Plano DWI Lawyer Blog

wadaslawoffice.com

972 562 7549

The client drove his car into a Texaco station (literally) after sideswiping another car on Central Expressway. Hospital records indicated the presence of multiple controlled substances in the client's system.  Seems like an airtight case? 

Well, at first glance, maybe.  The fact of the matter is that there were multiple physical and emotional conditions that explained the bizarre driving.  Further, the drug test was a urine "screen" which shows presence of a particular drug.  It cannot show when the drug was taken, how much was ingested, the form of ingestion (oral, intravenous), whether the drug in the urine is still even in the blood,  or a host of other factors that may influence the concentration of a particular drug in a person's blood. 

Further, the state did not call a witness who actually performed the drug test.  The bottom line is that there was a rushed decision that this was a DWI case.  The evidence at trial just did not show that.  The jury did the right thing and the client was relieved and pleased.

wadaslawoffice.com

During the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has focused a great deal of attention on what is known as the "Confrontation Clause" of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The Confrontation Clause provides that persons accused of crimes have the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against" them.  

 The recent case of  Bullcoming v. New Mexico  is the latest example of the Court's interestthe Court held that Mr. Bullcoming's Confrontation Clause rights were violated when he was denied the opportunity to confront and cross examine the analyst who actually test the alcohol concentration of the blood in his case.  In Bullcoming, the prosecution called a different lab analyst to testify than the one that actually analyzed Bullcoming's blood sample.  The Court held that this testimony was not proper as Mr. Bullcoming was not able to confron the witness who actually analyzed his blood.  Rather, he was able only to questions a surrogate analyst testifying to what another analyst did to reach his or her conclusion as the alcohol concentration.

This decision may impact Collin County Driving While Intoxicated cases because it will likely require the State to arrange for the anaylist that actually performed the blood test to appear in court to testify and be subject to cross examination before the results of a blood test will be admissible against an accused person