Jury can't hear about coke in trucker's blood

Well that's crap! :irked: The fact that he had cocaine in his system is relevant to the case and the pictures should be shown as well.

What really bothers me though is the timing. The accident took place in August 2007, it is now April 2009. What happend to being entitled to a quick and speedy trial? Also, has he been free all this time? Working, driving, and presumably still drugging? There is so much wrong with our justice system.

 

I give that statement a big AMEN!

If there was anything I learned in my career in law enforcement, it was that we do not have a "justice system." What we have is a "legal system." Any resemblance between the two is purely coincidental.

 

Might hurt the case if it was known he was over-alert with superhuman reflexes at the time

 

i 2nd that A_MEN

 

Why would they need to be shown photos of blood and guts, sure if you like that thing, then ok. But they are still dead and the jury know's that, hence why they are their.

Regardless of how they looked dead, they are still..... thats right dead. So it is a move to produce a little less stress and nightmares for the jurors.

And the speedy trial, HAH I LAUGH AT THAT.... the justice system is so back logged now because of idiots running it and horrible policies and practices that Its almost impossible to have a speedy trial.At which they dont throw cases out cuzz if they did that then everyone would be free on the street, even though the constitution demands it.....

Ugh.....

 

Maybe the jury should also hear he got drunk on New Years for the past 5 years too.

 

But doesn't the meaning of "impaired" mean that something influenced, and affected, the ability to properly and legally operate a vehicle?
And, by definition, doesn't "coming down from", or being "hungover", still mean impaired?

While I agree, that "drunk New Years' Eve for the past 5 years" is not relevant, cocaine only stays in the system for 3 days, the first day, you are "high", the other two, you ARE "impaired", due to your body trying to get rid of the poisons in your body from the cocaine and "cuts" IN that cocaine.
Isn't that why a driver can't drink a few beers, then 12 hours later, go back "on the clock"? DOT will consider that, "impaired" driving?? (hung over...)And the truck driver WILL be "at fault"?
Just wondering....

Judi Kay

 

I understand you passion about this. But we have to accept certain standards, or we'll be in court forever.

And I know I sound "cold", when I point this out.....But it's irrelavent.

You'll note the lab report doesn't say he was coming down from, nor hung over. It stated he was not impaired. So the evidence provided by the State, would be proof he was not DUI.

The Prosecution has acted responsibly by not introducing "uncorroborated accusations". Which could result in a guilty verdict being overturned on appeal.

They stand a better chance of the conviction holding by not using the issue. And until he has been convicted, he remains innocent. No matter how obvious the crime is.

Be careful how broadly you apply the definition. I think if you look at the research, many of us walk through life chemically impaired.

While it's widely accepted that cocaine is out of your system in 3 days, that's false. Blood levels of the chemical fall below a preset industry standard, that determines a false or positive reading.