Source: http://paralegaltoday.com/in-good-form-dui-discovery-forms-and-motions/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 07:06:28+00:00

Document:
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, criminal prosecutions must comport with principles of fundamental fairness. The U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted this standard of fairness to require that criminal defendants be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. To safeguard that right, the Supreme Court has developed “what might loosely be called the area of constitutionally guaranteed access to evidence.” United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 (1982). These constitutional privileges require that the prosecution deliver exculpatory evidence into the hands of the accused, thereby protecting the innocent from erroneous conviction and ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system.California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 81 L. Ed. 2d 413, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 103, 52 U.S.L.W. 4744 (1984).
A defendant has a constitutionally protected privilege to request and obtain from the prosecution evidence that is either material to the guilt of the defendant or relevant to the punishment to be imposed. Brady v. Maryland, 373U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Even in the absence of a specific request, the prosecution has a constitutional duty to turn over exculpatory evidence that is material, i.e., that would raise a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112 (1976).
See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). See also Wardius v.Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (1973).
If we combine these foundational concepts with dedication and mix in a little creativity, we can come up with motions in limine that are effective in both getting evidence admitted and keeping the prosecution’s evidence out. (See Defendant’s Motion in Limine [§1:31]). In DUI cases, it can be argued that the defendant is merely seeking to defend himself by presenting easily obtainable, non-privileged and highly relevant evidence. On the other hand, the State is seeking to prevent it based not on any constitutional argument, or even any evidentiary objection, but merely on an argument of convenience. Therefore, given the constitutional rights in­volved, as specifically stated in the Bill of Rights and as interpreted by the wealth of U.S. Supreme Court cases, the court can have little doubt that the evidence should be provided.
Many jurisdictions then circumvented the need for partition ratios by amending their statutes to provide that driving with a specific level of breath alcohol was an offense. As a result, their courts refused to admit partition ratio evidence, ruling that the evidence violated the legislative intent to create a specific breath limit. See, e.g.,People v. Bransford, 884 P.2d 70 (Cal. 1995) (testimony of defendant’s individual partition ratio was inadmissible, especially when the defendant exhibited clear signs of being under the influence of alcohol); Burks v. State, 394 S.E.2d 136, 137 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990) (testimony of a defendant’s individual partition ratio of 1,680:1 on the day before trial was inadmissible when the defendant exhibited other visible signs of intoxication).
Bruce Kapsack originated many of the DUI defense strategies used throughout the country and has worked or lectured with virtually every nationally known expert in the DUI arena. He is the author of “Innovative DUI Trial Tools” (www.JamesPublishing.com or (800) 440-4780), from which this article is excerpted.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.