DUI conviction hinges on legality of evidence

On June 9, 2005 an Ohio woman crashed her car killing her 29-year old fiancé, and was subsequently charged with several offenses including two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and DUI. However, the case hinges not on whether or not she was driving, but whether the state can prove she was actually intoxicated.

Her public defender contends that the results of her blood test – which came in at .152 BAC – should not be admitted as evidence for several reasons. First, the sample was taken four hours after the accident; state law requires that a sample be taken within two hours of the accident to be admitted into evidence. Secondly, the defense claims that “bullied” the woman into giving a blood test. Lastly, the sample was not refrigerated as required by law, but held in a police cruiser until it was sent to the lab through the mail for analysis.

This last reason seems to be the most contentious. According to the an attorney assisting the prosecution team, mailing lab samples is standard procedure and typically Ohio courts do not consider the time in transit to be an issue unless it is particularly long. The defense attorney, however, is quite adamant in stating that refrigeration is required, and the law “does not allow for blood to be baked inside a hot patrol car for almost five hours, nor baked in a hot mailbox for an unknown period.”

The assisting attorney replied to that statement by saying he had “factual concerns” about the term “baked.” In fact, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that any amount of heat could increase the BAC level of any blood sample.

However the woman could get off on several of the most serious charges if the judge rules the blood test results ineligible due to procedural mistakes. A high level of intoxication would prove recklessness, a key factor in proving aggravated vehicular homicide. The defense also wants to withhold from court the fact that the woman already has one DUI conviction.

If the defense wins its motion to withhold the test results, prosecutors will have to go ahead with the second and more difficult to prove count of aggravated vehicular homicide, which is based on the driver’s alleged knowledge that her car was too dangerous to drive. Failing that, the woman could be back on the streets looking for her third DUI within months. Trial date is set for February 14, 2006.

If you have been injured by a drunk driver, contact a personal injury attorney at Jim S. Adler & Associates. There could be many procedural difficulties and circumstances that could make your clear-cut case not so clear – and prevent you from getting the compensation you deserve. Get Jim S. Adler & Associates on your side and make sure your rights are protected. Call us directly, or click on the link below for a free case review.

DUI Accident Lawyer | Drunk driving toll is like a war against innocent Americans | Teen drunk driving sparks social hosting laws | Drunk driving fatalities take no holiday | Drunk drivers down but not out | BAC laws reduce number of drunk drivers | MADD wants to eliminate drunk drivers through interlock system | Drunk driving is one of America's deadliest crimes: NHTSA | Dry counties have a higher drunk driving accident rate than wet counties | NHTSA report shows alcohol-related fatalities declining, but still high | Breath test refusal study shows alarming trends | Making Texas roads safer from drunk drivers | Hit by a drunk driver? | A drunk driving injury lawyer gets the straight truth