Monthly Archives: February 2009
I’ve posted in the past about various problems, such as fermentation and coagulation, in analyzing human blood samples for alcohol content. But human error in the lab is just as insidious. I mentioned in an earlier post one of my firm’s cases in which we had our client’s blood sample analyzed for DNA — which proved that the blood tested was not our client’s. See How Do You Know the Blood They Tested Was Yours? Human error in the crime lab happens more often than is appreciated — and is extremely hard to detect.
Following is another recent example of a lab screwup that almost sent an innocent man to prison for a long stretch. Fortunately, one of those "obstructionist" defense attorneys had the blood restested, forcing the prosecution to have it retested as well. The blood-alcohol content, which had been reported as .19% — over three times the legal limit — was in fact .00%.
Homicide Charge Dropped Following Blood Test Mistake
According to the attorney’s office, there was a mistake in the initial blood test. After retesting his blood, prosecutors are sure he wasn’t under the influence at the time.
Turns out it was a human error made at the state lab that resulted in the blood-alcohol content reading double the legal limit…
That mistake started with the initial testing of Jakeman’s blood. Apparently, a technician misread the digits on a sample tube of his blood: a rare mistake. Gambrelli Layco with the Bureau of Forensic Toxicology said, "We did make an error in this case for transposing one number from a nine to an eight …"
When prosecutors had the blood retested at a private lab, Jakeman’s BAC levels came back triple zeros, no alcohol at all. To be safe, they had it retested with the state lab. Same result.
Hmmm. How does "transposing a number" change a .00% blood sample into a .19%?
(Thanks to Glen Neeley)
As most of you know, MADD has focused on ignition interlock devices (IIDs) as the answer to the drunk driving problem in America. The organization has even widely trumpted the device as the way to "literally wipe out drunk driving in the United States". MADD Announces End to Drunk Driving: A Reply. But there appears to be a growing recognition that the Empress is wearing no clothes…
DUI Penalty Should Fit Facts, Not Beliefs
Greenwood, MS. Jan. 25 — Mothers Against Drunk Driving has done much over the years to reduce the incidence of drunk driving and the terrible consequences that can come from it…
The group, though, has hit somewhat of a plateau. For at least a decade, the numbers have hardly budged. Somewhere around 13,000 people — give or take a few hundred — die every year in an alcohol-related crash in the United States.
When a well-intended advocacy group hits a wall, the danger is that it will go overboard with heavy-handed proposals. That is the case with MADD’s latest push to get judges to order all convicted DUI offenders, even first-timers, to outfit their cars with ignition interlock devices.
The devices aren’t foolproof, however. Despite the efforts of engineers to outwit the ways that a drunk driver might try to circumvent one, MADD’s own statistics put the devices’ effectiveness at 64 percent…
Yet, that seems to be MAAD’s big push this year. Only eight states mandate or allow judges to order ignition interlock devices for a first offender. MADD wants it be an option in every state. The advocacy group has gotten bills to that effect filed in legislatures all across the country, including Mississippi.
As dangerous as drunk driving can be, this remedy still rings of being overblown. It adds another layer of punishment to a crime that the courts are required to take seriously, thanks to mandatory minimum sentences that have been instituted over the years.
Mississippi, like most of the country, already has stern DUI laws on the books that are designed to dissuade those who get caught one time from repeating their mistake…
If, after serving that penalty, a driver gets a second DUI, he either is incapable of learning from his mistakes or he has a drinking problem. Either way, employing an ignition interlock device then becomes a reasonable response to protect the public from what appears to be a persistent threat to its safety.
MADD, though, sounds as if it wants to treat all DUI offenders as if they are repeat abusers. In fact, that’s part of its argument for the interlock ignition proposal. Citing a 13-year-old research study, it claims that on average a person will drive drunk 87 times before he is caught and convicted the first time.
The number sounds inflated. Even if it were close to accurate, though, MADD’s response turns our system of jurisprudence on its head. It presumes a person is guilty of criminal misconduct for which there is no record and penalizes the person accordingly. Is there another crime, large or small, for which that is the case?
Punishment should fit the crime for which there is evidence to prove guilt. It shouldn’t be based on the premise that one conviction is an automatic admission to previous violations of the same law.
I’ve posted stories over the past week about what happens to cops, prosecutors and judges when they’re arrested for drunk driving — or, more accurately, what doesn’t happen. Following is yet another example of the prevalent DUI double standard:
Plenty of Blame to Go Around in Tarrant Judge’s DWI Case
Dallas, TX. Jan. 29 – Tarrant County Judge Elizabeth Berry was stopped for speeding last year in Alvarado, south of Fort Worth. She refused to take a field sobriety test, a breath test or a blood test, so a municipal judge signed a search warrant authorizing a blood test against her wishes.
Last week, after a three-hour hearing, Judge Robert Dohoney ruled that the results of the blood test can’t be used against Berry because the arresting officer’s supporting affidavit was too vague.
It said Berry was driving 92 miles an hour, appeared confused and unusually quiet, had eight beer bottles on the floorboard of her SUV and the smell of alcohol on her breath…
No comment necessary.
(Thanks to Ken Sharp)