There
has been a lot of reporting recently about a specific OVI in Fairfield
County involving a Franklin County Domestic Relations judge where the
news media is developing a narrative that she was highly intoxicated.
But the case also highlights the nuances of OVI cases in that at this
time we simply do not know whether or not she was impaired.
What about the police report and especially the video that shows her unable to keep her balance? Those are just a few of the nuances. Quick disclaimer - I am not the Brad representing the judge and I have no particularized knowledge of this case other than the media reporting and if I were the one representing her I would not be commenting, except to highlight how the media’s selected video segments, reports, and how their reporting is creating a condition in which it may be hard to seat a fair and impartial jury. Here’s what we know:
Confusion, disorientation, poor balance, and vomiting are symptoms of a concussion. She had a visible head injury and medics were called. She reportedly refused medical attention but she still should have been evaluated because those with head injuries (remember, they are confused) do not always appreciate their condition.
And the odor of alcohol? There was reportedly vomit on the floor of the car which, any person with a child knows, vomit often has a distinct odor of acid mixed with the last substances consumed. And if the stomach contained alcohol it was not yet digested and therefore not yet metabolized into the blood causing potential impairment but would give an odor of alcohol.
The video shows her losing her balance during the standardized field sobriety tests but other factors can cause a loss of balance - such as a concussion. The questioning leading up to the administration of standardized field sobriety tests are supposed to account for some of these other factors. One of the first questions that is supposed to be asked is “do you have a head injury” and if the answer is yes, standardized field sobriety tests should not be performed because a head injury can effect the subjects ability to perform the tests. And in this case there was a visible head injury that the officer was concerned enough about to summons medics to the scene.
Many questions remain about the blood draw and warrant. In my experience, unless there is an accident, a warrant is not usually sought when someone refuses to provide a breath, urine, or blood sample. Was a warrant sought because she is a judge and thus she was treated differently than others stopped for suspected OVI? What actually occurred during the blood draw? Was the blood draw obtained pursuant to the prescribed requirements?
These are just a few of the issues with this case and a few of the questions that remain and those with all the facts will have many more issues and questions. At the end of the case the blood test may be valid and it may indicate a prohibited level of alcohol in the blood but as of today, as of right now, there is no absolutely reliable evidence indicating impairment. The judge deserves the presumption of innocence - as everyone charged with a crime does - and the continued media attention showing only segments of potential evidence and provided without context or explanation of the nuances of OVI cases erodes that presumption.
What about the police report and especially the video that shows her unable to keep her balance? Those are just a few of the nuances. Quick disclaimer - I am not the Brad representing the judge and I have no particularized knowledge of this case other than the media reporting and if I were the one representing her I would not be commenting, except to highlight how the media’s selected video segments, reports, and how their reporting is creating a condition in which it may be hard to seat a fair and impartial jury. Here’s what we know:
- Her vehicle was reported by others and then observed weaving, hitting brakes, and generally driving erratically;
- The officer notes an odor of alcohol;
- There is a visible head injury;
- She cannot identify where she was coming from and seems to be disoriented as to where she is at;
- There is vomit on her clothes and the floor of the vehicle;
- When attempting standardized field sobriety tests she loses her balance and officers have to catcher her to keep her from falling;
- A warrant was obtained for a blood draw and it has been reported she needed to be restrained to obtain the blood sample;
Confusion, disorientation, poor balance, and vomiting are symptoms of a concussion. She had a visible head injury and medics were called. She reportedly refused medical attention but she still should have been evaluated because those with head injuries (remember, they are confused) do not always appreciate their condition.
And the odor of alcohol? There was reportedly vomit on the floor of the car which, any person with a child knows, vomit often has a distinct odor of acid mixed with the last substances consumed. And if the stomach contained alcohol it was not yet digested and therefore not yet metabolized into the blood causing potential impairment but would give an odor of alcohol.
The video shows her losing her balance during the standardized field sobriety tests but other factors can cause a loss of balance - such as a concussion. The questioning leading up to the administration of standardized field sobriety tests are supposed to account for some of these other factors. One of the first questions that is supposed to be asked is “do you have a head injury” and if the answer is yes, standardized field sobriety tests should not be performed because a head injury can effect the subjects ability to perform the tests. And in this case there was a visible head injury that the officer was concerned enough about to summons medics to the scene.
Many questions remain about the blood draw and warrant. In my experience, unless there is an accident, a warrant is not usually sought when someone refuses to provide a breath, urine, or blood sample. Was a warrant sought because she is a judge and thus she was treated differently than others stopped for suspected OVI? What actually occurred during the blood draw? Was the blood draw obtained pursuant to the prescribed requirements?
These are just a few of the issues with this case and a few of the questions that remain and those with all the facts will have many more issues and questions. At the end of the case the blood test may be valid and it may indicate a prohibited level of alcohol in the blood but as of today, as of right now, there is no absolutely reliable evidence indicating impairment. The judge deserves the presumption of innocence - as everyone charged with a crime does - and the continued media attention showing only segments of potential evidence and provided without context or explanation of the nuances of OVI cases erodes that presumption.
---------------------------------------------------
The Nicodemus Law Office, LPA
Phone: 740-422-9280
Website: www.nicodemuslaw.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NicodemusLaw/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Nicodemus_Law
No comments:
Post a Comment