Do NJ drunk driving (DWI) Defendants have any rights anymore?
Apr 11th, 2008 | By Michael L. Saile, Jr., Esq. | Category: Blogs, DUI-DWI-DAI (Drunk Driving)A recent unpublished New Jersey DWI case appears to have removed the Constitutional “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
The New Jersey Lawyer newspaper reported the case of State v. Beckman.
According to the case brief, the NJ DWI Defendant was convicted in the local NJ Municipal Court. The Defendant then appealed to the Law Division which affirmed his conviction.
In his appeal to the NJ Appellate Division, the NJ DWI Defendant asserted the following problems with the prosecution’s case:
1. That the record shows that the police failed to adhere to the 20-minute observation rule.
2. An inspection report of the Breathalyzer prepared two months after the DWI test showed that a malfunction occurred sometime before, during, or sometime during the 2 months after the DWI offense.
3. That the Defendants hospital records revealed that he was suffering from acid reflux when he was arrested.
The Appellate Division thought that these arguments or facts would not have changed the outcome of the case. I believe these are three major violations that would have made the test results of the Breathalyzer not accurate.
Is this what happens when a NJ DWI Defendant appeals his or her NJ DWI case?
It appears that the court did not presume that the NJ DWI Defendant was innocent and ignored these major problems in the prosecution’s case. From the case brief from the New Jersey Lawyer newspaper, there appears to be reasonable doubt. What do you think?
well, so if the alcotest reading was thrown out they still could of had a finding of guilt based on observations. maybe that is what the law division was saying.
i cant wait for the lasw division to tell my appeal that nj supreme court orders mean nothing. that will top them all.
There are certainly other things to take into consideration besides the alcotest report, however, if there is evidence (as it seems there is) that the machine was not working, the alcohol influence report should be suppressed and the defendent should have had the case dismissed or dropped to a lower bac.
I’d like to know how the attorney’s in this case were able to get the “maintenance records” of the machine. I think the State does not want these records released because there are likely many cases that have resulted in guilty verdicts based on the alcotest reports alone. What would happen if evidence exists, such as maintenance reports, or a police log of when they had trouble with machines (having to send people to other precincts for the alcotest). Would all of those cases have to be re-opened and the state perhaps have to pay back money to those who may have been improperly fined and had licenses revoked? That is of course a rhetorical question.
What is going to happen now with the alcohol influence reports is that if the machine has been calibrated within a 6 month period, and the tolerance range falls within the levels set forth by the chun decision is that you will in no way be able to fight the alcotest report. However, what they do not take into account is that just because 2 breath readings fall within a particular range, doesn’t mean that the values are “real”, just that they are consistant. There has to be a way of really knowing the machines are fully operational, and not tempermental. As it is now, people are awaiting trials (pre-chun decision) where the court holds the alcotest report as gospel in deciding if your BAC was at a particular percentage, even though there are likely many cases where machines had long calibration periods (well outside that recommended by the manufacturer), and machines were used by precincts with the knowledge that the machines were “tempermental”, working sometimes and not others. SHouldn’t these machines have required re-certification/calibration?
thomas, i have been arguing for a year on here.
nothing can be done.
dui is an issue no one will touch.
the only way would be to have state senator introduce a bill in trenton to fix all the issues with breath testing. but then he would need majority support and that is never ever going to happen.
the much bigger issue in the chun case, i feel, is the very long delay to have cases trialed- i’m waiting 31 months so far. and this shouldnt be the case. it is a really strange thing that has happened.
WELL, also, at lewast he got a trial.
i made my 14th court appearance last night, over 31 month, still no trial, we couldnt even get to the judge, there were well over 100 defendants.
4 hours for nothing in court.
i am beside myself, ..
you think i was at the end of my rope last april, well, now im on the last thread.
OK
my rights have been violated unjustly and incorrectly!