ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Instapundit.com

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Academic

: Instapundit.com

THE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE? California Supreme Court Admits, Ignores Breathalyzer Flaws. ?The Califor?

By Glenn Reynolds

ADVERTISEMENTS

THE WAR AGAINST SCIENCE? California Supreme Court Admits, Ignores Breathalyzer Flaws. “The California Supreme Court last Thursday entered a ruling allowing motorists accused of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) to question the reliability of the breathalyzer machinery used to secure convictions. The decision, however, leaves room for the conviction of drivers even when the machine is proved unreliable.” The technology may not work, but that’s outweighed by the fact that it’s very convenient, and produces a number as a result. . . .

UPDATE: Reader Anthony Argyriou writes:

The article to which you link does not accurately reflect the actual holding in the case.

California DUI law has gotten complicated: there is a crime of DUI, where you are guilty if your judgement and driving skill are impaired by alcohol, and there is the crime of “per se DUI”, where you are guilty if your blood alcohol or breath alcohol levels exceed certain limits. In ordinary DUI, having a blood/breath alcohol level too high creates a rebuttable presumption of guilt. In per se DUI, the blood or breath test result is probative of guilt.

In the particular case, defendant brought up the potential flaws in breath tests. The officer testified to the defendant’s impairment in a variety of other ways, as well as his test results. The jury hung on the “per se DUI”, but convicted on the regular DUI. Defendant claims that the jury instruction regarding the rebuttable presumption was improper, and that a proper instruction may have lead to a hung jury or acquittal. Given all the other evidence presented, that was treated as laughable by the Court.

The court did make a technical change to the process of rebutting the breathalyzer evidence, which is actually in line with improved scientific
knowledge of the flaws of the breathalyzer.

Thanks.


Full post as published by Instapundit.com on July 15, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0135 secs (new cache)