DUI and beyond a reasonable doubt
In a new Minnesota DUI opinion issued on February 10, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge's entry of a judgment of acquittal following a jury verdict of guilty.
The trial judge, I believe, correctly, saw that Standardized Field Sobriety testing is flawed. Because the officer in this case testified that under the NHTSA standards for applying and interpreting the field tests there is a 9% chance that the person is not above the legal limit, the trial judge, I believe correctly, reasoned that based on the field tests, there was reasonable doubt.
Looked at objectively, it stands to reason that if there is a 9 percent chance of innocence there is of course reasonable doubt.
The Minnesota Court of appeals didn't see it that way. They explain in the opinion that, under Minnesota DUI law, there is no mathematical or statistical standard for reasonable doubt. Theoretically, the testimony could be that there is a 50/50 chance of the test getting it right and, if a jury convicted, the conviction would stand.
One thing I can say for sure is that we want trial judges like the one in this case making these types of tough decisions. The judge had to know that it would be a politically unpopular decision, and that he or she was likely to be reversed on appeal. I admire the fact that the Judge did it anyways.
http://www.duilawblog.com/admin/trackback/112272
