| | | |
Home /
The Presumption of Guilt in a DUI Case  Uploading ....The Constitution of the United States provides that every body accused of a crime shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even in some of the most horrific crimes with overwhelming evidence, the news channels pay, at the very least, lip service to the fact that the suspect should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We have seen cases with large amounts of DNA and scientific evidence which, even from the defense prospective, look pretty damning. Enter the criminal defense attorney who challenges that evidence and leaves people astounded that the suspects are found not guilty. Is it that the criminal defense attorney twists facts and lies for his client "off the hook?" That is absolutely not the case. With cases involving pseudoscientific evidence, the defense attorney's job would be to convey to the jury what the evidence means.
DUI cases aren't any different and maybe even more difficult than other cases involving scientific evidence. How on earth can somebody who's blood alcohol concentration was reported at .08 or higher be found not guilty? How can somebody who's urine or blood tested positive for cocaine be found not guilty? It comes down to many things, but the essence of the defense is simply "what substance was actually detected by the test and how accurate is the test?"
Oddly enough, it is probably easier to try a DUI blood case than a DUI breath case. People often times have a misguided sense of trust in the Intoxilyzer Machines. From a users standpoint, the machines are easy to run and easy to get a result. The faulty scientific assumptions behind the machine are generally not presented to the jury. Unfortunately, the majority of the time, the jury doesn't hear the answers to the following crucial question, "how did it do that?" Many times, the officer running the Intoxilyzer will not know the basic scientific principals and assumptions behind the machine. Accordingly, a Defendant might have to hire his or her own expert or take their chances without one.
Under Florida Law, most tests for drug driving DUI's are going to be urinalysis. As such, urinalysis is an easy place to clarify why an individual with drugs in his or her system can be found not guilty.
Let's assume that a person is pulled over and arrested for DUI. The person is asked to take a breath test and complies. The results on the Intoxilyzer 8000 read .000. Still believing the Defendant is under the influence, the arresting officer asks the Defendant to submit to a urine test. The Defendant does so. The results come back from the lab as positive for marijuana.
Whenever a person ingests a drug, that drug is known as the "parent" drug. Almost immediately the parent drug will begin to break down into what are called metabolites. Metabolites have a different chemical structure than the parent drug. The psychoactive substance in marijuana in THC. There are both active and inactive metabolites to THC. An active metabolite will still have a psychoactive effect. An inactive metabolite has no psychoactive effect.
So, in a DUI case, when the State tests urine for marijuana, what shows up on the test? The State of Florida uses a Gas Chromatograph test in these circumstances. Only inactive metabolites can be detected on the State's test. Although the State found no psychoactive substance in the urine, the State often will present evidence stating the Defendant tested positive for marijuana. So the DUI defense attorney's job is to convey the message that 1) the Defendant didn't test positive for marijuana; 2) the Defendant tested positive for an inactive marijuana metabolite; 3) that there's no way of telling when the Defendant was exposed to marijuana & 4) how the substances found in the Defendant's urine would have absolutely no impact on the Defendant's driving.
This is a basic example intended to show why individuals charged with DUI are entitled to the same presumption of innocence as defendants with any other type of criminal charge. There are numerous other problems with urinalysis in the context of a DUI. A fundamental misunderstanding of qualitative urinalysis can not just result in a bad conviction, but additionally to absurd legislation. For an example of absurd legislation, see the commentary of Florida Senate Bill 1810, 2012 Session.
The Law Offices of Daniel Rosenberg, P.A. is DUI Defenselaw firm located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. For further information, please call (954)356-0413 or visit http://DRosenbergLaw.com.
|
|
|
| | | |
|