TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

He's already retired and was probably just helping out with the case load. He probably doesn't care what anyone thinks if he spouts off.

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.

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.