I've been asked to speak at a conference for Intoxilyzer Supervisors in June, to give the prosecutor's view of their machine. I'm wondering if someone has kept records of DWI trials that were done with and without breath test evidence. I'm sure the conviction rate goes up with breath test evidence, but I'd like to support that with a stat, if there is one out there.

If anyone has anything they want passed on to this bunch of people let me know. My only thoughts for improving their image in court would be 1) for DPS to allow them to wear white lab coats to court; and, 2) for DPS to issue each Supervisor wirerim glasses (like the kind geniuses generally wear) to wear to court. Those that don't need glasses could have plain glass in their glasses. I've made this suggestion several times in the past, but have had no luck in changing DPS policy.

Personally, I've always considered breath test evidence to be the heavy artillery in a prosecutor's arsonal in a DWI trial. There are some defense attorneys who are willing to cross swords with the Intox. Supervisor, but most know they are no match.



[This message was edited by Terry Breen on 04-30-02 at .]

I did such a study in tarrant county and i found the difference between BT and BTR cases was not as great as I'd thought it would be. Of course the ratio of BTR to BT cases tried was about 3 to 1. The good news is that we don't have BT cases challenged very often. The reason the conviction rate was not significantly greater is that the BT cases we take to trial are usually borderline cases with good videos for the defense. The difference was as high as 14% one year and only 4% another. I have not repeated the survey since the per se level was lowered to .08. If you have questions about my survey feel free to contact me at ralpert@tarrantcounty.com I will be interested in hearing about your results.

- Since a few months have passed since the last posting, I would like to raise this issue again to see if someone has current stats, especially conviction rate with BTR with a good video for the defense..

- We are told by defense attorneys (consider the source) that Dallas county for example will reduce those cases to public intoxication or obstruction of the public roadway... Could you please share what office policy, if any, you have for the borderline cases?

Will be great to one day be successful in educating and convincing jurors EVEN with a great video AND BTR that drinking six beers and feeling a "buzz" or drinking three beers and almost hitting a patrol car head-on is DWI... Will keep trying!!!

The real progress in society will come when it becomes a crime to refuse to provide proof of intoxication. Under any other circumstances, it would be a third degree felony of tampering with evidence. Has anyone considered setting up a task force to seek a search warrant for blood following a refusal, just to see what could be done?

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 09-16-02 at .]

With such statistics one might be able to tell which was the bigger change, lowering of the BAC in the per se definition or the emaciation of the breath test result by Mata. In a sense one likely offset the other. Prosecutors were probably less likely to try .08-.09 cases after Mata though and, indeed, we really do not know the extent to which jurors rely on test results when they are available (since Mata virtually mandates submission of both theories). Another stat I would like to know is how many more .08 and .09 cases were filed after the change in the law (assuming some were filed before).

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 09-16-02 at .]

Gee, the next time I chat with Breath Testing, I will tell them that the state's prosecutors think that lab coats would be great as court atire!!

But seriously, as to the search warrant idea, one time I was driving from San Angelo to Abilene in my trusty DPS car (with police radio) and heard a trooper talking to a magistrate about obtaining a search warrant to get a blood specimen from a driver involved in an accident where two persons died. I presumed he wanted the search warrant despite 724.012(b) because the county had a judge that liked it that way or the DA like it that way. In counties with 24 hour magistrates, I guess it might be possible to get a search warrant. Interesting idea.

Gosh Janette, I wish I had a company car.

As Deputy Chief of the Misdemeanor Div. in Dallas County, I just want to set the record straight--we do not have a policy of reducing BT cases to P.I.s or Obstructions if the tape is good. Our Misdemeanor Division had over 830 jury trials last year (more than any other county, I believe)so we are definitely trying the difficult cases! Only the Chief or Deputy Chief can reduce a DWI to an obstruction--and if we do it's usually because there is a major problem with the case. I don't have the stats on how many more BTR cases are tried than not, but thanks for letting me clear this up!

When I was a prosecutor in Harris County, I was always told how the smaller outlying counties always reduced DWI's to PI's. Now that I am a prosecutor in a smaller outlying county, I am always told how Harris County reduces DWI's to PI's. Isn't that a coincidence? Is it any wonder that I'm cynical?

For Defense Attorneys the "policy" is always greener on the other side of the fence. Nothing to be cynical about.