To the citizens of Harris County,
As many of you know, there have been several news stories regarding the Houston Police Department’s Breath Alcohol Testing (BAT) vans, the evidence they provide, the technicians who perform the work and the Harris County District Attorney’s Office (HCDAO).
A technician, who is a former employee of the HPD crime lab and supervised the BAT van testing, testified on July 27 and 28 that she believed it is possible that the breath tests conducted by the HPD BAT vans could be problematic.
August 4, representatives of the HCDAO notified the Scientific Director at the Texas Department of Public Safety—the authority that develops rules and regulations and provides training and laboratory support to local, state and federal authorities for breath alcohol testing throughout the state—of her claims.
August 11, in a meeting between HCDAO and the technician she stated that she could not verify the accuracy of results of an intoxilyzer instrument that had previously experienced overheating in a HPD BAT van. She said that she could not testify to the accuracy of such intoxilyzer results because this issue had never before been scientifically tested.
August 12, the HCDAO issued a Brady Notice to attorneys to inform them of the potentially exculpatory, or mitigating, evidence raised by the technician and to not allow any HPD BAT van cases to be resolved unless the defendant is made aware of the technician’s comments (click link below for first Brady notice).
Additionally on August 12, the Harris County District Attorney’s Office requested that the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Breath Alcohol Laboratory conduct scientific tests on the HPD BAT van and the intoxilyzer instruments.
August 23, representatives from the Harris County District Attorney’s Office met again with the technician. At this interview the technician said she believed that all breath tests conducted by the HPD BAT vans dating from summer 2009 – present were suspect because she believed HPD BAT vans were an unsuitable testing location. August 24, the HCDAO distributed a second Brady notice to attorneys alerting them to the technician’s comments (click link below for second Brady notice).
The Texas Department of Public Safety conducted an Ambient Temperature Study on the HPD BAT van and intoxilyzer instruments that addressed the technician’s concerns. Scientists concluded that the HPD BAT van instruments correctly analyzed breath alcohol concentrations (click link below for report from DPS outlining results).
October 28, a DWI jury trial was held in a County Criminal Court where evidence was presented in open court about the reliability and accuracy of the HPD BAT vans. The defense presented their position on the reliability of the HPD BAT van instruments. After hearing all the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
It is our duty to see that justice is done and to protect the lives, property and rights of our citizens. We respect the rule of law and strive to always do the right thing.
Last Updated: 11/8/2011 4:57:38 PM
attachments:
First Brady Notice.pdf
Second Brady Notice.pdf
DPS Report.pdf
Now, if you are like me, you probably need to know what a "Brady notice" is. I found this simple explanation:
Brady refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the numerous state and federal cases that interpret its requirement that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.”[1] Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution's witnesses[2], and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.[3]
Yep, that is from Wikipedia and I'm certain that all of the sniveling little gossips that are attacking the Harris County District Attorney's Office are smirking at this point. Matters not to me, if you can tell me that it isn't accurate, I'm open. But you know it is, so shut up already.
The bottom line is that upon receiving information that was potentially damaging, the HCDAO immediately addressed the situation, including having the alleged problem machines tested by an outside party, and made certain that the alleged problems were made known to defendants and their attorneys. Even though there were no real problems with the machines. No cover-up, no attempt to hide potentially damaging information, no hypothetical needed to cover up a conspiracy, complete transparency.
As I said yesterday DA Lykos will be re-elected handily because it takes guts to take on an entrenched bureaucracy and the voters of Harris County will reward her for doing just that. As she said in her statement:
It is our duty to see that justice is done and to protect the lives, property and rights of our citizens. We respect the rule of law and strive to always do the right thing.