If you were on a DUI jury and were presented evidence of unreliability of a breathalizer would you convict?

Question

If a breathalizer machine could be manipulated by certain commands entered into the machine to produce results favorable to cops and prosecutors and the underlying source code on the machine was not made available to the defense under the guise of "trade secrets" thereby rendering accuracy of said machine unprovable except for what the prosecution states would you vote to convict? Remember that under the constitution you have a right to confront your accuser.But the prosecution and the machines' manufacturer are trying to play hide the ball with potentially damaging information about the reliability of the machine.

Answer 1

We'll if you were smart you would use your rights and demand a blood test, which would determine your innocent or guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, and if the police refused, then there's their case.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

If this was the only evidence presented by the prosecution,
then reasonable doubt would exist.. Generally, however,
there is more evidence presented.

For example, if the defendant were weaving all over the road and witnesses testified to this as well as the pesence of or smell of alcohol , then reasonable doubt would go out the window. It wouldn't matter to me if he PASSED the
breathalizer. I would still probably vote to convict.

In other words, in your scenario, the breathalizer alone possibly should not result in a conviction if its unreliability were demonstrated. Yet, at the same time, the defense would have to prove that the breathalizer were tampered
with. Right, you have the right to confront your accuser,
but you also have to support your accusations.

Answer 4

In a number of states, the breathalizer is not a reliable test of blood-alcohol content, it is only a guideline that the police use to determine if they have enough probable cause to continue the traffic stop. If the prosecution is relying only on the breathalizer results, I would not convict, even though I DO NOT buy the argument that cops and manufacturers are holding back evidence to the contrary. If there wasn't any blood drawn for concrete proof of blood-alcohol level and the other facts don't point to guilty, I wouldn't convict. Search the DUI law in your state and see what it says about breathalizers.

Answer 5

I certainly would not convict the person if the machine was not made available for scrutiny. Even though under the guise of trade secrets, I would still want irrefutable evidence that it were a trustworthy piece of equipment. If this machine was used to convict someone of a felony and that felony ended up in court with a jury and I were on that jury I would certainly throw it out.

Answer 6

I don't like breathalizer machines. If it is something that goes to court the alcohol level should be determined by drawing blood. It is more accurate. That is how it is determined when there is a accident and the person is taken to the emergency room. Blood Alcohol is done with other tests. Probably including drug levels. It might take longer for results but it would be more accurate.

Answer 7

The manufacturer of the machine is not your accuser, the operator is, so the right to confront doesn't come into play at all here.

There is rarely just one piece of evidence. If you were seen leaving a bar, weaving all over the road, smelled like booze, failed the field sobriety test, I'm less likely to care that your big defense is that the Breathalyzer could have been manipulated.

Answer 8

Verdicts aren't returned just on the basis of breathalyzer machines - these provide a quick check, but the prosecution relies on a blood or urine analysis, which is more precise and reliable, and can't be tampered with.

Answer 9

There is no thing as beating the breathalizer In North Carolina, they will pay you $ 1 million dollars if you can find a way to beat it! And the chances are high that I would convict

Answer 10

In California a DUI has a blood alcohol measurement of .10.

That is a very low number and it is not a weighted scale. Essentially it is not accurate.

If a person was underweight and hungry, one drink, could easily be more than .10.

To answer your question, if the person was arrested at a DUI check point, I would say not guilty!

If there was property damage , injuries, or death...I would say guilty.

******************************************************
I'm not sure if it is .08 or .10....but my answer is the same.