I think the title for the Stubbs decision is misleading in that it suggests that unconfirmed drugs in the urine are relevant for all controlled substance DUIIs. They are not. Rather, we have to be on our feet objecting when surprised at trial by our friends at the state crime lab. Ambien was nowhere in Bessett's written report, so when a DA asks, "Did you find other drugs in the urine?" We need to say, "Matter for the court!" And find out what this guy is about to say. It should have been excluded under O'Key since science precludes using unconfirmed evidence like this -- that's the antithesis of science, it's innuendo. Also, it's a reminder that we may want to seek the lab tech's notes in every case, because I bet Ambien was listed there. You'd think as a prior written statement of a witness you'd get it in discovery...actually that's yet another reason to exclude the unconfirmed-drug evidence, the discovery violation.
Comments
I think the title for the Stubbs decision is misleading in that it suggests that unconfirmed drugs in the urine are relevant for all controlled substance DUIIs. They are not. Rather, we have to be on our feet objecting when surprised at trial by our friends at the state crime lab. Ambien was nowhere in Bessett's written report, so when a DA asks, "Did you find other drugs in the urine?" We need to say, "Matter for the court!" And find out what this guy is about to say. It should have been excluded under O'Key since science precludes using unconfirmed evidence like this -- that's the antithesis of science, it's innuendo. Also, it's a reminder that we may want to seek the lab tech's notes in every case, because I bet Ambien was listed there. You'd think as a prior written statement of a witness you'd get it in discovery...actually that's yet another reason to exclude the unconfirmed-drug evidence, the discovery violation.