Well, teleologically, I guess it all balances out in this case. They botched the case on the ethanol, but made the case on other evidence.
"...the jury was not told about those test results because they were not legally admissible at trial. The judge ruled that the evidence could not be used in court because Matos did not give consent for his blood to be taken."
How much did black box data play a role, well if the AI's came up with a MINIMUM speed of 80 that alone is pretty damning.
"Sorry, no room for defending this guy even a little bit."
As far as defending the guy goes, the only thing one could say is that ordinarily, he would have the right of way as he was already on the road and the girls were backing out of a driveway. But at his speed (even without the DUI evidence), good luck.
It never ceases to amaze me that on something as routine as a DUI, evidence gets botched.
I am also not crazy about the Big Brother aspect of the black box. When I was a kid and worked ambulance, there was a device used to record speed, roll (g-forces through turns) and acceleration deceleration. They wanted to use it to dock drivers’ pay. It was very unpopular and got dropped. Still, this is probably the wave to come. The upside is that the data could potentially be used to exonerate the driver, when not at fault.
The calibration issue is significant. When I used to do forensic exams (drug testing), we were required to calibrate our breath alcohol testing devices once a month. The calibration needed to be proven before every test and after every positive result for that result to be considered valid.
|