Though the Supreme Court often receives substantial attention regarding the cases it decides, it seldom gets much press regarding the cases it declines to hear. Though declining to hear a case doesn’t lead to any interesting or precedent-making opinion, it can still be important in resolving a pressing legal matter.
An example of this occurred late last month when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take-up a California drunk driving case. The decision not to hear the appeal meant that the California Supreme Court’s ruling would stand and that defense attorneys in the state would now have fewer options when defending their clients charged with DUIs.
The case, Vangelder v. California, involved a situation where a defense attorney tried to challenge the science behind breathalyzer tests, arguing that the machines generally were unsound and that they could frequently lead to mistakes in determining a driver’s blood alcohol concentration. In Vangelder, the defense attorney never pointed to any specific problems with the specific machine used to test the defendant, but instead wanted to make general points about the science behind breathalyzer testing devices.
The judge in that case refused to allow the defense attorney to proceed with the vague attack and the state Supreme Court affirmed the decision. Because the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take-up the case, the result is that attorneys in California will no longer be able to argue against the general use of breathalyzer testing.
Attorneys will still be able to bring up defects in specific machines or the procedures used by the arresting officers, but expert witnesses will no longer be allowed to testify about the overall soundness of breathalyzer tests. The California Supreme Court found that in too many cases, defense attorneys were able to get experts to shake the jury’s confidence in breath tests, bringing up minor flaws that created largely unfounded doubts. The Supreme Court decided that this amounted to confusion of the jury and ought not be allowed to continue.
DUI defense attorneys in California say that while the ruling is unfortunate, it does not mean that lawyers are out of options when fighting drunk driving cases. In cases where intoxication was determined by other means, such as blood or urine tests, defense attorneys can demand that the samples be retested by private labs and use those results to bolster their cases. When breathalyzers are involved, defense lawyers will need to identify clear problems with the machines used or the person operating the devices.
Source: “SD CITY ATTORNEY SAYS STATE COURT HAS CUT DUI DEFENSE TACTIC,” by Chase Cain, published at SanDiego6.com.