When Prosecutors Withhold Exculpatory DUI Evidence
Our criminal justice system is still grappling with the reality that prosecutors and other state employees do withhold exculpatory evidence in DUI and other cases. When defense attorneys learn that evidence has been withheld, they may be able to challenge convictions.
In recent news from Massachusetts, staff at a state crime lab routinely withheld exculpatory evidence from DUI defense attorneys for more than five years. The discovery by investigators of unwritten rules to never turn over documents including “evidence that breath testing devices had failed to properly calibrate during the office’s certification process” could provide grounds for appeal in thousands of convictions. Investigators took action after 750 defendants filed a lawsuit against the state alleging that exculpatory DUI evidence was withheld in their cases.
Shortly after the Massachusetts story broke, the Washington Post published an op-ed decrying the connection between state crime labs and prosecutors. The author wondered if funding issues or pressure from prosecutors and police lead to crime labs withholding evidence that would disadvantage the state at trial, arguing that crime labs should always be independent and evaluated based on accuracy.
Under the Brady Rule, prosecutors must disclose “materially exculpatory” evidence that the government has in its possession to defense attorneys. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). A prosecutor need not have the evidence sitting on his desk – evidence in the hands of the police or the state crime lab counts as exculpatory evidence that must be disclosed.
The idea that crime labs might not be telling defense attorneys everything is nothing new in Oklahoma. Attorneys have been successful at blocking the state’s attempts to enter evidence supposedly indicating the reliability of specific breathalyzers, when the state has no evidence that those breathalyzers have been calibrated properly or calibrated at all since they were manufactured. See, e.g., Muratore v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2014 OK 3 (2014).
Need an attorney for DUI charges in Oklahoma? Seek out the attorney who knows the system. Clint Patterson, Esq., of Patterson Law Firm, a former Tulsa prosecutor now using his trial experience and expert-level knowledge of DUI science to defend drivers, has the experience and the insight to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your case. To schedule a case evaluation, visit Patterson Law Firm online or call Clint’s office at (918) 550-9175.