Procedural violations can substantially undermine the prosecution’s case in a drunk driving case. In a recent example, a judge determined that evidence of an accused’s blood alcohol content was inadmissible at trial due to improper breathalyzer protocol. The evidence might otherwise have been highly detrimental to the accused’s DUI defense, as it reportedly indicated a BAC of 0.16, which is double the legal limit of 0.08.
However, the accused’s defense will also have to account for the other charges, which include fleeing the scene. There are other twists, as well. For starters, the defendant is a nun, who claims she had consumed wine earlier in the day at a book fair, but no more than two small glasses at that venue. Later, the accused had another glass of wine with an Ambien.
The accused apparently had intended to go to bed. Instead, she drove from her residence to the neighboring state of New Jersey. She came out of her haze after crashing into the side of an auto-repair shop. Fortunately, no one was injured, nor were other vehicles involved.
The accused claims she doesn’t remember the drive, nor did she realize she might have a medication interaction by combining Ambien with alcohol. It’s uncertain whether a jury would find the accused’s account credible in light of her BAC level. Fortunately, her defense strategy will no longer have to address that specific issue. The accused’s behavior in fleeing the scene might be more understandable, considering that she may have been in a functional blackout.
Source: New York Post, “Nun charged with DUI blames Ambien for crash,” Sophia Rosenbaum, April 14 2016
