TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

WildBill wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Fangs wrote:

EEllis wrote:The kid blew .92 so it wasn't that they wanted to give a little slack or were concerned about the accuracy of the test, they just wanted to find the guy not guilty.

...and he was still alive?

Typo. I think I read one article that said 0.092 BAC.

So it could be that the defense was saying that the alcohol level reading that was close to the legal limit could have been inaccurate?

I don't know if they challenged that or not. It just sounds like the jury didn't want to convict him for whatever reason.

Since I haven't seen the trial transcript, so I can't say for sure, but I would think that any experienced/competent DWI attorney would challenge the results. Whether or not that was the [main] reason for the acquittal I can't say. I also can't say if the results would have been the same with another DA or defense attorney. Both the DA and defense do their best to win

Sometimes jury select is like going to Las Vegas - you roll the dice. Jurors have their own particular prejudices. They swear that they can be impartial and only consider the evidence. But people are people.

C-dub wrote:

Fangs wrote:

EEllis wrote:The kid blew .92 so it wasn't that they wanted to give a little slack or were concerned about the accuracy of the test, they just wanted to find the guy not guilty.

...and he was still alive?

Typo. I think I read one article that said 0.092 BAC.

So it could be that the defense was saying that the alcohol level reading that was close to the legal limit could have been inaccurate?

The defense attorney is a Certified Field Sobriety Test Practitioner, so maybe he has insight about the deficiencies of the Intoxilyzer and presented that evidence to the jury. There was a case in Houston where the company that was contracted by HPD to calibrate their meters did not perform the required calibrations. It appears that the defense attorney earned his fee.

From his website:
Q: Should I submit to a breath test?
A: The reliability of the instruments used to measure breath specimens to determine body alcohol concentration is doubtful. While state-paid experts routinely testify that the Intoxilizer 5000 is accurate and reliable, several independent experts have expressed contrary opinions. Consequently, the results may be inaccurately high or inaccurately low. In my experience, unless you have only had one drink, you ought not to submit to the breath test.

EEllis wrote:

WildBill wrote:

C-dub wrote:That is true, but the judge saw all the same evidence the jury did. If it really was jury nullification, I wonder why they wouldn't or couldn't find him guilty.

Apparently the jury didn't think there was enough evidence to arrest Tran in the first place.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairp ... i_char.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well then unlike what Texas monthly claims it was jury nullification. They ignored the test results so they could find not guilty because they didn't buy the reason for the stop. The issue would be that they are not supposed to decide if the stop was legal, that was already adjudicated.

The jury probably didn't hear the motion to determine if the stop was legal. Neither did I. It was probably decided before the trial started. Since I wasn't at the trial and haven't read the transcript, I am not sure why the jury didn't think the arrest was justified. I have some thoughts about it, but it would only be conjecture.

C-dub wrote:I hope that guy realizes how lucky he is and changes his habits. Otherwise, he might end up killing someone. I wonder what those jury members will think about letting him go ten.

I just re-read the transcript and Tran was arrested when he was 17 years old. He is now 21 years old! That is very long time for a DWI to be adjudicated.

C-dub wrote:That is true, but the judge saw all the same evidence the jury did. If it really was jury nullification, I wonder why they wouldn't or couldn't find him guilty.

Apparently the jury didn't think there was enough evidence to arrest Tran in the first place.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairp ... i_char.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Tarrant County jury found a defendant not guilty in a DWI trial on October 29th, after having questions about the Intoxilyzer device used after his arrest. The shocking thing isn't that a DWI case went to a jury trial—though that is certainly rare—but how visiting retired Judge Jerry Ray responded to that "not guilty" verdict.

This is what the judge told the jury:
I've been at this such a long time I know better than to get angry. But you just decided to ignore the law and your oath, and you know you did. The note that you sent out says, “Can we ignore the Intoxilyzer.” And you have the definitions of intoxication. And they were certainly—At least that one was very plain in this case and up on the board for you to see. And for whatever reasons, you chose to ignore that part of the evidence. And you have the right to do that. It's called jury nullification. It's when a jury decides to ignore the law or ignore the evidence. And they just want a certain outcome, and they maneuver until they get there. Perfect example, the O.J. Simpson trial. He clearly committed murder, and the jury didn't want to convict him, so they found a way to—to render a not guilty verdict. So it happens. I've been around over 40 years in this profession, tried an awful lot of cases as a defense lawyer, as a prosecutor, and as a judge, and it happens. But this ranks among there as one of the most bizarre verdicts that I've seen. Thank you for your service, and you are excused.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/daily-post/ ... -ever-seen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;