R Vang - USING RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION TO SUPPRESS CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS IN DWUI CASES: OR; HOW DID THE WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH GET TO DETERMINE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CHEMICAL TESTING EVIDENCE IN DWUI CASES?

Document created by R Vang on Jun 17, 2015
Version 1Show Document
  • View in full screen mode

  Publication Details (including relevant citation   information):

  The document was prepared in coordination with a powerpoint   presentation for a two (2) hour webinar that was presented for   the Wyoming Trial Lawyers Association (WTLA) on April 1, 2015.    The document has a total of one-fourteen (114) pages and   contains two-hundred forty-two (242) footnotes and followed   Bluebook citation format for legal references.  The   powerpoint contained a total of one-hundred sixty-seven (167)   individual slides.  The Power point including several slides   concerning recent lab errors with reference to publications like   A. Widener & C. Drahl, Forcing Change in Forensic   Science, 92(19) C&EN, 10-14 (May 12, 2014).

  Abstract:

     

   

    The materials provided a broad overview of how various statutes,   codes, and regulations have been incrementally adopted   concerning driving while under the influence (DUI)   law. The extensive legislative history was provided to give   context to the legal issues that the courts have previously   resolved concerning the use of implied consent laws to   automatically admit chemical testing evidence in DUI cases.    The author contends implied consent laws cannot limit the scope   of discovery of scientific information under Court Rules and the   Wyoming and United States Constitutions.  The author also asserts that   implied consent laws cannot be used to relieve the government of   the burden of proving that the government’s scientific methods   for analyzing biological samples have been validated and to prove   that the accused's specific chemical test results were created in   strict compliance with the government’s validated testing   methods.  The author concludes that a trial court has   the inherent power to determine evidentiary issues in judicial   proceedings under the separation of powers doctrine and a   criminal defendant’s due process rights and the Court has the   duty to hold the government, not the defendant, to a higher   standard of proof with a Daubert hearing.

  Address (URL):

 

Attachments

    Outcomes