City v. A.L., Case No. 10L1519

Norman Scott Stewart

Case Conclusion Date:April 21, 2011

Practice Area:DUI / DWI

Outcome:Jury Verdict, Not Guilty

Description:Scott Stewart represented A.L. at a jury trial in municipal court on a charge of Driving Under the influence. The alleged breath test was .267/.266. A.L. had originally been stopped by a law enforcement officer with limited DUI experience.. The officer believed that A.L. might be under the influence and requested assistance from an experienced DUI officer. A second officer arrived at the scene and took over the investigation. This officer was a drug recognition expert. After conducting a horizxontal gaze nystagmus test, the second officer testified that he believed that A.L. was too drunk to perform additional field sobriety tests. He arrested A.L. and took him to the police station. At the station A.L. submitted to the breath test with the above indicated results of .266/.267. Scott was able to get the expert witness called by the city to testify as to a number of additional tests that could have been performed by the officer to confirm the breathtest result. He ultimately argued to the jury that the officer's observations of the defendant were more consistent with the 2 beers that A.L. admitted to having consumed, than the 14 beers indicated by the BAC. During this argument, Scott noted that the jury should not accept the prosecution's position that they should just trust the officer's opinion. He emphasized everything that the defendant had done correctly on the night of the arrest and argued that it raised reasonable doubt. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.