Video of Chuck Ramsay's Minnesota Supreme Court Argument

Chuck Ramsay argued State of Minnesota v. Netland on September 10, 2008. The Minnesota Supreme Court must decide the constitutionality of the state's DWI-DUI statute which criminalizes refusal to submit to an alcohol test.



The issue is particularly difficult because Ms. Netland did not refuse to submit to a test. The breath test machine -- Intoxilyzer 5000 -- would not accept her breath sample. The police officer believed she was "playing" with the machine. Ms. Netland was persistent and demanded a blood test. The officer refused to give her either a blood or urine test.

Not willing to give up, Ms. Netland called an independent testing company while still in jail. The company collected her alcohol sample and had it analyzed. The result: .03 -- well under the legal limit of .08!

We now know that the source code was to blame. See the sections about Inferno and Smoking Gun. Unfortunately, state officials continue to use the same broken software. Innocent people continue to be hurt.

Minnesota AG Encouraged Concealment of Intoxilyzer's Critical Defects

Minnesota DWI Lawyer Exposes "Smoking Gun" Proving Need for Software Review

Criminal Defense Attorney Chuck Ramsay announced today that he will intercede in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s federal lawsuit against Intoxilyzer manufacturer CMI of Kentucky, Inc.

In March 2008, The Minnesota Attorney General filed a federal suit against CMI on behalf of the Minnesota’s Commissioner of Public Safety. The suit alleges that CMI breached the contract for the sale and maintenance of a fleet of evidentiary breath test instruments to be used by the State, for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting drunk driving cases.

CMI agreed in the contract to sell and maintain the fleet of instruments and to release the software when ordered by the courts. CMI also expressly agreed that any intellectual property material originating and arising out of the contract would become the sole property of the State. CMI breached both of those obligations.

Ramsay believes the state filed suit only in response to judges’ complaints of the attorney general’s lackluster response to aggressive litigation by leading criminal defense attorneys demanding access to the software.

Ramsay states that as early as 2006, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) knew its 200 plus Intoxilyzers were broken. Minnesota’s Intoxilyzer 5000 displays a driver’s alcohol results on its LED readout, yet sporadically records a higher result on the final test record. The state discovered this and other fatal defects after hastily installing the current Intoxilyzer software in 2005. The BCA documented the critical errors in an email it sent to CMI.

Ramsay labeled the document the “smoking gun,” which evidences the need for independent review of the Intoxilyzer’s software.

Despite the critical flaws, the State continues to use the bug-riddled software as the foundation of its breath testing program. According to the BCA’s 2006 annual report, the state tested nearly 34,000 citizens with the current Intoxilyzer and software.

The BCA has not fixed the broken machines on the advice the AG’s office according to one BCA source. The AG, fearing an escalation in the so-called source code challenge, advised the BCA to wait until the software challenge had lost momentum. Concealing the information was essential to winning the software battle against defense attorneys.

Ramsay is intervening on behalf of four of his clients in the federal lawsuit the state filed against the manufacturer. “Its clear the AG will not protect the rights of Minnesotan’s in that law suit. I’m intervening to ensure justice prevails. Otherwise, the AG will use this case only for appearance.”

“These black boxes not only deprive citizens’ of their right to drive, but also wrecks lives and puts innocent people in jail. The Minnesota Attorney General, our state’s chief prosecutor, chooses to protect the interests of a secretive, foreign company rather than fight for the constitutional rights of Minnesota citizens. Most alarming, is that the AG encouraged the cover-up of a fatally flawed breath machine, a contraption that the public, police and courts believed, and still believe, to be 100% accurate.”

Ramsay demands the state shut down its breath testing program immediately. Until the state fixes the errors and a reputable, independent agency certifies the machines to be scientifically valid, reliable and accurate, the test results are worthless.

If the state is trying to use an Intoxilyzer test to take your license or put you in jail, contact Chuck Ramsay immediately. With his knowledge, experience and skill, he can restore your license, liberty and dignity.


Charles A. Ramsay
Attorney at Law
http://www.ramsayresults.com/CM/Custom/Contact.asp

CHARLES A. RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
450 Rosedale Towers
1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603

http://www.ramsayresults.com/

156 DUI Cases Dropped Due To Cop's Alleged Lying

Officer Accused Of Falsifying Police Reports For DUI Suspects

CHICAGO (STNG) ― The Cook County state's attorney's office has dropped more than 150 DUI cases in which indicted Chicago cop John Haleas was the arresting officer, officials said.

In all, 156 misdemeanor DUI cases have been dropped, said John Gorman, a spokesman for the state's attorney. In some of the cases, non-DUI charges against the defendants remain, he said.

Haleas, 37, faces felony charges of perjury, official misconduct and obstruction of justice for allegedly lying and falsifying reports about a DUI arrest in April 2005. According to a grand jury indictment, Haleas falsely reported he gave a defendant various field sobriety tests.

Haleas also has been sued in federal court by a man he arrested.

Haleas worked out of the Grand Central District. When questions about his arrests arose last year, the state's attorney's office dropped about 50 cases and said about 500 were being reviewed.

The Schaumburg-based Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists honored Haleas three times as the police officer with the most DUI arrests in Illinois. He has been stripped of his police powers and is scheduled to appear in court April 25.
(Source: Sun-Times News Group Wire © Chicago Sun-Times 2006.

Charles A. Ramsay
Attorney at Law
Charles@RamsayResults.com

CHARLES A. RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

450 Rosedale Towers
1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603

www.RamsayResults.com

Minnesota BCA Memo Reveals Source Code Is Critical to Breath Test

The fight over the Intoxilyzer source code in Minnesota continues to become more heated. With the information I've obtained, the BCA agents behind Minnesota's breath test machine should become redder in the face -- due not only to the increasing heat, but in response to documents revealing more of the state agency's half-truths.

The BCA toxicologists and their supervisors have repeatedly testified -- under oath -- that the software is not important (among other misleading statements) to the outcome of Intoxilyzer tests. The well-intentioned, but mis-guided, assistants attorney general regurgitate the government propaganda to judges when arguing against drivers' motions for discovery of the software. Unfortunately some Minnesota judges apparently buy the government mantra and rule against drivers' request to analyze the source code, depriving them of fundamental constitutional rights (e.g., Right to Present a Meaningful Defense, Confrontation, and Due Process).

Amazingly, these judges make Findings of Fact that the software does not "relate to the guilt or innocence" of those accused of drunk driving.

Here is a memo the BCA once published on its website:

BCA Source Code Memo to Judges, Prosecutors and Police Officers

On February 4 the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General learned of the admissions contained in the memo. It was then promptly removed and edited, deleting the language that contradicted the government's standard line.

Here is a link to the most recent edition of the state crime lab's sterilized version.

Some judges continue to side with the Intoxilyzer's manufacturer and against Minnesotans. Why? To protect CMI's profits? To avoid the inconvenience of granting the requests? Grave concern over what defense experts will find behind the black curtain?

While we may never know their motives, we do know their justification is absurd.

1. The Intoxilyzer will not operate at all without the source code;

2. The source code controls operation of every aspect of the Intoxilyzer -- from ensuring minimum scientific safeguards are employed, to analyzing the breath sample and determining the alleged alcohol concentration;

3. The BCA acknowledges/ed that the source code is "important" to the machine's operation.

How can anyone find the software does not "relate to the guilt or innocence " of a driver when the BCA has admitted the source code is "important" to the Intoxilyzer's operation? The secret machine that determines the drivers' guilt?

If you have been charged with DWI/DUI or test refusal in Minnesota, you can prevail with the right attorney. Contact Chuck Ramsay right away to learn what the Attorney General and BCA don't want you to know.

Charles A. Ramsay
Attorney at Law
Charles@RamayResults.com

CHARLES A. RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

450 Rosedale Towers
1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603

www.RamsayResults.com

Driver Loses Source Code Appeal; Attorney Fails to Make Minimal Showing

The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected a driver's appeal to order the state to disclose the "source code" which operates the state's breath test machines. See State v. Olcott, (Minn. Ct. App., 4/15/2008).

In emphasizing the low standard on the driver to meet his burden, it noted the driver's attorney did nothing more than make a bald assertion that the source code is related to the case.

"We have no quarrel with Olcott’s underlying propositions that an accused should be allowed to examine the evidence against him and, generally, he should be allowed to discover information that could lead to admissible evidence. But we fully agree with the district court that Olcott has offered only a 'bald assertion' and legal arguments in support of his discovery requests.

"We find nothing in the district court record that even marginally attempts to satisfy the rule 9 'showing' requirement. Olcott has not attempted to show what a 'source code' is; or how it fits into the operation of the Intoxilyzer; or what its precise role is in regulating the accuracy of the machine; or what possible deficiencies could be found in a source code; or how significant any deficiencies might be to the accuracy of the machine’s result; or whether testing of the machine (which he is permitted to do) cannot reveal potential inaccuracies without also knowing the source code. Olcott seems to suggest that his request for the source code needs no technical explanation, that the thing speaks for itself, and that his mere assertion makes the need for the source code obvious. But this is the realm of a type of expertise beyond ordinary knowledge. Olcott implicitly concedes that fact when he argues that even the expert Intoxilyzer operators cannot testify to the method of producing the result. By presenting only argument on the discovery issue, Olcott left the district court, and this court, to speculate.

Because Olcott has made no 'showing' whatsoever of how the Intoxilyzer 5000EN source code relates to his guilt or innocence, negates his guilt, or reduces his culpability, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Olcott’s motion to compel production of the source code for the machine.

Affirmed.

PRACTICE TIP:

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has recognized the standard is very low. The burden is easily met merely be presenting documentation within the public domain. The manufacturer (CMI), and the state (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA)) agree the software operates the Intoxilyzer and every essential function.

For example, look at CMI's Intoxilyzer 5000 Brochure.

CMI notes the importance of the software:

"A multiprocessor system employing a microprocessor controls the general operation of the instrument from information display to printer operation, keyboard interface, and electro-mechanical functions. A separate microcontroller is used for optical signal processing which increases the system’s signal handling.

"The microprocessor includes 56K EPROM (erasable programmable read only memory), 32K of battery-backed RAM and 8K of Scratch RAM (Random Access Memory). Additionally, the microcontroller has a separate 64K EPROM available and a separate 8K scratchpad RAM. Every aspect of operation, from displaying and printing of information to the basic electrical and mechanical functions, is micro-computer controlled.

Also click here to see the BCA's recent posting (Admitting "The source code is important because it determines what programming is loaded into the Intoxilyzer – basically, it tells the Intoxilyzer how to interpret the physical data it receives when someone blows into the device.").

Finally, look at Tennessee's Validity Studies where it calls the software "critical" to the evaluation of the product.

To ensure your rights are protected, turn to a profession who knows how to win. Contact Chuck Ramsay, Today!

Charles A. Ramsay
Attorney at Law
Charles@RamsayResults.com

CHARLES A. RAMSAY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

450 Rosedale Towers
1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603

www.RamsayResults.com

Former Gophers player Jones acquitted of rape charge

Find a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life."

Although I am passionate about my work, particularly trials, trial is exhausting. It takes a little chunk of life out of me each time, particularly when their are two prosecutors; one at the state's counsel table and another wearing a black robe. Judge Rosenbaum has a reputation for being fair, and is one of the better judges in Hennepin County. But some laws force judges to make rulings which may not guarantee a defendant a fair trial.

Well-intentioned legislatures passed some evidentiary laws in an effort to protect crime victims. Designed to protect one party, these laws often deny another -- those accused of a crime -- fundamental constititional rights; due process, right of confrontation, right to present a defense and even presumption of innocense.

It appears that may have occurred here, despite Judge Rosenbaum's best efforts to be fair.

Former Gophers player Jones acquitted of rape charge
By ROCHELLE OLSON, Star Tribune

April 11, 2008

Former University of Minnesota football star Dominic Jones was cleared Friday of a more serious rape charge but was convicted of unwanted sexual contact in an incident captured on a cell phone video.

He will be sentenced May 29.

Jones, 21, declined to comment after the decision, saying he wanted to catch up on his studies. Jones has missed school since jury selection began March 31. Although the star defensive back was kicked off the team when he was charged last July, Jones remained in school and is on track to graduate in the fall with a degree in sociology.

Jones had been charged with third-degree sexual assault for having sex with an 18-year-old woman who prosecutors said was too drunk to give consent. If he had been convicted of that charge, which involves penetration, he could have faced four years or more.

His conviction for fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, which involves unwanted sexual contact, carries a presumed sentence of 24 months "stayed." That means he would not have to serve it unless he violated his probation.

Defense attorney Earl Gray said Jones could face a year in jail, but would likely get work release and be out sooner. He would have to register as a sex offender.
Prosecutor 'pleased'

The jury's decision was clearly not the outcome sought by Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman's office, but Assistant Hennepin County Attorney Martha Holton Dimick gave it a good spin. She said Jones was convicted of a felony, she was "extremely pleased" and "a win for the defendant would have been an acquittal on all two counts and that didn't happen." She said prison is "still on the table."

Gray said he, Jones and Jones' family were "very happy" with the verdict. He dismissed the prosecution's claims of a win, saying that last fall Freeman's office rejected his offer to have his client plead guilty to fourth-degree sexual conduct.

Gray intends to appeal the verdict and seek a second trial. He said the evidence excluded at trial goes to the heart of the charge with which Jones was convicted.

Hennepin County District Court Judge Marilyn Rosenbaum did not allow Gray to call a sexual behavior expert, or to present evidence that the woman had sex with three other players that night, or describe what Jones was told by his upstairs neighbor Alex Daniels or to call a sexual behavior expert.

"The next time we try it, we will be able to give the jury a full picture of what happened that night," Gray said.

Jurors began deliberations late Wednesday and by mid-afternoon Thursday had acquitted Jones of the more serious charge, according to their verdict form. They reached a verdict at midday Friday on the lesser charge.

After the verdict was read, jurors were sent back to consider two more questions about aggravating factors. The jury quickly decided the act Jones performed was "humiliating and demeaning" to the woman, but not "cruel."

The star for the prosecution was a 30-second cell phone video recorded by Daniels. It shows Jones smiling and masturbating over the face of an impassive woman. At the end of the video, she had a white substance on her face. The time stamp on the video: 2:50 a.m. on April 4.

Juror's point of view

Juror Nevin Ozturk, who works at Medtronic, said the video was too short for conclusions. "I see commercials or parts of the movie, I can't claim I've seen the movie," she said.

Ozturk said a defining moment for her was DNA evidence, when a prosecution witness struggled to describe what was inside an evidence envelope he had signed.
Gray raised issues with the handling of evidence, including the nine condoms found in wastebaskets at the apartment. Several of the condoms were placed into one bag. The clothes of the victim also were placed together in a single bag.

Asked about Jones' own testimony, in which prosecutors exposed lies from his initial interview with police, Ozturk said there was "a lot of 'he said, she said'" at the trial.
The incident last April started with former players Robert McField and E.J. Jones driving to St. Paul to pick up Laquisha Malone, a woman McField met on Facebook. Malone wanted her friend to come along so they went to the College of St. Catherine to pick her up.

They went back to the apartment McField and E.J. Jones shared with Alex Daniels and Keith Massey at University Village. Jones, who is not related to E.J. Jones, lived a floor below them.

The woman, who attended the trial only to testify, got into a vodka shot-drinking contest with McField. She said she remembered nothing of the evening beyond falling asleep on the couch and waking the next morning with a white substance on her face. She washed it off, went home and to work.

McField, who is now in prison in Missouri for armed robbery, said he walked into a dark bedroom and saw Jones appearing to have sexual intercourse with the woman. He said he then saw Jones pull off his condom and finish the act on her face. The video, however, showed no penetration and Jones' semen was not found on any of the used condoms in the apartment.
Jones said he did not have sex with the woman except to masturbate over her, which he testified was consensual.

No one else was charged in the case and only McField was called to testify.

Asked whether the other players -- E.J. Jones, Massey and Daniels -- might be charged, Holton Dimick said, "Let's take that one step at a time."

Rochelle Olson • 612-673-1747

© 2008 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

Is This America's Best Prosecutor?

As a busy criminal defense lawyer, I see examples of prosecutorial misconduct nearly every day. This usually arises out of a "convict at all costs" mentality.

Here is a excellent story from Reason Magazine about a Texas prosecutor -- and former criminal defense lawyer -- who intends to change that.

Is This America's Best Prosecutor?

Meet Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins.
Radley Balko April 7, 2008

In 2006, Craig Watkins became the first African-American elected district attorney of any county in Texas history. More interestingly, the 40-year-old Watkins was elected in Dallas County, where the DA’s office has long been known for its aggressive prosecution tactics.

A former defense attorney, Watkins says the Dallas DA’s office has for too long adopted a damaging “convict at all costs” philosophy, an argument bolstered by a string of wrongful convictions uncovered by the Texas Innocence Project in the months before he was elected. Watkins ran on a reform platform, and pulled out a surprising victory against a more experienced Republican opponent.

After taking office, Watkins dismissed nine top-level prosecutors in the office. Nine others left voluntarily. He established a “Conviction Integrity Unit” to ensure proper prosecutorial procedures, and began working with the Texas Innocence Project to find other cases of possible wrongful conviction.

reason Senior Editor Radley Balko recently interviewed Watkins by phone.

reason: What inspired you to not only not put up obstacles to a group like the Texas Innocence Project, but to actually work with them proactively to seek out wrongful convictions in Dallas?

Watkins: We had had several exonerations here in Dallas County before I was elected. So as a result of that, we felt it was something we needed to look into, to see if anyone else we may have prosecuted in this county was wrongfully convicted. We take seriously our charge by the code of criminal procedure to “seek justice.” That’s one our responsibilities, to make sure innocent folks aren’t convicted. And we find they are or have been, we have to do everything we can to rectify the problem.

reason: How should a prosecutor balance his time and resources between prosecuting present-day cases and looking for cases of wrongful conviction?

Watkins: Well, before we got here, there was no one working on innocence cases. So there was no balance, because no one was doing it. We just decided to start a whole new section of the office dedicated solely to innocence. And they’re not only looking for bad convictions, they’re also looking at what policies and procedures we can put in place to keep them from happening in the future. So we aren’t really taking time away from prosecutions. We’ve just added positions that didn’t exist before.

reason: What specific steps did you take after winning office to address this issue?

Watkins: The first thing we did was set up this “Conviction Integrity Unit” in the district attorneys office. We immediately staffed it with two attorneys and two investigators, and told them to look at 400-some-odd cases for which there was DNA available to test. So their responsibility right now is to look through those 400 cases to see if there’s reason to suspect a wrongful conviction. If they find cases, we’ll then collect the DNA and test it. If it shows the person in prison is innocent, we’ll start proceedings for an exoneration.In addition to that, the unit has the responsibility of training the younger lawyers here in the office on the ethical side of a prosecutor’s job—things like the importance of properly dealing with exculpatory evidence. And we intend to have this section here in this office forever. This is not a pilot program. It’s something I’d like to see spread across the country—where DAs will actively seek out convictions that were obtained unfairly.

reason: What are some common stakes you’re seeing repeated in these innocence cases? Do they tend to be willful mistakes, or more due to negligence?

Watkins: It’s a combination of things. Negligence, prosecutorial misconduct, faulty witness identification. It’s just been a mindset of “conviction at all costs” around here. So we changed that philosophy. We aren’t here to rack up convictions. We’re here to seek justice. Once we can get over that win at all costs mentality, I think we’ll see fewer and fewer of these wrongful convictions.

reason: You talk about the mindset of winning convictions at all costs. The legendary law-and-order Dallas prosecutor Henry Wade, who held the job you now hold for many, many years, embodied that philosophy. He’s known to have actually boasted about convicting innocent people—that convincing a jury to put an innocent man in jail proved his prowess as a prosecutor.

Watkins: Oh yeah, it was a badge of honor at the time—to knowingly convict someone that wasn’t guilty. It’s widely known among defense attorneys and prosecutors from that era. We had to come in clean out all the remnants of that older way of thinking.

reason: It’s hard to imagine anyone opposing what you’re doing—seeking out and freeing the wrongfully convicted. Do you have critics?

Watkins: We’re encountering a lot of criticism right now. I think a lot of it is motivated by political party. The Republicans are losing power in Dallas County, and they’re trying to regain it. So they’re doing whatever they can, even making the political mistake of attacking the work we’re doing on wrongful convictions.reason: What possible arguments could they make against freeing innocent people?Watkins: Initially, their argument was that it’s not the role of a prosecutor to look for bad convictions—that that’s the role of a defense attorney. But that didn’t work very well for them. And it’s wrong. Both the criminal code of the state of Texas and the American Bar Association’s code clearly state that the job of a prosecutor is to seek justice. That means if a person is guilty, you try to convict him. If he’s not, you don’t. And if you have reason to believe someone has been wrongly convicted, you have a responsibility to fix that.

Their new argument is, “Is this cost effective?” Is this unit we’ve created a net benefit for Dallas County? I guess my response to that is that if we find even one more person who has been wrongly convicted, then yes, it is cost effective. So I think their arguments are off base. And they’re going to have a hard time convincing the public that what we’re doing isn’t necessary.

reason: Dallas County has the highest exoneration rate in the country. That’s in part because of a fluke. In the 1980s, the county started sending biological evidence to a private lab to be tested. That lab kept all of the evidence pretty well preserved, enabling it to be used in DNA testing today. So Dallas is one of the few places in the country where evidence from that era can still be tested. Do you think the system in Dallas was particularly corrupt or broken to cause all of these wrongful convictions, or would we be seeing the high numbers of exonerations we’re seeing in Dallas all over the country if similar efforts had been made to preserve evidence in other places?

Watkins: I think it’s mostly because evidence was preserved in Dallas. I don’t think there was anything unique about the way Dallas was prosecuting crimes. It’s unfortunate that other places didn’t preserve evidence, too. We’re just in a unique position where I can look at a case, test DNA evidence from that period, and say without a doubt that a person is innocent. They can’t do that in other places. But that doesn’t mean other places don’t have the same problems Dallas had.

reason: Your approach to your job is unique enough that it’s earned you some headlines. What do you think about the way we look at the role of a prosecutor today? Are the incentives too geared toward rolling up convictions?

Watkins: Well we’ve obviously had this political mantra over the last 30 years about “getting tough on crime.” And I think too often, buried in that mantra is the implication that there’s no room for fair justice. We’ve stripped away protections for the accused. And as a result, I think many prosecutors went into a case with blinders on—like everyone was guilty. The more convictions you won, the better your chances to get re-elected or to move on to higher office. We’re now seeing the fallout from that mentality. Hopefully, the problems we’re now encountering will help it to change.

reason: What reforms or checks should DA’s offices put in place to guard against wrongful convictions?

Watkins: Well you know police departments file cases with us. We need to guard against being a rubber stamp for every case the police department sends our way. We need to be more skeptical. We also need to train prosecutors to think about their jobs in a different way. We shouldn’t be judging young prosecutors by how many convictions they win, or by how many people they put in jail. I’d also like to see a change in the way appellate courts look at these cases. Appellate courts are often too reluctant to second-guess a jury. But if there’s evidence there that makes you question whether the jury got it right, I think they need to be more willing to open their minds and take that second look.

reason: But it’s established law in most places that appellate courts give considerable deference to the jury’s verdict. When they do intervene, it’s generally on procedural issues. They tend to pass on actually reviewing the evidence in a case. Seems like a tall order to change that.

Watkins: I think the mere fact that we’ve had so many exonerations ought to move them to take a closer look at the evidence in criminal cases. You’re right that cases are generally appealed on technical issues. But take eyewitness identification. It’s been proven time and time again in studies that eyewitness identification is extremely unreliable. Yet police, prosecutors, and juries still tend to put a lot of faith in them. And these same studies show there are some basic steps you can take make eyewitness identifications more reliable, but that also would result in fewer identifications, and fewer prosecutions. But if there are procedures available to increase the validity of a form of evidence, and police and prosecutors aren’t using it, then they’re deliberately increasing the chances of a wrongful conviction in order to get more convictions. And defendants aren’t getting a fair trial. And I think that’s something the appellate courts ought to look at.You also have to look at changes in technology. We have new methods and procedures that are better and more reliable than the old way of doing things. But the law tends to be static. If we’re consciously not using the methods proven to be more effective and more reliable, we’re not giving defendants the fairest possible trial. Appellate courts should be looking at that, too.

reason: Given the novel approach you’ve taken to the job, what are your prospects for getting reelected?

Watkins: Oh, I don’t know. I mean, I don’t think about it all that much. I go into my job looking to make sure we administer justice in a fair way. I hope my record will speak for itself. I hope people will see that we take a balanced approach, here. We convict the guilty, and we free the innocent.

I’d hope that that’s what people would ask from a district attorney, and from a fair criminal justice system.

Radley Balko is a senior editor for reason.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125596.html

TO COME: CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES -- WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT ...

Soon ... articles revealing:

• Why the Minnesota BCA failed to establish any minimum routine preventative maintenance and/or calibration standards for the Intoxilyzer 5000?
• Why Minnesota's breath testing program has the lowest standards in the country?
• Why the Commissioner of Public Safety refuses to establish any minimum procedures to ensure that Minnesota breath tests are valid, reliable and accurate?
• Why is the supervisor of the BCA toxicology laboratory is afraid to review the source code (software) for the Intoxilyzer 5000?
• Why does the Minnesota Attorney General want the legislature to pass a law to prevent drivers from defending themselves in court at a trial, by making it a crime to present the source code as evidence to a judge or jury ?
• Why Minnesota is the only state in the country to use alcohol urine testing to prove a driver guilty of a crime?
• Why Minnesota BCA refuses to establish the most basic standards for urine testing, ignoring every peer-reviewed expert article in the world?
• Why the Commissioner of Public Safety continues to revoke licenses and prosecute drivers using urine testing when as one Judge recently described as a "absurd"?
• Why Attorney Chuck Ramsay is the only source of education for BCA toxicologists of peer-reviewed scientific articles?
• Why the Minnesota Attorney General continues to mislead judges, prosecutors and police officers that CMI (the Intoxilyzer Manufacturer) refused to give them the source code, when the BCA supervisory testified under oath that the BCA never had even asked for the source code?
• Why the Minnesota Attorney General and the BCA do not voluntarily disclose the errors in the Intoxilyzer's program?

--
Charles A. Ramsay
Attorney at Law
Charles@RamsayResults.com

Charles A. Ramsay & Assoc., PLLC
450 Rosedale Towers, 1700 West Highway 36
Roseville, MN 55113
o: 651.604.0000
f: 651.604.0027
c: 651.336.6603

www.RamsayResults.com