Challenging blood testing in drunk driving cases

Dec 07, 2010 Challenging blood testing in drunk driving cases

Image from National Institute of Standards & Technology.

Recently in a Virginia District Court drunk driving trial, the judge agreed with me not to find a blood alcohol level level higher than a 0.20 despite the 0.21 reading made by the state’s blood examination expert (“DFS analyst”). That spelled the difference between my client’s facing a five-day mandatory minimum in jail for a blood alcohol level (“BAC”) of at least 0.15 up to 0.20, and a ten-day mandatory minimum for a BAC over 0.20. Va. Code § 18.2-270.  

The prosecutor had all his witnesses present for trial, those being  the police officer, breath technician (who testified that my client’s vomiting prevented a reliable breath test), blood drawer, and DFS analyst. The defense came with forensic chemist Patrick Demers of Maine.

We were ready to argue that 10% is the generally accepted margin of error among forensic chemists for blood draws. Before trial and on the witness stand, I got the DFS analyst’s confirmation that the DFS Toxicology Procedures Manual at pp. 49-54 govern DFS blood analyses.  .

For margins of error see:

7.9.9 New calibrator certification. When new calibrators are prepared, analyze the new calibrators and recalibrate the instrument. Run the Cerilliant 0.05, 0.08, 0.10, 0.20 and 0.30% w/v controls and the Cerilliant Multicomponent Alcohol Mixtures to certify the new calibrators. The new ethanol calibrators must be within ± 6% of their target concentrations or 0.004% w/v, whichever is greater. The Cerilliant Multicomponent Alcohol Mixtures must be within ± 10% of the Cerilliant target concentration or 0.005% w/v, whichever is greater.

DFS Toxicology Procedures Manual.

Even a 6% margin of error listed in section would have brought us below a 0.20 BAC, but the DFS analyst insisted her analysis showed no margin of error in her test higher than 4%, and testified that this translated to a BAC of 0.20-0.21. Her math was off, because 0.21 minus a 4% margin of error equals 0.206.

I was were ready to argue that there is no way that the DFS expert could have reliably determined a margin of error as low as 4%. That became unnecessary after the prosecution rested, once the trial judge asked for a proffer of my expert witness’s testimony. The judge said that the prosecutor was stuck with its DFS expert’s testimony of a margin of error as low as 0.20 —- as much as the prosecutor objected to the judge’s refusal to accept the possibility of a BAC over 0.20 — and the defense rested.

Consequently, the judge convicted my client and gave him the minimum allowed by law for a 0.20 BAC, which was five days in jail, and a short suspended sentence, together with the standard mandatory conditions of one year of suspended driving (permitting restricted driving to work and a driver education program), only driving with an ignition interlock (which is required for convictions for driving with a 0.15 BAC or higher), and completion of the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program. .

Certainly it would have been preferable to have obtained an acquittal, or no jail time, and in many cases for the many years that I have defended drunk driving cases, I have obtained such results (past results cannot be a guarantee of future resutls, of course). On the other hand, if given a choice of a five-day sentence versus a ten-day sentence, the five-day option is preferable. Furthermore, my client’s night of arrest counted towards one day of jail credit, leaving four more jail days to serve. 

Reversal of child pornography conviction in Florida
Obtaining another Maryland medical marijuana sentence
No Comments

Post A Comment