Would it have been incorrect for the expert, when asked for his formula, to simply repeat “.02*1.5”?
Regards,
Shodan
Let x = the level of alcohol in the bloodstream at the time of arrest.
Let y = the level of alcohol in the bloodstream at the time of measurement
Let z = the elapsed time between arrest and measurement
Let R = the rate at which alcohol is metabolised
Solve for x:
x = y + (R * z)
Given:
y = .15
z = .02 per hour
R = 1.5 hours
x = .15 + (.02 * 1.5)
x = .15 + .03
Thus: x = .18
I think part of the problem is “formula” is an incorrect term for what the defense attorney was asking. A formula is a mathematical rule or principle, usually expressed algebraically. This was no formula. It was just a math problem.
The witness did repeat–and repeat, and repeat, and repeat–where the .18 answer had come from. But since there was no formula, the defense attorney felt vindicated. sigh
And Johnny…I had always felt that I would never be placed on a jury panel. Maybe I wouldn’t have been if the defense attorney hadn’t already used up his “dismiss this juror” tokens up by the time my number was called for screening. They called 35 of us into the room for selection; my number was literally called 35th. I thought that once the defense learned I was a math and science teacher, they’d send me out before my butt could warm the seat. Alas, it was not the case. They did get a few more people in the room to select alternates from, and the defense used its last two tokens to get rid of the two people who’d grown up with alcoholics.
I knew I was in for a “fun” ride when on then first day of jury selection the attorney asked the people on the temporary panel (I was just a tortured observer) if they’d ever been in a fight. No, they all said. “What, you’ve never been in a fight with a sibling?” Oh, yes, lots of times, the jurors said.
I about popped because while I had fights with my sisters, I (1) was a CHILD, and (2) wasn’t DRUNK at the time of the fight. We knew during selection this was a DUI case involving battery, and we could see the defendant was no child.
I really, really wanted to bark at him for using a false analogy, but since I wasn’t in the box, I couldn’t respond. I wasn’t in the box until the next day, and I can only answer questions posed–I, alas, cannot say “You know, I really take issue with what you said yesterday…”
Although next time, protocol be damned…I just might. That, and I might tell the judge I have a bias against defense attorneys. At least ones like this dork who uses laaaaaaaaaame logic.
What’s the difference between DUI and DWI? They sound like the same thing.
But throw enough x-es and ‘y’-s and ‘the sum of’-s out, and the Defense Attourney would probably accept it. 
Huh. I just served on my first jury a couple weeks ago. I was also the foreman. It was double attempted murder and felony handgun possession.
We found him guilty on all counts (and not the diminished “intent to do great bodily harm”. Shooting 6 shots into someone’s front door takes out “bodily harm” and pushes it into the “attempted murder” camp.) Let’s not take into account the fact that he was pretty much screwing himself over with his phone conversations from jail.
We thought that too, until we read the two charges more specifically.
One says the defendant is guilty of driving with a .08 or higher–above the legal limit. The other says they are driving “while under the effects of alcohol.” These are split because, presumably, some people may indeed have their driving affected while still testing below the .08 legal limit. I know that I’m a weenie–at .06 I’d bet my driving would be affected. Best not to drink and drive, blah blah blah.
BTW–when we filled out the “guilty” form, we had to mark “true” where is said the defendent had a .15 BAC or higher. We’re curious why that is…would having a BAC at that level mean a stiffer sentence, perhaps?
That’s probably the only way I’d be on a jury.
What’s that saying, if the law isn’t on your side, argue the facts, and if the facts aren’t on your side, argue the law?
Sounds to me the defense attorney was “zealously representing his client.” If he can confuse even one juror and get his client off, he’s done his job. I’m just glad you were able to see through it.
What was up with the juror who believed the defense attorney?
When the law is on your side, pound on the law.
When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
When neither are on your side, pound on the table.
That was my thought, as well, until she mentioned she’d talked with him after the trial was over, and he was still putting the same arguments forward.
Don’t bet on it. I thought that computer scientists would get excused due to too much logical thinking, but it turns out they like us just fine. In the first jury I was on, a civil case, there were a bunch of engineers empaneled. However the case settled immediately afterwards, because I think the plaintiff was looking for a bunch of people who would feel sympathy to her, and didn’t get it.
I was on a jury in February, and I had much the same impression of the defense attorney in the case we saw. Our defendant was accused of drug possession and intent to sell, and was just so blatantly guilty.
His lawyer spent a lot of time ringing a tiny little bell so we wouldn’t notice the elephant in the room. She kept saying things like, “But isn’t it possible it could have been blah blah blah?” until I wanted to tell her, “Lady, it’s POSSIBLE that he’s an alien life form here from Jupiter, but that doesn’t mean it’s likely, and it doesn’t constitute reasonable doubt about anything!” I confined myself to a blatant rolling of the eyes on her worst couple of offenses, though mostly I just closed my eyes when I felt them creeping heavenward.
I know she was just doing her job, but I had a lot of fantasies about throttling her.
And in these fantasies… What was she wearing? 
Heh. Okay, now to the holdout juror.
The more I think about her, the more I think she just wanted to be a contrarian and get the attention of the dumbfounded 11 other jurors. The 11 of us had our verdicts for all 3 counts ready in about 20 minutes, after we’d gone over The Stuff We Had To Go Over. We voted, and suddenly realized…SOMEone didn’t agree.
Her arguments were like this.
Attention Whore: “We have no evidence he drank anything! No one in the bar admits to serving him a drink.”
The 11 of us: “It doesn’t matter where the alcohol came from. His friends could have bought drinks for him. Maybe the bar served him alcohol and is trying to save itself a fine because they’re not suppose to serve folks already drunk. He could have thoroughly saturated himself before. It doesn’t matter. What matters it was in his blood.”
AW: “Yeah, but the police didn’t SEE him driving the car. They just arrested him when they showed up.”
11: “He was observed driving the car by the witness–even the defense attorney didn’t argue that. It’s an unarguable fact of this case the defendant was driving.”
AW: "Well, don’t get me wrong, I believe he was drunk, but I don’t think the police could have arrested him.
::::next day (deliberations began with 15min left of the business day, so we ran out of time):::::
AW: “I don’t think he was drinking. We have no proof of it.”
11: ??? (She DID say she thought he was drunk the day before!!) “Well, do you want to ask a question of the judge and see if police are required to observe the defendant driving before placing them under arrest for DUI?”
AW: “Sure, but it’s not going to change my mind.”
11: “What about the breathalyzer test?”
AW: “It’s just a machine. Machines make mistakes. Maybe something else made the numbers go high.”
11: :::hands her the printed record of the machine’s accuracy:::
Me: [I go into a re-explanation of how the machine works. It looks for a specific wavelength signature of a molecule–it can’t record what isn’t there. I compare it to a pregnancy test, and I use my teacher skills to try and make this comprehensible input for her thick skull. Several other pipe in with other evidence supporting the veracity of the machine.]
AW: “Mmm-hmm, yes, and you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m convinced.”
11: “What did you use to form your opinion? Where do you get it from?”
AW: “I was listening to what everyone said, and from my notes.”
Never mind I wrote a freakin’ novel of notes, partially just to keep myself awake…and she wrote about a half page. And never mind the judge said NOT TO RELY ON YOUR NOTES…sigh.
11: Getting impatient, and getting irked, some of the jurors start talking about how if the defendant goes out and kills someone next time, how would she feel? What if it’s her family?
AW: “I’d feel bad, and I know it’s a risk.”
Some of the other jurors (including myself) speak up and say that’s not the way to get her to change her mind–putting her on the defensive will just have her dig in her heels all the more.
Then it gets a bit odd. We send the judge 2 requests–one asking about whether police must observe someone behind the wheel to arrest them for DUI, and another requesting readback of one of the witness’s testimony. When the bailiff comes, we explain we’re deadlocked; he says, “Are you sure? Sometimes people clam up when they face the judge…”
Well, apparently for the questions and such it all needs to be on the record, so we all go back into the courtroom as the questions are asked. The judge cannot comment on the police arrest thingy. (Which I found surprising, but we all–well, 11 of us–figured people are arrested for crimes all the time without police there to watch. Duh. It was more to appease AW.) Then, as far as the read-back request goes, she says the court reporter will be in the deliberations room soon to read it. We go back to the room.
So in other words, we go into court a hung jury, get no answer for our two questions, and walk back in the room with NOTHING changed.
AW: “Okay, I want to change my vote.”
Huhhhhhhhh? Maybe being face to face with the judge, prosecutor, etc. made her rethink her position. Whatever. The court reporter showed up about 40min later and read the requested testimony, but it really wasn’t necessary. We voted, we convicted, the end. WTH.
And as a final, concluding thought, I say
:smack:
Maybe she just wanted to eat lunch on the taxpayers’ dime?
I understand this, but I suspect the defense attorney (and most of the jury) did not. It might have been better to treat the question as “how did you arrive at that answer?”, not “what was the formula” where formula = something other than everyone was talking about.
I am not a math teacher, so I think of Johny L.A.'s explanation as being useful. YMMV, of course.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m following this thread and it strikes me that maybe the OP should stick to teaching and leave the lawyering to the lawyer. My only experience as a juror was on a court martial board. There were three junior officers an two chiefs (senior NCO’s). The J.O.'s wanted to throw the book at the accused, but the chiefs (me being one) better understood the impact on the guys career and life in general. We held out until they agreed to a fairly mild sentence because, while we thought the guy guilty, we also thought there were mitigating circumstances. The J.O.'s weren’t happy w/ us and tried to pressure us into agreeing w/ them, but, in the end, we were quite satisfied w/ the verdict, I still am today.
Maybe you’ve got this situation pegged, then again, maybe there was some room for equivocation. I think a lawyer has to do whatever they can, within the law, to represent their client. Maybe you should consider the alternatives available to that lawyer.
This was, in fact, a similar case, w/ drunkeness and assault being charged. The victim provoked the situation, and while that wasn’t a justification, it was certainly a factor.
You forgot the ending: “when neither the law nor the facts are on your side, shout like hell.”