During the trial, the prosecutor argued that Mr. Artz’s client first entered the checkpoint at an unsafe high rate of speed and as a result, was ordered to a secondary area where he was later arrested for driving under the influence. On direct questioning by the prosecutor, the arresting officer stated that the client had red, watery eyes and confirmed that he entered the DUI checkpoint at an unsafe speed.
However, on cross-examination by Mr. Artz, the officer conceded that the speed limit on the street was 35 MPH and the driver was doing about 30 MPG when he first entered, that the driver never hit any cones (or came close) in the checkpoint, stopped when told to do so and that his depth perception was not impaired. Mr. Artz then showed the jury the client’s booking photo which was taken 2 hours post arrest to provide evidence that he did not have red, watery eyes or look intoxicated.
As for the blood sample that was taken during the arrest and later analyzed at 0.12% BAC, Mr. Artz was able to prove many discrepancies in the process, all of which can produce incorrect results.
- the blood was analyzed 22 days post collection and was not refrigerated.
- there were multiple errors in the documentation during the analysis of the blood sample.
Mr. Artz referenced many studies to prove to the jury that the blood sample was not reliable and should not be considered as evidence when determining if his client was driving under the influence at 0.08% or higher.
In the end, all 12 jurors agreed Mr. Artz’s client was not guilty or driving under the influence and that he was not 0.08% or higher. Justice was served.
Have you been arrested for DUI in Los Angeles? Contact us today to speak to Jon Artz about your case.