Share:

Highlighting Thomas Corletta’s dismissal, reduction or acquittal in a contested case, this week’s case successes show Mr. Corletta’s unyielding commitment to justice for his clients.      

Do you need an experienced lawyer in the Rochester area? Call Thomas A. Corletta to protect your rights. Thomas A. Corletta specializes in DWI cases, bankruptcy, criminal defense and family law. Read the following case reviews, visit his website, or give the office a call at 585-546-5072 for any additional information

People v. J.L. (Mon. Co. Ct., Ciaccio, J., 6/12/17)

Mr. Corletta scored a major victory in a Driving While Intoxicated case involving admissibility of a blood test result.

          Blood tests are often viewed with fear by many attorneys handling drunk driving cases because of their purported accuracy. Unlike breath tests, they are a “direct” test of the amount of alcohol in the bloodstream. Mr. Corletta demonstrated that blood tests don’t have to be feared; and are often subject to attack on foundational grounds. This is because in contrast to breath tests, they are not automatically deemed reliable, and a foundation must be laid as to their reliability and accuracy.

          Ironically, a chemist or forensic toxicologist is usually the witness that accompanies blood test testimony, but despite having the expertise to lay such a foundation, they seldom do so.

          In People v. J.L. (Mon. Co. Ct., Ciaccio, J., 6/17), County Court, on the People's Appeal, agreed with Mr. Corletta that the appropriate foundational testimony as to the reliability and accuracy of a gas chromatograph rendering a .19 BAC was insufficient.

          In that case, Mr. Corletta repeatedly objected to the chemist's testimony at trial, and provided a Memorandum of Law to the Court as to why the chemist’s testimony failed to establish that the gas chromatograph was properly calibrated and that the chemicals used in the test were of the right kind and mixed in the proper proportion. The People argued that such testimony was unnecessary in blood test cases, which is simply contrary to well-established caselaw.

          The trial Court agreed with Mr. Corletta, and dismissed the so-called “test” charge. The People appealed, claiming their perfunctory and insufficient foundation was sufficient, and that no further evidence was necessary. The Appellate Court rejected the People's argument and agreed with the lower Court that the blood test evidence was insufficient to convict Mr. Corletta's client of that charge.

          As a result, the most serious of the DWI charges (Aggravated DWI) lodged against his client, was dismissed, with the client only being found guilty of the lesser offense of Driving While Ability Impaired, a traffic infraction. The case was a lesson in the rules of evidence and vulnerability of blood tests to attack by experienced defense counsel who understands the differences between blood tests and breath tests.

tracking