Prosecutors see hardcore drunk drivers every day in court, often recognising them from many other court appearances. As documented in the Traffic Injury Research Foundation’s 2002 report DWI System Improvements for Dealing with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Prosecution, these are defendants familiar with the dark corners and back alleys of the legal system, often taking advantage of prosecutors ill-equipped with the technical skills and knowledge needed to successfully prosecute hardcore offenders. After all, impaired driving cases are some of the most difficult cases to prove. They involve scientific evidence, expert testimony, complex legal issues and jurors who typically identify with offenders. These cases require nothing less than the highest level of advocacy skills. One of the more difficult challenges for prosecutors is evaluating fatal motor vehicle crashes. Prosecutors already know what national data reflects. Roughly 40 percent of every fatal crash report that prosecutors assess will involve impaired driving. And, grieving families, law enforcement officers and reconstructionists all look to the prosecutor’s office to decide the legal ramifications of what happened: Was this an accident or a vehicular homicide? Was this civil negligence or criminal recklessness? Was a crime even committed? While they wait for the decision, many prosecutors are left scratching their heads trying to make sense out of a reconstructionist’s report. Not only are they trying to answer, What happened? but prosecutors want to know If this is what happened, how do I prove it? Tough decisions to make, and to make those decisions, prosecutors need to be armed with the best knowledge available. This publication serves as a primer for prosecutors on the basic science, investigative techniques and what questions to ask. (Author/publisher)
Abstract