been made against McGinnis in her role as a judge, JIB executive director Kathy Twine said…

A Southtown Star survey of Illinois Court Commission records shows that not one of the eight Illinois judges investigated for DUIs since 1973 has been removed from the bench for even one day…

Want to bet what’s going to happen to this judge after two years of secret "investigation"?  Or what your sentence would have been standing in front of this same judge with the same facts?
 

What happens when cops, prosecutors and judges get busted for drunk driving?  A sampler from the past 3 days’ news…

Officer Not Charged with DUI

Pekin, IL.  Jan. 23 – A Pekin police officer arrested for DUI on Dec. 19 will not be charged with DUI because of a lack of evidence.

Patrolman Andrew J. Thompson, 29, of Pekin, had just left a bar on Broadway Road, Pekin, when he was rear-ended by another car sliding on the ice at Broadway Road and North 20th Street.

A Pekin police officer at the scene noticed the odor of alcohol coming from Thompson and notified the commanding officer.

Thompson refused all alcohol testing — both field sobriety and a Breathalyzer test…

“Without admitting that he was intoxicated on the night in question, he has taken responsibility for his actions and both Mr. Thompson and the city of Pekin Police Department are completely satisfied with the resolution of this matter,” said (his attorney Brian) Addy…

Illinois Secretary of State Attorney Jay Mesi said the Secretary of State’s Office cannot suspend a license for failure to submit to drug or alcohol testing unless the arresting agency sends a sworn report of the refusal to submit to testing.

“We can’t suspend unless we get that sworn report. The officer is required to send the report to us and the circuit clerk.”
 

Hmmm…What about prosecutors?

Ex-Prosecuter Avoids Jail Time for her Second DUI

Tampa, FL.  Jan. 23 – Although Florida state law calls for a mandatory 10 days in jail if someone is arrested twice for driving under the influence (DUI) within five years, former Pinellas-Pasco Counties prosecutor Lydia Dempsey Wardell has walked.

Wardell is the former supervisor of state attorney Bernie McCabe’s drunk driving division.

Wardell, 41, had been arrested in July 2008 for DUI, the second time in less than four years after she left the scene of an accident.

Police had said that Wardell was driving a Ford Explorer which a witness said struck the bumper of a parked 2000 Mercedes in a parking lot and left the scene.  The witness gave police the a description of the vehicle and license plate number and Wardell was stopped by police a short distance away.  Police said the damage on Wardell’s vehicle matched that of sustained to the Mercedes.

Police said that Wardell refused to take a blood alcohol test and failed field sobriety tests. 

Okaaaay….So what happens to judges who get caught driving drunk?

Judge Gets Supervision, Fine in DUI Guilty Plea

Chicago, IL.  Jan. 12  –  With the nation’s focus on Washington, a Cook County judge pleaded guilty Tuesday in a south suburban courtroom to a drunken driving charge stemming from a traffic collision.

Judge Sheila McGinnis’ attorney asked for the Jan. 20 hearing date — but denied it was timed to coincide with President Obama’s inauguration in hopes of downplaying news of her conviction and sentence.

"I had no idea when the inauguration was," said defense attorney Jeffrey Aprati, who asked for the hearing date two months ago. "I wanted to watch the inauguration."

McGinnis was sentenced to 18 months of court supervision and a $1,000 fine…

Before her sentencing, McGinnis, a cousin of Mayor Daley, apologized in court for taking the wheel after drinking last May and rear-ending a minivan stopped at a red light in Tinley Park. No one was injured.

Other motorists told police she was weaving and honking at other drivers before the 7:30 p.m. crash. With her head on the steering wheel, she continued trying to drive after the collision, police said.

McGinnis was hearing misdemeanor cases at the Bridgeview Courthouse when she was arrested, but her DUI case was transferred to the Markham courthouse after her attorney argued it would have been "embarrassing" for McGinnis to stand trial in the courthouse where she worked.

In each case, the cop, prosecutor and judge was intoxicated, involved in an accident — and refused to take a breath test.  For you and me, that would add up to a lengthy jail sentence and a long license suspension.  But then, we’re just ordinary citizens…
 

As readers of this blog are aware, one of my biggest peeves is the demonstrated unreliability of breathlyzers which largely determine an accused citizen’s guilt or innocence….and of the continuing refusal of manufacturers to let the defense or prosecution inspect the critical software – even to the point of ignoring lawful court orders.  See, for example, Breathalyzer Manufacturer Thumbs Nose at Court and Judge: Divulge Breathalyzer Code…or Else.

In other words, "trial by machine" — but the accused can’t confront his accuser.

In what appears to be a growing trend across the country, judges are beginning to rise above MADD’s political hysteria and recognize the blatant denial of due process and basic unfairness.

Breathalyzer Unit Should Be Inspected

Bradenton, FL.  Jan. 16 – Outrage over a judicial ruling on drunk driving on what could be perceived as a “technicality” decision came swiftly this week. But the court justifiably stuck to a strong adherence to the rule of law.

Since the introduction of breath tests in drunk-driving investigations decades ago, defense attorneys have attacked the validity of the results.

Now Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal has affirmed a Manatee County judge’s ruling that bars the results of breath tests in more than 100 DUI cases because the manufacturer of the testing equipment refuses to reveal the inner workings of its device.

I’ve posted repeatedly in the past about the multitude of problems with breath-alcohol machines – including the disturbing fact that they are non-specific for ethyl alcohol.  In fact, they don’t actually measure alcohol, but rather the presence of the methyl group in the compound.  See Why Breathlayzers Don’t Measure Alcohol.

Unfortunately, there are thousands of compounds that contain the methyl group, and studies have confirmed that over 100 of these have been found on the human breath.  In one oft-cited experiment, for example, blood-alcohol levels of .05% were reported by breath machines after the subjects consumed only bread.  See Driving Under the Influence of…Bread?

Recently, MADD has successfully pushed for the mandatory installation of ignition interlock devices (IIDs) in cars driven by anyone convicted of drunk driving — and, in time, as standard equipement in all vehicles.  See  All U.S. Cars to Have Ignition Interlock Devices? and Why is MADD Pushing Ignition Interlock Devices?  And I’ve written about the deficiencies of these primitive devices.  See The Truth About Ignition Interlock Devices  and my article published in Business Week, MADD Announces End to Drunk Driving: A Reply.

In yesterday’s news:

Ice Cream Causes Positive Alcohol Test 

Frankston, Australia.  Jan. 20 – An Australian man challenged to prove his claim that ice cream gave him a blood alcohol reading demonstrated his defense in court.

The man, whose name was not given, had asked Frankston Magistrates’ Court to remove the breath testing alcohol interlock device from his car, the (Melbourne, Australia) Daily Sun reported Tuesday.

Prosecutors inquired why the machine had registered a "fail," which prevents the car from starting, despite the man’s claims that he had not been drinking.

The man claimed the alcohol reading was the result of eating a Bubble O’ Bill ice cream treat and Magistrate Rod Crisp ordered a test to be performed to back up the claim. Police recorded the man’s blood alcohol content as 0.00 and performed the test a second time after he took a few bites of Bubble O’ Bill, yielding a 0.018 reading.

Crisp granted the man’s request to remove the breath testing device from his car.

Experts said consuming some foods or drinks before breath tests can cause a false positive reading. It is recommended that that test subjects wait at least 15 minutes in between eating and blowing into the machine.

(Thanks to Jonathan Lenners)

I’ve often reported of the ongoing struggle of defense attorneys across the country to get breathalyzer  manufacturers to disclose the secret software that runs their various breath testing machines.  Unreliable or inaccurate software code will produce inaccurate blood-alcohol results — and the conviction of innocent citizens.  Increasingly, courts across the country are ordering manufacturers to produce the code for defense inspection.  See, for example, Judge Orders Software Secrets Revealed (Arizona) and Judge: Divulge Software Code…or Else (Florida).  

And just as often, the manufacturers are refusing to obey the court orders or finding ways to circumvent them.  See, for example, Breathalyzer Manufacturer Thumbs Nose at Courts  (Arizona) and Secret Breathalyzer  Software Still Secret (Minnesota).  In only one case has a manufacturer complied with a court order – and in that case, experts analyzing the software code for the Alcotest 7110 concluded that it "has to be considered unreliable and untested".  See Secret Breathalyzer Software Finally Revealed (New Jersey). 

The courts are finally beginning to agree that an accused in this country has a right to see the evidence against him.  And since guilt or innocence is increasingly a matter of "trial by machine", an accused citizen has a right to confront his accuser. 

However, manufacturers continue to hide what’s inside the "black boxes" — apparently afraid of what will be foound.  And they are becoming increasingly clever in their efforts to evade court-ordered disclosure.  In Arizona, for example, a court ordered disclosure — but then refused to hold the manufacturer in contempt when its attorney argued that the court had no jursdiction since the corporation did not do any business in Arizona (despite the fact that it was, in fact, doing business by selling the machines to Arizona law enforcement agencies).  See Justice vs Profits: Guess Which Wins…Again?

A few days ago, yet another manufacturer found an ingenius way to avoid a court order: drown the accused citizen in information:

Defense Attorneys Dispute State’s Agreement with Intoxilyzer Company

Minneapolis, MN.  Jan. 14 – Minnesotans are being routinely and, in some cases, wrongly — convicted of drunken driving charges because of a machine whose operation largely remains a mystery, an attorney told a federal judge Wednesday.

"The consequences being meted out by this instrument … are serious, yet we know precious little about how this machine goes about making its accusation," said Jeffrey Sheridan, a lawyer with the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice. "We should be able to confront our accuser, and in this case, our accuser is this machine."

He was referring to the Intoxilyzer 5000EN, the primary device Minnesota law-enforcement agencies use to test drivers’ blood-alcohol content. A legal fuss has developed over the machine’s "source code," the computer language that tells the machine how to interpret a person’s breath sample.

Defense attorneys statewide question whether the code works properly, and they sued the state for access to it. The state replied it didn’t have the source code and sued the maker, CMI of Kentucky, for it.

The company claims the code is a trade secret but reached a settlement with the state that ostensibly gives a defendant the right to have his expert witness examine the source code. Defense attorneys claim the agreement’s provisions for the examination make it virtually useless.

In a hearing before U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank on Wednesday, lawyers for the state and CMI argued the settlement should be approved. Sheridan and lawyers for other groups said the settlement would be bad for the state and worse for defendants facing driving-while-impaired charges.

"People who are not impaired … are being thrown in jail because this black box says they’re guilty of a crime," said Charles Ramsay, a criminal defense attorney representing four individuals who object to the settlement. "This black box decides the guilt or innocence of people in Minnesota. Innocent people are going to jail. They refuse to fix it, and they’re covering it up."…

While the agreement allows an expert witness to examine the source code, it also requires the witness to travel to CMI’s headquarters in Owensboro, Ky., to view the code in the form of an 1,100-page printout.

Ramsay told Frank that a computer expert told him that under ideal conditions, it would take up to 90 days to analyze the source code, but under the limits in the agreement, it would take 30 years.

"Their solution would deprive Minnesota citizens of fundamental constitutional rights," Ramsay said. "We just want unfettered access to the source code."

Once again, corporate profits win out over justice and the Constitution. 

(Thanks to Doug Hazelton.)
 

In this country, we have certain constitutional protections.  One of the most important of these is the presumption of innocence.  But as I’ve posted repeatedly in the past, this no longer exists in drunk driving cases.  See, for example, Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence? and If You Can’t Prove It, Make the Defendant Disprove It.  And for those who think this is limited to DUIs, keep in mind that we are a nation of legal precedent — that if the Constitution is ignored in drunk driving cases today, it can be ignored in free speech cases tommorrow.  See my post, Who Cares About Drunks?

In yesterday’s news, yet another example of the new presumption of guilt in America:

Law Requires Detection Device After DUI Arrest

Illinois.  Jan. 14 – On Jan. 1, an Illinois law took effect that requires people arrested — not convicted — for the first time of drunk driving to install a Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device in their vehicle.

"It’s a great concept," said Officer Anthony Ikis of River Grove, who in 2007 arrested 200 drunk drivers. "I really like it. I hope it works."

Drivers must pay the cost of the devices, $80 to $100 to install, and the monthly $110 for rental and monitoring fees.

"The money aspect is pretty frightening," Ikis said. "When money comes out of people’s pockets, people start to think a little bit more."

Guilty (and punished) until proven innocent…."A great concept".

In my last post, I indicated that the Arizona Judge reversed her earlier ruling that the manufacturer of the breath machine used in that state, CMI, Inc., had to turn over the software for inspection by the defense.  The reversal was based upon the fact that CMI was headquartered in Kentucky, and since they did not do business in Arizona, they were not subject to the Arizona courts’ jurisdiction.

Tucson, AZ.  Jan. 12 — A Pima County Superior Court judge who ordered a Kentucky firm to divulge the software code of its alcohol breath-test machine has rescinded her order, saying she doesn’t have jurisdiction to rule.

Judge Deborah Bernini said in a ruling issued Monday that CMI Inc. of Owensboro, Ky., isn’t authorized to do business in Arizona.

Therefore, her orders in a local case don’t extend beyond the state’s borders.

Shortly thereafter, I received an email from a reader pointing out the obvious…

If part of her reasoning to rescind her previous order is based on this statement, how is it that they are allowed to sell the machines to the State in the first place? How can that not be be considered doing business regardless of where their manufacturing facility is. They send a product to an Arizona entity, who in turn sends them a check. Thats doing business… This just doesn’t make sense to me (actually I shouldn’t be surprised because most of the rulings in the DUI realm defy all logic anyway).

(Thanks to David Baker.)

Guilt or innocence in a drunk driving case commonly hinges on the breath test — and on the accuracy and reliability of the breath machine.  I’ve written ad nauseum in the past about the demonstrated lack of both — and on the success of manufacturers in keeping the inner workings of their machines secret.  See, for example, What Are Breathalyzer Manufacturers Hiding?   Amazingly, these devices which largely determine guilt or innocence, remain mysterious "black boxes" — run by software which is kept secret from the accused, his attorney, and even from prosecutors and the courts.

Recently, judges in a few states have begun ordering the manufacturers to turn over the software ("source code") so that the defense can have it analyzed for accuracy.  The manufacturers have refused, and have spent huge amounts in legal fees to keep anyone from peering inside their machines. 

Once again, they’ve won….

Judge Rescinds Order for DUI Breath-Test Device Code

Tucson, AZ.  Jan. 12 – A Pima County Superior Court judge who ordered a Kentucky firm to divulge the software code of its alcohol breath-test machine has rescinded her order, saying she doesn’t have jurisdiction to rule.

Judge Deborah Bernini said in a ruling issued Monday that CMI Inc. of Owensboro, Ky., isn’t authorized to do business in Arizona.  Therefore, her orders in a local case don’t extend beyond the state’s borders…

Phoenix attorney Michael Parrish argued before Bernini last week that the Uniform Act maintains that an order for CMI to give up the source code must come from a Kentucky court.

Bernini agreed.

"Because an Arizona court cannot compel production of documents or things not maintained within this state, the only lawful method that may be utilized to compel CMI to produce the source code in Arizona is compliance with the Uniform Act," she said in her ruling.

So far, other attorneys who have tried this method have failed to get the Owensboro court, which is named in honor of a relative of CMI’s own attorney, to order CMI to divulge its source code, (Tucson defense attorney James) Nesci said.

Defense attorneys had asked Bernini to find CMI in contempt of court because it failed to deliver the source code. Because the court had no jurisdiction to issue the order for the source code, Bernini wrote, the contempt sanction "is no longer appropriate."

In September, Bernini granted a defense request for the source code, citing an Arizona Supreme Court ruling: "All materials relied on by prosecution experts must be available to defense experts, and vice versa."

Defense attorneys say they’ve found problems traced to CMI Intoxilyzer 8000’s software that can skew results of blood-alcohol content readings.

In making her ruling, Bernini noted that state’s witnesses agreed "there are defects in the machine and ‘bugs’ in the software that are attributable to the source code."

So….even the prosecution experts agree that there are "defects in the machine…attributable to the source code"…but the defense can’t look at the source code…because only a judge in a Kentucky county (named after the manufacturer’s attorney and where the manufacturer is a major employer) can do that.

And "trial my machine" continues.

I’ve posted extensively over past years about the continuing disintigration of the United States Constitution when it comes the the politically-sensitive field of drunk driving.  See, for example, The DUI Exception to the Constitution and Who Cares About DUI?.  One example of this is the growing use of presumptions of guilt – in direct violation of our constitutional right to a presumption of innocence.  See Whatever Happened to the Presumption of Innocence?  and If You Can’t Prove it, Make the Defendant Disprove It.

The primary focus of this trend toward presuming guilt in DUI cases centers on the notoriously unreliable breath machines.  Most states, for example, now have laws presuming that the blood-alcohol level at the time of testing is the same as at the time of driving up to three hours earlier — and that the defendant is presumed to be guilty if the machine (or blood test) reads .08% or higher.

South Dakota is now about to join what is now a majority of states in this constitutional revision:

Change Sought in State Law

Pierre, SD.  Jan. 7 –Local prosecutors are pushing for a change in state law that they say will simplify drunken driving cases, leading to more guilty pleas and fewer and shorter trials.

State lawmakers during the upcoming legislative session probably will consider a bill, modeled after DUI laws in 27 states, that would draw a more direct line between a suspect’s blood-alcohol concentration and guilt under the law.

At the core of the proposal is a change to the way blood-alcohol tests are considered: As long as blood was drawn within two hours of driving and a chemical analysis came back over the legal limit of 0.08, a suspect would be presumed guilty…

Under current law, which includes no time frame, prosecutors must rely on mathematical equations – blood-alcohol content drops about 0.02 percent every hour – to estimate how intoxicated a suspect was when driving…

However, not all American citizens are apathetic about this corruption of the Constitution.  The following is an editorial response:

Those Pesky Technicalities

One thing that drives me nuts is hearing someone say a person avoided criminal charges or a conviction because of a “technicality.” That concept ignores the fact that, in most cases, the “technicality” is a legal right, usually found in something called the Constitution. So it really drives me nuts when people who should know better buy into this mentality. And it looks like that’s the case locally.

The local daily today had a front page story about how local prosecutors want the Legislature to “simplify drunken driving cases.” The solution? “As long as blood was drawn within two hours of driving and a chemical analysis came back over the legal limit of 0.08, a suspect would be presumed guilty.” That have an odd ring to anyone else’s ears?

The idea stems from the fact mathematical formulas are necessary to extrapolate from the blood alcohol test how drunk a person was when they were actually driving. Defendants can attack that with testimony or evidence that, for example, they took a couple drinks just before getting in the car so they weren’t legally intoxicated when driving but were by the time of the blood test. As a result, prosecutors want to create a presumption of guilt in the hopes it will produce more guilty pleas and fewer trials. To top it off, Joni Cutler, a local legislator and a lawyer who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, indicated she might sponsor the legislation and called the current situation a “technical loophole.”

Granted, I don’t practice criminal law and have never prosecuted or defended a DUI case. But comments like that essentially call the foundational concept of presumption of innocence a “technicality.” And I know the story asserts 27 states have such laws. So what? Didn’t our parents teach us you don’t jump off the cliff jut because everyone else is? While I certainly oppose drunk driving, creating such a presumption seems the functional equivalent of saying that any DUI defendant who testifies they drove before the alcohol got into their blood is committing perjury. It also seems to say South Dakota juries are incapable of judging the credibility of a DUI defendant who so testifies.

Yes, such a law would likely produce more guilty pleas and fewer trials because the odds are now stacked against the defendant. But since when is expedience more important than fundamental principles of justice?

(Thanks to Brad Schreiber of Pierre, South Dakota.) 

In recent years it has become increasingly fashionable and politically advantageous to adopt MADD’s "War on Drunk Driving" — to ratchet up the Draconian penalties while at the same time gradually eliminating inconvenient laws and constitutional safeguards.

Perhaps the most glaring example of this approach has been the relatively recent phenomenon of politically ambitious prosecutors charging suspects in DUI cases involving a fatality not with manslaughter but with murder.

The following are excerpts from a CBS "60 Minutes" special aired three days ago.  The case involved a 24-year-old man, Martin Heidgen, who was driving with a high blood-alcohol level when he hit a limousine, killing the driver and a 7-year-old girl. He had no prior record.  

DWI Deaths: Is It Murder?

(CBS)  Drunk driving kills more than 13,000 Americans a year – that’s one every 39 minutes. Authorities call it an epidemic. They say that despite all the publicity, all the education campaigns, and all the advertising over the past decade, the number of drunk-driving fatalities has not gone down.

Some prosecutors have started taking a different approach to the problem, getting so tough on drunk drivers who kill people that the penalties they exact were unheard of in the past.

As correspondent Bob Simon reports, one of these pioneers is Kathleen Rice, district attorney of Nassau County, New York. She believes that if you want to stop drunk driving, you have to treat it as a serious crime with serious jail time…

Getting tough on drunk drivers has been the centerpiece of her platform since she was elected in 2005. This case showed why.

"A 7-year-old girl is beheaded. The driver of the car is crushed to death. I think too many people think about drunk driving crashes, or accidents as people like to call them, as, you know, driving off the road. Or rolling through a red light. These crimes are incredibly violent," Rice says…

Katie’s funeral attracted more than 1,000 people. Her death, along with that of Stanley Rabinowitz, became rallying points for the campaign to crack down on drunk driving.

Martin Heidgen was arrested and charged not with manslaughter – meaning accidental killing, as is customary in drunk driving fatalities – but with the more severe charge of murder. That hardly ever happens in America.
Asked why Heidgen fit as a murder case, Rice says, "The statute under which he was charged required us to prove that through his actions, he had a completely depraved indifference to human life."

"His actions made the deaths of Katie Flynn and Stanley Rabinowitz inevitable. It was as inevitable as taking a gun and firing it at an individual who’s standing five feet away from you," Rice says.

She says she really believes that.

Heidgen hired lawyer Steven Lamagna to defend him.

Lamagna’s reaction when he heard his client was being charged with murder? "I could recall saying to myself, ‘They’re not going there. They’re not charging a vehicular homicide with murder, with a life sentence, as if he’s Jeffrey Dahmer or John Gotti.’ Murder in our society, and in every state in the union, is relegated to the most dangerous, cold-blooded killers."

Not for young men like Martin Heidgen, he says, a recent college graduate who had no previous convictions of any kind. If he’d been charged with manslaughter – not murder – he’d have been facing a possible sentence of probation to 15 years. Murder carries a mandatory penalty of 15 to life – too much, says Lamagna, for a young man who never intended to kill anyone.

"Are we as a society ready to water down what murder is and turn our sons and daughters into murderers who go out and drink and drive and cause a fatal accident?" Lamagna asks. "No matter how tragic these cases are, and they truly are, they’re an unintentional act that was caused by the alcohol. But for the alcohol, this wouldn’t have happened."

Kathleen Rice says, "Can you imagine if the law allowed Mr. Heidgen to say, ‘Wait, wait, wait. But I was drunk. So I shouldn’t be responsible.’ What kind of lawlessness would you have if intoxication excused that kind of behavior?" …

The trial took six weeks; Heidgen was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 18 years to life. The verdict sealed Rice’s reputation as a leader in campaign against drunk driving… 
 

So if drunk driving with a fatality is now murder, what next?  The death penalty?  Actually, yes….See my post a year ago, The Death Penalty for Murder, mentioning a North Carolina drunk driving fatality case in which the prosecutor asked the jury for the death penalty (which, fortunately, the jury refused to do). 

For politically ambitious prosecutors out there, see my post How to Convict a Drunk Driver of Murder.