Another State Scraps Jury Trials for DUI Defendants
The Agitator
Yet more evidence that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply when it comes to criminal cases involving substance abuse accusations. From Lawrence Taylor's (no, not that Lawrence Taylor) excellent new DUI Blog:
Arizona has just joined a small but growing list of states that have taken away the right to jury trial in DUI cases.
theagitator.com
Two days ago, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled unanimously that "if the legislature has defined an offense as a misdemeanor punishable by no more than six months incarceration, we presume that the offense is petty, and no jury right attaches." In a modified version of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the only exception is "if a statutory offense has a common law antecedent that guaranteed a right to trial by jury at the time of Arizona statehood", then the right to jury trial would continue to be recognized.
To no one's great surprise, the decision primarily eliminates the right to a jury trial in DUI cases, as the offense has no "common law antecedent" (there were no cars when Arizona became a state) and is punishable by "only" six months imprisonment.
As Taylor notes, the ruling does two things.
First, it puts the fate of DUI defendants in the hands of politically-elected judges. Given the PR power of groups like MADD, you can pet that will mean the further erosion of the rights of suspected DUI-DWI suspects. Second, it saves the criminal justice system a ton of money, which means virtually every jurisdiction in the state will likely scrap jury trials for drunk driving cases.
Also, a few days ago, I posted on Washington state's absurd new law stating that roadside breat test would be admitted as evidence -- even if they're proven to be defective. Reader Brian Hawkins wrote in response. Click "more."
I think the new law in Washington regarding breathalyzer evidence is merely codifying what prosecutors have been doing during jury selection in DUI cases anyway.
I was in a jury pool in Tucson city court earlier this year for a DUI case. During interviews, what I do for a living came up (I'm a pharmacologist with a PhD). They asked me if I had any opinions regarding breathalyzers, and I answered--honestly--that I knew nothing about the particulars of the device, but that I would expect that it, like all analytical instruments, would have a standard margin of error for its measurements, and that it would be useful to know what it is for that particular device. They asked me whether I could weigh the evidence as presented objectively, and I answered--honestly--that I could.
I was the only juror excused from the panel. An ex-cop and a self-proclaimed tee-totaler remained. Go figure.
Posted by Radley Balko |
