Court of Appeals Defines the Limits of Who a DUI Defendant Can Confront

December 23, 2010 (Press-News.org) Often, people stopped on suspicion of DUI (driving under the influence) automatically assume they are guilty and that they will just have to accept whatever penalty is given to them. Along with the assumed guilt, people may also presume no defense is available prove innocence or mitigate their consequences. Both of these notions are wrong.

There are many defenses that a person suspected of DUI can bring, from challenging the reason for the initial stop to questioning the accuracy of the blood/breath/urine tests administered to presenting evidence that may explain the situation. However, challenging a conviction on constitutional grounds because the accused wasn't able to have access to the breathalyzer source codes or cross-examine the source code creator is not a defense, according to the Arizona Supreme Court in its State v. Linder decision.

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court clarified the Rules of Evidence by stating that "testimonial" documents would not be admissible unless the defendant had the opportunity to confront and cross-exam the preparer of the document. Testimonial documents are those documents prepared for use as evidence at the defendant's trial. The practical effect of the case is to allow defendants to cross-examine the preparer of testimonial documents, such as test results, if they are to be admitted used to prove the case against a defendant.

Using the reasoning of Melendez-Diaz, Michael Linder challenged a DUI conviction on the grounds that he was unable to confront his accuser. However, the court disagreed with his legal assertion and differentiated the fact of his case with those in Melendez-Diaz on the grounds that the source code was generated, not to be used against him specifically, but for the general use of the law enforcement, and therefore it was not testimonial in nature. The court held that Mr. Linder had no right of access to the source codes or to confront the creator of those codes.

While the Melendez-Diaz case expands the rights of those accused of committing crimes, like DUI, the Linder case places a cap on how far the that defense can go in Arizona.

If you have been charged with suspected drunk driving, contact an attorney right away. Don't just assume that you are guilty, an attorney can protect your rights and help you mount a vigorous defense to the allegations.

Article provided by Suzuki Law Offices, L.L.C.
Visit us at www.suzukilawoffices.com