DUI Case of the Week for May 12, 2008
CASE DISMISSED BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY JUST PRIOR TO MOTIONS HEARING:
Our client, a major college athlete, decided to drive one night because his friends were "drunker" than he was. While driving back to campus, our client ran through a stop-sign without even stopping. What our client didn't know was that a police officer was right behind him the entire time.
Upon contacting our client, the officer smelled alcohol and observed other indicia of impairment, including an admission from our client that he had been drinking. Due to the numerous indicators of impairment, the officer requested that our client submit to standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs), including Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), the Nine-Step Walk and Turn (WAT), and the One-Leg Stand (OLS). The officer used the client's performance on these three tests to justify an arrest for suspicion of DUI. After placing our client under arrest, the officer gave him a choice between a breath or blood test. Our client elected a breath test on the intoxilyzer 5000, which produced a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .172.
The police then charged our client with the two most serious drinking and driving offenses in Colorado, with each charge carrying up to one year in jail.
THEN HE HIRED ATTORNEY, CHRISTOPHER H. CESSNA TO DEFEND HIM:
Upon being retained, our firm subpoenaed hundreds of pages of documents, including the officer's training records, background documents and reams of data detailing the internal workings of the intoxilyzer 5000 for 90 days before and 90 days after our client's breath test. After pouring over the scientific data on the internal performance of the intoxilyzer, Mr. Cessna saw some very troubling trends indicating that the breath machine was malfunctioning on a regular basis. Mr. Cessna also concluded that the officer's administration and interpretation of the SFST were flawed and therefore rendered them invalid and unreliable as evidence.
Because an attorney can't testify for his client, it is more effective to hire an expert witness who is much more qualified to analyze the scientific data (in this case on the intoxilyzer) and write an opinion letter about his findings. These opinion letters also summarize what the expert would testify to if the case went to trial, and the expert were to take the stand.
Our client allowed us to hire an expert and the reams of documents were forwarded for his analysis. In a detailed 10 page report, our expert used graphs and the government's own hard data to clearly illustrate how the intoxilyzer 5000 was malfunctioning on the night of our client's breath test, thereby rendering the .172 breath test invalid.
RESULT:
Even though this powerful expert opinion letter was given to the DA prosecuting this case early on in the process, the DA would not initially dismiss the case. In fact, the DA refused to even offer a plea bargain to a lesser drinking and driving offense. Because the DA refused to dismiss the case, our client was forced to set this case for motions hearings and a jury trial. On the day of the motions hearing, the DA finally conceded the case and dismissed all charges against our client.
