Chemical evidence

AuthorPatrick T. Barone
§201 Absorption and Elimination
§201.1 Absorption
§201.2 Elimination
§202 Retrograde Extrapolation
§202.1 General Points
§202.2 Problems With the Application of Widmark’s Formulas
Form 2-1 Table—Know Your Limits
§202.3 Ref‌inements to Widmark’s Formulas
§203 Erroneous Use of Retrograde Extrapolation by Prosecutors
§203.1 Court Rejects Extrapolation Evidence Favorable to Defendant
§203.2 Implied Consent License Revocations May Not Require Extrapolation of BAC Results
§203.3 Attacking Prosecution’s Extrapolation Evidence
§203.3 .1 State May Not Use Retrograde Extrapolation to Counter Statutory Prohibition
§203.4 Prosecutor’s Reference to Retrograde Extrapolation Does Not Require Mistrial
§203.5 Relation-Back Evidence Not Required to Sustain a
Conviction for Per Se DUI Even With a Four-Hour Delay
§203.5.1 Breathalyzer Test Results Taken Within a Reasonable Time
Are Admissible Without Evidence of Retrograde Extrapolation
§203.6 Statutory Provision Allowing State to Rely on
BAC Testing Results Without Extrapolation Upheld
§203.7 Factors Precedent to Proper Admission of Retrograde Extrapolation Evidence
§203.8 Court Erred in Admitting Retrograde Extrapolation Evidence
§203.9 No Need for Extrapolation When BAC Above Legal Limit
§203.10 Error to Convict Defendant Without Retrograde Extrapolation
§203.11 Failure to Object to Retrograde Extrapolation Not Reversible Error
§203.12 Statutory Presumption that BAC at Time of Chemical Test Same as at Operation Valid
§203.13 Retrograde Extrapolation and the High BAC Enhancement
§203.14 Preparing the Retrograde Extrapolation Case for Appeal
§204 Rising Blood Alcohol Defense
§204.1 “One for Road” Defense
§204.2 The Drinking after Driving Defense
§204.3 Additional Information on the “One for the Road” Defense
§204.4 State Fails to Establish Temporal Connection Between Operation and Intoxication
§205 The BAC Tracker Blood Alcohol Software Program
§206 Methods to Hand-Calculate BAC
§207 Sex-Related Differences in BAC
§208 Test Specimens
Defending Drinking Drivers 2-2
§209 Tolerance and the Disconnect Defense
§209.1 Don’t Let Prosecutors Mislead Jurors About Alcohol Tolerance in a Disconnect Case
§211 Measurement Uncertainty in General
§211.1 The Inherent Variability in Chemical Test Measurements
§211.2 Uncertainty in Bodily Alcohol Chemical Tests
§211.3 Uncertainty in Breath Tests
§211.3.1 Scientif‌ic Limitations to Deriving a Valid
Uncertainty Budget Specif‌ic to Breath Testing
§211.4 Uncertainty in Blood Tests
§211.5 Applicability of Measurement Uncertainty to the Admissibly of Chemical Tests
§211.6 Simplifying Uncer tainty for Judges and Juries
§212 “Margin of Error” Evidence
§212.1 What Is the “Margin of Error”?
§212.2 When Does the Margin of Error Evidence Apply?
§212.3 Effect on Probative Value
§212.4 “Machine Round Up”
§212.5 Preserving the Record
§212.6 Margin of Error Evidence in License Revocation Proceedings
§221 Minimum Standards for Breath Testing
§221.1 Diff‌iculties in Challenging Adherence to Minimum Standards
§222 The Measurement of Breath Alcohol
§222.1 By Infrared Absorption
§222.2 By Electrochemical Fuel Cell
§223 Henry’s Law and The Fixed Partition Ratio
§223.1 Problems With the Fixed Partition Ratio
§223.2 Experts Debate Problems With Blood/Breath Ratio
§223.3 Constitutionality of the Fixed Partition Ratio
§223.4 Expert Testimony on the 2100:1 Ratio
§223.5 The Variability of Partition Ratio Is Irrelevant in “Per Se” Drunk Driving,
but Relevant in Prosecution for Driving While Impaired
§223.6 Nebraska Court Rejects 2100:1 Ratio and Adjusts Margin of Error in Favor of Defendant
§223.6.1 Facts of Burling
§223.6.2 The Nebraska Statutes
§223.6.3 The Expert Testimony in Burling
§223.6.4 The Burling Court Analysis
§223.6.5 The Court Adjusts the Margin of Error
§223.6.6 The Importance of the Burling Ruling
§223.6.7 Partition Ratio Deemed Relevant to Presumption of Impairment Statute,
but Usually Irrelevant Under Breath Alcohol Concentration Statute
§223.6.8 Using Cross-Examination to Attack the Partition Ratio
§223.7 Studies of the Accuracy of Breath Testing
§223.8 Problems With Pennsylvania Breath Testing
§223.8.1 Pennsylvania Breathalyzer “Simulator Solution” Problems
§223.8.2 Calibration and Testing of Breath Analyzer Does
Not Make Test Results Presumptively Accurate
§223.8.3 Police Off‌icer’s Testimony May Not Be Used to Re-Adjust Machine’s
Margin of Error When Motorist’s Breath Test Results Are Borderline
§223.8.4 Pennsylvania Strikes Down Variation of “Per Se” Law
§223.8.5 Legislature’s Response to Commonwealth v. Barud Suffers From
Some of the Same Problems That Doomed Predecessor Law
2-3 Chemical Evidence
§224 Sources of Error in Breath Testing
§225 Radio Frequency Interference
§226 Mouth Alcohol
§226.1 Observation Period Violations
§226.2 Silent Regurgitation
§226.3 Gastro-Esophageal Ref‌lux Disorder (GERD) and Silent Regurgitation
§226.4 Dentures and Denture Adhesives
§226.5 No Physical Inspection Required
§226.6 Slope Detection and Mouth Alcohol
§226.6.1 Slope Detectors Are Not Suff‌iciently Reliable
§226.7 Cross-Examining the Off‌icer on Observation
§227 The “Miles Apart” Defense
§228 Breathing Pattern Defense
§229 Breath Alcohol Tests Can Be Signif‌icantly Higher than Venous Blood Tests during Absorption
§229.1 Alcohol Absorption
§229.2 Alcohol Distribution
§229.3 Alcohol Elimination
§229.4 Breath vs. Blood-Alcohol Testing
§229.5 How Is This Science Relevant to the Defense of Allegedly Intoxicated Drivers?
§229.6 How to Use This Information in Your Next DUI Trial
§231 Intoxilyzer
§231.1 Theory and Operation
§231.2 Sources of Error
§231.3 CMI Intoxilyzer 5000 Series
§231.4 Court Acceptance of the Intoxilyzer 5000
§231.5 Problems With Intoxilyzer 5000 Air Blank
§231.6 The Intoxilyzer Series 6800 and 6801
§231.7 CMI Intoxilyzer 8000 Series
§232 Intoximeter
§232.1 Theory and Operation
§232.2 Sources of Error
§232.3 Intoximeter Model 3000 (End of Life)
§232.4 Modif‌ied Intoximeter Requires Recertif‌ication for Test Results to Be Admissible
§233 National Patent Analytical Systems, Inc., BAC Datamaster,
BAC Datamaster K and BAC Datamaster CDM (All End of Life)
§233.1 Problems With the DataMaster
§233.2 The DataMaster “DMT”
§233.2.1 Theory and Operation
§233.2.2 How the DMT Is Different from the Standard DataMaster
§233.2.3 States That Have Adopted or Are Considering Adopting the DMT
§234 Draeger Alcotest 7110 and 9510
§234.1 New Jersey Source Code Challenge to the Draeger Alcotest
§235 The UCC Defense in Drunk Driving Trials
§236 Source Code as a Defense
§236.1 Compliance Testing Issues
§236.2 Software Changes After Approval
§236.3 Manufacturer’s Response
§236.4 The Future of Source Code Litigation
§236.5 Source Code Litigation in Florida

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT