»Counsel Contention: Counsel for the respondent argued that the result of the breath tests should not be relied upon since the prior breath tests were not successful due to interference detected and the machine was not working properly. In addition, Deputy Ranes opened the door and used the fan to ventilate the room. Moreover, deputy did not observe Respondent for 15 minutes since she left the room. » Determination: Counsels contentions have been considered and determined to be insufficient to overcome the preponderance of evidence in that based on department’s evidence and deputy’s testimony. Deputy Ranes signed the DS-367 Officer sworn statement under penalty of perjury and certified by signing the chemical test section of the DS-367 …show more content…
that: The breath test sample results were obtained in the regular course of his duties, he is qualified to operate the equipment and that the test was administered pursuant to requirement of Title 17 if the California Code of Regulations.
Deputy Ranes testified that he can not recall Respondent left the room without any supervision and from each time of the tests he waited 15 minutes and he observed Respondents for 15 minutes prior to the last test. In addition, he used the fan to ventilate the room, which is not a violation of Title 17, and counsel did not present any proof or expert testimony that using the fan and opening the door invalidate the results or resulting into malfunctioning the equipment. In addition, Counsel provide not proof or expert testimony that device was not checked for accuracy and was not working properly, Moreover, there is no evidence present by counsel that officer did not observe for 15 minutes. The Department also relies on the three-hour rebuttable presumption afforded under CVC Section 23152 (b), which indicates that a chemical test administered within three hours of driving reflects the BAC at the time of driving. These presumptions can only be rebutted via reliable evidence, not mere speculation or argument of counsel. In the absence of affirmative evidence to
establish that Title 17 of the California Code of regulations (CCR) was not complied with or that the test was not conducted within three-hours of driving, specified within Section 23152 (b) VC the contention is deemed without merit. Based on the above there is no basis to render the results of the chemical breath test invalid. A preponderance of the Department’s evidence supports the Department’s action. ° The testimony of Deputy Ranes was deemed credible in that his capacity to recollect the events he testified to was consistent with the information that had been recorded in his official reports at or near the time of the event. Deputy Ranes testified that the arrest took place at 2:15 AM, and that the entry on the DS367 form of 1:10 AM was a clerical mistake by the Officer. Deputy Ranes testified the omission of his signature on the DS367 form was just an oversight.
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
Judge Fahey felt that affidavits provided by Dascoli’s mother and ex- girlfriend in support of Dascoli were weak and insubstantial, as well as not credible given the fact the defendant had the opportunity to advise Kelly of first aggressor evidence failed to do so. Additionally, in reference to an affidavit written by a medical expert, Fahey states that his conclusion was “without sufficient factual basis, and is, at best, conjecture and
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
As we the jury were deliberating what would be the best punishment for the crime the defendant, we examined his record which the jury did not find anything to judge him by in a negative light. We have also heard testimony he has been involved in a conflict with a former inmate. We further learned it has not always been easy to make the defendant to comply with orders from the officials in the
It is their job to prove the burden of proof by linking the disturbing crime to the defendant. In this case, the prosecution’s defense had succeeded in providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof was delivered by highlighting the defendant’s motive which could be used to determine the intent behind the criminal act. In addition, the defendant’s erratic behavior that raised suspicion could also be used to prove the burden of proof. The fact that the defendant indicated that his wife was deceased, while she still was alive, can demonstrate that the murder was planned. Moreover, the defendant’s strategic travel to San Diego after Laci’s Peterson body and fetus were discovered and the change in the defendant’s physical appearance can be used to allude the proof of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Also, the items removed from the defendant’s car during the traffic stop, specifically the thousands of dollars in cash, can indicate that the defendant planned to flee the country at some point during his trip to San Diego. Lastly, the chain of events that took place during the period of the victim’s disappearance and the discovery of her body, and the defendant’s secret lover becoming a key witness was used to strengthen the circumstantial evidence. All in all, despite the lack of concrete evidence, the prosecution team was able to provide facts that illustrated a timeline of events that could fill in the gaps of the
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
McCormick, Charles T. Handbook of the law of evidence. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972. Print.
Instead that it was the duty of the radiology technician to assess the patient and get additional assistance when necessary. A radiology expert witness retained by the plaintiff criticized each of the defendants. “The expert testified in a deposition that the hospital should have provided at least one other person to assist the technologist so that the patient would not have to stand unassisted. The expert also charged that the technologist acted improperly by permitting the patient to stand alone and that the technologist should have requested additional help. The expert criticized the defendant radiologist for not remaining in the room to supervise the technologist until the entire examination had been completed. The expert stated that the radiologist had a duty to appropriately supervise the actions of the technologist and that his failure to do so constituted a breach of the standard of care” (Berlin, par. 4). However, an expert radiologist retained by the defense supported the actions of the defendant radiologist, testifying that the hospital should be the one to determine how many technologists and how much assistance was needed for conducting lower gastrointestinal examinations. The expert for the defense agreed that it was the responsibility of the radiologist to
Another powerful opinion yearning to be exposed, is the one held by Henry Drummond, the defense’s attorney. The lawyer undoubtedly came to d...
...jury. DNA is a very complicated subject and using statistics and numbers can be confusing and misleading to the jury. By accepting the defense’s suggestion to use the NRC report, the judge gave the defense a push in their direction.
After the officer has read the DIC-24 to the suspect the officer will ask for a breath and/or blood sample from the suspect. The officer will ask for a definite affirmative or negative answer must be obtained, when applicable. The officer must sign the DIC-24 form. If the suspect does not understand the statements in the DIC-24 form. The officer can only repeat the questioned section. The officer shall not offer an interpretation
Juarez's diagnosis of the rohypnol being ingested around 10 pm proves to be an important piece of evidence in this case because it shows that in comparison to the time that Dousa was present at the party, it would have been difficult for Dousa to play a game of one-on-one basketball with Anderson and leave shortly all while Anderson’s cup was unattended and before he began drinking the spiked beverage. With Dr. Juarez's report, reasonable doubt is also conjured as it demonstrates the difficulty and unlikelihood that Dousa would be able to drug Anderson with the rohypnol and once again, shows the higher likelihood of another partygoer/student drugging Anderson. Consequently, this piece of evidence proves to be extremely important because it evinces and emphasizes how Dousa may not be guilty of drugging Anderson due to the limited time he stayed at the party juxtaposed with the ability to be around Anderson’s unguarded cup to drug him while he played basketball with Anderson. This crucial element therefore ranks as “Yeah, I’ll buy that” because it aids in creating reasonable doubt based on facts to Dousa’s guilt in relation to the case, but the report also suggested that Anderson may have been drugged prior to playing basketball with
Ethics is the judgement and the moral actions used in interactions with cultures and society and its focus is on the client well-being. Ethics is defined by Remley and Herlihy (2010) in the counseling field as “professional behavioral and interactions” (p.4). Counselors do rely and are guide by Codes of Ethics. The role and relevance of the ethical principals, the ACA and AMHCA Code of Ethics are the base of the counseling profession. Without them this career would not have a guide on how the professionals should act and react professionally in all the different situations that are faced in this field.
My understanding of case management comes from an accumulation of lecture, readings, and a little bit of research. At first I thought case management meant to manage a case, which it kind of does, but it is a lot of background work that goes unnoticed from the workers part. One thing for sure I can say about case management is that is a very stressful and demanding job for the worker, therefore, you have to be a responsible worker, so that your client can hopefully get the services and resources he or she may need. As a case management worker your responsibilities are many, for example you are to educate, empower and enable your client to be self sufficient.