Compassionate Counsel Passionate Defense

group photo of attorneys and staff
Group photo of staff at Law Offices Of Smith & White PLLC

Seattle Court Should have Excluded Expert Testimony; Defense Should have Argued Implicit, Institutional and Unconscious Bias

by | Sep 4, 2024 | DUI, DUI and Evidence

In Washington, in order to convict a person of driving while under the influence of alcohol, the State must offer evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the State can use circumstantial evidence to meet this burden, it cannot rely on speculative or misleading evidence, as discussed in a recent Washington DUI ruling. If you are charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, you should talk to a Tacoma DUI defense attorney to determine what evidence the State may attempt to use against you.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that police officers responded to a 911 call reporting a stationary vehicle in the middle of a residential road. Upon arrival, the officers observed the vehicle stopped in the southbound lane with its engine running, headlights and taillights on, and the transmission in drive. The defendant was found asleep in the driver’s seat with his feet on the floorboard. After waking the defendant by knocking on his window, the officers detected the smell of alcohol, observed slurred speech, and noticed other signs of impairment. The defendant failed several field sobriety tests and was arrested for DUI.

Reportedly, a subsequent blood test revealed the defendant had a BAC of 0.076 percent. The State charged the defendant with DUI, operating a vehicle without a functioning ignition interlock device, and driving while his license was revoked. The jury convicted the defendant on the charges related to the ignition interlock device and driving with a revoked license but did not reach a unanimous verdict on the DUI charge. Instead, they found the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence. The defendant was sentenced within the standard range and subsequently challenged his conviction.

Evidence in DUI Cases

In his challenge, the defendant argued, in part, that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the toxicologist to testify about the average alcohol metabolization rate in the general population and the AMA’s recommendation to lower the per se BAC limit to 0.05 percent. The court agreed that the trial court erred in admitting this testimony.

Specifically, it held that the testimony about the general population’s alcohol metabolization rate was speculative because it did not account for the defendant’s specific metabolization rate or other relevant factors, making it irrelevant to whether the defendant was impaired at the time of the incident.

The court also found that the toxicologist’s reference to the AMA’s recommended lower BAC limit was irrelevant and potentially misleading, as the defendant was not charged under the per se BAC prong of the DUI statute, which would have required a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher. The court noted that the State strategically introduced this inadmissible evidence, attempting to suggest to the jury that the defendant’s BAC could have been above the legal limit at the time of driving, which was not directly relevant to the charge of being under the influence.

The court ultimately ruled that the aforementioned errors were harmless, however, and did not affect the outcome of the trial. As a result, the court upheld the defendant’s conviction.

The court goes on to discuss that the defense attorney did not raise implicit, institutional and unconscious bias in its motion to suppress.  If the defense had done so, likely the court would have determined that the defendant was “in custody” when boxed in by police vehicles.  As such, he was entitled to have his Miranda Rights read to him before answer questions.  Because his defense attorney did not raise this issue, the defendant’s incriminating statements were used against him and contributed to the conviction by the jury, and the appelate court’s decision to uphold the conviction.

Meet with a Trusted Tacoma Defense Attorney

If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is important to know what measures you can take to protect your rights, and you should meet with an attorney as soon as possible. The trusted Tacoma DUI defense attorneys at The Law Offices of Smith & White can assess your case and formulate compelling arguments on your behalf. You can contact us through our form online or by calling us at 253-203-1645 to arrange a conference.

Archives

Categories