Nevada high court tosses blood test

It is common, particularly with the rise of "No Refusal Weekends," for blood draws to be conducted long after a motorist has been arrested for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. The results of those blood tests are waved in front of jurors by prosecutors telling those jurors they can convict based solely on a number.

Judges are more than willing to allow the results of these tests into evidence based on the pseudo-scientific exercise of retrograde extrapolation - more commonly knows as throwing a dart at a board.

But this past December, the Nevada Supreme Court threw a monkey wrench into the works when it held that the results of a blood draw taken over two hours after an arrest weren't relevant.

In The State of Nevada v. The Eighth Judicial District Court and the Honorable Stefany Ann Miley, 127 Nev.Adv.Op. 84 (Nev. 2011), Mr. Bobby Armstrong collided with another car, causing serious bodily injury to the other driver. Almost two-and-a-half hours later a blood draw was conducted. According to the test, Mr. Armstrong had an alcohol concentration of .18. Mr. Armstrong moved to suppress the results of the test on the grounds that the blood was drawn outside the state's two-hour window, only one sample was conducted and that retrograde extrapolation was unreliable, irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.

The trial court ruled that the test results were inadmissible but allowed prosecutors to introduce other evidence of Mr. Armstrong's intoxication. The state's writ of mandamus (thus accounting for the bizarre style of the case) followed.

The Nevada Supreme Court held that retrograde extrapolation was reliable. But the Court also found that the the relevance of the evidence was far outweighed by its prejudicial effect. In coming to its conclusion, the Court looked to the Mata decision in Texas in which the Court of Criminal Appeals laid out a list of factors to be considered when determining the reliability of retrograde extrapolation. These factors included the length of time between the arrest and the test, the number of samples taken and whether the expert had knowledge of the defendant's individual characteristics when guessing calculating the defendant's alcohol concentration at the time of the stop.

In this case the Court was concerned that the blood sample was taken more than two hours after the stop and that the state's expert had very little knowledge of any of Mr. Armstrong's individual characteristics. In fact, the state's expert based much of his testimony on the characteristics of an "average" person, not Mr. Armstrong. But the Court's biggest concern was that only one blood sample was taken - giving just one point of reference.

The Court reasoned that if two blood samples had been taken some time apart, then the results of those tests would tell whether Mr. Armstrong was absorbing or eliminating at the time of the accident. With but one sample, Mr. Armstrong's alcohol concentration could have been higher, lower or the same at the time of the accident as it was at the time of the test.

Runaway grand jury closes up shop

Yesterday the grand jury investigating the Harris County District Attorney's Office announced that it was not issuing any indictments. The news was greeted with a big yawn by folks around the Criminal (In)justice Center.

The grand jury foreman, Trisha Pollard, said the grand jury didn't find any evidence of a crime but that they were troubled by the actions of the DA's office. They singled out Rachel Palmer for her refusal to answer questions pursuant to her rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Left unsaid is why special prosecutors didn't offer Ms. Palmer immunity in exchange for her testimony. They went so far as to file a motion to compel her testimony that was denied by the judge. They claimed that none of the questions they wanted to ask were incriminating; but when given a choice between having Ms. Palmer answer the questions under a grant of immunity or not asking the questions at all - they chose to keep their mouths shut.

What information did they seek from Ms. Palmer? And if it was so damn important to the investigation that they were more than willing to ignore the Bill of Rights, why didn't they offer her immunity?

Whatever. Now Pat Lykos will stand up and declare victory and the Mike Anderson forces will stare down at their toes. The fact is the investigation is a black eye on Ms. Lykos and her administration. And, no matter how you want to spin it, Ms. Lykos and her office did their best to stonewall the investigation. That also doesn't bode well for a person who has the ethical duty to see that justice is done.

Given the public's notoriously short attention span and the fact that we don't know when the primary will be held, there's a good possibility that most of the folks in Harris County are going to forget all about this little affair before they step into the voting booth.

I'm not so certain that anyone in the DA's Office broke the law in the BATmobile fiasco. Withholding exculpatory evidence is a Brady violation and, at best, could get you a new trial - unless the error was determined to be (wait for it) harmless. There is no monetary or criminal sanction for not turning information over to the defense that the defense doesn't know about.

As such, there was never the possibility of anyone being indicted for not giving up the goods. The only thing that would have bitten someone in the ass was lying under oath to the grand jury.

So, go on, there's nothing to see here.

Crime lab loses federal funding

The honeymoon for Sam Houston State's Regional Crime Lab in The Woodlands is now over.

The lab was opened with the help of a federal grant and the understanding that the lab would become self-sufficient after three years. Owing to the iron law of budgeting (he who holds the iron makes the budget), that three year window ended about two years early.

The lab had charged Montgomery County, its largest customer, $200 for every drug or alcohol test in DWI cases. Without the funding from the feds, MoCo will pay $386 for alcohol tests and $290 for drug tests. Due to the increasing costs of operating the lab, all controlled substance evidence tests will be handled by the DPS. The switch will increase the wait time for test results.

But how to pay for the increased cost of testing is the question. The original idea was that MoCo would pay for the tests through sentencing fees for those who plead guilty or are convicted at trial. But that only covered about 3% of the cost. MoCo District Attorney Bret Ligon now wants to use the asset forfeiture fund to pay for the tests.

The problem, of course, is the increased incentive to seize property and file forfeiture actions against defendants. Forfeiture actions serve to tie up defendant's assets and make it that much harder to muster a defense against the state. You will also find out that the vast majority of defendants either default or negotiate settlements in which they receive just a portion of the value of the items seized. The asset forfeiture funds then become a private slush fund for whoever's running the DA's Office (just ask former MoCo DA Michael McDougal). Of course there's no telling where the property seized in Tenaha went.

In the meantime, however, defendants in MoCo will have to wait longer for lab results to come back in drug cases as it can take up to nine months for the DPS lab to release test results. In the meantime that's nine months of missing work to take yourself to court (if you're on bond) or (if you can't make bond) the prospect of sitting in a cell for nine months waiting to fight a case.

Some of the lessons from MoCo's crime lab are obvious. First, for entities involved in the criminal (in)justice system who rely upon government funds to operate - those funds will diminish or vanish at some point, even if the entity  is there to help the state. Second, the lab should have charged a more realistic rate for their services; the excess would allow for a "cushion" when the funding was cut or dropped. Third, no one gives a rat's ass about the people accused of committing a crime.

Bad ideas (still) never die

Douglas Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy uncovered this article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram detailing the Tarrant County District Attorney's plan to humiliate those motorists arrested for driving while intoxicated over the New Year's weekend.

Since DA Joe Shannon is into recycling (bad) old ideas from other parts of the state - I thought I would recycle a post I wrote back in December 2009 after the Montgomery County DA's Office thought it would be a terrific idea to post the names of those arrested for driving while intoxicated on Twitter.

When will these clowns grasp the concept that a person is presumed innocent unless the state can prove each and every element of the criminal offense beyond all reasonable doubt? It really isn't that hard to get it.

Here's the updated post. Have a safe holiday weekend and remember that the easiest way to avoid a DWI this weekend is not to drive if you've been drinking.

The Montgomery Tarrant County District Attorney's Office has found a new way to humiliate those unfortunate motorists who have been arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated -- they are posting their names on Twitter the DA's website.

Assistant District Attorney Warren Diepraam Joe Shannon said believes that the public humiliation should act as a deterrent to others who might get behind the wheel after drinking.

Nevermind that being arrested is a very different thing than being convicted and that a person who's been arrested is still innocent unless proven guilty. And of course the police never make wrongful arrests. And of all people, Montgomery County DA Brett Ligon should know better -- after all, he used to be a criminal defense attorney. 

My question is should the DA dismiss a case against a motorist or should a motorist be acquitted by a jury of his peers, will Mr. Diepraam Shannon offer a public apology on Twitter the DA's website as well? Even more important, will a person filing for an expunction in Montgomery Tarrant County need to serve Twitter the ISP hosting the DA's website and other social networking sites, or will the judge sign an order requiring the DA's Office to notify those sites to remove all reference to the arrest of that individual?

Television show DUI perpetuates the lie

I finally got around to watching an episode of TLC's new reality show DUI the other night. For those of y'all not familiar with the show, it follows the stories of two people arrested for driving under the influence - from traffic stop to the end of the case.

The first episode introduced us to Cierra and Jimmy, two folks unfortunate enough to find themselves cuffed and stuffed into the the back seat of a police car. Cierra was accused of drinking and driving while Jimmy was accused of driving while high on the hippy lettuce.

Of course we had to ride along with police officers out looking for drunk drivers. Up in Oklahoma it appears that sobriety checkpoints are okey-dokey (so much for the 4th Amendment north of the Red River). A long line of cars sat on the shoulder of a highway in Tulsa as officers approached each car.

Following Cierra we live the nightmare of being arrested and carted off to jail. Answering questions asked by a hostile police officer. The humiliation of being searched and photographed. Calling her mom to get bailed out.

The show ends with both Cierra and Jimmy pleading out their cases - on what appeared to be their first court date. No questioning the legality of the stop. No questioning the validity of the roadside coordination exercises. No challenging any of the evidence. Just walking up, pleading guilty and walking away.

I guess that's the message the cops and producers want to send out - if you're arrested, you must be guilty. We even have both of our stars confessing before the camera.

Jimmy was excited because he got an 18-month deferral, meaning the case would be dismissed if he completed his probation and he could keep it off his record. Of course, since Jimmy was dumb enough to sign the release there is no undoing his arrest and conviction.

Somehow I doubt we'll be getting too many folks on DUI walking out with dismissal forms. A 30-minute time frame with two cases doesn't give much time to discuss much of substance. We'll get to hear each week from an officer telling us that DWI is the worst possible offense a person can commit. We'll see people acting contrite and telling us how the experience changed their lives. But we won't see anyone challenging the evidence. We won't see anyone fighting their case. We won't see anyone who was convicted on the opinion testimony of a police officer. We certainly won't see anyone being acquitted by a jury.

DUI is propaganda. Its purpose is to pound the notion that if someone's arrested they must be guilty into the skulls of its viewers. The goal is to poison the jury pool across the country.

What we really need is a show in which we see officers lying on the witness stand. A show in which we see officers making questionable arrest decisions. A show in which we see the shortcomings of the state's breath test machine. A show in which we see how the Constitution has been subverted in the name of making our streets safer. But that'll never sell.

A demotion

Now, lest anyone think I'm biased with regard to the unmitigated disaster known as the HPD breath alcohol testing van (BAT van) program, I am now giving the Harris County District Attorney's Office a little equal time. 

This is a statement from the DA's Office dated November 8, 2011 addressing concerns raised about the program:

To the citizens of Harris County,

As many of you know, there have been several news stories regarding the Houston Police Department’s Breath Alcohol Testing (BAT) vans, the evidence they provide, the technicians who perform the work and the Harris County District Attorney’s Office (HCDAO). 

A technician, who is a former employee of the HPD crime lab and supervised the BAT van testing, testified on July 27 and 28 that she believed it is possible that the breath tests conducted by the HPD BAT vans could be problematic. 

August 4, representatives of the HCDAO notified the Scientific Director at the Texas Department of Public Safety—the authority that develops rules and regulations and provides training and laboratory support to local, state and federal authorities for breath alcohol testing throughout the state—of her claims. 

August 11, in a meeting between HCDAO and the technician she stated that she could not verify the accuracy of results of an intoxilyzer instrument that had previously experienced overheating in a HPD BAT van. She said that she could not testify to the accuracy of such intoxilyzer results because this issue had never before been scientifically tested.

August 12, the HCDAO issued a Brady Notice to attorneys to inform them of the potentially exculpatory, or mitigating, evidence raised by the technician and to not allow any HPD BAT van cases to be resolved unless the defendant is made aware of the technician’s comments.

Additionally on August 12, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office requested that the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Breath Alcohol Laboratory conduct scientific tests on the HPD BAT van and the intoxilyzer instruments.

August 23, representatives from the Harris County District Attorney’s Office met again with the technician. At this interview the technician said she believed that all breath tests conducted by the HPD BAT vans dating from summer 2009 - present were suspect because she believed HPD BAT vans were an unsuitable testing location. August 24, the HCDAO distributed a second Brady notice to attorneys alerting them to the technician’s comments.

The Texas Department of Public Safety conducted an Ambient Temperature Study on the HPD BAT van and intoxilyzer instruments that addressed the technician’s concerns. Scientists concluded that the HPD BAT van instruments correctly analyzed breath alcohol concentrations .

October 28, a DWI jury trial was held in a County Criminal Court where evidence was presented in open court about the reliability and accuracy of the HPD BAT vans. The defense presented their position on the reliability of the HPD BAT van instruments. After hearing all the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.

It is our duty to see that justice is done and to protect the lives, property and rights of our citizens. We respect the rule of law and strive to always do the right thing.

The "technician" referred to is Amanda Culbertson, the former technical supervisor in the HPD crime lab. The statement from Ms. Lykos' office is an interesting exercise in the use of language. Ms. Culbertson is a technician, but the DPS personnel who conducted tests on the breath test machines are scientists.

However, prior to Ms. Culbertson's leaving the crime lab, prosecutors delighted in touting Ms. Culbertson's professional qualifications. She was the scientist in charge of maintaining the machines. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, she was a forensic scientist. Before a breath test result could be entered into evidence, Ms. Culbertson had to testify that the machine was working properly and that it was reliable.

Now that she's raising concerns over the reliability of the testing program she is a mere technician. According  to the Collins English Dictionary, a technician is "a person employed in a laboratory... or scientific establishment to do practical work." In other words, a mere button pusher.

So, in recent weeks we've been told that HPD isn't trustworthy and that the person who maintains the breath test machines is doing "practical" work. Any more gems for us, Ms. Lykos?

Don't let the distractions fool you

State District Judge Susan Brown has decided not to compel Assistant Harris County District Attorney Rachel Palmer to answer questions from a grand jury investigating HPD's trouble BATmobile program. The decision means that the special prosecutors in charge of the investigation can either offer Ms. Palmer immunity to testify or proceed without her testimony.

As my colleague Mark Bennett so eloquently wrote the other day, if Ms. Palmer were going to testify, that testimony would be immunized, either by act of the special prosecutor or through the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on forced self-incrimination.

Jim Mount, one of the special prosecutors, should grant Ms. Palmer immunity in exchange for her testimony. That will put Ms. Palmer in the position of either testifying or risking being jailed for contempt.

The question still remains whether Ms. Palmer was protecting her own backside or trying to protect someone higher up the food chain at 1201 Franklin.

Ms. Palmer's grand conspiracy theory from Monday's proceedings may give us a hint at the answer. On Monday, during a hearing on her motion to recuse Judge Brown, Ms. Palmer claimed that Judge Susan Brown, her husband, Judge Marc Brown and special prosecutor Stephen St. Martin were engaged in a conspiracy to unseat Harris County DA Pat Lykos.  As an aside, Ms. Palmer is married to local GOP bigwig Don Hooper.

Ms. Palmer, and the cabal in the DA's office, want you to believe that the entire investigation is politically motivated. They want to distract your attention from the ways in which prosecutors in Harris County violated the Constitution and the due process rights of people charged with driving while intoxicated. They don't want you to focus on the junk science behind the breath test machine. They don't want you to pay attention to Brady violations. They certainly don't want you to think about state experts committing perjury on the stand when testifying as to the reliability of the breath test machines in the vans.

Perhaps someone on the sixth floor of the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center needs a refresher course in the special ethical responsibilities of a prosecutor - namely, to see that justice is done.

Feds call for ban on cell phone use

In the wake of a deadly accident involving two school buses, a pickup truck and a tractor-trailer in Missouri last year, the National Transportation Safety Board has called for a ban on the use of cell phones by drivers. The ban would affect both hand-held and hands-free phones and is more stringent than most state bans on the use of electronic devices while driving.

In the last few years the board has investigated a commuter rail accident that killed 25 people in California in which the train engineer was texting; a fatal marine accident in Philadelphia in which a tugboat pilot was talking on his cellphone and using a laptop; and a Northwest Airlines flight that flew more than 100 miles past its destination because both pilots were working on their laptops.

It's probably not a bad idea. My wife likes to tell me that women can multitask while men can't (I then respond that I'd rather be doing one thing well than a bunch of things half-assed, but that's a discussion for another day). The truth of the matter is that there is more than enough stuff in a car to distract us from the task at hand. Whether it be adjusting the radio or CD player, checking out the GPS, turning the a/c up, adjusting the side mirrors, shifting gears, talking to your passenger or trying to keep the kids in the back seat from killing each other, it's hard to keep your focus on the road in front of you. And then you have to keep an eye on the other motorists, watch out for people coming out of parking lots and look to see what color the traffic light is.

All it takes is a split second for your pleasant afternoon drive to turn into a nightmare - and that's without any alcohol being added to the mix.

While I don't think this is a matter for los federales, it is an issue that should be considered by the states. To date, 35 states have banned (to some degree) texting while driving. Now whether that includes updating your Facebook status or tweeting, I don't know.

According to the NTSB, about 1 in 100 drivers is texting, surfing the internet or otherwise using an electronic device while driving. They know this because they stake out intersections and count the number of drivers using their phones while driving.

So, be careful out there and leave the phone in the seat unless it's an emergency.

Now let's see what the Mythbusters discovered when they compared distracted driving with drunk driving...

Part One: Control



Part Two: Distracted driving



Part Three: Drunk driving

I'll have a fifth, please

On Thursday morning, Harris County Assistant District Attorney Rachel Palmer appeared before a grand jury looking into the troubled HPD mobile alcohol testing vans (BATmobiles). Ms. Palmer invoked her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and refused to answer any questions.

The grand jury then filed a motion to compel with State District Judge Susan Brown. A hearing on that motion was held Thursday afternoon after which Judge Brown announced she would hear from both sides on Monday.

Now why would the ADA invoke her right to remain silent? Don't they like to tell us that an innocent person has nothing to hide? That our client had the opportunity to give his side of the story but chose not to?

And how might her answering questions incriminate her?

Did the Harris County DA's Office know about the problems with the BATmobiles? Did prosecutors provide that information to defense attorneys? Were prosecutors aware they were putting on perjured testimony regarding the reliability of the breath test machines in the vans? Did the DA's Office prosecute motorists knowing that the "evidence" upon which they relied was faulty?

However this shakes out, it's a black eye for Harris County DA Pat Lykos. It doesn't look good when a prosecutor refuses to answer questions from a grand jury investigating the conduct of both the police and the DA's Office.

I just wonder if the DA's Office is so hell bent on prosecuting DWI's that they will violate the law in so doing, what do they do on more serious cases?

See also:

"Your Fifth Amendment at work," Defending People (12/15/11)
"Motion to compel," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (12/15/11)

Should DWI be a capital crime?

Douglas Berman over at Sentencing Law and Policy seemed quite upset that motorists in Texas continued to get behind the wheel of a car after drinking. He couldn't understand why, even with No Refusal weekends popping up all across the state, we insist on drinking and driving.

His suggestion was to make a drunk drivers involved in accidents in which another person is killed eligible for the death penalty. Whoa! There's crazy and then there's driving the bus over the cliff. Mr. Berman is driving the bus.

In Texas you are eligible for the needle if you kill a police officer or a prison guard. You are eligible for the needle if you kill someone during the commission of certain felony offenses (kidnapping, robbery, sexual assault, burglary or arson - among others). You are eligible for the needle if someone paid you to kill another person. You are also eligible if you kill more than one person or a child under the age of six ten (thanks, Amy).

In each instance, the defendant must have committed the murder - or the underlying felony offense - with the proper mental state. You remember, that whole bad act + bad thought = crime.

Now Mr. Berman is correct that some DWIs are prosecuted as felonies. If you are driving while intoxicated with a child under the age of 15 in the car - that's a state jail felony (if you're not from Texas, don't ask). Rack up two DWI convictions and your next will land you in felony court as well.

But here's where Mr. Berman's idea fails - there is no culpable mental state for driving while intoxicated. The theory is that an intoxicated person cannot form the necessary mental state to commit a felony offense. And, if you think about the definition of intoxication in Texas, it makes sense.

Texas defines intoxication as the loss of the normal use of one's mental or physical faculties by the introduction of alcohol into the body. Well, if you've lost the normal use of your mental faculties, you are incapable of intentionally or knowingly committing any other act. That's why when someone is killed in a wreck involving an alleged drunk driver, the defendant is charged with intoxication manslaughter, not murder.

One thing we don't know from the data Mr. Berman is viewing is how many of those deaths in 2010 were the result of the drunk driver's negligence. As perverse as it sounds, it's quite plausible that the drunk driver was not at fault for the accident. I would also argue that it's possible that the increased number of deaths resulting from drunk driving has more to do with increased detection through the use of mandatory blood draws in fatality accidents in which intoxication is suspected.

I don't know whether Mr. Berman was being extreme in order to generate discussion or whether he actually feels that way; either way, as a civilized society we should be looking for ways to reduce the number of people our government kills, not increasing it.

'Tis the season to give

If you're planning on drinking and driving over the holidays, you might seriously think twice. More and more counties will be conducing No Refusal weekends over the holidays.

The popularity of the initiative is no surprise given that most no-test drunk driving trials are a coin flip proposition. Add in a number on a piece of paper and, suddenly, the success rate for the prosecution soars. That number can be scary.

The attraction for law enforcement and prosecutors is that blood evidence is a powerful tool in front of juries. Armed with blood evidence of intoxication, prosecutors can win convictions in more than 90 percent of drunk-driving cases, said Houston police Capt. Carl Driskell, who works in the traffic enforcement division. 

And often, lawyers say, defendants faced with blood evidence admit their guilt and don't bother with a trial. "If it bleeds, it pleads," said Fort Worth prosecutor Richard Alpert.

But, it's only a number.

Blood tests are conducted by unbiased scientists wearing white lab coats. They're performed by employees of law enforcement agencies. The very people who are trying to convict your client are the ones performing the tests.

Just think about that for a second. Think about that before you walk your client up to the bench to plead out the case. You don't accept the officer's opinion that your client was intoxicated. You don't accept the premise that the coordination exercises he performed at the scene are conclusive proof of anything. But you will accept a number on a piece of paper signed by a lab technician in the employ of the crime lab or the DPS as proof positive that your client is up a creek without a paddle.

You realize they didn't even test the blood itself?

What? You didn't know that? Remember all that talk about Henry's Law with the alcohol jar attached to the back of the breath test machine? Remember that machine supposedly measured the amount of alcohol vapor in your client's breath? It was an approximation of an indirect measurement.

Guess what. That's all a blood test is. After they mix a bunch of chemicals and salt into the blood sample, the lab tech takes out a sample of... air. That's what's being sent through that fancy gas chromatograph. Not blood - air. It's as much an indirect measurement as a breath test.

Prosecutors around the state push for No Refusal weekends because they know that most defense attorneys will crumble when they see the number. Put the state to its burden. Force the prosecutor to explain to a jury how the machine works. It's only a number.

Grand jury subpoenas top county officials in DWI probe

Remember that "runaway" grand jury investigating the HPD BATmobiles? Well, they're baaack...

The county judge and two commissioners have been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury. It is believed that the grand jury is looking into the contract the county entered into with the Texas Department of Public Safety to administer breath test machines in Harris County. The county entered into the contract after Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos urged county commissioners to dump Lone Star College after former HPD crime lab technical supervisor Amy Culbertson spilled the beans on the malfunctioning breath test machines in HPD's BATmobiles.

First a word for those of y'all not from Texas. The county judge isn't really a judge, he's the head of the county government. The commissioners are the elected representatives who run the county.

Ostensibly, the reason for the change in maintaining the breath test machines was a cost-saving function. The county's contract with the DPS is $330,000 for the first year versus $342,000 with Lone Star College. But there's more to the calculation than that. Remember, DWI is big business in Texas and running the breath test program is no exception. For every DWI conviction obtained without the use of DPS technicians, the state reimburses the county $22. Doesn't sound like a lot on the surface but, between 2008 and 2010, the county was reimbursed $220,000 by the state. Do the math; the DPS contract will cost the county more money in the long run.

The change had nothing to do with saving the county money. The change was retaliation against Lone Star College for hiring Amy Culbertson after she left the Houston Police Department. The change was retaliation against Ms. Culbertson for testifying truthfully about the problems with the BATmobiles.

Ms. Lykos and her minions got caught withholding Brady material from defense attorneys handling DWI cases. Ms. Lykos has blamed Ms. Culbertson and she has blamed HPD for the fiasco. All of that is an attempt to deflect attention away from the actions of the Harris County DA's Office.

The cost of thinking outside the box

I'm no fan of Pat Lykos.

Her job is to infringe upon the rights of the citizenry as zealously as the courts will allow. She is part of the mechanism by which the state seeks to keep folks under its thumb.

But there are a couple of areas in which Ms. Lykos got it right.

Now, with apologies to my colleague, Murray Newman, I don't mind the chaos emanating from the 6th floor of the Criminal (In)justice Center. Chaos in the prosecutor's office is a good thing for the citizens of Harris County. So long as prosecutors are fighting with one another, with the District Attorney and with law enforcement, they aren't waging total war against our clients.

Ms. Lykos was right when she changed her office's policy on drug residue cases. Let's face it, the war on drugs has been a colossal failure (it makes Vietnam seem like a good idea). Even State District Judge Michael McSpadden acknowledges its failure.

"No one respects law enforcement more than I do, but they're wrong about this. I want them out there going after the career criminals, the sex offenders, the people who pose a real threat to our society, and not someone who has a residue amount of drugs." - State District Judge Michael McSpadden

There are far too many folks in the Harris County Jail on possession cases. There are far too many folks in the penitentiary on possession cases. Most of these people are addicts. Locking them up in jail does no one any good. The addicts aren't receiving the treatment they need and there's no room in the inn for those who really need to be put away.

No, local law enforcement doesn't like the policy. They want to go out and arrest everyone they possibly can, lock 'em up and forget about them. That's fine and dandy - but where are you going to put them? Maybe it's the fear that with fewer drug arrest, jobs and overtime might vanish. Maybe it's the fear that the public is fed up with the overcriminalization of American life and desires a bit of sanity.

Ms. Lykos also understands that the stigma associated with a DWI conviction is a little bit out of whack when compared to the consequences befalling those convicted of some violent crimes. DIVERT may have been a good concept but the execution is poor (not to mention illegal). The reason given by the DA's Office for DIVERT is so that folks arrested for driving while intoxicated can get treatment to help prevent them from doing it again. The reality is that Ms. Lykos thought that too many people were "getting off" with time served and a fine. What better way to force them into probation than to make the minimum sentence 30 days in jail?

Need I even mention that the judges who signed off on the program are violating their constitutional duty to consider the full range of punishment in a DWI case? But, then, most of those on the bench are part of the DA's "trial court" division.

Sometimes change comes from the most unexpected agents. Just as it took Nixon to open China, maybe it took Lykos to bring some sense to drug prosecutions.

Blood or breath?

Is a blood test more accurate than a breath test? Is either one reliable when it comes to proving whether a motorist had an alcohol concentration of .08 or higher?

The answer in Austin may very well be no and no.

Are Blood Alcohol Tests Credible?: MyFoxAUSTIN.com

An Austin defense attorney reported that his client had a blood sample taken on a No Refusal weekend. That sample was tested by the Austin Police Department's crime lab. The result came back showing his client had an alcohol concentration of .10. The defense attorney had the blood retested by the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Science in Dallas. Their test showed an alcohol concentration of .08.

What happened?

While it is true that as alcohol metabolizes in the body the alcohol concentration decreases, when blood is stored in a sealed tube there is no way for the alcohol in the blood to metabolize. In fact, it is more likely that the alcohol concentration would increase due to contamination of the blood.

First a little primer on blood testing. When a blood sample is drawn in a DWI case, the person drawing the blood typically makes two draws in two separate tubes. One tube is the "state's" tube and the other tube is there in case the defense wants to retest it. The technician in the lab will prepare two samples from the tubes for testing in a gas chromatograph. This gives us four test results. Typically the lowest result is the alcohol concentration used at trial.

In Austin, however, they average the four results to come up with an alcohol concentration. That raises questions of which blood sample is the actual sample to be used at trial. It also raises questions about the validity of the method by which APD determines alcohol concentration.

APD officials weren't concerned about the 20% discrepancy in the test results. What's a couple hundredths of a gram anyone, right?

APD claims that the differing results could have been caused by evaporation of the alcohol in the test tube -- except that the tubes are supposedly sealed and refrigerated to prevent degradation of the samples. And what about that pesky Henry's Law that states whenever you mixed water and alcohol in a closed system, the concentration of alcohol in the water and the concentration of alcohol in the headspace is the same? A sealed test tube is a closed system.

Just a little something to think about.

Judge punts show cause hearing

Today was the day and I was determined not to be denied. Assistant District Attorneys Carl Hobbs and Steve Morris were to appear in the 185th this morning for a show-cause hearing to determine whether they should be held in contempt of court for allegedly violating Judge Susan Brown's order that the Harris County District Attorney's Office be denied access to the grand jury investigating HPD's batmobile fiasco.

I dropped my youngest daughter at school in plenty of time to get downtown. But, when I walked into the Harris County Criminal (In)justice Center, the lines at the elevators were beyond ridiculous. I knew what had to be done. It was off to the stairwell.

For those of y'all not familiar with the courthouse, the 185th District Court is on the 17th floor. Yes, the 17th floor. And I was hoofing it up the stairs.

With every step my body reminded me of the 14 mile run on Sunday morning and the soccer game that afternoon. My body was not very happy. But there I was - on the 17th floor. It was around the corner and down the hall and into the courtroom. The place was packed.

The judge called the docket and we sat in anticipation of what was to come. She called up the attorneys representing Mr. Hobbs, Mr. Morris and the two court reporters. With a gaggle of attorneys wearing dark suits crowded around the bench, I could have sworn I was in the civil courthouse.

The attorney for the court reporters filed a motion to recuse Judge Brown. That seemed to halt the proceedings (at least for the time being). However, Mr. Hobbs' attorney, Bill Hawkins, made it known that his client was ready to proceed. I left the courtroom to take care of some other business.

I returned about 30 minutes later and saw the same cast of characters in the courtroom. But there was one new addition -- my colleague, and fellow blogger, Murray Newman. After his perfunctory insult of my choice of neck wear, we began to discuss what was going on. It seems that there were quite a few conferences at the bench with the defense attorneys and the judge -- the attorneys appointed to represent the state never bothered to approach.

Word went out that the fireworks would begin at 11am. This did not sit well with me since I had only paid for parking til 11am. Oh well, if a parking ticket was the cost of this exercise, it was probably worth it (so long as I don't have too many unpaid parking tickets, I suppose).

Shortly before 11am the defense attorneys once again approached the judge and, the longer the conversation went on, the more animated the judge became. Something was a-brewing and Judge Brown wasn't a happy camper. Neither, it did appear, was Mr. Hawkins. There appeared to be some dissension in the ranks.

Shortly after 11am, Judge Brown went on the record. Mr. Morris' attorney asked that the proceedings be public and not at the bench. Judge Brown then announced that, based on the motion to recuse filed by Mr. Morris' attorney, that she was recusing herself. Mr. Hawkins was not pleased.

So, what was accomplished this morning? Not a whole lot. A small forest was destroyed to make enough paper for all of the motions that were filed. The judge recused herself (Murray was right on the money with his prediction). An interesting subtext was disclosed.

Why would Mr. Hobbs' attorney want to proceed on the show cause hearing? Why not delay it for a few more days and take it up in front of another judge? Could it be that someone is ready to roll? From my dealings with Mr. Hobbs and from the accounts I have heard from other defense attorneys, Mr. Hobbs is a by-the-book guy. I find it hard to believe that he would go to the court reporters and ask for a transcript of the testimony after a judge told the DA's Office that it was not entitled to access to the grand jury. Did someone order Mr. Hobbs to obtain that transcript? Was he following orders?

Someone is going to take a fall for this. The only question is whom.

Harris County's runaway grand jury: a blawgosphere summary

On Monday morning, two high-level prosecutors in the Harris County District Attorney's Office will appear in the 185th Judicial District Court for a show cause hearing to determine whether they should be held in contempt of court for obtaining transcripts of grand jury testimony in the HPD Batmobile investigation.

Here are a few posts from around the blawgosphere regarding the collision between the runaway grand jury and the HCDAO so y'all can get a feel for what's been going down:

"My prediction for Monday: delay of game," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Nov. 4, 2011)

"The BAT van show-cause order," Defending People (Nov. 2, 2011)

"It's the coverup that gets you: BAT van edition," Grits for Breakfast (Nov. 2, 2011)

"Judge calls top prosecutors on the carpet," The Defense Rests (Nov. 2, 2011)

"An interesting docket entry," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Nov. 1, 2011)

"Live by the hatchet, die by the hatchet," Defending People (Nov. 1, 2011)

"The official investigation has begun," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Oct. 27, 2011)

"Houston DWI 'BAT' vans - a timeline," Defending People (Oct. 27, 2011)

"What you say can be used..." Sustained (Oct. 27, 2011)

"The plot thickens," The Defense Rests (Oct. 26, 2011)

"A rat in a trap," The Defense Rests (Oct. 26, 2011)

"What's that: a "runaway" grand jury!," Criminal Jurisdiction (Oct. 25, 2011)

"Grand jury hysteria," Texas Criminal Defender (Oct. 24, 2011)

"Runaway jury," The Defense Rests (Oct. 24, 2011)

"Pat Lykos' star chamber rebels," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Oct. 21, 2011)

Judge calls top prosecutors on the carpet

Oh, what tangled webs we weave...

As you already may know (if you read Murray Newman's blog), two top-ranking prosecutors and two court reporters have been called on the carpet by State District Judge Susan Brown to explain why she shouldn't hold them in contempt of court.

It would appear that transcripts of secret grand jury testimony found there way into the hands of Carl Hobbs and Steve Morris. Mr. Morris is the head of the grand jury division and Mr. Hobbs is, ironically enough, head of the government integrity bureau.

Left unsaid, interestingly enough, is how Judge Brown found out that the Harris County District Attorney's Office had obtained transcripts of grand jury testimony regarding HPD's batmobile fiasco.

Would it surprise anyone if Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Morris are sacrificed by Pat Lykos to the gods of public opinion in an attempt to hold on to her rapidly sinking ship? This is some serious shit Mr. Lykos has stepped in and there doesn't appear to be a tidy way to dispose of it.

13 Undercover first exposed maintenance problems with the BAT vans that could have led to bad test results. The DA now says the breath tests are sound. The grand jury is trying to figure out when did the DA First hear about the problems and did they speak up about it as the law requires.

But then there's the curve ball. According to this story from KTRK-13, the breath tests in question are suddenly valid again. But wait, you ask, wasn't it just last week that Ms. Lykos said she couldn't trust HPD when it came to breath tests conducted in the batmobiles?

What changed? Are we suddenly going to pretend that Amanda Culbertson made it all up? Has Ms. Lykos forgotten the e-mails outlining the problems with the batmobile program? Or is it just a case of her realizing that she opened her mouth without thinking in a desperate attempt to deflect blame for the situation?

Why do I get the impression that what's going to happen on the 6th floor at 1201 Franklin is going to resemble the closing scenes in Casino in which the the crime lords decided that Joe Pesci's character is just a little bit too dangerous to leave alive? Or maybe the sequence in Goodfellas when Robert DeNiro kills off everyone who participated in the airline heist? Or maybe...

You can call it what you will, but it's still illegal

You may remember Ruben Trejo, he's the former HPD sergeant who collided with a school bus on his way to work -- with an alcohol concentration of .176. On Friday, Mr. Trejo pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated, paid a $500 fine and was placed into the Harris County District Attorney Office's pretrial intervention program (DIVERT).

Trejo, who has retired from the department, was allowed to the Harris County District Attorney's pretrial intervention program in which defendants plead guilty to DWI, but the verdict is deferred for a year. If the defendant completes all the requirements in the program, there is no conviction but the initial arrest remains on record.

What's wrong with this picture, you ask?

When a defendant opts for deferred adjudication in a criminal case, she enters a plea of guilty before the court, the judge then states that he finds enough evidence to find her guilty but that he will withhold a finding of guilt for a period of time (the length of the probation). Once the defendant completes her probation the criminal case will be dismissed and she will be eligible to file a petition for nondisclosure.

The problem is that deferred adjudication is not available for anyone charged with driving while intoxicated in Texas - even though it is available to a person charged with murder. The Houston Chronicle article points out, in plain English, why the DIVERT program is illegal.

Calling it pretrial intervention doesn't change that fact. Once the defendant enters a plea of guilty on a DWI case, there is nothing the judge can do (legally) other than record it as a conviction and sentence accordingly. As soon as the judge states she is deferring a finding of guilt, we're talking about deferred adjudication.

The plot thickens

It would appear that the shit has hit the fan over at 1201 Franklin.

Today, State District Judge Susan Brown appointed former prosecutors Stephen St. Martin and James Mount to serve as special prosecutors for the grand jury investigating the Harris County District Attorney's Office.

From the Houston Chronicle: 

The order appointing St. Martin and Mount, both former assistant district attorneys now in private practice, states that grand jurors are investigating “possible criminal conduct by members of the Harris County district attorney’s office.”

“After considering the grand jury’s request and the applicable law, the court finds the Harris County District Attorney and her office are disqualified from participating in the grand jury’s investigation,” Brown wrote.

Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos manages her office through fear and intimidation (just read Murray Newman's posts on the warm and fuzzy feelings that Ms. Lykos evokes on the 6th floor). That might work on her staff - after all, with the current economic climate, hanging out your own shingle is a scary prospect - but it doesn't work with people outside the office.

Ms. Lykos is upset with Amanda Culbertson. She is upset with the Houston Police Department. Okay, I get it, but retaliating against Ms. Culbertson by subjecting her to a grand jury investigation was going a bit too far. Ms. Lykos' need for total control and her intolerance toward dissent may very well end up haunting her between now and next year's election - if she manages to hold on that long. Fear does not breed loyalty - and that's something Ms. Lykos should think about as the investigation continues.

This is not going to end well for Ms. Lykos and her minions.

A rat in a trap

As my colleague Murray Newman reported earlier today, four prosecutors with the Harris County District Attorney's Office were subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury today. The grand jury is looking into HPD's Batmobile program.

Well, Pat Lykos is not taking this lying down. First she sent her minions to Judge Brown in the 185th and demanded she tell the grand jurors to let her prosecutors in the room. Judge Brown politely declined. Then she fired off a request to the 14th Court of Appeals to order the grand jurors to let her prosecutors in the room. Again the answer was no.

The topic du jour would appear to be when the DA's office found out there were problems with the Batmobiles and just how many folks were prosecuted using evidence that has since been found to be unreliable.  With that we're no longer just talking about Brady violations and the possibility of a lot of writs, we're also talking about ethics violations.

Prosecutors have a duty to see that justice is done. Prosecuting people with evidence you know is unreliable is not fulfilling one's ethical duties.

It also raises questions about the reliability of breath testing in general. If the police can't maintain their machines in the Batmobiles, what makes you think they're maintaining them at the police station? We know now that these machines are sensitive to temperature and humidity. What else causes them to go haywire? And since the machines run a self-diagnostic check, what guarantee is there that the machines are operating properly.

HAL ran a self-check and determined that he was functioning properly. We all know how well that went.

And then there's this gem...  

Lykos tells us she still doesn't know what went wrong inside that grand jury room last week that nearly led to the arrest of two of her top assistants, despite the fact one of them was in the room with us during the interview. What she does know is that she no longer wants HPD supervising its own DWI vans.

"That's what perturbs me," she said.

Lykos told us Monday she's done trusting HPD to tell her the truth about DWI testing.

"We were never informed there were questions about whether the tests were valid," Lykos said.

What's this? A public pronouncement that the chief prosecuting attorney in the county doesn't trust the biggest police department in the county to run its own breath testing program. If the DA won't trust HPD to be truthful about its breath testing program, why should a jury? If Ms. Lykos said she can't trust them, how can a prosecutor, in good faith, present evidence to a judge or jury regarding a breath test conducted under the auspices of HPD?

Now the only question remaining is whether Ms. Lykos will accept responsibility for what has transpired or whether she will seek out a scapegoat (or two) and leave them hanging in the wind for all the public to see. I know where I'm putting my money.



See also:

"Pat Lykos' star chamber rebels," Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center (Oct. 21, 2011)

"The voice of the people," Gamso - For the Defense (Oct. 24, 2011)