Gleaned a nugget from a high-profile DWI trial in a very small county (Shelby)in East Texas where I served as a County Attorney Pro Tem last week:

----
When asked if impairment begins with the first drink, Dr. Booker answered "no."

When asked if impairment begins with the second drink, Dr. Booker answered "no."

I continued with this litany (at the urging of my esteemed co-counsel, Ralph Guerrero), realizing it was very quickly leading somewhere.

Third? No.

Fourth? No.

Fifth? No.

Sixth? No.

Okay...Twenty drinks? "Passed out."

Working back down, then...

Ultimately, based on an ordinary set of conditions, and an average defendant, Dr. Booker testified that impairment would not begin until drink #14 - an assertion that most juries, including ours, would find implausible.
----

I was also able to successfully attack Booker on being an expert for hire, using the "composite science" of Toxicology as a launching point for going into his 30-something areas of "expertise" where he has testified in previous trials - found on his listing (which he did not admit to purchasing at www dot almexperts dot com.)

I have a few transcripts that probably duplicate some that are archived by some of the folks on this forum. And I expect to see a transcript on this case in the next few months, which I'll be glad to make available.

jonathan.white@oag.state.tx.us

I've got a copy of the transcript available now, if anyone wants it.