Martindale-Hubbell PeerReviewRated - Badge

Reviews 5 Stars out of 25 reviews - Badge

National College for DUI Defense - Badge

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers - Badge

Best Lawyers / Lawyers of the Year / DUI/DWI Defense 2019 - Badge

Best Lawyers / Lawyer of the Year / DUI/DWI Defense 2017 - Badge

Defending Maryland DUI/DWI Cases Outline (Continued)

CROSS-EXAMINATION
1. Purpose of cross-examination
  1. To create a reasonable doubt
2. Why cross-examination works in dui cases
3. Relevant Maryland Rules
  1. Maryland Rule 5-616
  2. Maryland Rule 5-613
  3. Maryland Rule 5-612
4. Preparing for cross-examination of arresting officer
  1. interview client thoroughly
  2. take pictures of the roadway and scene of testing
  3. NHTSA manual subpoena
  4. NHTSA manual
  5. Jencks discovery
    1. Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957)
    2. Carr v. State, 284 Md. 455, 397 A.2d 606 (1979)
    3. Leonard v. State, 46 Md. App. 63, 421 A.2d 85 (1980), aff’d, 290 Md. 295, 429 A.2d 538 (1981)
    4. Martinez v. State, 309 Md. 124, 522 A.2d 950 (1987)(grand jury testimony)
    5. Kanaras v. State, 54 Md. App. 568, 460 A.2d 61 (1983)
    6. Bruce v. State, 318 Md. 706, 569 A.2d 1254 (1990) (on cross-examination the defendant is entitled to examine “(1) a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him; (2) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said witness and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement.”) Bruce, 318 Md. at 724, 569 A.2d at 1263.
    7. Butler v. State, 107 Md.App. 345, 667 A.2d 999 (1995) (discussing notes used to refresh recollection and reports)
    8. Taking notes on direct
5. The gurus of cross-examination: Roger Dodd and Larry Pozner – some basics
  1. single fact
  2. leading
  3. safe havens
  4. avoid bait
  5. reversals
  6. chapter method
  7. loops
  8. trilogies
6. Other “rules” of cross-examination for DUI
  1. Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to – modified
    1. Everything the officer left out/everything the client did right
      1. Filling in the blanks in the officer’s report/testimony
    2. Everything the officer failed to do or did improperly
      1. Dissecting the field tests
    3. Leaving open innocent explanations for State evidence
    4. Reverse psychology
      1. Probable cause – Miranda objection
      2. Opinion related questions
    5. Dealing with the opinion
      1. Nothing to lose questions
      2. Filing charges
7. Preparing for cross-examination of intoximeter technician
  1. Reviewing all of the statutory and regulatory requirements for admission of the intoximeter test that relate to the test technician
    1. Statutory
      1. Technician properly trained. Ct. & Jud. Proc. Art., § 10-304 (3). “Qualified person” means a person who has received training in the use of the equipment in a training program approved by the toxicologist under the Postmortem Examiners Commission and who is either a police officer, a police employee, an employee of the office of the Chief Medical Examiner, or a person authorized by the toxicologist under the Postmortem Examiners Commission.
      2. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art., § 10-304 (b). The test of breath shall be administered by a qualified person with equipment approved by the toxicologist under the Postmortem Examiners Commission at the direction of a police officer. . .
      3. Not arresting officer. Ct. & Jud. Proc. Art., § 10-304 (b) . . . The officer arresting the individual may not administer the test of breath.
      4. Test within two hours of apprehension. Ct. & Jud. Proc. Art., § 10-303
      5. Technician must be present if demand for test technician filed by defendant. Ct. & Jud. Proc. Art., 10-306.
    2. Regulatory – Regulations of the Toxicologist, Post Mortem Examiners Commission, State of Maryland, Regarding Tests of Breath and Blood for Alcohol, effective September 30, 2001.
      1. Training.
        Initial certification. § G.1. Each operator must have at least a score of 90% on a written exam after a course comprised of a minimum of 35 hours of lecture and laboratory instruction. This instruction includes training in “mathematics of the metric system,” study “of the properties, human physiology and pharmacology of alcohol,” study of “the theory, operating principles, and maintenance requirements of the Breath Test Instruments,” review of relevant statutes, regulations and cases, and testing on human subjects.
        Recertification. § G.2. A 6 hour review course is given and passing is lowered to 80%.
  2. Obtaining necessary documents pre-trial
    1. Records required to be kept by regulation
      1. § I.1. Alcohol Testing Program Log – Each agency is required to keep a permanent log at each location where a Breath Test Instrument is housed.
      2. § I.2. Breath Test Operator’s Log – Each operator is required to maintain a permanent Breath Test Operator’s Log
      3. § I.3. Alcohol Influence Summary Report -Each agency’s Breath Test Supervisor shall complete an Alcohol Influence Summary Report on a monthly basis.
      4. § I.4. Breath Test Instrument Field Inspection Report Form – A Breath Test Instrument Field Inspection Report Form recording the results of Maintenance Tests shall be completed.
    2. Other documents
      1. Printout of test result
      2. Certification of test result
      3. Approvals of equipment by Toxicologist
8. Sample chapters of cross-examination of the breath test technician
  1. 20 minute observation period. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art. § 10-304(b) precludes the arresting officer from “administering” the test. At the same time, the method to “conduct” the test, specified in the Toxicologist’s Regulation includes the 20 minute observation period. See also, State v. Carson, 988 P.2d 225 (Id.App. 1999)(watching def through rearview mirror is not observation); State v. Baker, 355 P.2d 806 (Wash. 1960)(observation was for fourteen minutes, test suppressed); State v. Martin, 2003 WL 57311 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2003)(defendant performing walk and turn test at beginning of twenty minute observation period); State v. Korsakov, 34 S.W.3d 534 (Tenn.Crim.App.2000)(officer was doing paperwork); State v. McCaslin, 894 S.W.2d 310 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994)(defendant in back seat of patrol car) . Since breath testing devices rely on an accurate reading of alveolar or deep lung air, the introduction of stomach gases into the oral cavity, such as by a burp, or stomach contents, as through a regurgitation can produce a false high reading.
    1. Time first encountered the defendant
    2. Whether they checked the defendant’s mouth
  2. 2100:1 ratio
  3. Breath temperature
  4. Breathing pattern
  5. Margin of error
  6. Odor of alcohol
  7. Training of operator
  8. Maintenance requirements
  9. Proper record keeping
9. Principles of relevant case law
  1. Casper v. State, 70 Md.App. 576, 521 A.2d 1281 (1987). Casper is the most important case in Maryland regarding the admissibility of breath test evidence. If the State is able to show the test was completed within two hours of apprehension, the test technician and equipment are approved by the toxicologist, the burden shifts to the defendant to show “an indicia of unreliability” in order to shift the burden of proving reliability for purposes of admissibility back on the State.
10. Cross-examining the toxicologist
  1. What does he have to do?
  2. Did he do it?
  3. Is the test scientifically accurate and reliable?
  4. Is it legally valid?
DEFENSE CASE
1. Favorable test result
  1. PBT Result – Trans. Art. § 16-205.2
  2. State test result
  3. Private test result – Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art., § 10-304(e)
2. Lay witnesses
  1. Who can testify to the amount of alcohol the defendant consumed/opinion of sobriety
  2. Who can testify the defendant was not driving
  3. Who can testify to the defendant’s normal lack of coordination
3. Expert testimony
  1. As to the defendant’s medical condition
    1. White v. State, 142 Md.App. 535, 790 A.2d 754 (2002)(the defendant may call a psychiatrist to testify the defendant suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, provided the proffer sufficiently relates the conduct to the condition).
  2. As to a defect in the scientific part of the State’s case
  3. As to a defect in the vehicle the defendant was driving
  4. As to the defendant’s alcohol level
CLOSING ARGUMENT
1. State v. Werkheiser, 299 Md. 529, 474 A.2d 808 (1984). In Werkheiser, the failure to obtain a blood sample as required by statute did not require a dismissal of the case. Instead the jury would be allowed to infer that a test, if conducted, would have been favorable to the defendant.
  1. State fails to prove it offered a test. Under Lowry v. State, 363 Md. 357, 768 A.2d 688 (2001), failure to offer a second test, where the first test is invalid, may generate a “Werkheiser inference.” In a jury trial, the “Werkheiser inference” is not a jury instruction, but may be argued in closing by defense counsel.
  2. Sites; Brosan
  3. Miranda confusion
2. Toxicologist’s Regulations (.01 g/dl margin of error on breath tests)
3. Reasonable doubt defendant drove
4. Reasonable doubt as to intoxication or impairment
5. No proof of alcohol consumption
6. No proof of venue or jurisdiction
7. Beckwith v. State (defendant only charged with intoxicated and State only proved under the influence)
8. Insufficient corroboration of corpus delicti – Hadder v. State
SENTENCING AND COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES
1. Transp. Art., § 27-101
  1. DUI § 21-902(a)
    1. First offense 1 yr./$1,000
    2. Second offense 2 yrs./ $2,000
    3. Third or subsequent offense 3 yrs./ $3,000
    4. 12 points
  2. DWI § 21-902(b)
    1. First offense 2 mo./$500
    2. Second or subsequent offense 1 yr./ $500
    3. 8 points
  3. DWI §§ 21-902(c)
    1. 2 mo./ $500
    2. 8 points
  4. DWI § 21-902(d)
    1. 2 mo./ $500
    2. 12 points
2. Sentencing enhancements other than priors
  1. Refusal § § 16-205.1 (b)(2)(iv); 27-101(x)
    1. 2 mo./ $500
    2. required notice 15 days before Circuit Court sentencing, and 5 days before District Court sentencing
    3. fact finder must find refusal is knowing refusal beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. Transporting a minor § 27-101(q)
    1. After of a conviction for § 21-902(a) or (d)
      1. First offense 2 yrs./ $2000
      2. Second offense 3 yrs./ $3000
      3. Third or subsequent offense 4 yrs./$4000
    2. After a conviction for § 21-902 (b) or (c)
      1. First offense 6 mos./ $1000
      2. Second or subsequent offense 1 yr./$2000
  3. Criminal Procedure Article, § 6-220 (formerly Article 27, § 641)(probation before judgment – not a conviction, MVA maintains a segregated record, may be stricken after finding the defendant violated probation)
  4. Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) is not admissible. See Harmon v. State, 147 Md.App. 452, 809 A.2d 696 (2002); Transp. Art., § 16-205.2.
  5. Case law
    1. Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143, 685 A.2d 1176 (1996)(court may not order the defendant not to drive as a condition of probation)
    2. Shilling v. State, 320 Md. 288, 577 A.2d 83 (1990)
    3. State v. McGrath, 77 Md.App. 310, 550 A.2d 402 (1988)
    4. Carter v. State, 319 Md. 618, 574 A.2d 305 (1990)(State may not file subsequent offender notice in circuit court appeal if State failed to file timely notice before trial in the District Court)
    5. State v. Purcell, 342 Md. 214, 674 A.2d 936 (Md. 1996)(five year eligibility for second PBJ is dated from date of first conviction to date of second finding)
    6. Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999)(defendant may assert the Fifth Amendment at sentencing, even after a plea of guilt)
    7. Bailey v. State, 355 Md. 287, 734 A.2d 684 (1999)(home detention may not be imposed as a condition of probation, unless expressly authorized by statute, statutory authorization for “confinement” as a condition of probation is only in Charles County, St. Mary’s County, Cecil County, Harford County and Calvert County) (note – in 2001 this decision was legislatively repealed – see Criminal Procedure Article § 6-219, 220 and 225).
    8. Harmon v. State, 147 Md.App. 452, 809 A.2d 696 (2002)( PBT result is not admissible in any court proceeding by virtue of Transportation Article, § 16-205.2)
  6. Ethical considerations – On occasion, counsel will be required to walk an extremely fine line at sentencing. This occurs when the client has disclosed to counsel a prior conviction, usually in another jurisdiction, which does not appear on the Maryland driving record. Counsel has potentially conflicting obligations which can be reconciled. On one hand, the disclosure of the prior conviction may fall under the attorney-client privilege. On the other hand, the attorney owes the court complete candor and truthfulness. If asked by the court, counsel should assert the attorney-client privilege, defer to the client, and not make any representations that could be construed as misleading by the court. If the client makes a misrepresentation, counsel has a duty to urge the client to correct it or counsel must reveal it to the court. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 9-108 (attorney-client privilege); Md. Rule 1.6; Md. Rules 3.3, 4.1 (duty of candor to the tribunal and to others); Ethics Opinion 92-39 (7/16/92); Ethics Opinion 89-17 (undated); Ethics Opinion 86-44 (undated); Florida Ethics Opinion 86-3 (12/15/86). In some situations, instead of deferring to the client, the attorney may choose to assert the Fifth Amendment on his or her behalf. Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999)(defendant may assert the Fifth Amendment at sentenci ng, even after a plea of guilt).
  7. Maryland Rule 4-245(B)
  8. Mitigation
    1. Age
    2. Educational background
    3. Military background
    4. Family status/obligations
    5. Work history/need for driver’s license
    6. Alcohol education/treatment since the offense
    7. Prior driving record
    8. Community service record
  9. MVA consequences
    1. DUI § 21-902(a)
      1. 12 points
      2. Potential revocation or interlock under § 16-404 and 16-205
    2. DWI § 21-902(b) & (c)
      1. 8 points
      2. Potential suspension or interlock under § 16-404 and 16-205
    3. DWI/CDS § 21-902(d)
      1. 12 points
      2. Potential revocation or interlock under § 16-404
    4. Administrative law judge may revoke, suspend, put on probation, refer to Medical Advisory Board, impose work and alcohol education related license restriction, impose alcohol restriction
  10. Immigration consequences
    1. As a result of the Immigration and Nationalities Act of 1996 (INA), a number of draconian provisions are in place that may result in the deportation of a non-citizen, for certain drunk driving related convictions. In all cases, the practitioner should consult with a lawyer who handles immigration cases on a regular basis.
    2. Aggravated felonies. If an alien is convicted of an offense that is considered to be an aggravated felony deportation is conclusively presumed. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(INA § 101(a)(43))(definition of “aggravated felony”); 8 U.S.C. § 1228 (INA § 238).
      1. For drunk driving, the offense must be a crime of violence as is defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (INA § 101). The Supreme Court held in Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2005), Florida felony DUI involving serious personal injury is not a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16 and therefore not an “aggravated felony” under § 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court held that “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense” does not include accident or offense without any mens rea requirement. However, the Court also said,
        “This case does not present us with the question whether a state or federal offense that requires proof of the reckless use of force against a person or property of another qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16. DUI statutes such as Florida’s do not require any mental state with respect to the use of force against another person, thus reaching individuals who were negligent or less.”
      2. The final requirement is a sentence of at least one year. This includes the suspended portion of the sentence. Under the relevant provision a sentence of one year suspended would qualify for aggravated felony treatment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a) (43)(F) (INA § 101) and 48(B).
      3. A “conviction” as defined by the INA includes probations before judgment and pleas of nolo contendere. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (48)(A) (INA § 101).
    3. Crimes of moral turpitude. An alien who is convicted of two crimes of moral turpitude or one conviction of moral turpitude coupled with a conviction of an offense carrying a year or more in jail, within five years of entry, or ten years for certain permanent residents, is deportable. 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(i) (INA § 237). Drunk driving while suspended, where the person was suspended as a result of drunk driving conduct was is a form of aggravated drunk driving in Arizona. It was also held to be a crime of moral turpitude in Matter of Lopez-Mesa, Interim Decision 3423 (BIA 1999).
  11. APPEALS
    1. Procedure – District Court judge should set appeal bond if jail imposed
      1. Circuit court discovery rules apply on appeal – Maryland Rule 7-112
      2. De novo trial – Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art., § 12-401 (d), (g)
        Pollard v. State, 339 Md. 233, 661 A.2d 734 (1995)
      3. De novo sentence – Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art., § 12-702 (c)
  12. BIBLIOGRAPHY
    1. Treatises and books
      1. Critical Issues: Drunk Driving Prosecutions, Annotations from the ALR System, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company
      2. Cross-examination: Science and Techniques, Larry Pozner and Roger Dodd, The Michie Company
      3. Defending Drinking Drivers, Second Edition, John A. Tarantino, James Publishing Company
      4. Defense of Drunk Driving Cases, Richard Erwin, Matthew Bender and Company
      5. Drunk Driving Defense, (Fifth Edition 2000), Lawrence Taylor, Little, Brown and Company
      6. Drunk Driving Litigation: Criminal and Civil, Donald Nichols, Flem Whited, West
      7. Drunk Driving Primer, The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Mary E. Conn, Editor
      8. Drunk Driving: The Trial Notebook, The Trial Sourcebook, The Trial Workbook, Reese I. Joye and Jim D. Lovett, Kluwer Law Publishers
      9. Fighting to Win – DWI Trial Practice Manual, Patrick J. O’Guinn, Sr.
      10. Forensic Science Handbook, Richard Saferstein, Prentice Hall
      11. Handling Drunk Driving Cases, Stephen Brent and Sharon Shiller, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company
      12. How to Defend a Drunk Driving Case, Fifth Edition, A Guide to Practical, Procedural, and Legal Aspects, John Henry Hingson III, Clark Boardman Company, Ltd.
      13. Intoxication Test Evidence, Second Edition,Edward F. Fitzgerald and David N. Hume, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company
      14. Scientific Evidence, Second Edition, Paul Giannelli and Edward J. Imwinkelreid, The Michie Company
      15. 2002 Maryland DUI Manual, William D. Paton, Hanford Publishing Company
      16. Medicolegal Aspects of Alcohol, Edited by James C. Garriott, Lawyers & Judges Publishing Co.
    2. Government publications
      1. General Assembly of Maryland, Report of the Task Force on Drunk and Drugged Driving – 1988 Interim
      2. General Assembly of Maryland, Report of the Task Force on Drunk and Drugged Driving – 1989 Interim
      3. Marcelline Burns and Herbert Moskowitz, Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrest, Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, June 1977 (DOT-HS-802-424)(Order # PB269309)
      4. V. Tharp, M. Burns, and H. Moskowitz, Development and Field Test of Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrest, Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, March 1981 (DOT-HS-805-864)(Order # PB81203721)
      5. Snapper, Seaver, and Schwartz, An Assessment of Behavioral Tests to Detect Impaired Drivers, December 1981 (DOT-HS-806-211)(Order # PB94780251)
      6. T.E. Anderson, R.M. Schweitz, and M.B. Snyder, Field Evaluation of a Behavioral Test Battery for DWI (Driving While Intoxicated), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. Office of Driver and Pedestrian Safety, September 1983 (DOT-HS-806-475)(Order # PB84121169)
      7. Richard P. Compton, Field Evaluation of the Los Angeles Police Department Drug Detection Program, Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, February 1986 (DOT-HS-807-012)
      8. Richard P. Compton, Pilot Test of Selected DWI Detection Procedures for Use at Sobriety Checkpoints, (DOT-HS-806-724)(Order # PB86170958)
      9. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing.
        US Dept. of Commerce
        Technology Administration
        National Technical Information Service
        Springfield, VA 22161
        800-553-6847 for orders
        888-584-8332 customer service
        http://www.ntis.gov
        Since material ordered from NTIS may not be returned and is nonrefundable, the order numbers listed here should be confirmed prior to ordering.
        Student Manual 1989: NTIS Order Number: PB96-780739INT
        Student Manual 1992: NTIS Order Number: PB94-780228INT
        Student Manual 1995: NTIS Order Number: PB96-780739INT
        Student Manual 2000: NTIS Order Number: AVA20839-BB00
        Student Manual 2002: NTIS Order Number: AVA21135-BB00
        Instructor Manual 1992: NTIS Order Number: PB94-780210INT
        Instructor Manual 1995: NTIS Order Number: PB96-780754INT
        Instructor Manual 1995: NTIS Order Number: AVA19910-BB00INA
        Instructor Manual 2000: NTIS Order Number: AVA20838-BB00
        Instructor Manual 2002: NTIS Order Number: AVA21134-BB00
        Teacher-Trainer Manual 1995: NTIS Order Number: PB96-780747INT
        Student-Instructor Manual 1989: NTIS Order Number: PB93-114742INT
        Participant Training Manual 2004: NTIS Order Number: AVA21425BB00
        Instructor Training Manual 2004:NTIS Order Number: AVA 21224BB00
        DRUG RECOGNITION AND EVALUATION MATERIALS
        Training manuals
        Preliminary Training for Drug Evaluation and Classification “The Pre-School” Student Manual (PB 2001-1105501 )
        Preliminary Training for Drug Evaluation and Classification “The Pre-School” Instructor Manual (PB 2001-1105502)
        Drug Evaluation and Classification Training “The Drug Recognition Expert School” Student Manual (PB 2001-1105503)
        Drug Evaluation and Classification Training “The Drug Recognition Expert School” Instructor Manual (PB 2001-1105504)
        The NTIS web site also has the videotapes that are used in the courses.
    3. Videos
      1. American Bar Association Video, The Standardized Field Sobriety Test, A New Weapon Against Drunk Driving, August 1991
      2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DWI Detection, (PB94-780236)
    4. Seminars
      1. National College for DUI Defense and Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Association, Mastering Scientific Evidence in DUI/DWI Cases, Spring, Dallas, Texas
      2. National College of DUI Defense, Summer Seminar, July, Cambridge, Massachusetts, www.ncdd.com
      3. NACDL, DUI Seminar, Fall, Las Vegas, Nevada
      4. The Indiana University, Robert F. Borkenstein Course on Alcohol, Drugs and Highway Safety: Testing, Research and Litigation, May & Dec., Bloomington, Indiana (defense lawyers no longer allowed)
      5. NHTSA COURSES
        DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing – Student Course (24 hrs)
        DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing – Instructor Course (32 hrs)
    5. Newsletters
      1. DWI Law & Science Journal (John Tarantino, ed.). Published monthly by Whitaker Newsletters, 313 South Avenue, P.O. Box 192, Fanwood, N.J. 07023 (800-359-6049 ). Subscription rate: $260/year.
      2. Drinking Driving Law Letter, (Donald H. Nichols and Flem Whited, III, ed.). Published 26 times per year by West Group, 620 Opperman Drive, St. Paul, MN, 55164 (800-328-4880). Subscription rate: $362/year.
    6. Organizations
      1. The National College for DUI Defense. The National College for DUI Defense, headquartered in Houston, Texas, consists of a Board of Regents of 12 prominent DUI attorneys, 100 founding members, sustaining members, and unlimited general membership. The College sponsors the Harvard Summer Session, an intensive three-day seminar/workshop held annually in July at Harvard Law School, as well as an annual two-day scientific seminar in the winter. The College also maintains an Internet website http://www.ncdd.com, with access to various resources and listings of members available to the public. Information can be obtained from Executive Director, Rhea Kirk at National College for DUI Defense, 445 S Decatur St., Montgomery, AL 36104, (334-264-1950)
    7. Internet – a partial list of some related internet resources
      1. National College for DUI Defense – http://www.ncdd.com
      2. William C. Head’s website – http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com
      3. Lawrence Taylor’s website – http://www.duicentral.com
      4. Leonard Stamm’s website – http://www.lstamm.com; http://www.lennystamm.com
      5. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) – http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov
      6. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) – http://www.criminaljustice.org
      7. Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association (MCDAA) – http://www.mcdaa.org
    8. Expert witnesses
      1. The Forensic Services Directory. (800-526-5177). (Also available on WESTLAW or LEXIS.)
      2. Directory of Alcohol Related Forensic Experts, published by Whitaker Newsletters, 313 South Avenue, P.O. Box 192, Fanwood, N.J. 07023 (800-359-6049).
      3. The following is a partial list of blood-alcohol and breath testing experts:
        Nicholas Lappas, Ph. D., Forensic Toxicology, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., (202-994-1468)
        Michael P. Hlastala, Ph.D., Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (206-543-3166)
        Dr. Richard Jensen, Forensic Associates, Minneapolis, MN (612-339-7903)
        Mary McMurray, Blue Mounds, WI 53517 (608-437-5344)
        Patrick Demers, Front Royal, VA, (540-636-8772)
        Gil Sapir, Esq., Chicago, IL (312-853-3600)
        Dr. David Stafford, Memphis, TN (901-448-6355)
        Dr. James Woodford, Atlanta, GA (404-270-1872)
        Yale H. Caplan, Ph. D., D-ABFT, Director, National Scientific Services, Inc., Baltimore, MD 21208 (410-486-7486)
        Dr. Alfred Staubus, Columbus, OH (614-292-0891)
      4. The following are experts on the subject of field sobriety tests:
        Dr. Marceline Burns, Southern California Research Institute, Culver City, CA (310-390-8481)
        Dr. Spurgeon Cole, Clemson University (803-656-5849)
        Steve Rubenzer, Ph.D., ABPP, Diplomate in Forensic Psychology, American Board of Professional Psychology, American Board of Forensic Psychology, 11914 Astoria, Suite 490, Houston, TX 77089, (281-481-5715)
        Robert La Pier, Rigby, ID 83442, (208) 754-4643 (800) 257-4643, offers training under standards set forth by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for administration of and instruction in standardized field sobriety tests
        William M. Taylor, Gainesville, GA 30501 (770-534-1501)
        Joseph Citron, M.D., J.D., Atlanta, GA 30327 (404-261-2911)
        Richard Swope, Davie, FL (305-476-7640)

Defending Maryland DUI/DWI Cases Outline (Continued)

Contact Us

Practice Areas

We Accept the Following Payment Solutions

Maryland DUI Law

Contact Us

Leave Us a Message