Jury Says “Not Guilty” on .263 Breath Test Case!

by admin on April 24, 2009

in Defending Drinking Drivers, Drunk Driving "In the News", Drunk Driving Attorney's Page

On April 24, 2009, top Illinois DUI attorney Don Ramsell finished a jury trial in DuPage County with a .263 breath test.  The jury returned a verdict of “not guilty” on DUI (common law) and .08 per se.

What follows is a summary of the case prepared by Ramsell himself. 

Defendant on video with speeding only, good speech, but can’t count backwards from 56 to 39 (”49, 48, 49 you got me” and stops), fails walk and turn (wobbly and falls back onto trunk of car after final step)  and one legged stand test (foot down after count of 5 then three times down and quits).

At scene, defendant admits 2 beers, and is polite - no sir, yes sir. Upon arrest, defendant tells cop that he is diabetic and has insulin pen on person. Defendant tells cop that he needs pen with him at all times.

After arrest, defendant at station begging for water, and becomes agitated and belligerent. Keeps drinking water for 20-30 seconds while cops yelling for him to sit down. (Excessive thirst is a sign of hyperglycemia) Defendant then demands insulin, cops refuse. Defendant crying, begging for insulin.

Paramedics arrive, blood sugar 227. Consult with doctor by phone, who approves the defendant self-administering insulin. Paramedics offer transport to hospital, defendant refuses. 30 minutes later, blows .263 on EC-IR.  Defendant is swearing at cops, refusing to listen to commands, telling them to have a horrible life, etc.

Jury included a guy who analyzes chemical materials for a company for quality control; a mailroom supervisor from the National Safety Council; a fundamental Christian who refuses to drink for religious purposes; and a woman whose husband is also Type I diabetic; an appraiser; and others.

Arresting cop admits no impaired driving per NHTSA cues. Admits possible diabetic condition but insists defendant also intoxicated. Breath op says machine in perfect working condition; I’m barred from crossing on theory of machine, interfering substance etc.

State calls no other witnesses; neither does the defense. Defense argues that State had 15 months to know that the defense would be diabetes, so why didn’t they call paramedis or doctor? State saw video, saw breath result, so why didn’t they call someone to explain how test would exclude interfering substances? Defense argues that defendant had ‘consciousness of innocence’ when he refuse ‘escape route’ offered by paramedics, and stays to take breath test.

Almost 4 hours of deliberation. 2 hours in, Jury sent question “Does reasonable doubt require proof to 100% certainty?” The law in Illinois forbids a definition of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, so Judge correctly sent note: “You have all the instructions applicable to this case - continue to deliberate”

Another 2 hours later, Not Guilty DUI, Not Guilty 0.08 or more, guilty of speeding. Jury agreed that possibility of interfering substances, and State’s failure to call paramedics or doctor, and disconnect between visuals of no bad driving and no staggering or swaying or stumbling at station (i.e. disconnect) versus .263 bac were enough to say NOT PROVEN to the level of BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Our hearty congratulations goes out to Don!

Leave a Comment

Previous post: Criminal Court Judges Have Limited Gate-Keeping Function for Defense Experts

Next post: Thousands of Citizens Wrongfully Convicted of Drunk Driving